If they were physically present. Public comment will be available for each item on this agenda, both channel 26 and ff gov. Org are streaming the channel across the sf gov. Org are streaming the channel across screen. You can call 8882045984. The access code is 3501008. Then press pound and then press pound again. When you are connected, dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the qu queueu to speak. The system will notify phi you when you are in line and waiting. All callers will remain on constitute mouth until their line is open. Everyone must account for the time delay, speaking discrepancies between live coverage and stream. Best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. Alternatively, you may subfit myth Public Comment in two of the ways noted. Email me at erica major, erica erica. Major sfgov. Org. If you submit Public Comment via email, it will be included in the legislative file as part of the matter. Written comments may be sent via Us Postal Service to city hall, 1 doctor carlton b. Good let place, San Francisco, california, 94012. And ms. Major, would you please repeat the call in number again for everybody so they can write that down slowly . Yes. The callin number is 1888204 18882045984. When prompted youll need the access code. The access code is 3501008. Thank you, ms. Major. And now can you please call the first item . Yes, item one is an ordinance amending the planning code to consider smaller commercial spaces when creating large large lots, limiting lot from frontages to 50 feet on ocean avenue, creating an exception from neighborhood notes for certain uses in the ocean avenue neighborhood commercial Transit District and adding arts activity as a use to the neighborhood commercial Transit District, and adding arts activity as a use to the ocean avenue neighborhood commercial Transit District. To provide comments please call the number. This was brought to us by supervisor yee. It is my understanding chief of staff jen lowe is here to present. And then we will go to the Planning Department in the form of mr. Sanchez as this item was reviewed and recommended to the board of supervisors by the Planning Commission with sucks for three modifications. With that, the floor is yours. Thank you, chair peskin and members of the committee. I hope you can hear me okay. Thank you for hearing this item it was brought forth to us by our Community Benefits district partners on the ocean avenue corridor. We have been quite successful before this Health Emergency in terms of supporting our Small Businesses, particularly familyowned businesses and as well as promoting legacy businesses along the corridor. And we want to keep it that way. This legislation aims to do two things. First, its to disincentivized any lot mergers that would result in large storefronts that would be difficult for Small Businesses to occupy. Number two it helps streamline some of the notifications that already require a conditional use to not have to also go through 311 notifications for desired businesses for the corridor. We know now more than ever we have to support our Small Businesses. And we want to keep ocean avenue to have that granular, mom and pop feel moving forward, beyond this crisis, and a way to do that is to ensure the physical spaces are designed so that we can keep smaller businesses and restaurants on the forefront. So im happy to take any questions, and thank you for hearing this item. So, this is aaron peskin speaking. With regard to those categories that would no longer require 311 notification, are you saying perhaps mr. Sanchez can also address this, that those are all uses that would be subject to conditional use and to the notice that is required pursuant to conditional use . Is that correct . Im talking about tobacco paraphernalia let me just scroll down, nighttime entertainment, private and Public Community facilities, restaurants and limited restaurants and general entertainment . Are all those subject to cu and thats why you are taking them out of section 311 of the code . Mr. Sanchez, can you help answer that question . Definitely. Some of those uses require conditional use authorization while others dont. You would have to speak obviously to the legislative sponsor to determine why they are taking them out or not. But not all of them require cu. Okay. In so far as the board has over many years taken steps to reduce tobacco use in the community, i think the one i would be most interested in is tobacco paraphernalia establishments. If they are not subject to conditional use, it would seem a little odd relative to the other body of policies that this board, including the sponsor, president yee have pass. If its subject to cu, i get it, but if it is not not, you would think you want want to send neighborhood notification. I agree with that. Let me see the planning code to make sure it does require cu. I would bet it does but give me one second. Take your time. Colleagues, are there any questions or comments from ms. Lowe while mr. Sanchez is looking that up . Chair, this is safai. Ii wanted to say this is very similar to what we did aid couple years ago in our commercial districts. Im really exciting adding for art uses on ground floor retail. We had to change our table to allow for that because they were not permitted at all. Even with the conditional use. So allowing for that changes the dynamic of arts organizations, and it provides for more activation, in fact we have been able to activate a few of our empty storefronts with arts activities. So that was a positive thing. The other thing we found was for Small Businesses not having to go through the neighborhood notification, it saved many of them thousands and thousands of dollars on businesses that we understand, and i think the Planning Department as well as the sponsoring supervisor understands would be principally permitted. So at the end of the day, we are doing something thats very important in terms of helping Small Businesses. And i think as we move into this crisis and then eventually out of the crisis, it will be really helpful in terms of recovery. I will say that i do agree, i mean, and i dont think it would be in the intent of the sponsor to remove any barriers for tobacco paraphernalia. So, other than that, i think this is the important piece of legislation. So i support supervisors intent. The other thing i think is very important is that when we are building mixed use projects that there is space for, by design, theres space for Small Businesses. So ensuring theres space for Small Businesses in terms of limiting the size, that would be presented for storefront retail is also very important. So i appreciate that as part of this legislation as well. Thank you. Any questions or comments from supervisor preston before we go back to mr. Sanchez . No comment. Thank you. And chief of staff lowe, does that conclude your thing and can i turn it over to mr. Sanchez now . Yes, i do want to emphasize that we have no intention of removing any notifications for those uses that would be particularly of interest of the public. So ill send that off to mr. Sanchez now. Mr. Sanchez. The floor is yours, sir. Thank you. So day go Diego Sanchez with Planning Department staff. After taking Public Comment and a deliberation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the ordinance with three modifications. The first was to eliminate the requirement that lot mergers resulting in a frontage with a greater than 50 feet within the ocean avenue nct would also create a corner lot. The second modification was to principally permit flexible retail within all stories within the ocean avenue nct. Currently that use is not permitted. The third modification was clarifying language, for example defining square feet, Square Footage and calling out commercial space as nondenial uses, essentially using more nonresidential uses, essentially using more planning code language. So that was the Planning Commissions recommendation. To get back to your question, tobacco paraphernalia does require authorization on the ground floor and not permitted on the second or third stories. So that concludes my remarks. Thank you mr. Sanchez. The only difference between 311 notice and cu is a 20day notification as compared to a 30day notification. Is that correct . Its that and also the deliberate notice is 150foot radius of owners and occupants of property and the cu notice is a 100foot radius er radius and less got it to wider radius and less time. Yes. I also appreciate the fighter planesgrain intent of this legislation and want to also note that portions of it are not just for the ocean nct, but are citywide, specifically subsection 3 set forth at section 121. 1 at the top of page 3 is citywide in its applicability. And i absolutely support that. Ms. Lowe, relative to the three suggested modifications, does the office of supervisor yee want to make any amendments . Are you offering any amendments today . Or would you like to proceed with the legislation as originally introduced . I do not have any amendments to introduce today nor do we have any strong reservations on any. We want to leave that to the committees to deliberate if you feel strongly. So i think the first two modifications are policy calls, and if the sponsor is not interested in making them, i am not interested in making them. The third seemed to be technical and explanatory in nature. Just relative to what mr. Sanchez described about using gross Square Footage. So i dont know, mr. Sanchez, if you have any suggestions, and i would ask or i assume those changes, madame deputy City Attorney, would not be substantive in nature, and could be undertaken today or could be done at the full board. Ms. Pearson . They would not be substantive, at least as they are described in the Planning Commissions recommendation, but we have not been asked to prepare them, so i dont know how extensive they are. I think you could choose to continue this for a week, and wed be hane to draft some amendments to be happy to draft some amendments to provide Additional Committee but that could also happen at the full board. Thank you for that advice. Why dont we open this up to Public Comment . Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item, item number one . Just checking in to see if there are any callers thank you, ms. Major. You have one question remaining. Please go ahead and make Public Comment hi. This is tom with political city. Thanks to you all for hearing this item today. Thank you, supervisor yee for bringing in forward and all your hard work on it. We are fully in support. I think for a few reasons. One, its a great fit with the uses that the community has wanted on ocean avenue. For me, the arts use is allowing those is going to be a great thing for the avenue, especially for the efforts to rebuild and recreate from the theater which is now empty as an art hub for the community. We ask that all of you think about legalizing art usage in the corridor, supervisor yee spoke eloquently to the reasons why. We are probably unfortunately going to have a lot of vacant storefronts around our city in the months and years to come. And arts organizations and nonprofits along with these neighborhoodserving commercial uses are great uses for those. Supervisor peskin, you spoke to the citywide nc district piece of this. And we are particularly excited about that. Large developments, 5 to 10,000 square feet, a lot of ground floor retail, that it would ask the commission to consider as one of the conditions to approval that the developer provided a mix of retail spaces. What we are seeing is a lot of big commercial developments for mixed use developments go in with very few large storefronts, but they are expensive. Only larger businesses can rent those. So allowing that diversity of storefront sizes, in fact, requiring it, means that more small and local businesses can find spaces suitable to them. Some Good Research showing those are more affordable to locallyowned businesses we want to encourage. And theres Research Showing that commercial districts with a lot of those small storefronts as well as large ones are more resilient. After economic downturns and so on. As for flexible retail, thats made up of six different uses. All the uses are principally permitted in the corridor, and you relax the notification requirements for the uses, youve effectively allowed flexible retail without calling it out as a separate use. We think this is a good way to achieve the same ends that the flexible retailer does. So we have to support we ask that you support it today and we hope in your own commercial districts, if you see anything here in those neighborhoods as well. Thank you for your comments. Your time is expired, sir. You have zero questions remaining. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item . Mr. Chair, that concludes Public Comment. Theres no other speakers wishing to wish. Thank you. So Public Comment is closed. Chair, can i ask a couple questions. This is ahsha. Supervisor safai, of course. I wanted to clarify one thing. So one of the recommendations that the Planning Commission made with regard to lot mergers, it said in ocean avenue, it said if it was over 50 feet it would be permitted if it was a corner lot. Can you talk about that a little bit . Yeah. Right now what we understand the order to require is if someone wants to merge a couple lots and the resulting lot frontage is in excess of 50 feet, it may not b but not at a corner . The recommendation is to allow that to happen midblock. Thats because that would allow flexibility for midblock properties that want to assemble a parcel or two for the sake of housing development, for example. Its still permitted under this ordinance. It would just require a cu . Met lets me check that one more time. Im looking at that too. What i thought the read the ordinance to say was that if its over 50 feet, it would require cu. Yes, i think so. Then theres the set of things that the Zoning Administrator is empowered to do through an administrative waiver that are set forth in administrative exemptions right. If one of the lots is less than 20 feet and the other is larger they allow for the administrator to go, if its a government institution, those are some of the administrative decisions that the za can make . Thats right. Those are pretty well defined, the five or six, the five exceptions. And then subsection d says conditionally permitted exceptions. Planning commission may approve as a cu pursuant to section 303 mergers exceeding the restrictions of b c, only when they can make one or more of the following findings. Now, then theyve removed subsection e, which was the nolot merger. So and maybe ms. Pearson, im looking at b and c above. But is supervisor safai correct that this could still be done by conditional use . Im looking now at the top of page 4, line 5. Yeah. Lots larger than 50 feet are permitted to create corner lots only and shall require conditional use authorization. So it reads to me as if the corner lot is a requirement. Yeah. I think you are right. All right. This is a policy call that, given the fact that this comes out of the ocean avenue Business Community and cbd, and feel free to weigh in, that i would completely defer to the legislative sponsor, president yee on. So ms. Lowe, what is your will, assumes that my colleagues agree . It is an aspect about the corner lot was part of the original, i think it was struck out. And we contemplated this on the commission to a point. At this point, the type of projects were seeing that are of this scale are usually near corner lots and intersections. So we felt that we should start off with that first and really keep this legislation to be a little bit more prescriptive should there ever be a need to open it up, i think we would be open to that. But we didnt have a clear indication at this point in time that that was required to provide lot mergers on midblocks for other parts of the district. Thank you, ms. Lowe. I think as to the three modifications that were suggested by the Planning Commission and the Planning Department staff, as to one, the answer at least for the time being, is no, or not yet. Number two, i think mr. R. Answered relative to effective allowing of flex retail, and i think that this leaves us with number three. I would like to make this suggestion, colleagues and to the Planning Department and to supervisor yees office, which is that we send this item to the full board with recommendation and in the intervening week, if ms. Lowe, you and the department want to work with the City Attorney on putting in just those clarifying bits of language, that would not be substantive, would not require rereferral to committee, we could send this out today with recommendations subject to whatever you recommend that we adopt and insert at the fall board next week. Can i ask one last question, chair . Of course. If in the intervening week it was decided that rather than just the corner lots would be allowed over 50 feet and decided they wanted to do midblock with the cu, does that require, i mean i understand its a recommendation from the Planning Commission so it wouldnt require rereferral.