tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 15, 2018 10:00pm-11:01pm PDT
right. thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm representing san francisco housing action coalition in support of 600 20th street. we are excited to see that the project management eliminated all parking from the plan, as the project is located a block away from the municipally t line. we implore the commission to approve this project moving forward. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioners? commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i believe that the project is appropriate in the setting and do not see any issues, so why not support it, so i move to approve with conditions. >> vice president melgar: second.
>> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: just one question about the neighbored building. -- neighboring building. it's a six story building, and the neighboring building is a five story building. i guess a question to the arc teches from shop one. the five story building, was it just built in an also 68 foot zone, so it was just built with five stories? i mean -- >> correct, commissioners. 616 20th street is also within the 68-x height and bulk district, as is the building to the north. >> commissioner richards: i feel where you might be coming from what you potentially might be losing if the other building wasn't at the same level as your building, but it is a 68 foot zone. your building could have been at 68 feet, and you would have had your matching roof decks, but for some reason, yu
building wasn't -- your building wasn't built to the full extent it was allowed. i don't think we have any reasonable to penalize units or height on the building because it is code compliant, so i will support the project. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this project with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. commissioners, item 11 was continued to august 30, placing us on item 12. [agenda item read] [inaudible] >> clerk: item 11 was continued at the beginning of the hearing to august 11.
>> president hillis: so we're not going to hear it today. we'll hear it august 30. we're on item 12. commission, do we have planning staff here for 12? >> i don't see him. do you want to go with the next one, and then -- >> president hillis: let's take a five-minute break. all right. we'll be back in five minutes.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron starr, planning department staff. >> president hillis: just one second. sfgtv says item 12. >> clerk: this is item 13, sf -- >> president hillis: thank you. >> that would prohibit the planning code to -- in the three chinatown mixed use districts. as i'm sure you remember, this commission heard and passed comprehensive cannabis legislation late last year. that ordinance set universal standards for every neighborhood district and chinatown district including extraordina standard distances from school. no existing have yet converted
to a permanent cannabis retailer. the planning department is recommending approval with modifications. the modification would be to put a two year sunset provision on the prohibition so it may be reevaluated once the existing restrictions have taken effect. that concludes my presentation. >> president hillis: all right. while we await mr. hepner, let's open it up for public comment, if there is any other this item. how are you? >> i heard that this is really early, 12:00, no marijuana shop in chinatown.
this is the subject we are talking about, right? >> president hillis: correct. >> well, based on supervisor peskin resolution that no marijuana in chinatown forever, and, you know, he spoke all of chinatown, and most of the chinese community, and according to the newspaper, they support that. but i don't see them, so the whole chinatown, i'm a resident there for a long, long time, over 70 years, and i sit in the park, and i drink coffee. i have lunch with lots of people, and this is what we don't want, you know, chinatown really congested. three generations living in a small room: grandfather, father, and then childrens.
and the secondhand smoke really hurts everybody, and there's a report published by our health department few months ago, and it really hurt the secondhand smoke, the development of the children -- child. so i urge you not only two-year study -- and we have studies for a long, long time. marijuana is not good for -- for human body in any age, any condition. so i urge your commission really go slowly and really respect the neighbors that live in that neighborhood, that they don't want any marijuana shop to open there. thank you. >> president hillis: thank
you. any additional public comment on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioner. my name is wendy wong. i live in sunset area, and i understand that there is a proposal from the planning department staff that the prohibition of marijuana in chinatown for two years. this is very interesting period of time, two years. is it the 1.5 year mayor debate -- mayor election over that we have to go back to the community to get the votes again? on the other hand, i wonder if planning commission staff has the authority to recommend two years restriction of marijuana in chinatown. and i wonder if other department which is land use committee is giving the input and feedback for the planning
department staff? i would like to see if the neighbors protesting the existing marijuana in chinatown. this is only several blocks area, and it is where they congregate with family, children, and elderly. we can say all day long that marijuana doesn't have any impact on driving, we can say all day long that marijuana doesn't have any comprehensive on handling your behavior, but as you see 880, car accidents, the people who approve the recreational marijuana have blood in the hands. and chinatown is a historical place. it's the biggest community -- chinese community in america. each community deserve their uniqueness that they do not need to attract tourists buying
marijuana in any perspective in any food, in tea. i would like the commission to think harder, if each community is the same, why do we have our own personality? is the democracy still working in san francisco? are we still hearing the neighbor's voice? does the voice of the people still matter? [please stand by for captioner switch]
in often multi-generational scenarios, at the core the chinatown area plan incentives to further the neighborhood function as a matter of civic, religious and political organizations and largely due to the tight bonds in chinatown and the policies emanated out of city hall in response to the community bonds in that neighborhood, chinatown has largely resisted some of the ongoing pressures of whether
it's office space or co-working space or some of the other increasingly well capitalized uses that threaten some of the more small grain ground floor community-oriented uses and make chinatown what it is. a lot of uncertainty how cannabis retailers will play out in san francisco. a lot of policy in place to allow this to develop organically, but we have seen in other areas that have legalized cannabis in this way, denver, seattle, portland that, this use has a desire and a back, and a financial backing to grow rather rapidly, and in these cities the commercial rent prices have ballooned at a faster rate than they have in other major me t p trop -- metropolis throughout
the united states, and the well capitalized use and a neighborhood that for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the creation of the chinatown central subway station, is a very, in a very fragile economic place. a business a few weeks ago, one of the legacy businesses on stockton street adjacent to the new subway station is facing a 200% rent increase and either have to renegotiate, relocate or shut down business all together. each loss of a business like that is a hole in the fabric of chinatown, and frankly, you know, it behooves us to try to protect this neighborhood from uses that we have seen in other municipalities grow really rapidly and drive spikes in commercial rent prices. the other rationale in the room and has been since it was brought up last year, unique cultural concerns of the
chinatown community. i am not the best representative or the voice for those concerns but i do want to say why, and frankly, you have a letter from the community tenants' association in the file, some of those concerns are enumerated more eloquently in the findings of the legislation. but i do want to talk about why it's, why we are doing this now. i think that in the context of last year's broader legislation to legalize the recreation, manufacturing, production, sale recreational cannabis in san francisco, perceived by a lot of well-intentioned advocates that carving out a neighborhood like chinatown would threaten the legislation or balloon to other neighborhoods and others would ask for carve-outs, and it was just not the right time to have a measured conversation for supervisor peskin to meet that threshold burden, why chinatown is different or why we need to
take a little bit of time and have a deep breath and consider why this might be right for chinatown. frankly in that process, those types of concerns, the concerns of the chinatown community, were glazed off, rushed over, they were in fact somewhat crudely brushed over and boiled down to a really kind of base level that did not really reflect the complexities of the issue to the chinatown community and i hope that this opportunity moving the legislation at this time provides a little bit more time for that discourse to take place among this commission, certainly among the board of supervisors when it comes before us. so, for those two reasons, you know, this is a discreet piece of legislation before you to the auspice that might balloon into other supervisors with their own types of carve-outs. a prospect in parts of district 11. i think every supervisor has to
take this on and meet that threshold burden why this is important for their neighborhood. i think it makes more sense as a piecemeal conversation in the wake of what was really an extraordinary effort by so many departments of the city to pass comprehensive legislation around the sale, manufacturing, delivery, production of cannabis last year. i want to thank planning staff for its support of this item. we do oppose the two-year sunset on it. if only because, i think it has the potential unintended consequence of driving vacancies in spots that are just waiting for this ban to lift. you know, if for some reason access proves to be a particular hinderance in chinatown, i happen to think from what i know about the prevalence of delivery services and emerging retail store fronts that access is not going to be an issue for anybody living in chinatown. but should that drive a reconsideration of this, i would rather do it legislatively than
wait around and see whether we are unintentionally, you know, causing a vacancy problem in san francisco or you know, potential loss of unique businesses in that neighborhood. thank you, commissioners. i'm around if you have any questions. >> president hillis: thank you. so, i think we have closed public comment. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i support the legislation and reason why, i live two blocks off chinatown and very much appreciate mr. hepner's short synopsis of the essence of chinatown, at least from what it is, where it is located, surrounded 360° by other communities and leaving it at this moment functioning with its own dynamics and own ways to restrict, it's a small area relatively speaking, and walkable neighborhood in all
direction, no need for the sunset, i think it will work out on its own. two years is barely enough to get the legislation approved and let things settle and let chinatown take its own voice at the time when they feel differently about it. i am not prepared to shove it down the throat and i do not support the two-year sunset at this moment. i believe the community has been clear and i do believe that at this moment best better handled on what is needed and supportive of the dynamics of the community. i am very concerned and i know that commissioner richards feels the same way, that not focussed on the density, have the speculative aspect of higher rents, leave things vacant 'til i find a higher and better buyer and i cannot support that. so, for that reason, i am supporting the legislation without sunset.
>> president hilli >> president hilli >> president hilli >> president hillis: commissioner melgar. >> vice president melgar: this is difficult for me, i do not support this legislation and i have spoken to mr. hepner about this. i profoundly disagree with this approach. i think that it is exactly the opposite, having it piecemeal and having each supervisor, you know, protect their own. i do think that all of the things that you articulated are things that i agree with. i am concerned, particularly about the effect this industry is going to have on commercial rents. not just in chinatown, in the mission, divisadero, 3rd street, the fillmore, many place are are seeing gentrification and
displacement, empty store fronts because of the speculative nature of what's to come, this is one of them. and also heard from the chinese community in san bruno, i am worried that doing this piecemeal approach will just cause more speculation in areas that don't have control, and i think that that would be, supporting this legislation for me would be counter to everything that i have said while i've been on the commission, which is that i think we need to have social justice in equity across all land uses in san francisco. i think that some communities have more political power than others and i am afraid of what we are creating by setting this precedence. so, as it is, i'm sorry, i cannot support this legislation, even though i, you know, understand the concerns, the issues that have been raised and
agree with them. i want to help, you know, with that. but not in this way. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: somewhat similar comments. if this was a ban on retail dispensaries, i would be all for it. i've got to stick with how i've looked at these items in the past, and have strictly mainly looked at medicinal uses for the cannabis. i've voted for them in excelsior, in my neighborhood, typically supported them and mainly supported them medicinal use. i don't think we even heard a retail dispensary here. so, i think there's a very strong difference between those two, and again, when it comes to equity, i cannot vote and single out certain neighborhoods, even though i'm clear what would say if a dispensary were in the neighborhood, and not to say i
would vote a certain way, but i know what i need to do, i'm not in support of the ban today. >> president hillis: commissioner richards. >> commissioner richards: i supported m.c.d.s pretty much everywhere, except against one on irving, the apothecary, because it was before we knew what the impact of retail was going to be. we had no idea what the roles would be. so, i did not want to vote on that. i thought it was too soon. that all being said, i'm a strong cannabis supporter, also a strong neighborhood supporter. i think it would be, if anybody wanted to open up a cannabis dispensary in chinatown, m.c.d. would be crazy, need conditional use, we would have 1,000 people here and marathon hearings. clearly the community has spoken that they do not want cannabis in their neighborhood and i would respect that and i would respect the fact that let's just do it once and for all, let's
not have a wait period. wait period is only, i believe can only compound the problem. i ran into our cannabis applicant and a cannabis m.c.d. owner last night at the council of district merchants dinner gala event. and that individual told me about the speculation that is going on in rents and he mentioned some of the rents that people were paying for vacant places and my jaw dropped. i could not believe the speculation and the amount of money that retail spaces are getting, that are just sitting there empty waiting for their turn to get an application in and get approved. and i think it's actually in my neighborhood, i think there is spaces i know sitting there for speculation and it's starting to ruin portions of the neighborhood. so i absolutely am pro cannabis but pro community, i'm going to support the ban outright. >> president hillis: so, i'm -- appreciate your comments, i think -- you are all grappling with some of the same issues we
are on this, and we have certainly voted, i think i voted against and for m.c.d.s as we have seen them, mostly for. but i think i get the issues of, you know, neighborhoods who don't want them as well as neighborhoods who don't want more, and i think we have -- but i guess my issue is, i think we somewhat addressed that with the c.u. process, and it makes me nervous, i agree with commissioner melgar's comments to start banning the use in place, i think it speaks loudly we don't have any applications from chinatown before us currently, or before the commission. i would hazard a guess we won't see them any time soon. we probably won't see more in other neighborhoods where, you know, we have had kind of big neighborhood outcry in battles between them. but i think the ban to me just goes too far, i think the c.u.
process like it works well in formula retail, would work well here. i think it's a big deterrent for cannabis retailers as well as m.c.d.s. i would support converting the medical cannabis, i think now a mandatory to a d.r. to a c.u. in chinatown, to have the extra layer of protection. but we have had fights on lombard streets, fisherman's wharf, we denied, and certainly, i think the same claims could be made we probably should ban them because there's neighbors in neighborhoods that are against them there also. but i just think that's not the right way to go. i'm concerned about too many in my neighborhood around upper haight and divisadero, some, i don't want my kids walking by tons of them but i think we have struck a balance with the c.u.
and kind of the clustering provisions we put in. so, i like where planning went with it, sunset in two years and take a look at it. i've been surprised by kind of the relatively low impact that the existing m.c.d.s that have converted to recreational or don't use, had in the one in my neighborhood, no additional impact from that. so i also can't support legislation as proposed. >> commissioner fong. >> commissioner fong: i'm likely not to be supportive as well, and i just, i think as much energy that went into the legislation city-wide, and the efforts to try to make it equitable, isolating only one now pushes it to other neighborhoods and premium on other neighborhoods and i think that was the point of the legislation we were trying to get at to make it, spread it
around town fairly rather than concentrated. so, but i understand the desires in chinatown and the community very well understand that's, and that message i think was said, delivered loud and clear on some other ones that were brought to us and the community was strongly opposed, and we pushed back on some of them. so, i think the processes now works with the c.u. we will have the opportunity to deny them if it's in the wrong location. so, i would prefer to test out that process that people spent a lot of time with for two years or so and if that doesn't work, then maybe certain areas need to be banned. but understand the efforts and understand the concerns of the community. >> president hillis: any further discussion or a motion? ok.
>> vice president melgar: motion that adisapprove this legislation. >> president hillis: recommending disapproval. >> second. >> very good, commissioners. on that motion, you actually do disapprove and approve planning code amendments. >> president hillis: the board will ultimately hear it. >> the action in the charter gives you that approval and disapproval authority. so, on that motion to disapprove the proposed planning code amendment, commissioner fong, commissioner johnson, koppel, moore, no. richards, no. melgar, aye. and hillis, aye. passes 5-2, moore and richards voting against. commissioners, if we could just quickly to your discretionary review calendar, item 14, just
received from the project sponsor an email withdrawing his building permit application for the project. but because you have heard it and you closed public comment, just because the project sponsor decides to withdraw their building permit application does not mean that it is automatically withdrawn and you have the opportunity to render a decision on this matter, and so i guess at this point, my question is, if there is not a desire to render a decision, we can simply do consensus, allow the project sponsor to withdraw, or we can hear it under your discretionary review calendar. >> president hillis: we would have to take some action, right? it's on our calendar. >> you could just simply acknowledge the withdrawal. and that -- without, without any further process, based on the planning commission's prospective, the permit would become moot. >> commissioner richards: so if the project sponsor next week pulled another permit, would --
could they? i would rather just disapprove it so at least a year would go by. oh, ok. >> president hillis: we recognize withdrawal. but if a permit comes, if a similar permit is pulled, we would ask the staff to initiate -- >> sure, i think staff would be aware of a project at this address would trigger alarms. >> president hillis: recognize withdrawal and initiate a d.r.f. if the same permit is pulled. >> item 14 has been withdrawn. with the stipulation from the planning commission to staff. commissioners, place us on 12, 2018-4491, hotel uses in north beach, this is a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners.
diego sanchez, amend the planning code to probability hotel uses in the north beach neighborhood commercial district and telegraph hill, before i begin my presentation, provide lee hepner with time to present to you. >> mr. hepner. >> hello, commissioners. again, lee hepner from supervisor peskin's office, happy to be here on a roll, i hope. the legislation before you, of course, would limit hotel uses in the telegraph hill-north beach residential special use district and the commercial district, those are almost contiguous zoning district, telegraph hill-north beach being a little larger and north beach just crossing columbus a little bit. just a word about district three at large. we are sort of by unanimous accord the primary destination
for tourists in the city and county of san francisco. it bears out in the numbers, according to the city's annual inventory of large hotels in san francisco, the last one in 2011, i don't know if it did not continue. but 86 of the city's 92 large hotels were within district 3, and if you break it down by number of hotel rooms, 26,903 hotel rooms already in district 3, over 96% of the total number of hotel rooms, at least based on that large hotel metric. by contrast, within the subject s.u.d. and n.c.d., that is before us today, there are no more than a few small inns, b and b type situations. north beach neighborhood is undoubtedly a popular tourist destination, it's well served by hotels in the adjacent hotel rich neighborhoods, fisherman's wharf, nob hill, etc. we
understand tourism is intrinsic to district 3, supervisor peskin going on 20 years is a champion of the hotel industry and the workers in the industries, and with that foundation that we are nevertheless proposing this prohibition on new hotel uses within the telegraph hill-north beach residential today. as this commission knows by now, supervisor peskin is a big fan of using the zoning districts and zoning tables to provide incentives and disincentives for various uses in the city's zoning districts. and frankly, the driving force behind this legislation is our desire to have new uses in the boundaries, and to preserve existing residential housing stock, convert to nonresidential use and really concentrate more
residential, affordable housing in this dense area. relative to planning staff two recommendation, i think i'll address them out of order. the first to exempt certain c2 sites from applicability of the legislation. you know, in talking to supervisor peskin about this, the bay street line which separates the s.u.d. to the south and fisherman's wharf to the north, not just an arbitrary barrier. uses are far different than what you see above bay street. to the south of bay street, with he have head start, we have north point public housing, the rather large bay stockton apartment complex and a trader joe's there. but otherwise the c2 parcels en the s.u.d. consists largely of parking garages and office space along the waterfront. one of the reasons for creating
the s.u.d. was to have residential use and not the new garages in housing that would cause it to be a little bit higher price point and preserve the existing affordable housing stock in the s.u.d. as to the other recommendation, i hope planning staff can illustrate a little bit more. i'm not really sure i understand the purpose of limiting it to under five units. i can't imagine a scenario where we would be ok with the conversion of a residential five-unit building to a hotel use, particularly if it's a five-unit residential building, it seems to me that that is precisely the type of housing that we want to preserve in the s.u.d. and the n.c.d. and otherwise, you know, i don't think i have a very good sense of what the impact of that recommendation would be and would rather stick to our goal of incentive for new housing. thank you, i'll be around. >> president hillis: all right. thanks. >> commissioners, the department
supports the intentions of the ordinance to moderate the affect of hotel uses on residential uses and other uses in the area. obviously assuring compatibility of uses is an important function of land use planning. as mentioned, we do believe the area zoned c2 should still allow hotel uses. these are areas typically near places of interest, and addition, past planning efforts have indicated that these areas are suitable for hotels. the department also understands the concern about hotel development within the north beach n.c.d. we are proposing to limit hotel uses to five guest rooms or less, as a means to adopt a residential control on to the n.c.d. in deference to the supervisor ordinance. and trying to strike a balance between neighborhood serving uses and tourist-oriented uses. that was the thinking. we don't -- we were not envisioning converting residential units to hotel uses. obviously that type of application i believe would come
before you in a conditional use authorization request, and in giving this housing crisis, i'm not sure we would support that. but we would look at that on a case by case bases. in any case, those are the two recommendations, and this concludes my presentation. i'm here for additional questions. thank you. >> president hillis: any public comment on this item? >> yes, hello, stan hayes, telegraph hill. i learned how important it is to come to a meeting early enough to find out the item you came to speak on was continued. so, i had a great speech on item 11, some other day we'll talk about that. i don't have anything here other than off the cuff reaction to this. i think telegraph hill and particularly north beach is a fragile ecosystem, trying, you know, we are always trying to find ways to balance residents
versus tourists, bars versus restaurants, trying to keep that special sweet spot that has worked for us for so long and i think one of the things we are worried about is that as we begin to think about a possibility of there being hotels, even small hotels like could occur should this in modified form be adopted, we are worried we are going to see the balance that we have been fortunate enough to have for so long begin to slip away. so, i think that's why we support for all the reasons that mr. hepner said so well, we would support the amendments as they were originally crafted and not with the exception for the hotels. so -- thank you. additional public comment? seeing none, close public comment. >> commissioner fong: these items have come up back-to-back
and i'm unfortunately not supportive of them. i absolutely understand and i think mr. hepner made it very clear that north beach is one of, or top three tourist destinations in san francisco. and for that very reason, i think hotels should be in top destinations in san francisco. i think maybe the real objective, if i can, the real objective is to prevent housing stock getting turned into hotel. and if that's, if that's the objective, i think you should be very specific about that, and say hey, we, you know, we are going to ban residential units or buildings or structures to becoming hotels or avoid them to becoming airbnb units. while it's a very small subset of area, and china live building on broadway fits into this area, not sure fits in the n.c. district or not, china live, it's a very large -- ok.
it's outside of broadway? the north side of broadway? >> china live is on the northwest side of broadway between, i believe columbus and stockton, and if that's the case, then china live is not within the s.u.d. of the n.c.d. >> take a building for example, sorry to bring that up. a building of that type not residential, it's double size lot, four stories tall. it would have made a perfect hotel. the hotel across the street, the royal pacific, my grandfather built, developed in the 1950s and broadway would have been a good example. so, i just don't think putting a blanket no hotels in north beach or no hotels in chinatown or anywhere else is a good idea when we are in a tourist city and tourism supports san francisco. and again, i'm sorry and i'm sure supervisor peskin is watching and apologize for the
two items and not being supportive of them. but if there's a real specific need for this, and maybe that's again repeating myself, i think it's important to protect and prevent housing stock from being turned into hotels, let's specifically call that out. >> commissioner richards: i recall the fight we had on the moxie hotel on columbus, the tower record store we felt should have been housing versus hotel use, and i think that's where half of this legislation is going, and i do support that. i think allowing five units or less is an interesting kind of compromise, but we have a lot of b and b applications that come in for five units or less, five hotel rooms or less. they require c.u.? >> all hotels in san francisco
require conditional use. >> no matter what size. >> interesting. >> president hillis: we have seen in the past like new residential projects that sometimes have hotel components that may fall into this, but i think that's the only thing i can think of that may, that that would be that small. >> commissioner richards: didn't we approve a hotel in the c2 school district recently? in this area, down near the trader joe's? >> moxie -- >> commissioner richards: two-unit. >> ginsberg's pub, formerly, on bay and mason. but it was actually too small and has not been built. and did not support an elevator shaft and stairwell and such. >> commissioner richards: would not have been inside this area? >> i don't think so. >> commissioner richards: i guess where the legislation is going, and i, i'm generally pro free market as you are. however, you know, neighborhood
serving versus tourist serving is a delicate balance and that balance needs to be struck somehow. and if, you know, 96% of the hotel rooms are already in district 3 and you want to carve out a small portion of it, i don't have any issues with it. >> president hillis: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i'm supportive of the legislation as it stands, on all sides by districts and streets that can afford hotel development, north side of beach street or the far side of broadway, i believe that just a variety of walkable district interested for tourists to walk through rather than needing additional manifestations of hotels. what we have is protected and remains, however, i would be very cautious to introduce others because most hotels operate larger scales that would
be i think disruptive to this particular area. so, i'm in support of the legislation without modification and move to approve. >> second. >> president hillis: commissioner koppel. >> commissioner koppel: there was a span of time where we saw a lot of projects in front of us that we thought were going to be turned into airbnb little party pads. and so i was supportive of the hotel application on columbus, not to say that the first round of the hotel we saw was approveable. it did need some whittling down. i don't know if a blanket ban is the way to go, and i'm looking at this in efforts to protect the actual residents and the housing stock from having the housing that's there be compromised into potential
rentals where people might be able to just stay in a small, you know, code compliant hotel. >> president hillis: question on the parcels, on our map we have in our packet, the parcels north of broadway. >> yeah, those are in -- >> president hillis: gray, what are they? are those -- those are -- >> did get covered in. >> president hillis: are those c2? yeah. >> those are in the broadway neighborhood commercial district, called out, but specifically, but falls within the telegraph hill-north beach residential special use district. >> so commissioner fong's point earlier, could you do a hotel in that area? >> today with conditional use, under certain parameters. but under this ordinance, no, because it's within the telegraph hill-north beach
residential special use district. so -- >> anything in the red line is included in this ordinance. >> president hillis: what's the zoning now? >> broadway neighbor commercial district. color was not highlighted. >> ok. >> president hillis: i mean, i would support staff, i get the impact of hotels, but i also weigh the why are we -- i don't think, is there anything, you know, brewing about a hotel in this neighborhood at this point? >> we checked the pipeline and there was nothing. we think all the hotels are happening on market or slightly north or south adjacent to market. >> yeah. >> president hillis: so, a little bit, i don't know what's out there that's necessarily causing this. i also voted for the hotel project that we had, because i thought that was a reasonable location. this is a land use issue and where should hotels be and where shouldn't they be, and probably shouldn't be in core
neighborhood commercial areas, you know, residential areas. but i think planning's recommendation of allowing them in the c2, and i would even carve out the area just on the north side of broadway as a place to allow them, i think is appropriate. so, i would support this with staff's recommendation. i'm not sure we would ever see the five-unit project, but kind of carving out the c2 and extend that to the area north of broadway, because that is kind of a, you know, major corridor that we do have hotels on on the south side that i think could be, you know, i think from a land use perspective, it's appropriate to have, it could be appropriate to have hotel on that site. >> commissioner richards: one question on the north beach residential s.u.d. objectives mentioned in the motion, etc., but the reason why it was created in the first place was, can somebody fill me in? how long ago, what was the nexus
or the genesis of it? >> i'm not entirely sure how long ago, but the purpose of the telegraph hill-north beach residential s.u.d. in section 249.49 is pretty concise. it is to preserve existing affordable housing and prevent the creation of new garages in new housing in order to preserve the existing affordable housing stock. so, you know, kind of designed around preserving the existing affordable housing, and just while i'm up here, if i may, commissioner fong's point, separate from the rationale about existing residence and converting to nonresidential use, the other goal which i hope came out in my original speech, identifying the possible sites for new development in the district and really prioritizing residential use for those new developments. it's not just about the