SFGov Watch

1. Matters Discussed
   1. Roll Call and Initial Proceedings
   2. Consent Calendar
   3. Cannabis Parcel Delivery (1337 Mission Street)
   4. Affordable Housing and AMI Adjustments
   5. Director’s Announcements and Department Matters
2. Public Comment

Matters Discussed

Roll Call and Initial Proceedings

The meeting began with a roll call of the Commissioners, followed by a reminder about public speaking protocols. Commissioner Imperial was noted as absent. The first items on the agenda concerned those proposed for continuance. Notably, two key items related to the Central SoMa and Transit Center District’s commercial development requirements were proposed to be continued to the following week, on October 24th, 2024. The Commissioners unanimously voted to continue these items without any objections from the public.

Consent Calendar

The consent calendar included two items: one involving a change of use authorization for a Pilates gym at 5214 Diamond Heights Boulevard and another for a cannabis delivery service at 1337 Mission Street. The latter, due to the concerns raised by the Teamsters Joint Council Seven regarding parcel delivery and labor standards, was pulled from the consent calendar for further discussion later in the session. The Diamond Heights project, however, was approved with conditions.

Cannabis Parcel Delivery (1337 Mission Street)

The most prolonged debate of the hearing revolved around the request for a conditional use authorization for a cannabis parcel delivery service. The Teamsters were concerned about labor standards, particularly regarding wages and benefits. They requested that the item be continued, arguing that the legislation specifically addresses labor issues unique to cannabis parcel delivery services. Commissioner Moore expressed support for a continuance, noting that parcel delivery is a significant land use issue and that the concerns raised by the Teamsters warranted further exploration.

In response, the project sponsor emphasized that they were a small business and had already committed to fair labor practices. The sponsor argued that further delays would result in unnecessary financial burdens due to ongoing rent payments. The debate highlighted the tension between supporting small businesses and ensuring compliance with labor laws. Ultimately, the Commission decided to pull the item from the consent calendar and continue it to the next hearing.

Affordable Housing and AMI Adjustments

Supervisor Melgar introduced a proposed ordinance aimed at addressing discrepancies in the pricing and income limits for certain Below Market Rate (BMR) units. The legislation sought to raise the income limit for BMR homebuyers to reflect the increasing cost of living, particularly for older BMR units where the gap between the resale price and the affordable price had widened significantly over the years.

The Commission discussed the potential implications of raising the Area Median Income (AMI) limits for BMR units, with some commissioners expressing concern about the long-term effects on affordability. While most commissioners appeared supportive of the ordinance, some emphasized the need for guardrails, such as a sunset clause or triggers that would automatically bring the legislation back to the Commission for review if a certain number of units were affected. Ultimately, the ordinance was recommended for approval, though the possibility of additional amendments before it reached the Board of Supervisors was acknowledged.

Director’s Announcements and Department Matters

The Planning Director provided updates on past meetings of the Historic Preservation Commission, which had approved recommendations for several legacy business applications, including Oscar’s Photo Lab and Shaw Shoes. There were no reports from the Board of Supervisors or the Board of Appeals.

Public Comment

• Housing Preservation: Multiple speakers addressed concerns about Section 317 of the Planning Code, which they argued had been poorly enforced, allowing sound, affordable housing to be demolished under the guise of alterations. They urged the Commission to adopt stricter regulations to prevent such demolitions and protect existing housing stock.
• High-Rise Development Opposition: Residents opposed a proposed 240-foot high-rise on Sutter Street, criticizing its scale as out of character with the neighborhood. Testimonies emphasized the overshadowing effect it would have on smaller buildings and the potential harm to nearby fragile structures during construction.
• Green Space Advocacy: A speaker highlighted the need for public green space in Lower Nob Hill and proposed converting a parking lot into a park. They urged the Commission to fast-track the proposal to improve access to green spaces in the neighborhood.
• Labor and Cannabis Delivery: Testimony related to a cannabis parcel delivery business raised concerns about compliance with living wage laws and employment standards. The Teamsters Union requested more time for discussions with the business owner before approval.
• Neighborhood Gentrification: A speaker warned about the negative impact of high-end developments on local affordability, suggesting that such projects cater to wealthy outsiders and contribute to gentrification.