Thread by @_fruchtose

Hello San Francisco. I'm at a meeting of the Board of Appeals to support #PalmCityWines. The City mistakenly told them not to go through the neighborhood notification process, and a neighbor reported them. Construction has been stopped, and owners may lose their permits and money

https://twitter.com/maelig/status/1194703687601360896

A report commissioned this year by Supervisor Mandelman showed that this expensive process can add 4–6 months to the permit process. Owners of #PalmCityWines do not have enough money for this process and the permits they'd have to get again.

Owners speaking now. They spoke to Supervisor Tang, who told them they could proceed without neighborhood notification.

The City was wrong. Their permits have been suspended.

They note that the only business around them denied a permit was a dispensary, making the process useless.

And the neighborhood was still notified that a business would still be serving alcohol near them.

Their restaurant is principally permitted in the Limited Commercial Use site and Planning Department staff told them the permit would not need notification. Only the change of use needs notification.

The owners note that they feel the City is trying to punish them. They would have done public notice if they know they had to. They're taking a huge risk and do not come from wealthy backgrounds.

They note, ironically, that they just paid property tax but the site has become filthy since they abandoned work on it.

Planning Department staff now speaking. LCU zoning confirmed. Uses were much more permissible until 1961, when downzoning occurred. This use probably ran afoul of the confusing zoning rules piled up.

Two permits were suspended here. One for a change of use, one for structural changes. The structural changes are being appealed separately, to be heard next month.

Planning: usually permits suspended because appellant went beyond scope. The appellant tried to do everything right here.

Neighborhood notification allows neighborhood neighbors to file Discretionary Review requests to the Planning Commission.

[NIMBYs love it.]

Planning: there are 50-100 zoning changes a year. Staff analyzes them and interprets those + intents. This project falls into geographic boundary of intended location for one law targeting change, but not inside a Neighborhood Commercial District specified.

Planning: "This sucks. No one should find themselves in this situation."

Planning: people involved in the drafting of the law will be here. Board of Supervisors would be able to correct this.

Board now asking questions.

Planning: BOS could fix legal matter going forward, but it wouldn't help the appellants.

Santa Ana: notification could open up Discretionary Review. We've received 150 pieces of public correspondence on this issue.

Planning: "I know you will do a thorough review" of public comment. A Planning Commission hearing could have a different result.

Commissioner Santacana: "I don't think Planning should be giving lessons on process now."

Commissioner Santacana: 311 neighborhood notification doesn't mention LCU. How did Zoning Administrator reach the decision to suspend?

Planning: letter by ZA relates why. Change of use subsection has an exception for LCUs in certain areas.

Commissioner Honda: the Planning Code is "VERY confusing." Certain Planning staffers like the one who talked to Palm City Wines are considered experts on the zoning, and even HE had issues with it.

Planning: "the code could be much clearer on this point." It's how we got here 😭

Cmsr Honda: when Planning errs, they take no responsibility for that. But in this case, there's no clear error. Language is muddy.

Planning: "it's suspectible to interpretation... I quit my job being a Zoning Administrator because of cases like this"

What am I hearing??!!?!?!!!

Commissioner Swig: there can be two separate planners who look at the same ambiguity and disagree. You say the law sucks but we must still go by it. Can the Zoning Administrator make a determination which disagrees with someone else looking at the same law?

Planning: I support the interpretation made here
Swig: "you have to. That's your job here"

Swig: two weeks from now, somebody will say Planning bent the law or looked the other way. I don't want to stray from the law. But "do we have a solid legal base" for this decision? Is it not undermining the intent of the law?

Planning: yeah, it happens when Planning Code is amended >50 times a year. Law could even change to say "you can have a panini press in West Portal but not anywhere else"

😭😭🤦‍♂️😱🤦‍♂️🤯

Cmsr Swig: "we are the other person at the other desk" deciding if the original Zoning Administrator is right

Cmsr Santacana: those are not the only options on the table. We're not making law. "It looks like Planning acted arbitrarily"

Planning: "to be clear, no one changed their mind"

Santacana: do you double check work?

Planning: you think Planning is slow now? If we did that for every case, nothing would every get done. Different interpretations of Planning Code on a DAILY BASIS

DAILY BASIS

DAILY BASIS

Planning: staff didn't properly at Planning Code

Cmsr Honda asking how many people are here for public comment. Half the room raises their hand. Comment limited to 2 minutes per speaker.

Honda: let's get this party started after a legislative aide to Supervisor Safai

Aide Sandoval: letter from District 4. Legislation crafted in collaboration with then-Supervisor Tang. Intention was to spur more small businesses to open.

Honda: will Safai write legislation to change this?
Sandoval: I can relay message to Supervisor Safai. Haven't gotten that far.

Public comment starting.

Speaker: live 7 blocks from site. From family of 3 generations of SF. In support. "It would be absolutely wonderful". Former legislative aide to Supervisor Tang. It was her intention to make it easier for this permit to be issued, but bill did not consider non-conforming LCUs

Same: this kind of issue is why it's so hard to open a small business in SF. I understand difficulty of Board of Appeals, but she wanted to make it easier for small businesses to open

Next speaker: I live close. "There's a number of issues that trouble me." He wants to have right to decide whether his "neighborhood is changed fundamentally." He doesn't want Outer Sunset to become like Outer Lands, which is now a dining destination for Marin with Oakland valets

"I won't find parking spaces" because of this and mega restaurants. "That's an obstruction for me." Lives at 44th/Irving.

Speaker born in SF, 46th/Judah. Supports the appellant. "What's important here is the intent of the law."

"What was a liquor store was barely a grocery store... we wouldn't shop there, for any reason"

Honda: "how long have you lived in the Outer Sunset?"

Next speaker: Lives next door in favor of notification process because "I just want to know what's going now." A bar would really alter the space. "I should have been notified."

"I don't want a bar and restaurant next to my house."

"I don't want the space activated."

But the speaker notes that she supports small business, so it's a shame she's asking for this one to go bankrupt

Next speaker: "my windows are about six feet away from the wall from the building". Moved to Outer Sunset because they never thought this business would change to a bar vs a liquor store or a corner store. They claim to want to make a community space, but didn't ask ThE cOmMuNiTy

Next speaker: own two wine bars in SF w best friend. Grew up here. Here to show support. Survival of small businesses should be a City priority. "It is a failure of the City" to let this one down. The place she grew up is slowly being destroyed.

"This is not a normal city to run a business." She just wants the Board to set a precedent. "We are the working class. We do what we do for love, not for stock options."

Next speaker has lived in Outer Sunset with family since 2003. Here because in 2015 he and a family member acquired a cafe and building permit. Suspended at request of Planning. Appeal finally approved in 2016. Cost them $70,000 in delays. They never recovered, closed in 2017.

Next speaker supports the project. Lives in a different neighborhood. Read article in Eater SF. This process only allows chain stores to thrive.

People wrote letters in 1 other case saying that a restaurant would be harmful to a playground, even though there were others nearby.

Mary McNamara, a "tenant organizer", wants to know the ramifications of this permit. "Are we taking housing out of the equation?"

Next speaker: lived a block away from 42nd/Irving since 1958. Has seen the Sunset grow in marvelous ways. It's active during the weekends. Has never met anyone from outside the city at restaurants. Supports the project.

"This is about the City making a mistake" in an inequitable process

Next speaker: has lived in SF for 15 years. Empathizes with the neighbors. His own neighborhood in SOMA had construction. "It stinks" but it happens. Has worked in restaurant industry for past 13 years. He would never do this. Starting a restaurant is scary because of the process

Next speaker: lives on 42nd Ave down the street. Asks for Zoning Administrator's decision to be upheld. She "finds it disrespectful and very unfriendly" to not listen to the neighbors [read: ask her for permission for the business to not go bankrupt]

"I feel we need to have a more detailed planning process."

You're here now. Haven't you heard how details there are?

Next speaker: has lived a block away for past 30 years. "We as neighbors will all be affected" by decision to open a restaurant."

"We have many restaurants."

Worries about encroachment onto quiet residential area.

Former business owner. Regulations are part of doing business.

Same speaker: And every business owner knows financial hardships are part of opening a business.

Speaker has lived near business for last 30 years. Supports Zoning Administrator. "We just don't know what this is. A bar? A restaurant? A retail place? We have no clue."

Next speaker: supports the project. This is a real San Franciscan project. And the appellants have done everything they were supposed to do. They no longer are earning income and have no idea where their next dollar should come from. Lives in the Richmond, busier than Sunset

Next speaker: homeowner on 42nd Ave. Frequents other businesses on the road. Walks his daughter to daycare. Dodges dog poop and broken bottles. And yet the city pushes out business owners. He's never met PCW owners but we should support them.

Also, there's a much better market nearby than the one which closed at the site

Speaker: has known owners for a long time. They love the Sunset. Monica's family has been here for generations. It's a beacon of hope against cynicism that a small business could open

Next speaker lives across the intersection, wants to restore right to him and his family. Feels sorry for the business owners. Law should be clarified.

I just spoke. I think I was audibly upset, but I got my point across. It's offensive that we should ask neighbors for a business to not go bankrupt.

Two speakers after me support the project.

Last speaker: Sunset resident supports the Zoning Administrator. Calls one of the owners for not working with the neighbors from the very start. "He kept his plans a secret." Says it's the project sponsor's responsibility to have lawyer and architect review the project

Just kill me now, Katherine Howard, Livable California member is speaking. Chose 42nd Ave for residential character. "Stunned" that a site "surrounded by homes" would serve alcohol. Many "working class families" are concerned.

Katherine: No matter how much people like the new business owners, people may not like the next owners. There are "many questions" about this project. It's "not fair"—we need plans and 311 process

Few more speakers. Next speaker lives in Outer Sunset and wants their good faith effort to be rewarded.

Next speaker was asked to review the law. He says the zoning law was not intended for the bar and restaurant use. Is this guy aware that two Supervisors wanted that this process to be easier?

Discussing "equitable estoppel" which must consider balance.

Last speaker supports Zoning Administrator's decision. He wants a process to resolve conflict in a way that brings "community concord." There's an age old adage: two wrongs don't make a right.

...And that's why we must force the business owners to go bankrupt.

Monica and Dennis are back. Everyone has acknowledges ambiguity in Planning Code. They asked Supervisors Tang and Mar. Their office asked Planning, who said the process would allow them to avoid this process. No neighborhood/merchant association to consult.

Dennis: looking at the Planning Code, you can see an opportunity to be more specific. They're now locked into a 1 year lease. They can't make it. They've spent over $125k of their own money on this business.

This is hard to hear.

Commissioner Tanner: what is the business?
Dennis: restaurant run by him and Monica. Hours from noon to 9. Wants to do "grandma food," simple and comfortable. Wife is a teacher, he's a restaurant manager.

Tanner: was project review meeting for a different concept?
Dennis: no, we just had no idea what the process was. Sup Mar connected him to Planning Dept to explain principal permitted businesses. Cancelled $1k review meeting because of Planning's advice. Won't serve hard liquor

Honda: how many sqft in structure?
A: 1500. 200 sqft walk-in to be retained.
Honda: people thought it was supposed to be wine bar/meeting place
A: description from architect at planning review meeting, concept was always set

Honda: why did you not meet with your neighbors?
A: they reached out to program director of local Playland at 43rd Ave Annex. Reaches out to Supervisor. Received an email from one neighbor saying construction was too loud.

Planning rep back to address. Project is for a restaurant. They probably weren't trying to skirt the code. They didn't go "planner shopping," which is a thing because of different interpretations of the same code [kill me now]

Planning does 311 notification for hundreds, if not thousands, of businesses per year. Planner going restrictions of LCU zoning.

Planner: LCU is only abandoned if the prior business has not used it for 3 years. Could business be usable for previous use?

I didn't catch the answer.

Santacana: has any proposed business other than a cannabis dispensary in this neighborhood been approved?
Planner: doesn't know, but it's uncommon

Santacana: if this business only served food and not alcohol, would that change the degree of non-conformity?
Planner: if they sold hats, they could be a bar. Not same standard for a pure non-conforming use.

I'm not sure I'm hearing this right. I'm so confused. Why are we here??

Cmsr Tanner: this is not changing the zoning, correct?
A: yes
Q: how does 311 notification work?
A: Planning decides whether the applicant should. These people did not try to skirt the rules.

Commissioner Swig: I heard in public comment a retrial of Supervisor Tang and Safai's legislation. Is an LCU included in the legislation they passed? "That seems to be THE issue."
Planner: Yes. The confusion is that certain restrictions apply to LCUs and it's not clear here

Swig: legislative aide is saying, this was our intent. We have to decide if the appellant eat misinformed. Supervisor would say, allowing this was our intent.
Planner: Zoning Administrator looked at intent and looked at legislative process, which said LCUs would be excluded.

Planner: Supervisors' comments weren't known to Zoning Administrator at the time. ZA couldn't ask them.

Swig: so we should tell Supervisors that they should not leave out any decision-making details into the planning process?
Planner: we have code cleanups for a reason. Before, exorcism was even in there. Parking requirements have been changed. Etc.

Commissioner Tanner: I've been a legislative aide and a planner. She doesn't know all the 100+ zoning districts

Commissioner Swig asking sponsors to come back

Swig: you could open until 9 but you could open until 10. If that true?
Dennis: we'd only open longer if we could make money and community supports
S: would you sell hard liquor if you had permit?
D: no

Tanner: estoppel was mentioned. Do legal issues bear on this?
Staff: explaining estoppel. Deals with vested rights being contrary too previously explained. [I'm not a lawyer. My summary is probably wrong.]

Santacana: I don't know the specific answer to whether they can change the interpretation of the law. We don't have to argue what the Supervisors meant. Everyone admits it was ambiguous, so the zoning decision was arbitrary.

Santacana: "I'm very sympathetic to the neighbors," but the Supervisors made their intention clear that 311 should not apply here. They got a majority vote at the Board of Supervisors here.

Santacana: even if there were 311 process, we could be here a year from now and would probably approve the process. Moving to grant the appeal, because Zoning Administrator acted arbitrarily.

Honda: "Wow." Agrees but on different ground. Mentioning dispensary which was shot down. There's now one open on Irving/22nd Ave.

"I believe the Planning Code is arbitrary and confusing."

"I believe 311 notification is not part of this process." In a dispute, Board of Appeals would still decide this.

He opened a business in the 80s. He was the only business with a neon sign. People were surprised that he could even be open.

"I remember when Devil's Teeth was a photomat."

Honda: only result of turning down this permit would be breaking these two particular people, and another bar/restaurant would move in instead. These people want to be part of the community.

Honda: any granted permit can be revoked if they're truly bad. The Zoning Administrator erred here.

Tanner: people need a clear playback for how to get from Point A to Point B. Planning Code is a "many, many volume tome." Appellants did the right thing. Other staffers could make a different decision. "Who bears the brunt of that mistake?"

If you ask Livable California...

Tanner: support Commissioner Santacana's motion.

Swig: "I guess I have kind of a blend" of reasons to support.

"There was an oopsie."

Now discussion of which reasoning to use in the motion to support #PalmCityWines

Santacana:

Staff confirming motion. The appeal for #PalmCityWines passes unanimously.

Owners for Palm City Wines are emotionally hugging their fellow audience members. This matter is now concluded and God help us.

Commissioner Santacana. My apologies.