[0:02] Amendments regarding the two different neighborhoods.

[0:05] >> okay. Thank you so much mr. Clerk

[0:09] with that I don't see anyone on the roster so let's go to

[0:10] public comment on this item. >> thank you madam chair.

[0:13] land use and transportation will now hear public comment on

[0:16] agenda item number two related to priority processing for

[0:17] certain commercial uses. If you have public comment for

[0:21] this item please line up to speak along that western wall

[0:23] and if the first speaker wants to come forward to the lectern

[0:25] I'll start your time. >> thank you.

[0:27] good afternoon chairman melgar survivors mahmood and chen.

[0:31] my name is nick ferris. I serve as president of the

[0:32] telegraph hill dwellers and on behalf of thg and on behalf of

[0:38] kevin de quatro, the north beach business association

[0:42] and chinatown community development center, we

[0:43] respectfully request that the land use committee amend the

[0:49] proposed priority processing legislation to exclude the

[0:53] north beach neighborhood commercial district the north

[0:54] beach special use district and the k venti quatro latino

[0:58] cultural sued the planning commission as you just heard

[1:01] unanimously recommended these amendments not just that there

[1:09] has been zero public outreach and education to our community

[1:12] . Both of these districts are

[1:13] thriving and have a healthy mix of locally owned businesses

[1:17] in north beach we have less commercial vacancies today than

[1:20] we did pre-pandemic. We have led the post-pandemic

[1:24] economic recovery and maintain the small business character of

[1:28] our commercial district. Bottom line the process is

[1:32] working and as far as we're concerned it doesn't need

[1:36] fixing. Please amend the legislation

[1:40] and to exclude north beach and k venti quatro from this

[1:43] legislation. >> thank you.

[1:44] thank you for your comments. So the next speaker please.

[1:49] >> hi, good afternoon chairman melgar and supervisor chen

[1:55] and mahmood my name is ramone schmaltz and in addition to my

[2:00] 20 years as a resident I have been a regular event producer

[2:01] in north beach for 15 years and was a brick and mortar

[2:04] gallery and event space owner operator on green street

[2:08] and columbus avenue from 2014 until the pandemic.

[2:11] >> I was also a designer, curator and a director and head

[2:15] of marketing for the massive north beach first fridays art

[2:17] walk and merchant walk from 2019 until 2022 and I currently

[2:20] work in art design and marketing for local artists

[2:24] and musicians and creative business folks that is to say I

[2:27] know my neighborhood, its businesses and their owners its

[2:29] trends over decades, its needs and its vulnerabilities.

[2:32] every day I am there with my people and I join with the

[2:35] mission kyiv and de quatro north beach business associate

[2:39] and the chinatown community development center

[2:41] and telegraph hill dwellers to respectfully request that the

[2:44] land use committee amend the proposed priority processing

[2:47] legislation to exclude the north beach and cd the north

[2:51] beach city and the cove anti-castro latino cultural

[2:55] district sued. These amendments were

[2:56] unanimously recommended by the planning commission last

[2:59] thursday and we have had to thriving districts whose wide

[3:03] variety of local locally owned businesses has created a safety

[3:07] net for its residents needs. North beach has far fewer

[3:11] commercial vacancies today than we have had before the pandemic

[3:14] because of how well this is working it's really working

[3:18] and as I did with north beach first fridays reopening in the

[3:19] august of 2020 with wild safe success, our local business

[3:23] owners have bravely led the post-pandemic economic recovery

[3:27] and maintain small business character of our commercial

[3:30] district that takes a world of cooperation and dedication.

[3:34] so the existing planning process has been working

[3:35] and our businesses are bringing health and vitality to our

[3:39] commercial corridors and the greater neighborhoods as a

[3:42] direct result, please amend the legislation to exclude north

[3:43] beach and k 24 from this legislation.

[3:46] I appreciate your time. Thank you for your comments to

[3:50] the next speaker please. >> well all has been said.

[3:57] teresa flannery north beach tennis committee I am here

[4:01] joining of course all of these organizations that were already

[4:05] mentioned in request ing that you amend this and exclude

[4:10] north beach and ave anti quattro I want to say that the

[4:16] existing process is indeed working.

[4:20] our special districts are just they are special and we only

[4:28] survived the pandemic because of our many, many, many small

[4:31] businesses where we could get the essential needs of our

[4:36] households met. We we lost our 39 bus that

[4:41] serves north beach and telegraph hill.

[4:45] >> we were many seniors and families were unable to

[4:49] then get down to the bigger markets and we were so

[4:53] fortunate to have so many different markets within

[4:57] walking distance in north beach.

[4:58] so it is working. We want to continue that.

[5:02] we survived and and are thriving.

[5:05] >> we need this in our community to remain also for k

[5:09] venti quattro again it is you know we need to be excluded

[5:17] from this legislation and so I'm asking you to please do

[5:20] that to please help us remain an existing thriving community

[5:27] and thank you so much for your time today.

[5:30] >> thank you for your comments. Next speaker please.

[5:35] when I started supervisors my name is susana rojas.

[5:39] >> I am the executive director of community water latino

[5:40] cultural district. >> cada quatro was created

[5:43] because of the mass displacement displacement

[5:46] caused by the gentrification of our communities and the removal

[5:50] of our cultural assets. >> our conditionally is

[5:53] district were created to give us a chance to thoughtfully

[5:55] weigh in work and integrate businesses to the corridor to

[5:58] benefit them and the community in a more meaningful manner by

[6:03] meeting four out of six cultural conditions.

[6:05] >> our corridor today has one of the lowest vacancy rates

[6:09] in the city with six vacancies out of 151 which makes it 4% as

[6:15] of june 23rd of 2025. >> we compare to sales tax

[6:18] revenues for the third quarter of 2019 versus the same quarter

[6:24] in 2023 and found that during that four year period the

[6:25] mission sales tax revenue was only down 1.29% compared to 39%

[6:33] for downtown town and 12.75 percent for the rest of the

[6:38] city. That measure recovery appears

[6:39] to be outpacing the city at large and I know their

[6:42] neighborhoods but not north beach not reaching 2020 are

[6:49] competing when when it comes to recovery and that's a great

[6:50] thing and we are here to respectfully request that guide

[6:57] events quatro and north beach are removed and thank you

[7:00] director tang and thank you to the planning commission for

[7:04] making that recommendation. >> thank you all.

[7:07] >> thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has

[7:09] public comment for agenda item number two?

[7:11] >> madam chair, thank you so much.

[7:14] public comment on this item is now closed before I go to you

[7:18] vice chair to make the amendments you're going to make

[7:21] the amendments right and I just wanted to say a couple of

[7:26] things at first thank you to staff for this legislation for

[7:32] folks who haven't actually read the legislation it really seeks

[7:36] to clarify and simplify what is right now two different regimes

[7:43] through which people get permits for businesses and you

[7:47] know I can't speak about north beach.

[7:50] >> it is not, you know, a commercial district that I am

[7:54] all that familiar with other than just shopping there

[7:58] and eating there. But I do know I have empty

[8:01] quattro. I spent years of my career

[8:02] doing technical assistance and support to small businesses

[8:09] and I think it is working for some and I think it's not

[8:13] working for others. I personally think it's a

[8:17] mistake to exempt these two neighborhoods from this and I

[8:21] think it doesn't work for is at non-english-speaking folks

[8:28] immigrants who are starting a small business although I

[8:31] recognize that for people who already have businesses it you

[8:35] know, sort of like they've already been through it they

[8:37] figure that out already so that's not a problem.

[8:41] however, it is not my district. I don't represent either

[8:45] district nine or district three and I have spoken to both

[8:47] supervisors and they are in agreement with exempting

[8:55] and I will just say that even though I did watch the planning

[8:56] commission discussion and realize that it was a

[8:59] unanimous vote after a lot of conversation I think people

[9:04] were confused by this because it is confusing and that's the

[9:10] point. It's very confusing.

[9:11] so for somebody trying to open up a new business who doesn't

[9:15] speak english or is from a different country as many many

[9:18] of our small businesses are it you know, you have to hire an

[9:22] expediter or have somebody from the mission economic

[9:26] development agency are going to go out to hold your hand to

[9:29] like figure it out. And so is that the best public

[9:32] policy? I don't think it is.

[9:33] but you know, because the supervisors for both districts

[9:37] are okay with that I will vote to support those amendments

[9:40] exempting those two things. What I will just say to folks

[9:44] who care about these corridors is I think, you know, it's

[9:49] important to look at you know, not just today and yesterday

[9:54] but also tomorrow. >> I think that's really

[9:57] important too. Okay.

[9:58] with that supervisor chen thank you, chair.

[10:03] >> I just want to say I am very supportive of the effort that

[10:08] in our city trying to make our permit process more

[10:11] transparent, easier to navigate and faster I think this is the

[10:15] city it's really in agreement with like this is how we can

[10:19] continue to make sure that we have a thriving city but also I

[10:23] think we need to strike a balance and I think especially

[10:27] when it comes to protecting the unique character of our

[10:31] neighborhood and also our commercial area and cultural

[10:34] districts. And I know that our communities

[10:35] especially in this kind of cultural district and and

[10:40] neighborhood business corridors they know what is best for

[10:43] their neighborhoods and and especially I think after facing

[10:47] in cultural district right. Facing years of trauma

[10:51] and displacement I think our city should continue to work

[10:54] with extra care and respect with this.

[10:58] so with that I want to also express my support for the

[11:02] legislation and also continue to support the amendment to

[11:06] cavo with the recommendation from the planning department.

[11:10] >> thank you. And I you want to make a motion

[11:14] for both together an amendment and then okay and I would like

[11:17] to make a motion to include amendment and together as a

[11:21] whole to what a full bore recommend would a full

[11:29] committee positive recommendation to the full

[11:30] board. >> thank you.

[11:32] we have a motion from the vice chair that the ordinance be

[11:36] amended as presented and then recommended as amended to the

[11:38] board of supervisors on those motions.

[11:41] vice chair chen chen I remember mohamed mahmood I chair melgar

[11:45] melgar I madam chair there are three eyes okay thank you.

[11:48] >> a motion passes. Thank you mr. Clerk.

[11:52] let's now go to item number three.

[11:56] this is exciting because we've been talking about this for

[11:59] years. >> agenda item number three is

[12:03] an ordinance amending the building and planning codes to

[12:04] extend the awning amnesty program to apply to existing

[12:07] unpermitted signs and gates amending the planning code to

[12:11] remove design standards for gates railings and grill work

[12:14] on ground floor street frontages of non historic

[12:16] buildings in neighborhood commercial residential,

[12:19] commercial, commercial and mixed use districts.

[12:22] the ordinance affirms the planning department secret

[12:23] determination it makes findings of consistency with the general

[12:27] plan in findings of public necessity convenience

[12:30] and welfare. >> okay director tang that

[12:34] shows yours. All right.

[12:34] thank you supervisors. So for this next item here I

[12:42] have a powerpoint on the screen.

[12:43] >> thank you very much. >> so at a very high level the

[12:46] proposal before you today is to allow businesses with security

[12:50] gates that are in existence to participate in the amnesty

[12:54] program which has been going on for about two years.

[12:58] that was the result of several hundred complaints filed

[13:01] against businesses for having installations of a variety of

[13:05] things including awning signs and gates done without permits

[13:09] and then also additionally allowing the security gates to

[13:13] be 100% solid and that would be an amendment to the planning

[13:17] department's requirements there are currently there are about

[13:21] 100 small businesses that are facing a planning code

[13:24] violation for the security gates installed without a

[13:28] permit and without the changes that you're going to be voting

[13:29] on today, they would actually not be able to participate

[13:33] in the amnesty program. A lot of them would actually

[13:36] have to remove the gates and then either reinstall or do

[13:39] without it which can be very costly.

[13:43] we've heard from a lot of businesses that unfortunately

[13:45] we're just out of state right now where many of them could

[13:47] probably raise their hands and tell you that they have

[13:50] faced repeat vandalism, burglaries, multiple occasions

[13:54] and that the solid nature of the gates is is what helps them

[13:58] sleep at night. >> currently the scissor gates

[14:01] are the preferred kind of design standard.

[14:03] however, again we understand kind of what these businesses

[14:06] are facing on a daily basis. The photos you'll see here on

[14:10] the screen just show a few of the existing gates that are

[14:13] installed on along businesses on grant avenue and mission

[14:14] street and so many of them are out there already and we'd like

[14:18] to them to just be able to close out these complaints so

[14:22] that they don't eventually lead to notices violations for these

[14:25] properties. >> so with that I'm going to

[14:30] turn it over to aaron star from planning department.

[14:36] this one's a little simpler. The planning commission heard

[14:38] this on june 26th and recommended approval.

[14:40] happy to answer any questions if you have.

[14:43] >> okay. So I don't have any questions.

[14:47] I don't see anyone on the roster.

[14:48] I just. >> okay.

[14:51] supervisor ten thank you. >> chair small business.

[14:54] it's definitely something that I prioritize and value a lot

[14:59] and I have done a lot of work with especially in the

[15:02] chinatown with the small business and I think especially

[15:05] also now in district 11 it's also a lot of mom and pops

[15:10] immigrant owned shops and and a lot of the merchant has come to

[15:17] my office and asking for the protections protection against

[15:18] graffiti against brooklyn and gardens also unfair for

[15:23] long existing 50 years gaze and signs.

[15:25] so I think this ordinance answers all and this is really

[15:31] a big change that is supporting our small business and I want

[15:33] to thank the director and thank depending on the department

[15:36] and working closely with our small business community to

[15:39] come up with the ordinance and thank you.

[15:45] >> thank you so much supervisor chen and thank you madam

[15:50] director and mr. Star for the work.

[15:57] I as director tang knows would rather take awnings and gates

[16:01] out of the planning code altogether there and just leave

[16:05] them in the building code but this is progress so I'll take

[16:09] it. >> thank you so much.

[16:12] I do think that you know sometimes these things get

[16:16] weaponized and I don't like it and I think it is you know

[16:20] particularly the small mom and pop and immigrant owned

[16:23] businesses that suffer the most out of these things and a lot

[16:27] of times it is to comply with the esthetics of some and not

[16:31] the businesses that actually worked really hard day in and

[16:35] day out to stay afloat. So with that let's go to public

[16:40] comment and again thank you. >> staff thank you madam chair.

[16:44] land use and transportation we'll now hear public comment

[16:47] for agenda item number three related to existing awning sign

[16:48] and gate please come forward to the lectern if you have public

[16:54] comment for this item. >> hi, good afternoon

[16:56] supervisor my name is keefer who am determined to help

[16:59] implement training and economic development as self-help for

[17:00] the elderly. We provide service to small

[17:03] business in the last five years and we want to share the

[17:06] support of this legislation that extend the awning msd

[17:09] and amending the practical to move design stand for gate

[17:17] rolling and up on grant for the small business are still

[17:21] suffering since the pandemic and just last week one of the

[17:25] small business in chinatown where being rental vandalized

[17:28] again for three times if seven cisco is to continue enforcing

[17:33] the transparency security gate that will lead to a nado

[17:36] vandalism to happen again for the next few years.

[17:40] so we and that will deeply impact the cost of time

[17:48] and money for small business even though the vandalism we

[17:49] live grant is still a variable but it will waste the city's

[17:54] unnecessary budget especially when the city is facing a

[17:59] budget deficit. So we strongly hope the

[18:00] supervisors will support this legislation and support local

[18:03] small business. >> thank you.

[18:06] >> thank you. Do we have anyone else who has

[18:08] public comment for agenda item number three before we please

[18:11] come and we before we close public comment I note that

[18:17] michelle andrews is here from supervisor sadr's office who is

[18:22] a co-sponsor on the legislation.

[18:23] so if you wanted to comment on it.

[18:26] >> yeah. Thank you chairman going before

[18:27] do that. Madam chair, do you want me to

[18:29] have this be part of our time to public comment period or is

[18:33] it going to take you more than two minutes?

[18:34] >> no. Okay.

[18:35] okay. Michelle andrews legislative

[18:37] aide for supervisor sauder supervisor sauder is proud to

[18:41] co-sponsor this legislation. Just add on to what director

[18:44] tang said we've heard from many small businesses in our

[18:45] district, especially in chinatown that have been

[18:49] faced with unexpected enforcement complaints

[18:52] and requirements to change decades old gates and signs

[18:55] many of which have been in place since before they even

[18:57] moved into the building. So we're very supportive of

[19:00] this legislation. The ability to have 100% sold

[19:03] gates is also incredibly helpful for the businesses that

[19:07] experience repeated vandalism and burglaries.

[19:08] >> we should be listening to small businesses when they tell

[19:11] us what they need to be able to do to stay open in our city.

[19:14] >> thank you. Thank you.

[19:15] ms. Sanders thank you. >> do we have anyone else who

[19:18] has public comment for agenda item number three, madam chair

[19:20] okay. >> with that public comment is

[19:22] now closed. >> do you want to make a motion

[19:27] vice chair thank you chair I would like to make a motion to

[19:31] move file number 250539 with positive recommendation to the

[19:39] full board. >> thank you.

[19:39] on the motion offered by the vice chair that this ordinance

[19:42] be recommended to the board of supervisors vice chair chen

[19:44] chen I'm a moment by moment I chair melgar I melgar I madam

[19:47] chair there are three eyes thank you.

[19:51] >> that motion passes. >> let's go to item number four

[19:54] please mr. Clerk. Agenda item number four is an

[19:58] ordinance amending the planning code to first principally

[20:00] permit certain non-retail sales and service uses including

[20:04] general office design, professional business services

[20:05] and non retail professional services and trade offices on

[20:09] the ground floor in the c-3 districts through december

[20:12] 31st, 2013 after which such uses uses will be conditionally

[20:15] permitted. >> second principally permit

[20:20] retail sales and service uses on the second floor and above

[20:23] in the r c districts. Third principally permit non

[20:26] retail sales and service uses on the second floor and above

[20:30] in the r c districts. Fourth update transparency

[20:33] and fenestration requirements for ground floor activity uses

[20:36] and exempt child care facilities homeless shelters

[20:40] mortuaries religious institutions reproductive

[20:41] health clinics and school uses from those requirements.

[20:46] fifth define an interior sign and the applicable standards

[20:48] for interior signs sixth exempt interior signs of six square

[20:54] feet or less and business in identifying signs painted on

[20:58] building facades from a permit under the planning code.

[21:01] seventh modify the definition of a nonresidential use for the

[21:05] purposes of certain development impact fee waivers as well as

[21:09] affirming the planning department sequel determination

[21:10] and making findings of consistency with a general plan

[21:12] and findings of public necessity, convenience

[21:16] and welfare. >> thank you so much mr. Clerk.

[21:20] welcome again. Director tang thank you very

[21:23] much. >> supervisor so I apologize

[21:26] this one will be maybe a little bit longer but at a very high

[21:28] level for this item we could think of it as four different

[21:32] kind of buckets of changes. One has to do with storefront

[21:36] transparency and you'll see on the screen here to the far left

[21:40] that the high level proposal is exempt certain critical users

[21:44] from the storefront transparency requirements.

[21:47] this was sparked after we were contacted by a child care

[21:49] facility on a busy commercial corridor where they have

[21:53] covered up their entire storefront really out of

[21:56] concern for the privacy for the children that they serve.

[22:00] they're very upset by the requirement from the city that

[22:04] they actually have to leave a certain percentage open

[22:08] and visible to the public. While we were at it, we realize

[22:09] that there's some other critical uses that could

[22:12] benefit from that same exemption including schools,

[22:15] homeless shelters, mortuaries, religious institutions

[22:19] and reproductive health clinics.

[22:22] and so that is part of the proposal to exempt them from

[22:24] the storefront transparency requirement.

[22:27] moving over to the right side of the screen with regards to

[22:31] business signs, the proposal is to remove the permit

[22:35] requirement for business signs that are painted on building

[22:36] facades as well as for window signs and interior signs.

[22:42] the two photos that you'll see here are true real life

[22:44] examples where these businesses received violations from the

[22:48] city for putting these up without a permit.

[22:52] >> so on the center photo the a vinyl stickers with the chinese

[22:56] characters on the facade as well as the neon sign in the

[23:02] window on the far right photo those are examples are business

[23:07] owners had to take time out of their busy day to come to the

[23:09] permit center and try to resolve the issue by filing a

[23:13] permit with the city. >> next slide here with regards

[23:21] to downtown uses the proposal is to principally permit

[23:25] certain non-retail sales and service uses on the ground

[23:27] floor specifically within the c-3 district.

[23:30] so downtown commercial districts through 2030 so for a

[23:34] very limited period of time to provide more and incentive some

[23:41] of these companies that are downtown, they're located

[23:45] there. They're really trying to create

[23:46] more amenities for the employees as an incentive to

[23:49] draw people to come back to the office in person and to

[23:52] activate these ground floor workspaces.

[23:53] you'll see some of the photos here, examples where some of

[23:57] these companies or organizations are trying to do

[24:01] that already are the photo shown here is on montgomery

[24:04] street where there's some co-working spaces as well as a

[24:05] cafe and the one in the center bottom is an example of one

[24:12] that had to recently go through the planning commission for

[24:13] such approval. >> we do think this is really

[24:16] important because the more people who come and work

[24:19] in person especially downtown it helps the surrounding small

[24:23] businesses that are located there and that have been

[24:25] suffering also since more people have been telecommuting.

[24:28] so not only is this good for again the companies that want

[24:32] to better monetize their buildings, it's also really

[24:35] important for the small business owners in that

[24:36] surrounding area. >> and then moving on to

[24:39] residential rc districts the proposal is to ease the filling

[24:43] of non ground floor vacancies within rc districts by

[24:47] principally permitting retail sales and service uses and non

[24:51] retail sales and service uses at the second floor and above.

[24:55] and there is an example where we are working with industrial

[24:59] design studio on the second floor along venice.

[25:02] there was a complaint against them and without the change

[25:05] they would not they would actually not be allowed to

[25:09] operate there any longer. >> and so for this item we have

[25:12] sent over to the committee members a number of amendments

[25:17] that we'd like to propose. These were all discussed at the

[25:20] planning commission and huge shout out to deputy city

[25:24] attorney julia michael nelson for all of her work on these

[25:26] the number of amendments that were made.

[25:29] I'm just going to walk them over quickly but I believe you

[25:32] have a summary sheet in front of you with regards to signs we

[25:35] are actually going to eliminate reference to interior signage

[25:40] and instead we more clearly define what a window sign is

[25:44] and that means a sign that is touching only the inside or

[25:48] outside of a window. Therefore anything that's

[25:51] interior inside is no longer a sign and would not have to

[25:55] follow the requirement for planning approval.

[25:58] we have worked with some businesses where they

[26:00] installed, you know, a sign inside their business but was

[26:03] visible from the street and they got they received

[26:07] complaints about those. So we want to eliminate those

[26:10] kind of scenarios. And because we did that we also

[26:14] had to make a lot of subsequent changes which is why you'll see

[26:17] that repeated throughout various districts that we just

[26:21] repeat the change in reference of how a window sinus is

[26:25] defined. >> the other clarification made

[26:29] is how the window sign area is measured and so the current

[26:33] practice is that it's an area as a function of the window the

[26:37] specific window where the sign is located.

[26:40] we are now clarifying it is the sign is the percentage is the

[26:45] area of a function of all the individuals ground floor

[26:48] windows and any glazing on doors regardless of which a

[26:52] window or door the sign is actually located on.

[26:59] and then we're just making consistent that the perimeter

[27:03] id area of the window sign can be one third of the totality of

[27:07] all the windows and glazing on doors versus some some cases

[27:11] in the planning code. It's one third and some it's

[27:14] one fourth. So we just want to make that

[27:15] all very consistent and then also we clarify that any

[27:21] application so that applying of a sign does not require

[27:25] planning approval. So any essentially

[27:29] nonstructural signs will not require planning approval

[27:32] and application of signs could mean things like painting

[27:36] you've applied paint to a facade as well as vinyl

[27:40] stickers. >> so those are some very easy

[27:41] examples. And so those are all the

[27:45] changes reflected regarding signs and then moving on to

[27:48] transparency we are proposing to remove interior and the

[27:52] window sign exception to the transparency requirements.

[27:56] and then there are some other clarifying edits really just to

[28:02] clarify that again no change. >> there are no changes

[28:07] regarding transparency outside of business operating hours.

[28:10] >> and then moving on to ground floor uses we did realize that

[28:15] there needed to be an amendment made to section 124 of the

[28:19] planning code to exempt new gross floor area created in the

[28:23] c-3 district through a change of use on the ground floor of

[28:26] space that was devoted to uses previously excluded from gross

[28:30] gross floor area per section 102 and also exempt c-3

[28:34] districts from section 140 5.4 which had to do with required

[28:41] ground floor commercial uses again temporarily through

[28:45] december 31st of 2013 and then next with regards to the rincon

[28:49] hill downtown residential that's our hdr district.

[28:55] the proposal for the amendment is to exempt from required

[28:57] ground floor commercial uses buildings in the rhd etr

[29:00] district that are one designated landmark buildings

[29:04] or contributory buildings within a designated historic

[29:08] district pursuant to article ten of the planning code or to

[29:11] listed on or determined eligible for the california

[29:14] register of historical resources by the state office

[29:16] of historic preservation and then also to amend section

[29:21] 803.9 of the planning code to principally permit all uses

[29:24] in certain historic buildings in rhd for subject to certain

[29:29] exceptions and that would be in perpetuity perpetuity.

[29:33] >> and then finally for residential commercial

[29:37] districts which are rc districts would be to allow

[29:41] catering and laboratory uses on the ground floor within rc

[29:45] districts with the conditional use authorization.

[29:48] and so those are the amendments before you today and then I'm

[29:49] going to turn it over to erin starr from the planning

[29:52] department. >> thank you, director tang

[29:56] erin starr manager of legislative affairs the

[29:59] planning commission heard this last thursday on june 26th

[30:03] and recommends approval with modifications.

[30:07] they will not go over the modifications again but they

[30:08] were basically what that was. >> so I'm happy to answer any

[30:12] questions if you have them. Thanks.

[30:14] >> okay so why don't I have miss andrews come up for

[30:19] supervisor sartor now? >> hi.

[30:25] thank you. Chair melgar michelle andrews

[30:28] again with supervisor sadr's office supervisor sartor is

[30:32] also proud to co-sponsor this important legislation to give

[30:33] more options to activate vacant spaces downtown in order to

[30:36] bring more people downtown we need to continue being creative

[30:40] in our strategies to both bring people back to the office

[30:43] and make our streets more vibrant.

[30:44] this legislation is a direct response to this particular

[30:47] moment that downtown is currently and as reflected by

[30:51] the 2030 sunset date in it it will help us get to the 24

[30:54] seven vibrant downtown that we all want to see which will

[30:57] include bustling offices, retail restaurants, homes

[30:59] and much more. And in the spirit of meeting

[31:02] small businesses where they're at, we also want to make it as

[31:05] easy as possible for businesses to operate without having to

[31:07] deal with enforcement complaints for trivial things

[31:10] such as having painted a sign in their window.

[31:12] >> these kinds of stringent permit requirements for window

[31:14] and interiors signage can make or break a small businesses

[31:17] ability to succeed. So this legislation will help

[31:21] reduce a significant permitting hurdle so that business owners

[31:24] can focus their time on running their business.

[31:25] >> thank you. Thank you.

[31:28] ms. Andrews okay. Supervisor chen thank you,

[31:32] chair malka I definitely also are very supportive of the

[31:36] effort to create a vibrant, thriving downtown and I

[31:40] understand that having more flexibility it's part of our

[31:44] visions have some that have there have been some questions

[31:47] about whether this legislation will allow residential unit to

[31:51] be converted to other use from what I see the legislation

[31:55] permit retail and non retail services above the ground floor

[31:59] only in vacant commercial suits so it's not applied to

[32:02] residential units. So as it stands now the city

[32:06] still requires the conditional use permit to to convert a

[32:10] residential unit to any other use.

[32:11] >> so from what I understand, this requirement does not

[32:15] change under this proposed legislation.

[32:19] >> can I get a confirmation on that?

[32:22] >> confirmed residential units are still subject to 317 so you

[32:27] need a sue to remove them. >> wonderful.

[32:28] thank you so much. >> thank you.

[32:31] supervisor supervisor mahmud. Oh, I'm sorry.

[32:37] of course. >> let's go to public comment

[32:41] on this item. Thank you, madam chair.

[32:44] land use and transportation will now hear public comment

[32:45] related to agenda item number four this ordinance makes

[32:48] changes to the fenestration transparency and sign

[32:52] requirements. If you have public comment for

[32:53] this item please come forward to the lectern at this time.

[32:55] >> and madam chair to preserve the okay public comment is now

[32:59] closed. >> now supervisor mahmood thank

[33:02] you. I would like to make a motion

[33:03] to move the amendments as described by director tang

[33:07] forward for a vote. The motion offered by member

[33:14] mahmud that the ordinance be amended as presented.

[33:16] vice chair chen chen I remember mike when mike and I chair

[33:19] melgar I melgar I madam chair there are three eyes now these

[33:25] amendments are substantive. Would you like to make a motion

[33:29] to. >> I'd like to move to have

[33:30] this item be continued to the call.

[33:33] the chair okay. On the motion offered by member

[33:37] mahmood that the ordinance be continued to the call the chair

[33:41] as amended. Vice chair chen chen I member

[33:44] muhammad mahmood I chair melgar I melgar I madam chair there

[33:48] are three eyes that motion passes thank you all okay

[33:52] getting through it all now let's go to item number five

[33:56] please. >> agenda item number five is

[33:59] an ordinance amending the planning.

[34:00] sorry ordinance amending the public works code to streamline

[34:03] the approval of certain encroachments in the public

[34:07] right of way to establish a registration requirement

[34:10] in place of all permit requirements and fees for cafe

[34:14] tables and chairs and display merchandise and to eliminate

[34:15] minor encroachment permit requirements and right of way

[34:19] right of way occupancy fees for a pertinent building features.

[34:23] amending the planning I keep saying the planning code excuse

[34:27] me amending the administrative code to exempt cafe tables

[34:30] and chairs and display merchandise from the shared

[34:32] spaces program in affirming the planning department secret

[34:35] determination. >> thank you.

[34:38] and before you present on this item director tang I want to

[34:41] welcome president rafael mandal men from district eight to the

[34:45] land use and transportation committee and the floor is

[34:49] yours. >> thank you, chair melgar I

[34:52] took the long walk down the hallway not just because I miss

[34:56] seeing your smiling faces but because I absolutely am just

[35:00] delighted by this legislation. It does basically two things

[35:04] that I think are in many ways overdue and the only sadness

[35:08] that I have is that I didn't think to make this happen at

[35:12] some point in the seven year in my prior seven years on the

[35:15] board. >> but that you know during

[35:18] covid I remember being on lots and lots of calls as we figured

[35:22] out the shared spaces legislation and during that

[35:25] time we also waived table and chair fees I believe and it

[35:33] and that you know went into the mists of history and I was

[35:37] always sad about that. >> but this legislation sort of

[35:41] poses a deeper question which is why exactly do we require

[35:46] permits for this activity which is actually beneficial

[35:49] and shouldn't we be getting rid of not just the fees but the

[35:53] underlying permit in the first place and and so I, I think

[35:57] that is fantastic. And then I also you know thank

[36:01] you committee and thank you colleagues for your support of

[36:08] the beyond the front door legislation and moving on from

[36:12] abc. >> but again there is from that

[36:16] legislation we did manage to waive one of the fees

[36:17] associated with some of the work that has to get done to

[36:21] make entrances accessible but the much saner and more

[36:24] reasonable thing to do and the greater relief for property

[36:28] owners and small businesses who who need to and have to comply

[36:32] with accessibility requirements is actually to not not have

[36:36] them go through this whole process with the city getting

[36:40] the permit in the first place and so I love this.

[36:44] >> I think this is amazing and I want to thank director

[36:48] tang and the mayor and rich hillis and all the folks who've

[36:55] worked on the whole package of permit s.f. But in particular I

[36:59] really I really love this one and wanted to just express that

[37:03] and now I will go back to my office but thanks thanks

[37:04] colleagues for letting me for allowing me to gush about this

[37:08] legislation when I'm of it. >> I'm so glad you got a little

[37:11] bit of joy there from the landrieu's the transportation

[37:12] committee president and thank you.

[37:14] okay, director ting all right. >> thank you all this

[37:18] excitement for tables and chairs and I also want to

[37:22] acknowledge a public works department because this really

[37:25] does represent a new way of doing things and we really

[37:27] appreciate their collaboration on this new path forward with

[37:33] tables and chairs. So on the screen here you'll

[37:37] see that the current process if you want to put out tables

[37:41] and chairs or also sidewalk merchandise display involves

[37:45] submitting a permit application to public works department.

[37:48] you also have to pay a fee the typical kind of average fee is

[37:54] around $1,000 and then there's annual renewal as well.

[37:57] >> you do have to submit a certificate of insurance

[38:00] and also produce a pretty detailed site plan to the city.

[38:04] so under the new process we would be requesting a

[38:08] registration that would be done online for businesses.

[38:11] there would be no fee involved .

[38:15] this would really just to be getting the contact information

[38:17] for the business owner in case there are any issues or

[38:20] complaints that arise so that public works can contact the

[38:23] business owner for those issues and then the the rules really

[38:27] don't change around how you can place these tables and chairs.

[38:31] they'll you know, you still have to maintain the path of

[38:34] travel so that you maintain accessibility as well as

[38:38] putting the tables and chairs inside and out each night.

[38:41] so a lot of those those rules will not change.

[38:43] the applicant would then the business owner would attest to

[38:46] understanding what those operating guidelines are

[38:49] and then in terms of enforcement the administrative

[38:54] penalties which we are putting into such sation would accrue

[38:58] or kick in essentially on the second and subsequent validated

[39:04] and unaddressed violation. So we would still be giving

[39:06] business owners the opportunity to understand how they can

[39:09] correct whatever was not working and address them before

[39:13] any admin penalties would accrue.

[39:16] currently there are approximately 215 businesses

[39:19] in the city that hold tables and chairs permit so that gives

[39:23] you a sense of how many people will be really excited about

[39:25] this as well as I'll just tell you when we're doing outreach

[39:28] in the community everyone is is is super excited maybe more so

[39:32] than even supervisor randleman and they can't wait for this to

[39:35] take effect. >> so this will be the same

[39:39] process for the sidewalk merchandise displays as well.

[39:45] >> and then the other piece of this legislation has to do with

[39:47] minor encroachment permits also really want acknowledge public

[39:49] works department and I know alaric degraffenreid is here

[39:53] in case you have any questions for public works but right now

[39:56] there are a couple of things where they're very common

[40:00] installations for businesses as well as mixed use buildings

[40:04] that then would require them getting a minor encroachment

[40:07] permit from the public works department.

[40:08] some of these are shown in the photos.

[40:11] I'm not sure if you can see the arrows here but they include

[40:15] things like waterspouts or even gates that protrude a little

[40:19] bit. They're attached to the facade

[40:20] but protrude a bit into the public right away.

[40:22] ada push activators so sometimes they can't be

[40:26] installed directly on the facade but might have to be a

[40:28] little bit right up against the building but in the public

[40:34] right away. And so the legislation before

[40:35] you would exempt a very specific set of items or

[40:42] installations that would no longer need to obtain a minor

[40:46] encroachment permit from public works department, they would

[40:49] still need to have the approvals through department

[40:50] building inspection so that will not go away but the

[40:54] separate permit that also entails not only a fee, a one

[40:58] time permit fee but also an annual assessment rate that

[41:01] would that would go away under this proposed legislation.

[41:05] >> some of the applications for accessibility related sidewalk

[41:09] improvements can take anywhere from 6 to 12 months.

[41:10] so we're really trying to again save people time and money by

[41:14] avoiding getting the minor encroachment permit for these

[41:17] specific items. So with that I think there is

[41:21] no planning recommendation on this one.

[41:24] so I'll turn it back to you. >> great.

[41:28] thank you so much. >> I do not see anyone on the

[41:33] roster. >> I think this is a as to to

[41:39] reinforce the word president and what's that?

[41:40] it's super exciting to see this and potentially transformative

[41:44] so that's really great. >> let's go to public comment

[41:47] on this item please. Mr. Clerk thank you madam chair

[41:50] . Land use and transportation

[41:51] will now hear public comment related to agenda item number

[41:53] five cafe tables and chairs. If you have public comment for

[41:54] this item we have a table set up for you.

[42:01] >> no one's here for public comment.

[42:02] madam chair public comment is now closed and supervisor what

[42:08] mode would you like to move this motion to?

[42:14] >> I like to make a motion to send this item to the full

[42:19] board. The positive recommendation

[42:20] motion offered by a member mahmud that the ordinance be

[42:23] recommended to the board of supervisors on that motion vice

[42:24] chair chen chen I am member mahmood I moved I chair melgar

[42:30] I melgar I madam chair there are three eyes okay thank you.

[42:37] >> I think supervisor and garcia wanted to be here

[42:42] for the next item. >> item number six but he's not

[42:49] here so why don't we go ahead and present?

[42:53] >> would you like me to call item number six, madam chair?

[42:56] >> yes, go ahead. Agenda item number six is an

[43:00] ordinance amending the planning code to streamline and simplify

[43:03] the process for obtaining and extending temporary use

[43:04] authorizations or implement standard requirements for any

[43:08] temporary use authorization and permit as temporary uses.

[43:11] seasonal political campaign offices for up to one year

[43:16] and extend the maximum time period for a pop up retail

[43:19] temporary use to three years. It affirms the planning

[43:23] department secret determinations and makes

[43:24] findings of consistency with the general plan and planning

[43:28] code section 302 okay. Welcome again to director.

[43:33] all right. Sorry this is the last one

[43:37] you'll hear from me as part of the permit s.f. Legislative

[43:39] package. This one has to do with

[43:40] temporary use authorizations. And our goal here is really to

[43:44] simplify and clarify pop ups and temporary use that you can

[43:51] engage in currently under the planning code you'll see here

[43:53] on the far right graphic there about 19 different categories.

[43:57] so it can be a little bit confusing about which category

[44:00] you should fit under. So really our goal here is to

[44:04] consolidate simplify I we want to clarify what retail pop up

[44:09] use actually means and I think expand it a little bit as well

[44:15] . And also we I don't know if you

[44:20] want to pause and continue. >> all right.

[44:24] we also want to better clarify the duration that each of these

[44:27] two a's is temporary use authorizations can be in place

[44:31] for as well as the maximum amount of total time.

[44:35] so for example, if you had to renew a pop up use and so

[44:38] examples of where a temporary use authorizations are helpful

[44:43] and I know super is supervisor and engardio just joined but

[44:46] the outer sunset farmer's market is one example where it

[44:49] takes place in an r h one district where typically retail

[44:53] sales and service cannot occur and so that is a very useful

[44:56] tool to have a temporary use authorization for that.

[45:00] and we have a photo here of of gumbo as well and they were

[45:08] able to open up sorry gumbo social and they were able to

[45:09] open up shop over on third street after having popped up

[45:13] many times at the outer sunset farmer's market and still do so

[45:16] that's been a great outcome of the t v usage there as many

[45:20] businesses like to test out concepts before they then go

[45:24] ahead and open up their own brick and mortar location.

[45:27] so I think that is it and then I'll turn it over to aaron star

[45:32] for the planning department recommendation.

[45:34] >> mr. Start, before you come up I just want to welcome at

[45:39] district bourse and sponsor this legislation as supervisor

[45:43] joel and engardio supervisor would you like to say a few

[45:47] words before I bring mr. Starr up?

[45:49] >> sure. Thank you.

[45:50] I just want to say that I obviously wholeheartedly

[45:53] support this and hope to have your support for the mayor's

[45:58] efforts for permit stuff. And just I want to add katie

[46:01] had mentioned or director tang had mentioned about some pop

[46:06] ups that were successful. Another one smokin d's got

[46:09] their start at the farmer's market and they then did a they

[46:17] did a booth at this at the night market and now there are

[46:21] brick and mortar on irving street so which is wonderful.

[46:22] so I just want to see more of that.

[46:25] they have lines out the door so it's a good success story.

[46:28] >> thank you. Supervisor okay now mr. Starr

[46:32] thank you. I think the planning commission

[46:33] heard this on june 26th and recommended approval.

[46:36] I will note that this absolves you of the sin of being not

[46:39] in compliance at the planning code all of your political

[46:43] offices were illegal and so this legalizes I am happy to

[46:47] answer any questions. >> thanks.

[46:48] mine was in my garage so all right.

[46:51] thank you so much at let's go to public comment on this item

[46:55] please. >> thank you madam chair.

[46:56] land use and transportation will now hear public comment

[46:59] related to agenda item number six if you have public comment

[47:02] for this item please come forward to the lectern at this

[47:05] time and it appears we have no speakers.

[47:06] >> madam chair okay with that public comment is now closed.

[47:10] supervisor mahmood I'd like to send this make a motion to send

[47:14] this item to the full board with a positive recommendation

[47:16] on the motion offered by member mark moved that the ordinance

[47:20] be recommended to the board of supervisors vice chair 1010 I

[47:24] remember when mahmood I chair melgar I melgar I madam chair

[47:29] there are three eyes okay thank you.

[47:30] >> that motion passes. >> okay thank you.

[47:34] we got that through that pretty quickly.

[47:37] thank you so much. Team let's go to item number

[47:40] eight please. >> you want to go to eight or

[47:44] number seven? Sorry seven two want to skip

[47:51] one and item number seven is an ordinance amending the planning

[47:54] code to provide conditions for repairing relocation of

[47:58] existing complying structures within required yards grant

[48:01] unpermitted residential structures within yards that

[48:02] were constructed before 23 non complying status and allow

[48:08] accessory structures up to ten feet in height and 120ft2

[48:11] within required yards amending the building code to exempt

[48:16] accessory structures up to 120ft2 from building permits

[48:19] affirming the planning department secret determination

[48:22] and making findings of consistency with the general

[48:24] plan and findings of necessity, convenience and welfare.

[48:29] >> thank you so much. We have the sponsor of the

[48:31] legislation supervisor and engardio here with us

[48:33] supervisor card you may remember that my story was

[48:38] in the paper when I tried to put a pergola in my backyard

[48:45] and I couldn't figure out what the requirements were.

[48:46] I couldn't figure out what the requirements were.

[48:50] >> it's pretty confusing. So thank you so much for doing

[48:53] this and the floor is yours. >> thank you.

[48:54] good afternoon chair melgar, members chair and mahmud.

[48:57] this legislation was born of the frustration that even the

[49:00] chair melgar felt and many district four residents who I

[49:04] represent who are dealing with lots of headaches when they

[49:07] decide to improve or fix their long standing accessory yard

[49:11] structures on the west side. I know many homeowners that

[49:14] have backyard garden sheds, decks and stairways and these

[49:18] structures have existed for decades without inspections

[49:19] complaints or stamped permits. But the moment a homeowner

[49:23] decides to start on a basic improvement project, they're

[49:26] required to navigate our complex building and planning

[49:30] codes and this can be a daunting experience and one

[49:31] that could cost months of delays, thousands of dollars or

[49:34] critical life safety issues. And in subsequent conversations

[49:38] with planning staff I learned this issue was not limited to

[49:41] those living in single family homes.

[49:43] it's a ubiquitous challenge faced by building owners across

[49:46] the whole city. So imagine receiving a notice

[49:49] of violation for a year or rear yard encroachment that puts a

[49:53] home renovation project on hold or halts the reconstruction of

[49:57] a crucial emergency exit stairway for tenants.

[49:58] it should not have to be this way and you shouldn't be

[50:02] required to have a law degree to know what can and cannot be

[50:05] done with your a year rear yard.

[50:06] so we need to make the government less confusing

[50:08] and more accessible to regular residents and a simple home

[50:11] improvement project like a storage shed, a deck or

[50:15] renovation of a sunroom should not require a public hearing.

[50:16] countless hours of navigating code building and planning

[50:20] staff or the prospect of steep fines and penalties.

[50:24] so this legislation intends to clarify what people can do with

[50:27] their rear yards. I want to thank exemplary

[50:31] planning staff audra maloney, corey teague and deputy city

[50:35] attorney rob coppola for their thoughtful collaboration with

[50:39] my office on this legislation. I also want to thank liz waddy

[50:41] and mayor lori staff for incorporating this into the

[50:43] mayor's permit initiative. We all know yards are valuable

[50:47] open spaces and I know staff diligently explored every

[50:51] possible project scenario to ensure the right controls

[50:55] remained in place to protect these spaces.

[50:56] and with that and with that I would like to discuss the scope

[51:00] of planning staff's requested legislative amendments.

[51:03] so requested amendment number one amend section 136c23 to

[51:10] clarify that detached structures allowed in yards may

[51:13] not contain sleeping quarters. Requested amendment number to

[51:17] allow non-compliant structures to be relocated so they retain

[51:21] their original setback distance rather than requiring a new

[51:22] one. Allow for the installation of

[51:25] new fire rated walls without requiring a variance as they

[51:29] are usually at or directly adjacent to property lines.

[51:32] requested amendment number three strike the variance

[51:35] application refund provision and that's it.

[51:39] these amendments are not yet ready to be introduced so I

[51:43] will request the chair motion to continue this item until the

[51:46] land use meeting on monday july 14th.

[51:50] >> so thank you chair melgar and members of the committee.

[51:53] thank you supervisor and engardio.

[51:57] >> I will make a motion to to continue it to the call of the

[52:02] chair because I'm not sure what that meeting looks like and I

[52:05] dare not do it outside of jen those that purview and can I

[52:10] just ask ms.. Maloney a question?

[52:13] what is when we exempt a sleeping quarters what does

[52:20] that mean? >> thank you.

[52:21] chair melgar audrey maloney a planning department staff

[52:25] sleeping quarters essentially is our way of being able to put

[52:28] an enforcement mechanism into the idea that we do not want

[52:31] these to become dwelling units. So the term that we chose was

[52:35] sleeping quarters. A similar term is used in the

[52:37] state building code. We're essentially just trying

[52:40] to make sure that if a complaint is filed about

[52:43] somebody sleeping in one of these accessory structures we

[52:46] have something that states what qualifies and what doesn't

[52:50] qualify. Sleeping quarters felt like a

[52:51] fairly understandable term to us so that we can go out

[52:57] and enforce against there being beds in these places where

[53:02] people are actually sleeping overnight.

[53:03] >> yeah I understand that but how about like a hammock or you

[53:07] know I'm jewish in the fall we do so and we sleep out there.

[53:12] you know that one night. So I'm wondering what's who

[53:13] assesses that and what what is that lately?

[53:17] yes. Well our enforcement is not

[53:21] perfect with anything that is alleged to be an illegal

[53:24] dwelling unit. However, if you had something

[53:28] where somebody sleeps out there once or twice a year or more

[53:32] but essentially they're not living out there, we want to

[53:37] make sure it's clear that this is not to be used as a dwelling

[53:40] unit and so in theory somebody could a neighbor who sees

[53:44] somebody sleeping out there even if it's on occasion could

[53:48] file a complaint and our enforcement planners would ask

[53:51] to conduct a site inspection and if there were more

[53:55] permanent sleeping quarters visible in the accessory

[53:59] structure, we would require that those be removed.

[54:01] >> but a hammock out there would not a hammock would not

[54:04] be considered a sleeping structure.

[54:07] okay. Thank you so much, ms..

[54:07] maloney and thank you supervisor and engardio.

[54:10] I don't see any other questions or comments from my colleagues

[54:14] . Let's go to public comment on

[54:15] this item and then I'll make the motion to continue it.

[54:18] >> thank you madam chair. Land use and transportation

[54:19] will now hear public comment related to agenda item number

[54:23] seven if you have public comment for this item please

[54:24] come forward selectman and you may begin.

[54:26] >> eileen bogan coalition for san francisco neighborhoods

[54:31] speaking on my own behalf concurring with the committee

[54:34] to continue this item. This item was heard at the

[54:36] planning commission just last week with both the sponsor

[54:41] and his chief of staff present in person.

[54:45] last week's planning commission hearing had 23 items and lasted

[54:49] seven hours. >> item 23 was the zoning

[54:52] hearing. However, this item was item

[54:56] number 17 having this minor code correction which was

[55:00] clearly non-urgent on a packaging and could be seen as

[55:05] abuse of discretion. Here we are just four four days

[55:09] later with this minor and non-urgent legislation on

[55:12] the land use and transportation committee agenda shows four

[55:16] days before the 4th of july holiday.

[55:19] this could also be seen as abuse of discretion even for

[55:23] this minor legislation. >> there are issues on page

[55:26] three line 11 the text should read one half bathrooms not

[55:30] bathrooms. >> this is just one of the

[55:34] issues. >> to be clear, this

[55:35] legislation will not change the narrative in district four as

[55:41] caesar said when he crossed the rubicon, the die is cast.

[55:44] >> thank you. We have any further comments

[55:48] for agenda item number seven? >> okay public comment on this

[55:51] item is now closed. >> I'd like to make a motion

[55:55] that we continue this item to the call of the chair please on

[55:59] the motion offered by the chair that the ordinance be continued

[56:03] to the call. The chair first chair chin chin

[56:05] I member marchman. Mahmood I chair melgar I alker

[56:09] I madam chair there are three eyes okay thank you.

[56:16] and now let's go to item number eight please.

[56:17] mr. Clerk. >> agenda item number eight is

[56:20] an ordinance amending the planning and subdivisions codes

[56:24] to allow separate conveyance of certain accessory dwelling

[56:27] units and a sociate in primary residences as condominiums.

[56:32] it affirms the planning's planning department secret

[56:33] determination makes findings of consistency with a general plan

[56:36] and adopts findings of public necessity, convenience

[56:39] and welfare. >> thank you so much again

[56:44] welcome supervisor and garcia the floor is yours.

[56:48] >> thank you. Thank you again chair melgar

[56:49] and supervisors since I was last here on this item april

[56:51] 21st my office has been in consultation with

[56:55] stakeholders and advocates. It's always been my goal to

[56:57] make sure this legislation does nothing to lessen existing

[56:59] tenant protections while also creating opportunities to add

[57:03] infill housing within our neighborhoods.

[57:06] colleagues I would like to request the committee make the

[57:08] following amendment to this legislation on page 14 line six

[57:11] strike this line entirely which reads or no certificate of

[57:15] occupancy has been issued for the adu.

[57:18] it's my understanding this amendment is not substantive

[57:22] but I defer to deputy city attorney brad russi to confirm

[57:25] and thank you chair melgar and members of the committee.

[57:26] I hope to have your support on this amendment and to send this

[57:29] item as a committee report to the full board with

[57:31] recommendation. >> thank you supervisor

[57:33] and engardio and miss maloney did you have a presentation?

[57:41] can you tell us what the planning commission did?

[57:45] >> absolutely that we did present on this on the 21st but

[57:50] I'd be happy to give you a summary.

[57:53] generally the planning commission recommended a host

[57:56] of amendments that were made to the ordinance and we thank the

[57:58] supervisor for doing so. The amendments were generally

[58:02] within the ilk of trying to make sure that we were not

[58:05] displacing any tenants and that we were protecting unauthorized

[58:11] dwelling units. Would you like me to break down

[58:13] the amendments that the commission recommended?

[58:15] >> sure. Great.

[58:19] so at that hearing in february the commission recommended one

[58:26] to limit the program to existing single family homes

[58:29] and existing condominiums that are proposing to construct a

[58:30] new detached you through the state program.

[58:35] secondly, to limit the program to new construction, single

[58:39] family homes and new construction condominium

[58:42] projects proposing to construct a detached or attached to you

[58:46] through the state program. The second recommended

[58:47] modification was to move the state mandated requirements to

[58:51] the subdivision code. The third was to make several

[58:54] clarifying amendments. The first was to clarify that

[58:58] an application to construction at a you may be submitted

[59:01] concurrently with the condominium application and the

[59:04] second is to clarify that eligible 80 use and their

[59:05] primary units must meet the same planning code standards

[59:09] that are applied to all other condominium conversion projects

[59:12] so that section 1383 of the subdivision code.

[59:16] and again I believe that the second version of the

[59:19] legislation incorporates the spirit of those amendments as

[59:23] they were written to the record.

[59:27] >> okay. Thank you so much, ms..

[59:28] maloney and I see that vice chair chen has some comments.

[59:34] I will just say thank you supervisor and engardio for

[59:38] your work on this. >> as you know the family

[59:41] special use family and senior housing special use district

[59:46] that was passed by this board two years ago allows for

[59:49] subdivision of 80 use and I think that this is consistent

[59:56] you know to have you know, this option for property owners as

[1:00:01] well. I appreciate your work on it.

[1:00:04] my concern was that it be standardized so that folks, you

[1:00:08] know, know what to expect depending on the regime that

[1:00:12] they choose. So with that I just thank you,

[1:00:15] ms.. Maloney, for all of your work

[1:00:18] on it and for making sure that we are following the spirit of

[1:00:20] what we're trying to do. Supervisor chen, thank you,

[1:00:26] chair malka thank you. >> supervising gadiel I do

[1:00:30] support this with our goal of this legislation is to

[1:00:31] incentivize the production of addus especially

[1:00:35] in neighborhood character raised by single family homes

[1:00:39] which is also district 11. We have 62% homeownership.

[1:00:42] >> the legislation also provides a pathway to enable

[1:00:46] single home families to recoup their investment when they

[1:00:50] construct a new rtu and increase the supply of

[1:00:53] additional entry level housing units.

[1:00:57] with that I also want to thank you for that effort and I also

[1:01:01] really appreciate that we further look into it that we do

[1:01:05] not undermine tenant provisions.

[1:01:06] so and I really appreciate you assure that this is not this is

[1:01:12] also our goal. >> and I also continue to want

[1:01:13] to make sure that we incorporate amendments as

[1:01:16] requested by the community and that will ensure that

[1:01:20] tenant protection during the process of all this adu condo

[1:01:24] conversions are all comply and thank you so much for your

[1:01:25] effort and making more what we call house rich cash poor

[1:01:32] community have more options and thank you thank you

[1:01:39] supervisor chen so you know the reason why we had included the

[1:01:47] possibility to do subdivisions and the family and senior study

[1:01:50] was because you know in addition to the to the

[1:01:54] reasons that you listed supervisor chen to recoup your

[1:01:58] investment and to allow for more affordability of for

[1:02:02] property owners and there is also the possibility of

[1:02:06] subdivide subdividing and also passing on a property to your

[1:02:10] heir as while you're alive which has some tax segment

[1:02:14] significant tax advantages. And so it does present a way

[1:02:18] for families to you know, hang on to generational wealth

[1:02:22] particularly in neighborhoods that have been excluded from

[1:02:27] that which such as you know, district 11 and other

[1:02:30] neighborhoods that have low incomes but high homeownership

[1:02:34] rates like, you know, excels your bayview.

[1:02:37] so I think this is a good thing at supervise as well.

[1:02:42] let's let's go to public comment because I do have an

[1:02:43] amendment as well that I have spoken with with a supervisor.

[1:02:46] so with that, mr. Clerk, let's go to public comment on this

[1:02:50] item. >> thank you, madam chair.

[1:02:53] land use and transportation will now hear public comment on

[1:02:56] agenda item number eight related to condominium

[1:02:57] conversion of accessory dwelling units.

[1:03:00] and I do want to mention one thing that I failed to mention

[1:03:01] when I was calling this item but and gado did pointed out

[1:03:04] and that is that this item is on our agenda as a potential

[1:03:07] committee report and it may be considered by the board of

[1:03:11] supervisors tomorrow july 1st, 2025.

[1:03:15] >> for speaker please. Good afternoon I'm mitchell I'm

[1:03:16] member with the affordable housing alliance in the san

[1:03:19] francisco anti displacement coalition.

[1:03:21] two issues in two minutes. The first is we raised some

[1:03:23] time ago which is that we would like to protect tenants who

[1:03:27] rent single family homes and we would also like to protect

[1:03:30] tenants who live in addus where the subdivision may not happen

[1:03:34] concurrent with the construction of them.

[1:03:37] for that reason we had suggested that the applicant

[1:03:41] owner applying for the subdivision and be an applicant

[1:03:44] owner for three continuous years which is in fact what we

[1:03:48] provide for in every other condo conversion in san

[1:03:52] francisco would that wouldn't seem like to be a tall order

[1:04:00] since we're talking about long term house rich cash poor

[1:04:01] people three years should be pretty easy to meet and would

[1:04:05] provide some protection for tenants so I appreciate working

[1:04:09] on that particular concept with supervisor chan we're

[1:04:13] disappointed that we don't have support on the committee for

[1:04:17] that at this time but we do intend to follow up with it

[1:04:21] in the future so that these conversions can be parallel to

[1:04:25] all the other conversions. >> the second issue is a new

[1:04:26] new language that we first saw at 7 p.m. Last wednesday when

[1:04:30] we saw all this at that point. So it's been kind of a hurry up

[1:04:34] and rush and stop and go and it's a little frustrating

[1:04:37] but this is that there's new language on page 19 I think

[1:04:40] it's line four that says that these 80 new conversions will

[1:04:44] be exempt from every other than the enumerated sections of

[1:04:47] article nine. >> that's really a lot of stuff

[1:04:51] that's really overbroad. There are stuff in article nine

[1:04:54] that we just need administratively like the

[1:04:55] application and and what if the application is denied the

[1:04:59] process to appeal and various other things like that?

[1:05:02] there's also stuff in article nine that clearly is not

[1:05:06] applicable so we don't you wouldn't even need that but

[1:05:08] that needs to be looked at. That is kind of a big deal.

[1:05:12] so I appreciate you taking a look at that at this 11th hour

[1:05:15] and there I go. >> thank you.

[1:05:16] thank you for your comments to the next speaker place eileen

[1:05:19] bogan coalition for san francisco neighborhood speaking

[1:05:23] on my own behalf, I would like to concur with the previous

[1:05:27] speaker. It's my understanding there was

[1:05:30] very little outreach to organizations such as his on

[1:05:34] this and they just received the amended copy last wednesday.

[1:05:37] so I'm urging that the item be continued and also that it not

[1:05:42] be heard tomorrow as a committee report.

[1:05:43] I don't see the rush on it and the that there are is new

[1:05:47] language in there that was about article nine that was not

[1:05:51] in their original lee and that they have really not had the

[1:05:55] time to review so I agree again with mr. Berg that this item is

[1:06:02] not quite ready for prime time and I would urge it be

[1:06:06] continued and not be heard tomorrow as a committee report.

[1:06:10] >> thank you. Thank you for your comments.

[1:06:11] next speaker please. >> hi, good afternoon

[1:06:17] supervisors. My name is brandon but I live

[1:06:19] with the housing action coalition as their community

[1:06:22] organizer and I'm really just here to express my support for

[1:06:25] this legislation and thank supervisor and guardian and all

[1:06:29] of the supervisors and planning staff that have put in a lot of

[1:06:34] time into this really practical thoughtful plan kind of

[1:06:37] speaking for myself as a young person who had lived in san

[1:06:41] francisco for ten years and had to leave due to the short

[1:06:45] housing options that were available to me, I would love

[1:06:49] to see a more complex and abundant variety of housing

[1:06:56] options especially in places where there hasn't been that

[1:07:00] variety I had. >> I can I've tried for years

[1:07:04] and years to live on the west side of san francisco and it

[1:07:05] ended up not being realistic for me.

[1:07:08] but I was able to you know, like so many other san

[1:07:12] francisco residents live in someone's house and have a

[1:07:15] separator by by a sheet and people living in the living

[1:07:20] room. >> and I think that doesn't

[1:07:24] always work for people and there's lots of families

[1:07:28] and individuals that would like to see more housing options

[1:07:31] especially when the opportunity of home ownership is on the

[1:07:35] table. I did not think that I would be

[1:07:39] able to move towards that option personally and so I'm

[1:07:42] really excited to be able to sit here and and support

[1:07:46] something that brings that option closer to reality.

[1:07:50] >> so we really hope to see more of those varieties of

[1:07:54] housing options in the future and really appreciate the

[1:07:57] thoughtfulness in terms of making sure that tenants are

[1:08:01] not displaced and tenant protections and to see the

[1:08:05] conversations keep happening so that we get closer to that

[1:08:09] healthier ecosystem in san francisco.

[1:08:12] >> thank you. Thank you for your comments.

[1:08:13] do we have any further comment or is for agenda item number

[1:08:16] eight? Okay.

[1:08:16] public comment on this item is now closed.

[1:08:23] >> colleagues, I just wanted to address a couple of things that

[1:08:27] we heard from public comment. The first one is about the look

[1:08:31] back and you know I have had lots of conversations with mr.

[1:08:38] omar berg and folks in the tenants rights groups.

[1:08:42] I think the issue for me is that there are separate look

[1:08:50] back requirements in different legislation and different.

[1:08:55] some of it is in the condo conversion ordinance.

[1:08:58] some of it is in the act that we passed a couple of years ago

[1:09:02] and as we are looking at all of the legislation that is coming

[1:09:06] through with the rezoning of high resource area, there's

[1:09:10] going to be yet another. So I would rather wait on that

[1:09:14] until we can have like one standard way of doing it that

[1:09:20] doesn't advantage the state program over our local program

[1:09:24] or you know, it has unintended consequences which is why, you

[1:09:29] know, I am reluctant to support that today.

[1:09:32] as to the other issue which is what mr. I remember talked

[1:09:37] about starting in line to page 19 in the sentence are any 80

[1:09:43] use subject to conversion all the way down to line six to

[1:09:46] dwelling units. I am wondering how you would

[1:09:48] feel supervisor and you about just striking that whole

[1:09:51] paragraph out altogether for I think it's already approved out

[1:09:55] as to form without it because it's been added since

[1:09:59] wednesday. So if that's okay that would be

[1:10:00] a non substantive amendments as we're striking it out and that

[1:10:03] would just take care of that issue.

[1:10:06] >> yep I agree with that. That sounds fine.

[1:10:09] >> okay mr. Rusty, what do you think about that?

[1:10:13] deputy city attorney brad russell yes, that amendment has

[1:10:18] been prepared and I'm I can sign off on that and it would

[1:10:22] be non substantive. I actually had one question for

[1:10:24] supervisor regarding guardian. >> I know you mentioned the

[1:10:32] amendment striking on page 14 line six or no certificate of

[1:10:41] occupancy has been issued for the adu I believe you mentioned

[1:10:45] that one. There was another amendment

[1:10:46] that I think was included and for today which is on page

[1:10:49] and on line nine of that same page.

[1:10:53] >> oh I see under little eye is constructed after january 1st

[1:10:59] 2020. >> I believe that there's also

[1:11:00] an amendment for today. I'm sorry I missed that so I

[1:11:03] read that. So line nine where it says is

[1:11:06] constructed after january 1st, 2020, right?

[1:11:09] >> yeah. That's also those two

[1:11:12] amendments are not substantive and they can move forward

[1:11:13] today. >> thank you.

[1:11:14] I think ms. Maloney did, yes. >> okay.

[1:11:16] thank you mr. Omar burke that that paragraph includes a bunch

[1:11:23] of rights and it's new language here that protects their tenant

[1:11:30] protections referencing 1396 eight sorry 1387 1390 1391,

[1:11:38] 1392 and 1383. Those are actually rights for

[1:11:42] tenants in these buildings that were one of the things that we

[1:11:43] discussed in the letter from the 80 you the language that is

[1:11:48] problematic really is just that are just line four and no other

[1:11:52] provisions of this article that's the language that's so

[1:11:56] overbroad and problematic. >> okay.

[1:11:59] so you what you are actually recommending is that we strike

[1:12:03] out starting at the comma after 1393.

[1:12:06] >> yes. The words and no other

[1:12:10] provisions of article nine of this code that's what's so

[1:12:11] overbroad in what about after the period I will defer to the

[1:12:22] sponsor because I don't think that's problematic but that's

[1:12:34] because we're trying to address several different situations

[1:12:35] here in this legislation existing single family homes or

[1:12:38] the new adu. But we're also addressing

[1:12:42] existing condominiums and I want to add an ad or new condo.

[1:12:46] okay. >> yeah.

[1:12:49] thank you supervisor and engardio.

[1:12:52] yes. So it sounds like we're keeping

[1:12:56] the lines on page 19 lines four through six and we're striking

[1:13:00] no other provisions of this code.

[1:13:06] >> deputy city attorney brad rusty, I would suggest that

[1:13:10] perhaps we instead say these and any to you subject to

[1:13:15] conversion under this section is subject to article nine of

[1:13:22] this code because I think that the intention is that all the

[1:13:26] requirements of article nine apply to these conversion

[1:13:28] sites. What I'm hearing and by calling

[1:13:30] out those specific sections it might imply that the other ones

[1:13:34] aren't included, aren't well it it says that that's what it's

[1:13:38] basically it says no other provisions of article nine

[1:13:41] and I'm not sure why we would do that right so I concurred.

[1:13:45] keep it simple and just as you said, deputy city attorney

[1:13:48] and so okay so we're since we're doing this on the fly any

[1:13:57] 80 you subject to conversion under this section 1390 6.8

[1:14:04] shall be subject to article nine of this code.

[1:14:07] okay. And is that approved as to form

[1:14:11] I can approve that as to form right now.

[1:14:12] okay great. Okay.

[1:14:15] mr. Amberg is that acceptable? >> yeah.

[1:14:19] yeah. I mean it should be great to be

[1:14:21] able to read it and it's make sure it's really saying what we

[1:14:23] wanted to say it's six words shall be subject to article

[1:14:29] nine shall be subject to this to article nine.

[1:14:33] yeah okay that sounds sounds good is my way of doing

[1:14:37] business but okay okay I've never done this before but

[1:14:40] former chair supervisor aaron peskin did it all the time on

[1:14:44] the fly so I'm channeling ms.. >> maloney.

[1:14:47] I'm so sorry chair mugger I just wanted to make sure that

[1:14:54] not being an expert in the administrative code but that

[1:14:56] the language no other provision of article nine of this code I

[1:14:59] wonder if there is some other conflicting provision of

[1:15:04] article nine that this was trying to avoid.

[1:15:05] >> that's I just wanted to bring that up.

[1:15:09] okay. Thanks mr. Sc I think I spoke

[1:15:13] with the attorney who drafted this today and I thought the

[1:15:16] intention about of these amendments was to remove this

[1:15:20] section entirely which would have resulted and these

[1:15:23] conversions being subject to article nine and in its

[1:15:26] entirety. Yeah that was the amendment

[1:15:28] that was proposed initially by a supervisor and gardner but I

[1:15:31] think for clarifying purposes if you want to you know

[1:15:35] accommodate the advocates here, I think it's achieving the same

[1:15:38] thing right? >> which is what I proposed but

[1:15:42] just to restate it, if we were to remove it all together it

[1:15:49] would everything would be subject to article nine.

[1:15:50] but we are super clarifying it by specifically saying any use

[1:15:56] subject to conversion under this section 1390 6.8 shall be

[1:16:00] subject to article nine. Right.

[1:16:03] okay. Right.

[1:16:04] is that acceptable? >> all right.

[1:16:07] so I'd like to make a motion that we amend the legislation

[1:16:10] as just stated and the amendments that were read into

[1:16:18] the record by supervisor and engardio reflecting the

[1:16:22] modifications that were recommended by the planning

[1:16:26] commission and then that we move the legislation as amended

[1:16:33] as a committee report to the full board with a positive

[1:16:35] recommendation a >> motion has been offered by the chair that

[1:16:42] the ordinance be amended as presented and then further

[1:16:46] amended through discussion that we've had here and then

[1:16:49] recommended as amended as a committee report for

[1:16:51] consideration on tomorrow's agenda july 1st, 2025 on that

[1:16:56] motion vice chair chin chin I member marchman mahmud I chair

[1:17:00] I melgar I madam chair there are three eyes thank you that

[1:17:04] motion passes congratulations supervisor and engardio do we

[1:17:11] have any other items on our agenda today?

[1:17:12] >> mr. Clerk there's no further business.

[1:17:14] >> okay. We are now adjourned.

[1:17:15] thank you

BOS - Land Use and Transportation Committee - Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript