Planning Commission backs modified ordinance letting some retailers use less-transparent roll-down gates with artwork, mailed-notice grandfathering

The San Francisco Planning Commission on Dec. 8 approved a modified planning-code amendment that will allow some retailers to install roll-down security gates that do not meet the city's 75% transparency standard, with new conditions to guard neighborhood character and reduce graffiti.

Supervisor Safae, who introduced the legislation, told the commission the measure arose from conversations with small-business owners who said transparent security systems had made them targets for burglary and vandalism. "They told us that having transparent security systems on the front subject them to a higher level of burglary and vandalism," Safae said, arguing the change balances public safety with design goals.

Planning staff recommended several modifications, including not creating a separate code for cannabis retailers, a three-year window for existing nonconforming gates to be legalized via permit, and preserving historic-review procedures for designated buildings. Staff's report also noted the Fire Department's concern about fully opaque gates as potential fire hazards and estimated an average building permit fee of about $950 on a $10,000 gate installation.

Commissioners debated competing priorities: some warned that allowing opaque gates could undermine commercial corridor vibrancy and encourage tagging, while others emphasized the operational and safety problems for cash-heavy businesses such as many cannabis shops. Commissioner Diamond urged including anti-graffiti measures; several commissioners suggested requiring local artwork on roll-down gates. "There had to be'an aesthetic enhancement'so it's not a clean wall," Supervisor Safae said.

The commission's final motion removed staff recommendation 1 (which would have avoided a separate standard for cannabis only), replaced it with an artwork requirement to deter tagging, set the three-year grandfathering window to begin from a city-mailed notice to potentially affected ground-floor retail establishments, retained staff recommendation 3 (clarifying that historic buildings remain subject to other review), and asked staff to develop objective design standards for gate mechanisms (the boxes or housings above roll-down gates).

Commissioner Moore was the lone vote against the measure, expressing concerns about enforcement and design effects on historic facades; the motion passed 5'to'1. The commission also directed staff to work with the Small Business Commission and other departments on outreach and to consider a tiered permitting fee or other measures to reduce costs for long-standing small businesses.

The ordinance as amended creates a time-limited amnesty pathway for qualifying existing gates and scope for future amendments; staff will prepare implementing language and procedures as the item moves to the Board of Supervisors.