[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