Citywide Expansion Of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, And Retail Uses

2023-005354

29comments

5in person

24emails

1hearings

dashed lines mark hearings · supportopposenot recorded · dot size = comments that day · click a dot to jump to the comment

Hearings

approved continued denied / withdrawn · 1 hearings · hover a marker for the date and outcome

Comments by hearing (29)

expand all · collapse all · comments with recorded text are listed first

2023-09-07 · 28 comments · 22 / 6

Katy Tang · spoken · 2023-09-07 · support

Office of Small Business presentation

Richard Parina · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Support File 230701: Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, San Francisco's storefront businesses help residents and build jobs. But too many businesses are blocked or dissuaded from using ground-floor commercial spaces because of bans and tortuous application hurdles. Let's make San Francisco a great place to do business to open more amenities, bring more jobs to the city, and liven up our streets. Respectfully Submitte… show more

Liz J. Miller · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Stan Hayes · email · 2023-09-07 · oppose · source packet

OPPOSITION - Proposed Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses (BOS File 2307001)
Dear President Tanner and Commissioners, On behalf of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers (THD), we oppose the proposed Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses. THD has worked since 1987 to craft effective controls tailored to the specific needs and pressures on the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NBNCD) and the North Beach Special Use District (NBSUD). The existing controls have… Dear President Tanner and Commissioners, On behalf of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers (THD), we oppose the proposed Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses. THD has worked since 1987 to craft effective controls tailored to the specific needs and pressures on the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NBNCD) and the North Beach Special Use District (NBSUD). The existing controls have been effective in protecting our small businesses and invigorating our commercial corridor, which today is one of the most vibrant areas of the City with the lowest number of vacancies since before the pandemic. North Beach does not need the significant changes to commercial, restaurant and retail use controls as are being proposed. Please consider our concerns and reasons for our opposition set forth in the attached letter. Sincerely, Stan Hayes President Telegraph Hill Dwellers September 6, 2023 Rachael Tanner, President San Francisco Planning Commission 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 (Via email: [email removed]) RE: Opposition to Proposed Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses (BOS File 230701) Dear President Tanner and Commissioners, On behalf of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers (THD), we strongly oppose the proposed Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses. THD has worked since 1987 to craft effective controls tailored to the specific needs and pressures on the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NBNCD) and the North Beach Special Use District (NBSUD). The existing controls have been effective in protecting our small businesses and invigorating our commercial corridor, which today is one of the most vibrant areas of the City with the lowest number of vacancies since before the pandemic. North Beach does not need the significant changes to commercial, restaurant and retail use controls as are being proposed. Neighborhood Commercial Districts are intended to be tailored to address the specific needs of each neighborhood commercial corridor and not intended to be a uniform set of controls applying to the entire City. Should other neighborhood commercial areas benefit from the changes being proposed by the legislation, individual ordinances can be crafted to meet their needs. We are disappointed that we were not consulted on this legislation despite the major impact it would have on our own NCD. We ask you to please consider our concerns and reasons for our opposition set forth below. Please also consider delaying your action on this legislation until other affected neighborhoods have had an opportunity to review the proposed changes and provide meaningful input. The proposed legislation would significantly change our existing North Beach controls in at least the following ways: 1. We oppose the uniform expansion of Flexible Retail to all Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCDs) as principally permitted (P), allowing as of right multiple uses to operate simultaneously in all retail spaces. It is currently not permitted (NP) in the North Beach NCD where the <U+201C>Accessory Use<U+201D> provisions of the Code have worked well to allow limited additional uses to occupy our small retail spaces. Recommendation: We urge the Commission to oppose this expansion of Flexible Retail to all NCDs and to maintain the NP designation in the North Beach NCD Zoning Control Table. 2. We strongly oppose the proposed expansion of the eligibility the criteria for the Priority Processing Program that would allow for the priority processing for projects involving Bars, Nighttime Entertainment, and projects proposing hours beyond the principally permitted hours of operation, and as well as those seeking to establish, alter, enlarge, or intensify a commercial use. This conflicts with the North Beach NCD and North Beach SUD controls and would constitute a major change. September 6, 2023 Page 2 Recommendation: We urge the Commission to oppose this expansion of the criteria for the Priority Processing Program or to add the North Beach SUD to the list of Special Use Districts where Priority Processing does not apply (at Page 27, Line 17). 3. We oppose the changes to the Use definitions regulating Retail Professional Services and Non- Retail Professional Services that would conflict with existing North Beach NCD controls and would impact all NCDs. The existing Use definitions provide that Retail Professional Services are open to the public while Non-Retail Professional Services only serve other businesses and are not open to the public. The proposed changes would delete these two definitions, consolidating them into a new definition of <U+201C>Professional Services<U+201D> covering both Retail Professional Service and Non-Retail Professional Service. Further, the new definition of <U+201C>Professional Services<U+201D> would allow any combination of permitted Professional Service Uses in a coworking space, including offices or conference rooms for hire on a daily or hourly basis. Such proposed changes to the existing Use definitions conflict with the <U+201C>North Beach Financial Service, Limited Financial Service, and Business or Professional Service Subdistrict<U+201D> (Section 781.6) which prohibits new Financial Services, Limited Financial Services, Retail Professional Services, Design Professional, and Trade Office uses. These controls were enacted to stem the steady advance of downtown banks and office uses onto our commercial corridor, displacing both retail and residential uses and have since been an effective tool in preserving our commercial corridor. We also believe it is important to all NCDs to maintain the separate definitions. Non-Retail Professional Services primarily serving other businesses are similar to Office Uses, which discourage active foot-traffic necessary for thriving NCDs. Retail Professional Services on the other hand are open to the public and help activate streets, making them an appropriate use within NCDs. Recommendations: As also recommended by Planning staff, we urge the Commission to continue to regulate Retail Professional Services and Non-Retail Professional Services separately as currently defined. If they are combined, we request the addition of the NP designation in the North Beach NCD Zoning Control Table for the consolidated Use definition and as otherwise necessary to maintain the intent and substance of our existing controls. 4. We oppose the proposed changes that would allow Outdoor Activity Areas at the rear of buildings within Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCDs) as principally permitted (P) uses without Conditional Use Authorization. Currently, Outside Activity Areas may not be located at the rear of buildings in NCDs without the approval of a Conditional Use Authorization making specific findings that the use will not impact nearby residential uses. By their nature, NCDs are closely linked to residential uses and given the densely populated North Beach neighborhood, the review of the location and potential impacts of Outdoor Activity Areas at the rear of buildings is especially important to the livability of our neighborhood residents. Recommendation: We urge the Commission to reject the proposed legislation that would principally permit Outdoor Activity Areas at the rear of the buildings in NCDs without a Conditional Use Authorization. 5. We strongly oppose a proposed new section of the Code providing for the legalization of existing unauthorized Outside Activity Areas by the Zoning Administrator without a Conditional Use Authorization and neighborhood notice. Recommendation: We urge the Commission to require both a Conditional Use Authorization and neighborhood notice before legalizing unauthorized Outside Activity Areas. September 6, 2023 Page 3 The proposed legislation would allow Commercial Uses, Outdoor Activity Areas and Formula Retail Uses in all Residential Neighborhoods as follows: 1. We strongly oppose the proposed changes that would for the first time principally permit (P) Limited Commercial Uses and Limited Corner Commercial Uses in all residential neighborhoods including all RH and RM zoning districts. In addition, the proposed legislation would principally permit (P) Outdoor Activity Areas at the rear of a building associated with these uses. In either case, no neighborhood notification or Planning Commission review would be required. We do not understand the why these provisions are necessary or appropriate. Recommendation: Please reject these proposed changes to residential neighborhoods in RH and RM zoning districts and add the requirement that any Limited Corner Commercial Uses in such residential zoning districts be subject to the use and size limitations of the nearest NCD or SUD. 2. We strongly oppose the proposed changes that would allow Formula Retail Uses in all residential neighborhoods zoned RH and RM in association with Limited Commercial Uses and Limited Corner Commercial Uses subject to a Conditional Use Authorization. We oppose any Formula Retail Uses in a residential district where such use is prohibited in the nearest NCD or SUD. Recommendation: Please reject these proposed changes to residential neighborhoods allowing for Formula Retail Uses and add the requirement that any Limited Corner Commercial Uses in these residential zoning districts be subject to the Formula Retail controls of the nearest NCD or SUD. * * * Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and recommendations regarding the proposed legislation. Sincerely, Stan Hayes President Telegraph Hill Dwellers cc: Kathrin Moore, Vice President [email removed] Derek Braun, Commissioner [email removed] Sue Diamond, Commissioner [email removed] Theresa Imperial, Commissioner [email removed] Joel Koppel, Commissioner [email removed] Gabriella Ruiz, Commissioner [email removed] Jonas Ionin, Secretary [email removed] Aaron Starr, Manager, Legislative Affairs [email removed] Veronica Flores, Legislative Affairs [email removed] Supervisor Aaron Peskin, District 3 [email removed] Supervisor Dean Preston, District 5 [email removed] Supervisor Myrna Melgar, District 7 [email removed]show more

Matthew Fernald · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Support File 230701: Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, Good morning, and thank you for your work on behalf of San Francisco. I write because our city's storefront businesses help residents and build jobs. However, too many businesses are blocked or dissuaded from using ground-floor commercial spaces because of bans and tortuous application hurdles. Let's make San Francisco a great place to do business to open more a… show more

Bowen Tretheway · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

David Tejeda · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Michael Sacks · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

More restaurants! Support File 230701: Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I support the proposed ordinance to welcome more kinds of businesses to our neighborhoods. In particular, legalizing restaurants in all neighborhood commercial districts is a great start to making our corridors more exciting and friendly to businesses, and improve the quality of live for residents. I live in Cow Hollow, near Union and Polk streets. I'd love to see bu… show more

Panos Vandris · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Support File 230701: Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses
Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I am writing to you as a San Francisco resident to express my strong support for the ordinance to allow more flexibility and diversity for ground floor commercial spaces. This ordinance will benefit our community by creating more opportunities for local entrepreneurs, enhancing the vitality of our neighborhood commercial districts, and providing more choices and convenien… show more

Cornelia Hoppe · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Chris Schulman · email · 2023-09-07 · oppose · source packet

LPCBD Comments 2023-005354PCA FILE NO. 230701 [Planning Code - Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses] Dear President Tanner and Honorable Commissioners, Please see the attached letter regarding a matter before the Commission next week: 2023-005354PCA FILE NO. 230701 [Planning Code - Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses] The Lower Polk CBD kindly asks that you take our comments under consideration and have a discussion on and potentially make recommendations on our points. Most of our points are specific to the Polk Street NCD. Thank you. Best regards, Chris Schulman Executive Director Lower Polk Community Benefit District www.lowerpolkcbd.org [phone removed] cell 1170 Sutter Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 | Phone: [phone removed] | Fax: [phone removed] San Francisco Planning Commission 49 S Van Ness Ave Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94103 San Francisco, CA 94103 Subject: 2023-005354PCA FILE NO. 230701 [Planning Code - Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses] Dear President Tanner and Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to your Commission on behalf of the Lower Polk Community Benefit District (LPCBD) to express our thoughts regarding the proposed zoning changes under FILE NO. 230701. We appreciate efforts to enrich San Francisco's communities and fill vacancies in NCD<U+2019>s, particularly the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD). We express support for many components of the ordinance; however, some specific aspects require careful consideration. As it pertains to Polk Street NCD, there are several specific changes we are requesting. For these, we request your discussion at the hearing and ask you to consider recommendations for modification: Flexible Retail - Support: The LPCBD firmly supports the amendment to permit Flexible Retail on the ground floor in the Polk Street NCD. This policy aligns well with our vision for a dynamic and adaptable community. The flexibility to respond to market demands can invigorate local business growth, increase foot traffic, and foster a vibrant atmosphere that enhances our city's charm. Health Services - Remove: While we recognize the need for health services in our community, we request the removal of language amending Health Services changes in the Polk NCD. The community has already made informed decisions regarding this issue in File BOS No. 230410 passed earlier this year, which aimed to maintain the liveliness and community engagement on Polk Street and California Street by reserving them for active uses, such as restaurants and retail stores. Side streets should remain appropriate for Health Services and other non-active uses. Professional Services - Amendment Required: We recommend amending the language to principally allow Professional Services on properties on side streets in the NCD without any frontage on Polk Street or California Street, thereby preserving these vibrant commercial streets for more active uses, such as retail stores and restaurants. This balanced approach, as outlined in File No. 230410, ensures the necessary room for Professional Services without compromising the community's commercial corridors' spirit. 1170 Sutter Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 | Phone: [phone removed] | [email removed] While we remain generally supportive of the efforts to fill storefronts and infuse excitement through flexible retail, the ordinance's approach to health services and professional services requires reconsideration. It is our sincere hope that the voice of the community, reflecting thoughtful and well-crafted legislation, will be integral in shaping these changes. I do want to note that our comments are primarily limited to the Polk Street NCD, which is in our purview; we support the autonomy and input of peer neighborhood organizations and groups to provide input in their respective areas. In conclusion, while we support the intent and many aspects of this ordinance, as well as the changes in the Polk NCD, we kindly request further discussion and recommended modifications around the areas we have outlined above. We are confident that with this community input, an ordinance that truly benefits our neighborhood and aligns with the goals outlined by Mayor Breed, co-sponsor Supervisors, other stakeholders, and the community can be passed. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Chris Schulman Executive Director Lower Polk Community Benefit District [email removed] [phone removed]
Jonas Ionin, Director Commission Affairs Veronica Flores, Assigned Planner Katy Tang, Office of Small Business

Phil Faroudja · email · 2023-09-07 · oppose · source packet

File 230701 - Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses
P.O. Box 29086 Presidio Station San Francisco, CA 94129 August 28, 2023 Re: File 230701 - Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Use Dear Planning Commissioner Flores: We are writing concerning the proposed ordinance, <U+201C>Small Business Permitting Improvements Legislation (Board of Supervisors File 230701).<U+201D> Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association opposes the l… P.O. Box 29086 Presidio Station San Francisco, CA 94129 August 28, 2023 Re: File 230701 - Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Use Dear Planning Commissioner Flores: We are writing concerning the proposed ordinance, <U+201C>Small Business Permitting Improvements Legislation (Board of Supervisors File 230701).<U+201D> Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association opposes the legislation for the following reasons. Union Street is in the heart of Golden Gate Valley where we reside, so we cannot support lifting restrictions on area bars, as indicated on page 51. This to us is unacceptable. Union Street decades ago had no bar limits, and it did not work, with many drinking establishments and a lot of drunken behavior and unpleasantness. We do not want to return to those times. Moreover, this could discourage other businesses from coming in and alter the character of the boulevard in ways we cannot anticipate. Union Street is doing very well now, with high store occupancy; why change it? We further object to lifting restrictions on bars along Haight Street, Jackson Square, Pacific Ave and Sacramento Street. A neighborhood should be allowed to establish its own guidelines. Specifically targeting special use districts would probably hurt instead of helping. It further would remove local control and put decision making in the hands of the city, not the people actually in the communities. Removing restaurant restrictions, as proposed in certain neighborhoods like Chinatown, is also questionable. We also would like to keep outdoor limits on restaurant patios in Union Street in place. These and other conditions in our area were developed over many years, and do the job. In addition, we do not believe flexible retail should be expanded, and are particularly opposed to multiple retail uses in a single location. The result can often be confusing and disorganized, with one business on the left of the store and something entirely different on the right. That has been limited in the past, sensibly so. There are aspects of the suggested ordinance we could endorse, such as allowing coworking as part of Professional Services. And we generally would like to see new businesses thrive. But overall, this proposed legislation with 100 changes to the code, is too radical and targets too strongly a number of districts with special restrictions, such as Union Street, Sacramento, Pacific and others. It quiets local voices to a great extent and puts decision making in the hands of city officials elsewhere. It also erases rules many local neighborhoods took years to develop, by trial and error, and that are effective. The result would be chaotic and not terribly successful. Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association urges the city to reject the proposed legislation for the above reasons. Many thanks for your kind attention. Sincerely yours, Phil Faroudja President, GGVNA cc.: Supervisor Catherine Stefanishow more

Jonathan Hsieh · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Lily Lau · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Aj Cho · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Alex Steiner · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Shawn Troedson · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Susan Setterholm · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Support File 230701: Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail
Uses Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I<U+2019>m excited to learn recently that my great grandmother was born in San Francisco! I feel a strong interest in seeing San Francisco to continue to be the vibrant place it<U+2019>s been all the years my ancestral have been natives. San Francisco's storefront businesses help residents and build jobs. But too many businesses are blocked or di… show more

Veronica Lempert · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Eric Wu · email · 2023-09-07 · oppose · source packet

Chinatown CDC Letter on Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses; Planning Case Number 2023-005354PCA, Legislative File #230701
Dear President Tanner and Vice President Moore, Please find attached the public comment from Chinatown Community Development Center on Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses, Planning Case Number 2023-005354PCA, Legislative File #230701. Thank you, Eric Wu Policy Assistant | Planning & Policy Department Pronouns: he/him/his Chinatown Community Development Center 669 Clay St | S… Dear President Tanner and Vice President Moore, Please find attached the public comment from Chinatown Community Development Center on Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses, Planning Case Number 2023-005354PCA, Legislative File #230701. Thank you, Eric Wu Policy Assistant | Planning & Policy Department Pronouns: he/him/his Chinatown Community Development Center 669 Clay St | San Francisco, CA | 94111 The information transmitted by this email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. This email may contain proprietary, business-confidential, and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, be aware that any use, review, retransmission, distribution, reproduction, or any action taken in reliance upon this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. September 6, 2023 Rachael Tanner President, SF Planning Commission [email removed] Kathrin Moore Vice President, SF Planning Commission [email removed] 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103 [email removed] Re: <U+201C>Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses<U+201D> Planning Case Number 2023-005354PCA Legislative File #230701 Dear President Tanner, Vice President Moore, and Planning Commissioners, Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC) is a nonprofit community-based organization that provides affordable housing for low-income tenants across San Francisco, ongoing participation in community engaged planning in and for the Chinatown community, and support and promotion of immigrant based small businesses. We write to you to strongly oppose including Chinatown in the proposed Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses and advocate for the removal of all Chinatown Mixed-Use Districts (Chinatown Community Business (CCB), Chinatown Visitor Retail (CVR), and Chinatown Residential Neighborhood Commercial (CRNC)) from the proposed legislation. The changes proposed by this legislation are in direct conflict with and undermine the Chinatown Area Plan passed in 1986. That previous community informed and culturally sensitive plan has protected and sustained Chinatown as a cultural, social, cultural, and economic center for decades -- despite earthquakes, pandemics, hate violence, economic booms and busts. In contrast, the present proposal imposes citywide generic models of commercial enterprise without inclusive community input or specific attention to existing neighborhood level vulnerabilities and strengths. As a result, in our assessment this plan could cause great and irreversible harm to the unique characteristics of Chinatown. We further note that we and others provided extensive feedback to similar efforts in 2021 but we do not see such suggestions reflected in any part of the present proposal. Here are some of the issues we would like to flag for you as you consider this legislation: 1. Broad sweeping changes across a city do not work for unique historic immigrant neighborhoods like Chinatown <U+2013> these areas need their own unique set of zoning protections to maintain the character of the neighborhood and ensure the businesses in place meet the needs of the community. 2. Chinatown functions both as an immigrant gateway, residential neighborhood and cultural hub for the Chinese diaspora and as a major visitor attraction. Existing zoning controls in the Chinatown Mixed-Use Districts encourage business uses that are resident-serving and preserve Chinatown as a visitor attraction and have supported the preservation of this neighborhood for multiple decades. The present proposal does not address these specific needs. 3. We strongly oppose the application of the new Professional Services Category in Chinatown. While existing Chinatown zoning permits certain public serving professional services in specific locations, this legislation transforms the definition of the category (permitting with public review co-work offices, consulting firms, and other businesses that do not serve the general public) and extends principally permitted locations to all first floors in Chinatown and some upper floors. This new category invites uses that interrupt and competes with existing retail, undermining the street level commercial activity that is essential to the Chinatown experience and economy. 4. We oppose Flexible Retail being principally permitted in Chinatown. This use is currently not permitted in Chinatown. This legislation proposes to Principally permit Flexible Retail on the first story in all three Chinatown Mixed Use Districts (CCBD, CVRD, and CRNC). We are opposing Flexible retail because it includes Professional services, and raises the same concerns as the previous point. 5. We oppose Services, Financial from being conditionally permitted on the first story in the CVRD. Chinatown is currently very well served by banks compared to other neighborhoods in the city. There are 12 banks in the small 4x6 blocks of Chinatown. Residents of Chinatown have plenty of access to a wide variety of banks. Due to the close proximity to the Financial District, we are concerned with banks moving into Chinatown and displacing local resident-serving businesses as well as driving up the rents -- effectively expanding the Financial District into Chinatown. We have opposed such efforts consistently over the last 5 decades. 6. We oppose Retail workspace from being conditionally permitted on the first story in CCBD, CVRD, and CRNC. Similar to the Professional Services category, this use allows for spaces which are typically not community-serving in nature. Similar to the issue regarding financial institutions, introducing uses primarily provided by the Financial District and Downtown primarily would likely expand Downtown into Chinatown and put gentrification and rent pressures on existing ethnic, working-class communities in the neighborhood. 7. We oppose removing the Conditional Use Authorization and principally permitting restaurants on the first story in all three MUDs in Chinatown. Having CUs in the Chinatown Plan allowed the community to have a say in determining the uses they need in their neighborhood and allows flexibility for changes in the future. Taking away the CU process restricts this determination and the ability for residents to guide and lead the direction of their own communities. Each neighborhood has their unique characteristics in large part due to the efforts and the resiliency of its community in ensuring that land use controls are accountable to the needs of community. But unilaterally changing the zoning of a neighborhood with broad brush policies imposed top-down and then implemented with streamlined<U+2019> approvals, eliminates the ability of communities to adapt and shape policy to fit their needs. As drafted, the present monolithic rezoning proposal threatens to undermine Chinatown<U+2019>s economic and social vitality. We urge the Commission to pause the approval of the present proposal until there is a meaningful opportunity for vulnerable communities such as Chinatown to engage with the Department in a dialog on how to adjust the policies to fit our community<U+2019>s needs. Alternatively, we request the Chinatown Mixed Use Districts be removed from the present proposal so that a separate set of amendments to the code be developed that are more appropriate to sustain and strengthen our specific local economy. Respectfully submitted, Rosa Chen Community Planning Manager Chinatown Community Development Center As drafted, the present monolithic rezoning proposal threatens to undermine Chinatown<U+2019>s economic and social vitality. We urge the Commission to pause the approval of the present proposal until there is a meaningful opportunity for vulnerable communities such as Chinatown to engage with the Department in a dialog on how to adjust the policies to fit our community<U+2019>s needs. Alternatively, we request the Chinatown Mixed Use Districts be removed from the present proposal so that a separate set of amendments to the code be developed that are more appropriate to sustain and strengthen our specific local economy. Respectfully submitted, Rosa Chen Community Planning Manager Chinatown Community Development Centershow more

Raina Christeson · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Letter of Support: File 230701 - Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant,
and Retail Uses Dear Planning Commissioners, Please see the attached letter of support from Alex Bastian, President and CEO of the Hotel Council of San Francisco, for File 230701 [Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial, Restaurant, and Retail Uses]. We support the proposed changes outlined in the ordinance to provide needed flexibility and support to small businesses and entrepreneurs. Best, Raina Rain… show more

Lea Yu · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Michael Sacks · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

Ozzy Rohm · spoken · 2023-09-07 · oppose

Residential in the commercial corridor

Eric Wu · spoken · 2023-09-07 · oppose

Remove Chinatown mixed-use district +Tom Radulovich – Non-retail businesses, allowing corner stores

Sharky Laguana · spoken · 2023-09-07 · support

Foot traffic, high vacancy rates

Kevin Thomas · spoken · 2023-09-07 · support

Keeping Polk and Lower Van Ness reactivated

Justin Truong · email · 2023-09-07 · support · source packet

2024-02-01 · 1 comments · 1 / 0

(name not recorded) · email · 2024-02-01 · support · source packet

More restaurants! Support File 230701: Citywide Expansion of Allowable Commercial,
Restaurant, and Retail Uses Planning Commission Staff Commission Affairs, I support the proposed ordinance to welcome more kinds of businesses to our neighborhoods. In particular, legalizing restaurants in all neighborhood commercial districts is a great start to making our corridors more exciting and friendly to businesses, and improve the quality of live for residents. AJ Cho [email removed] 159 Santa Teresa San Leandro, California 94579