Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for

Thursday, December 4th, 2025. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to,

we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right.

Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes, and when you have 30 seconds remaining,

you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached,

I will denounce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. There's a very

convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time

tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the

record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings.

And finally, I will remind members of the public that the Commission does not tolerate

any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take roll.

Commission President Soh. Present. Commission Vice President Moore. Here.

Commissioner Campbell. Here. Commissioner Imperial. Here. Commissioner McGarry.

and Commissioner Williams here we expect Commissioner Braun to be absent today

first on your agenda commissioners this consideration of items proposed for

continuance item 1 case number 2025 hyphen zero zero two two four two CUA at

85 Liberty Street conditional use authorization is proposed for indefinite

continuance further commissioners we received late requests under your

discretionary review calendar to continue item 13 case number 2007 point

zero one seven eight DRM at 2338 19th Avenue the mandatory discretionary

review to December 18th 2025 as well as item 14 case number 2023 hyphen zero

zero nine four six nine DRP at 77 Broad Street discretionary review to January

22nd, 2026.

I have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should accept public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance

calendar, only on the matter of continuance.

Oh, hi, Georgia Schutish.

I sent you all those emails about it.

I guess my only question is, is the right thing going to happen?

Like, there's tenants there.

So are they going to have to file SB 330?

I know, I mentioned, I know.

Ms. Schutich, on the matter of continuance.

I just want to know what's going to happen during the continuance.

That's my question.

I'll leave it at that.

I'll leave it at SB 330.

Thank you.

Last call for public comment on the continuance calendar.

Seeing none, public comment is closed,

and your continuance calendar is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Imperial.

Move to continue all items as proposed.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to continue items as proposed, Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President So.

Aye.

So move, Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0.

placing us under your consent calendar. The matter listed here under constitutes a consent calendar

and is considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote.

There will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff

so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item

at this or a future hearing.

Item 2, case number 2025-003269CND, for the property at 557 Fillmore Street.

This is a condominium conversion.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that this matter be removed from the consent calendar

and considered under the regular calendar.

You need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your consent calendar is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Moore?

Move to approve.

Second.

Thank you commissioners on that motion to approve item 2 Commissioner Campbell

I commission McGarry

Commissioner Williams I missionary Imperial I missioner Moore

And Commission President so I so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously six to zero

Commission matters item three land acknowledgement

The Rama to Shaloni acknowledgement

The Commission acknowledges that we are on unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatushaloni,

who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions,

the Ramatushaloni have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers.

of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory.

As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland.

We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives

of the Ramatushaloni community

and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

Item 4, consideration of adoption draft minutes

for November 13th and November 20th, 2025.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity

to address the commission on their minutes.

Again, you need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

Your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry?

Move to accept the minutes.

Second.

Thank you.

Commissioners, on that motion to adopt your minutes.

Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Soh?

Aye.

So move, Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously 6-0.

Item 5, Commission comments and questions.

If there are no comments or questions from members of the Commission, we can move on to Item 6.

For the 2026 hearing schedule, Commissioners, as part of your packet, we submitted a draft hearing schedule that essentially cancels 11 hearings based on holidays and fifth Thursdays.

I will note that we are recommending that in April, instead of canceling the fifth Thursday on April 30th,

you consider canceling the April 9th hearing for the Easter holiday.

Other than that, your summer hiatus and the July 2nd hearing for 4th of July

and the October 29th hearing for a fifth Thursday are all suggested,

as well as regular Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year holidays.

Before you act, we should take public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their 2026 hearing schedule.

Again, you need to come forward seeing none.

Public comment is closed, and now your hearing schedule is before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Moore.

The calendar looks pretty straightforward.

It's actually very accommodating and doesn't create any conflict, so I find it very positive.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams?

Yes.

Jonas, when was that email sent?

Unfortunately, I don't have it.

The email?

What email is that?

The agenda.

It has the dates.

It should have been part of your printed packet as well as part of the packet for the email that I forwarded as part of the agenda.

Okay.

Thank you.

Certainly as the year progresses, we will look to cancel hearings as needed if there are no items.

We have to adopt the calendar now, right?

Yeah.

Well, you could continue it to think about it if you'd like.

Or, yes, the idea is to adopt the hearing schedule

so people are aware which hearings will be canceled.

Yeah, I'm okay with the calendar as it is.

Yeah, if people think that needs to be continued to think it further,

I'm also open to that.

I mean, in case of emergencies, we can always reinstate hearings.

Okay, I can make a motion to adopt the current calendar.

I second it.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to adopt your 2026 hearing schedule as proposed, Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President Soh.

Aye.

So move, Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously six to zero.

So placing us under department matters for item seven, director's announcements.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Happy December.

So a couple of short announcements this week.

First, the family zoning plan on Monday moved through Land Use Committee and on Tuesday had its first reading at the Board of Supervisors.

Aaron Starr will give us more details on that.

But I did just want to take a moment to kind of note to you all that regardless of your feelings on or vote for the plan, I think we can all agree that staff really went above and beyond in their effort on this over the last couple of years and particularly in the last couple of months.

And it's been an incredible honor to kind of work with the team that brought that forward.

And I can really say it touched almost every corner of our department, whether it was environmental review, housing policy, thinking about tenants' rights, or even just the staffing and billing that happened behind the scenes to allow us to move that forward.

So it was a real honor.

Many of those folks are here today.

You've seen many of them over past hearings, but I'm incredibly proud of the team and just want to call out that milestone, that first milestone that moved forward.

Also want to take a moment just as the milestone continues to move forward, and we do have another vote at the Board of Supervisors and, of course, mayoral signing before anything is finished on the family zoning plan,

to set out an intention that I hope we, and by we I mean the broader we as well as the commission,

can use 2026 as a way to unify and move forward on the collective goals that we heard and all share,

regardless of how we felt about zoning specifics.

Stability for tenants, support for families, and affordability.

So I'm really looking forward for the opportunity to kind of collectively move forward on those goals that I know we share.

Budget season is upon us.

We obviously will be speaking to you in January about our budget.

I'll just note that we don't even as a department get budget instructions until next week.

So it'll be a bit of a scramble for us to pull together, you know, what our goals are

given what the budget realities will be for the department this year.

We have been told that this budget year will be worse than last year simply because of H.R.1

and the federal impacts to our budget.

I don't know what those will be and we look forward to talking to you about January, but just know it'll be

Fast-moving for us and for you. So I apologize for that

It's just the reality of the situation that we're in and then before we close. I do want to call out permit SF

we

September 2nd was day 200 of permit SF

We're coming up on in December day 300 of permit SF and so just another initiative

Partially of the planning department, but really cross departmental

that has created some really positive reforms that you all have helped us move forward here legislatively and process-wise.

So we're looking forward to the next 100-day milestone of that coming up in December as well.

Thank you.

Okay.

If there are no questions for the director, we can move on to item 8, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors.

There is no report from the Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday.

Good afternoon, Planning Commissioners.

Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs.

First on the land use agenda this week was Supervisor Melgar's ordinance that would amend the Planning Code

to allow the city to waive the inclusionary housing requirements for projects in areas outside the Priority Equity Geography's special use district.

Commissioners, you heard this item October 9th and adopted a recommendation of approval with modifications.

The first modification was to explicitly prohibit condominium conversions of the new units resulting from this proposed ordinance,

and the second was for the land dedication alternative, specify the minimum housing requirement for the dedicated land.

When Supervisor Melgar introduced the item, she confirmed that this was incorporating both of the Planning Commission's recommendations.

Additionally, she also introduced two additional amendments.

The first was to limit the eligibility of the alternative to projects within RH, RM, and NC districts with a height limit of 65 feet or less located within the Well Resources neighborhood.

Previously, there was no zoning or height qualifiers.

The second was to include the location and number of units approved under this program within the housing inventory report

report and require that the planning and or the rent board note the existence on a publicly

accessible website. There were no public comments or further discussions from the committee.

The item was amended and forwarded to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Next on the agenda was Supervisor Cheyenne Chen's ordinance that would add tenant protections to

residential demolitions and renovations. This item was continued from the November 17th hearing.

At this hearing, committee member Supervisor Cheyenne Chen introduced several amendments

to the definition in Section 317.

These included the residential definition proposed by the department

at the November 6 Planning Commission hearing, along with other changes

that closely mirror those presented at that hearing.

Additional items also include, first, extending the definition of existing occupant

to individuals displaced within the previous five years due to a serious or imminent hazard.

Second, a minor revision to one of the required findings.

And third, a new requirement for the Planning Department to submit a report on the impact of the ordinance within three years,

including recommended modifications as appropriate or needed.

Supervisor Melgar proposed an amendment requiring landlords withdrawing a unit under the LSAC

to disclose whether they intended to demolish the unit within the next five years.

There were approximately eight members of the public that provided comments, all expressing strong support for the ordinance.

The committee unanimously accepted all the amendments introduced and continued the ordinance to the December 8th hearing as the amendments were substantive.

Next, the committee heard Supervisor Mandelman's ordinance amending the central neighborhood's large residential SUD.

This item was continued from November 17th after being amended so that it could be synced up with the family zoning plan.

During the hearing, Supervisor Mandelman introduced the item and requested the committee forward this item to the board as a committee report alongside the family zoning package.

There were no public comments or further discussions from the committee.

The item was forwarded to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report.

And for the last time, the Land Use Committee considered the suite of ordinances that implements the mayor's family zoning plan.

This included Supervisor Mandelman's proposed amendments that this committee heard on November 20th.

To start off, the committee heard statements from the board president, Supervisor Mandelman

and Supervisor Sauter, who each described amendments they proposed to add to the planning

code ordinance.

Supervisor Sauter proposed a non-substantive amendment to his earlier commercial replacement

incentive in the local program, which had been adopted into the ordinance at a prior

hearing.

The amendment is intended to make the incentive easier to use and encourage project sponsors

to replace existing commercial uses.

It does this by clarifying the ability to split larger commercial spaces into multiple smaller ones.

President Mandelman described his amendments to prohibit lot mergers on sites with historic resources,

which the Planning Commission recommended approval of at the November 20th hearing.

He expressed his support for the Commission's recommended modifications,

which include, first, referencing the Planning Code's existing definition of historic buildings,

second, clarifying that the standards in the Housing Choice San Francisco program

shall prevail in any instance where the preservation design standards are inconsistent with modified standards of the local program,

and third, clarifying that the lot merger prohibition shall only apply to the housing development projects as defined in state law.

Afterwards, the committee heard a presentation from department staff regarding the Planning Commission's actions on Supervisor Mandelman's proposed lot merger prohibition.

This was followed by public comment where approximately 25 members of the public spoke.

Comments vary greatly between being opposed and supportive of the rezoning.

The committee then voted to include all of the proposed amendments into the respective files.

This then led Supervisor Mahmood motioning to table Mandelman's ordinance since those amendments had been added to the original file.

Supervisor Cheyenne Chen made a quick motion to send the suite of changes without recommendation.

This motion was rejected by two other committee members.

The motion was then made to forward all items to the board with a positive recommendation.

That motion passed on a two-to-one vote with Supervisor Cheyenne Chen voting against it.

The Planning Code zoning map and general plan amendments were all sent as a committee report,

while the Coastal Program amendment will be heard on December 9th for first read.

Then at the full board this week, Supervisor Walton's ordinance for the San Francisco Gateway SUD passed its second read.

Supervisor Mandelman's ordinance that would amend the central neighborhood's large residence SUD passed its first read.

And lastly, but certainly not least, the board passed on first reading the general plan, zoning map, and planning code amendments related to the mayor's family zoning plan.

There was much discussion on this issue, with most supervisors weighing in on the proposed amendments.

Not all commenters recognize Supervisor Melgar as having done an exemplary job moving this massive change to San Francisco zoning laws through the committee process.

After most of the supervisors had spoken, Supervisor Melgar addressed the comments from the dissenting supervisors point by point,

providing a thorough and tough rebuttal to critics of the plan.

She defended the amendment process and expressed disappointment that even though many of the Supervisor Chan and Chen's amendments were added to the ordinance,

they still refused to support the plan.

Supervisor Connie Chan proposed a last-minute amendment, second by Supervisor Walton,

that would have exempted all rent-controlled housing from the local program.

Currently, residential developments with three or more rent-controlled units are exempt.

The reason for this threshold is because some single-family homes have UDUs making both units subject to rent control.

Supervisor Connie Chan's amendments would have reduced the capacity provided by the rezoning,

which several members of the board cited as reasons they opposed the amendment.

Those in support were seeking to protect every rent-controlled unit.

However, the amendment would not have prohibited the demolition of rent-controlled units.

it would have only exempted them from the local program.

When the votes came, Supervisor Connie Chan's amendment failed 7-4.

It was Supervisors Walton, Chan, Chin, and Fielder voting for the amendments.

The same vote split happened when the whole package came up for a vote,

meaning that Supervisors Mandelman, Melgar, Dorsey, Sauter, Mambood, Wong, and Cheryl

all voted in favor of the mayor's family zoning plan.

And that's all I have for you today. Happy to answer any questions if you haven't.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners, seeing no questions for Mr. Starr, we can move on to general public

comment.

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the

public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission, except agenda

items.

With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded

when the item is reached in the meeting.

When the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved

to the end of the agenda.

Oh, hello again.

Good afternoon, Georgia Schutish.

I don't know if you all get the Wall Street Journal, but this article was in there yesterday in the second section about New York City offices becoming apartments.

And it has a very interesting diagram about how these large floor plates can be broken up and used.

Actually, well, I shouldn't say that because Gensler is doing one, but anyway.

But I'm sure the architects on the commission will find this interesting as well as all of you.

I found it interesting.

and the staff. And I realized while I was sitting there, it maybe has

pertinence for not just the rezoning, but SB

72. Anyway, so here's the article for you, and hopefully someone

will make copies. Thank you.

Good afternoon,

Commissioners. Tom Radulovich with Livable City. I'm here to talk about

of state law, which I think you're in danger of not complying with. It's SB 1425. It was passed

in 2022. It requires that jurisdictions in California update their open space elements

to further social, economic, racial equity, climate resilience, and rewilding opportunities.

The deadline is January 1st, 2026, so you've got a few weeks to update your general plan,

but something tells me, since you haven't started, that you're not going to do this.

So I just really wanted to emphasize that this is important.

You probably remember the environmental justice analysis that was done by the department a few years ago

that shows some huge disparities among neighborhoods in San Francisco in terms of environmental hazards that they face.

A lot of that is our transportation choices.

A lot of those impacts are noise, pollution, et cetera, from automobiles.

but a lot of it has to do with flood hazards.

It has to do with lack of open space,

has to do with lack of street greening, et cetera.

These things all shorten people's lives, right?

So sometimes there's a saying in public health

that zip code is destiny,

at least in terms of longevity,

that you can have variations between zip codes

of up to 10 years in terms of life expectancy.

A lot of those are environmental factors.

Some are related, of course, to poverty,

access to healthcare,

But there's a lot we can do in the environment.

And I know the vibe in City Hall these days is very much deregulation, very much laissez-faire.

We don't need planning.

The market will take care of things.

But there are certain things that will not happen unless we plan for them as a city.

One of them is open space networks, public spaces, equity, climate resilience, flood hazard mitigation, those sorts of things.

So I'd really urge you to take this law seriously.

It just bothers me that we're the laggards, right?

We should be leaders in environmental justice.

We should be leaders in biodiversity protection and sustainability.

And the fact that I don't think anyone's ever talked to you about this law, that there's

no plan to comply with it, just is really bothersome.

And hopefully it bothers you.

And you will do something about it in the coming year.

As you're discussing the work plan for the department.

I mean, no, it's not the housing element.

No one's holding a gun to your head.

No one's going to take away your ability to plan if you don't do this, right?

You're just going to miss all these opportunities to advance health, to advance equity, to advance

sustainability and livability in the city if you don't plan.

So please plan and let us know how you're going to comply with SB 1425.

Thank you.

Okay.

Last call for general public comment.

Again, you need to come forward.

Seeing none, general public comment is closed.

and we can move on to your regular calendar, Commissioners, for item 9,

the SB 79 and state legislation update informational presentation.

Commissioners, maybe before Lisa gets started too,

I want to note that we're going to have a number of presenters on this item.

and one of our staff members has not presented to you before so I wanted to take an opportunity to

introduce Sarah Richardson who's sitting in the front row who you might have seen as part of our

housing work. Sarah joined the citywide planning division in 2023. She focuses on housing and

resilience. Her most recent projects include the Yosemite Slough Neighborhood Adaptation Strategy

which we are finishing up and incredibly proud of, leading the planning department's work on the citywide climate action plan,

and her work on the family zoning plan, where she led racial and social equity analysis

and identified strategies to support small businesses, among a whole bunch of other things.

Sarah attended UC Berkeley for her undergraduate degree and earned master's degrees in both public health

and urban planning and policy from Tulane University and the University of Illinois at Chicago.

So we're really glad to have her.

Thanks, Sarah.

And thank you, Lisa, for letting me slip that in.

No, it's great.

Can I get the slide?

I think the slides are up on the laptop.

Perfect.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Nice to be here with you.

Lisa Gluckstein, Planning Department legislative staff.

Today, we'll be presenting an update on key state legislation from 2025.

And while we don't have time to cover everything that passed on the housing and planning fronts during this year's session,

we will be focusing on several new laws that will impact San Francisco's planning and permitting processes.

As always, we're happy to address specific questions at the end or via follow-up conversations with you all.

Sorry, I can't scroll.

Give me one second.

There we go.

Sorry about that.

So this year, we saw a few major trends.

As you may or may not have heard, there were significant sequin housing reforms that were

passed in a rather unconventional way mid-year through budget trailer bills, which immediately

went into effect upon passage. Second, SB 79 emerged as the most impactful and high-profile

housing bill in many ways of the regular session, and we'll provide plenty of context on that later.

There's a continued emphasis on strengthening enforcement mechanisms, and as somewhat of a

departure from years past, we did see modest limitations placed on state density bonus law.

Well, as Sarah mentioned, we will cover key areas by topic, and I'll have many friends

helping me out with this presentation.

I'll cover housing enforcement and building permitting bills.

Kate Connor will cover most housing bills.

Lisa Gibson will cover changes to CEQA, and Sarah Richardson will cover SB79.

So to talk a little bit about some of the changes to enforcement that passed this year,

AB 712, which was authored by Assemblymember Wicks, allows housing developers to recover

attorney's fees and to impose financial penalties on local agencies that violate housing laws.

It also extends the statute of limitations and prohibits indemnification clauses that shield public agencies from liability.

SB 786 requires HCD to review local jurisdictions for compliance when they miss deadlines for housing element implementation indicated in their housing element.

It also extends some timelines for rezoning under court order and makes general plan compliance orders immediately appealable.

SB 808 creates strict judicial timelines for housing permit denials challenged by an applicant, the attorney general, or HCD.

And that means that the maximum timeline for such challenges is reduced to 75 days.

and while this isn't directly within planning's purview

oh i think i missed a slide sorry

there we go um there were several changes that targeted building permits and i thought it would

be relevant for you all to know about those since it impacts project approvals.

So AB 253 allows third parties to conduct plan checks if local agencies' own plan review

would exceed 30 business days.

Cities must report on the permits, whether they use the public agency's permit review

or third-party permit reviews in their annual housing element progress reports.

Second, and somewhat relatedly, AB 1308 mandates that inspections for small residential projects, meaning projects of 1 to 10 units, must occur within 10 business days of notice.

And missing this deadline is treated as a violation of the Housing Accountability Act.

So it forces local jurisdictions to inspect and potentially clear for occupancy small residential projects much faster.

AB 920 requires large cities to create a centralized digital permitting portal by 2028 for housing applications.

And the city, as a note, the city is currently pursuing something that would fall within these bounds via Permit SF and their contract with OpenGov.

And then lastly, AB 130, which was one of the budget trailer bills that I mentioned, freezes local building code changes that make building codes more restrictive when it comes to housing until 2031, unless it's justified by a few specific criteria that impact emergency health or safety.

And this is a response to the LA fires in Altadena and the Palisades.

happy to take any questions on those specifics if and at the end otherwise I'm going to hand it over

to Kate Connor to speak to other housing bills thanks thanks Lisa hi everyone Kate Connor

planning department staff there are three bills that address non-residential uses and housing

development projects. Many of these bills were influenced after the approval of a project in San

Diego that used state density bonus law to entitle a mixed-use building that had hotel.

So first up is AB 838. This excludes projects with hotel uses from the Housing Accountability

Act protections. As a reminder, the Housing Accountability Act limits a jurisdiction's

ability to deny or reduce the density of housing development projects. So this means that a mixed

use project that contains hotel would not have the same protections under the HAA, but this would

only apply to the hotel portion of the project. Next is AB 87, and basically this states that

local governments are not required to grant either incentives or concessions under state density

bonus law that enable the construction of hotel uses. And then finally we have SB 92 and this

caps commercial floor area ratio at 2.5 times what the base FAR is for SDB projects. So basically

this is kind of providing a cap on that non-residential FAR limits.

so next we have assembly bill 507 which does become operative in july of 2026 so we do have

a little bit more time ab 507 creates a streamlined ministerial approval process for

adaptive reuse projects and these are projects that are converting existing buildings into

residential or mixed-use developments qualifying projects receive a streamlined ministerial review

not subject to discretionary entitlements or CEQA.

There is also affordability requirements that are similar to AB 2011,

so units have to be provided on site.

Projects involving historic buildings must comply with very specific standards.

The bill also includes impact fee exemptions,

and projects must adhere to specific labor standards,

which are a little bit stricter than some of the other ministerial programs.

And then finally, local governments cannot impose any design standards that require the alteration of the existing building.

Good afternoon.

Lisa Gibson, another Lisa G.

I will briefly cover some of the provisions of this year's budget trailer bills that pertain to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.

AB 130 and SB 131 went into effect on July 1, immediately after signing by the governor.

The bills enact significant changes to CEQA, including new statutory exemptions.

I'm going to highlight three key ones.

AB 130 exempts certain urban infill housing projects from CEQA, with no wage standard requirements for projects up to 85 feet except 100% affordable.

The new standard statutory exemption is similar to but generally broader than the Class 32 categorical exemption.

Projects qualifying for this exemption have to be consistent with the general plan and zoning and must be approved or disapproved within 30 days from the conclusion of the required tribal consultation.

SB 131 creates a new type of CEQA streamlining, the so-called near-miss exemption.

This constrains environmental review for housing projects that narrowly fail to qualify for a CEQA exemption.

CEQA review for such projects is now limited to the environmental effects caused by the condition that kicked the project out of a different type of exemption.

Finally, SB 131 exempts from CEQA local rezoning actions that implement an approved housing element.

These exemptions do have requirements that limit their applicability.

For example, the infill exemption prohibits demolition of historic structures

and has environmental site criteria that are similar to ministerial housing streamlining laws.

Also, the rezoning exemption doesn't apply to a rezoning that would allow for construction to occur

on sites that are defined as natural and protected lands, which includes certain hazardous waste sites.

However, all of these have the big advantage that statutory exemptions are not disqualified for the exceptions that apply to categorical exemptions,

such as unusual circumstances, and they have a more favorable legal standard of review.

So they do provide new pathways for a streamlined CEQA review that will save time and money for eligible projects.

Thank you.

Hi, Sarah Richardson.

and I will cover SB 79. Senate Bill 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act,

goes into effect on July 1, 2026. It establishes minimum housing density and building height

zoning provisions within one-half mile around certain transit stops. The types of stops are

divided into two tiers, which include in Tier 1, heavy rail stations like BART and Caltrain,

and in Tier 2, light rail stations like Muni Metro and bus stops for frequent buses operating in dedicated transit lanes like those on Van Ness and Geary.

You can see the locations of the qualifying transit stations and the SB 79 geographies on the map here.

The law also provides jurisdictions with some time for implementation by allowing for near-term exemptions for parcels that meet certain conditions, but those expire in 2032.

Additionally, SB 79 allows for a locally adopted alternative plan that meets the transit-oriented housing capacity goals of the law in place of SB 79's uniform densities and heights.

After all of the work that we've done on the family zoning plan, this is what we intend to pursue.

Here you can see the SB 79 allowed densities and heights.

Around each Tier 1 and Tier 2 stop, there are three concentric radii measured as the crow flies,

to which the zoning provisions apply, including within 200 feet of a stop,

within one quarter mile of a stop, and within one half mile of a stop.

Heights range from five stories to nine stories closer to the stops,

and densities range from 80 to 160 units per acre.

Take note that many of the larger changes would be in residential areas.

For reference, within the family zoning plan area, SB 79 would permit greater height than the family zoning plan allows on 57,000 parcels.

The law permits some parcel exemptions until 2032.

They include if the zoning of that parcel allows at least 50% of the SB 79 density, if the parcel is in an area that is vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise, if it's in an area identified as low resource by the state, or if the site was listed on our local historic register as of January 1, 2025.

5. Additionally, permanent exemptions are allowed for any area that is considered an industrial

employment hub as defined in the legislation and for parcels that are more than a mile walk to a

transit stop. Assuming the adoption of the family zoning plan, the parcels in orange all outside of

the family zoning plan area are the ones that would likely not qualify for the near-term exemptions,

though a small number of these may qualify for the permanent exemptions like being more than a mile

walk to the nearest transit stop. In place of the uniform zoning requirements under SB 79,

the legislation allows jurisdictions to create and adopt an alternative plan that meets specific

requirements. The most notable are that the total net capacity of the local zoning must be equal to

or greater than under SB 79 within the SB 79 geographies, and that the zoning on all parcels

in these areas allows at least 50% of SB 79 densities. First, the total net capacity of the

family zoning plan area is greater than the SB 79 capacity in SB 79 geographies, and all parcels

in the family zoning plan area meet the minimum density requirement for an alternative plan.

this map shows in orange which parcels outside that area would be subject to planning code

changes to allow modest additional density this map differs from the previous map and that the

near-term exemptions most notably for low resource areas have been removed so there are more sites

particularly on the east and south sides of the city and while the alternative plan is the only

option after 2032 one year after our next housing element is due it can be adopted earlier

if the city would like to pursue any temporary or permanent exemptions or an alternative plan

then we must prepare and adopt a local implementation ordinance the planning

department recommends preparing a compliant local implementation ordinance for commission

and and board approval before july 2026 that identifies permanent and near-term site exemptions

and outlines San Francisco's alternative plan.

The planning department must provide HCD the ordinance before it goes up for local adoption,

and then after local adoption, HCD has up to 120 days to review it.

Planning recommends starting this process early in 2026 to make sure that there is sufficient time

for both our local process and HCD review prior to July 1st.

Additionally, the legislation states that MTC-ABAG must publish a final map of stations

and station area geographies.

So if these are different from what we used for our analyses,

then we'll need to update our analyses accordingly.

And that's it.

Okay, does that conclude the entire staff presentation?

It does, yes.

Thank you.

Happy to take any questions.

With that, we should open up public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity

to address the commission on this matter.

Again, you need to come forward.

Last call.

I just mentioned it to Sarah before, but I'm hoping that the maps, when they come out,

are not as fuzzy as they are now.

When you go like that on your iPad, you can't read the street name.

You can't distinguish the lots.

And I think if it's got to be done between now and July, hopefully in January or February,

the maps will be easy to understand what lots are affected by SB 79 thank you

final last call for public comment seeing none public comment is closed

this informational matters now before you commissioners

Commissioner Imbiria thank you all for the presentation and I do have questions

in terms of the maps and the ones that were the less than 50% gross unit.

So it sounds like there will be some form of analysis on what are these parcels

or what these parcels look like.

Is there going to be a plan to do that?

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Joshua Switzky with planning staff.

Yes, I mean, the maps already reflect an analysis of the zoning and a comparison to SB79,

and we will certainly provide a more in-depth rundown of what all these parcels are,

what their zoning is, what the delta is between what the zoning allows

and what the 50% would require, and we'll provide that full rundown

as we get into the process of bringing things forward to you.

And that will also be interlayered with the MTC plan, or not MTC, is it MTC that also providing the transportation layout?

Right. So the mapping that we've done is based on our data of the eligible transit stops based on our interpretation of the bill, as well as the data we have on all of these transit stops.

And some of this data does come from previously published maps that MTC has published on similar types of transit station tiering.

The MTC has a transit-oriented communities policy, the TOC policy.

We've talked about it a bit during the family zoning plan process.

That uses a similar universe of stations, BART stations, Caltrain stations, et cetera.

So we've used those published geographies.

There are some nuanced differences between their mapping for that purpose and what SB 79 requires.

The SB 79 geographies, as they're mapped per the bill, are a, it's required to map these distances, the walking distance from every pedestrian access point to these stations.

So for some of these stations, just take a downtown BART station, for instance, or a Muni Metro station, there are multiple pedestrian access points for each of these stations.

every stairwell and elevator is a separate access point.

And so each of these technically requires a separate radii drawn around them,

as opposed to one clean circle for the entire station, which is what MTC has previously mapped.

So we've used the single radius for each station,

so there will be some nuanced differences once MTC publishes the map.

We're pretty confident that those differences are at the margins, they're fairly nuanced,

that the analysis that we've provided to date shouldn't fundamentally change

once those final maps are published,

but there will be some very subtle differences, I think,

once MTC publishes the map.

I'll just note that that data, MTC,

is in the process of trying to figure out

where and how to get this data.

It doesn't necessarily readily exist

of where all these stations are.

So they're going through the process

of talking to all the transit agencies in the cities

because they have to do this for the entire region

to provide the data.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to see the maps where it describes about the parcels, what kind of buildings they are.

My understanding, the PDR and three-unit rent control buildings are exempt on SB79.

Is that correct?

Buildings that have three or more units of rent control are exempt.

Yes.

So, well, a project cannot use SB 79 on a site that has three or more units of rent-controlled housing.

We'll just put it that way.

Sites that are PDRs own are not necessarily automatically exempt from SB 79.

Rather, the city would have to proactively and affirmatively exempt eligible PDR areas as what Sarah described as the industrial employment hubs.

It's something the bill provides for. It says industrial areas of a certain size, certain minimum size where housing is not allowed, can be permanently exempted.

But the city would have to put that in its ordinance to exempt them.

And if we didn't do that, then they wouldn't necessarily be exempt.

I see. Okay, so that has to be part of the process.

And in terms of the by 2030, again, parcels in orange would need to rezone to allow at least 50% density.

So we're talking about, I guess, through the SB 79 has that kind of guidance in terms of how these densities would increase.

Well, that would be part of the kind of the conversation that will happen or the plan that will happen by July 2026.

We can get the slides up. So the map on the left, so SB 79 provides both density limits and height limits. So the map on the left are the density limits prescribed by SB 79. So these are the, as they're applied there, you can see. So every parcel has to provide for at least 50% of those numbers. So where it says 80 units per acre, those parcels have to allow at least 40 units per acre and so forth.

So the analysis on these later slides that have the orange parcels, we've done that analysis,

and we believe that those are the only parcels that don't currently allow at least 50% of these densities.

Okay.

And then, because the local implement, because another is the timeline.

In terms of the timeline for the local ordinance, is it the study that has to be done by July 2026,

or the alternative plan for those orange needs to happen?

Well, I mean, I think nothing is required to happen by the law.

The law goes into effect on July 1, 2026.

So if the city wants to not have SB 79 apply and wants to have its alternative plan and, you know, these other exemptions apply, then it's incumbent on the city to move quickly to pass an ordinance and get it reviewed by HCD by that date.

But theoretically, we could do it at any point after that as well.

Before 2032, that would be.

Or afterwards.

I mean, it's sort of up to the city to put something forward at whichever time.

I would suggest that, of course, again, I'm more proponent of committee engagement when it comes to these kind of conversations to really engage.

And if it's needed to be, you know, create more, you know, extension for that timeline.

I don't want us to stick on that July 2026 if it doesn't, you know, if we don't have that much of committee engagement.

Well, I think it depends on how the commission and the board feels about having SB 79 go into effect in these areas.

I think their supervisors and those communities may feel like they would prefer that the alternative plan was in place

and that SB 79 didn't come into effect on all of those orange parcels on July 1st.

But the conversation will start by January, I would assume.

Yeah.

Yeah, we've been briefing all the supervisors on the implications as part of this process.

I think we've gotten generally, if I could be so bold to say, general feedback,

that encouragement of yes, it would be a good thing for the city to move forward

with an alternative plan as expeditiously as possible

and see what we could do to, as a city as a whole, have an alternative plan in place of SB 79.

but ultimately it's up to the decision makers to decide.

Yeah, I understand.

And I'm thinking about the role of the Planning Commission on this.

July 2026, I'm not going to lie, sounds very fast to me.

And how is that in terms of presentation here in the Planning Commission

and also the committee involvement.

So that's what I want to emphasize is that really to start,

I mean, it sounds like a starting discussion with the Board of Supervisors members

and also the communities as part of it, of this orange parcel.

Yes, relatively immediately, because to make the, as Sarah mentioned,

HCD ultimately has 120 days to review.

I mean, I think we want to provide as much cushion as possible, theoretically,

so we would potentially bring things forward by the end of the first quarter

so that we provide that buffer.

And there will be, I'd like, is that something that the commission has to approve?

If there are planning code amendments associated, yes, for sure they would have to come to the planning commission.

In terms of the actual ordinance, I would think so.

I mean, we'd have to consult with the city attorneys and others.

Commissioner Impeor, maybe just to summarize some of what Josh was saying, too.

I think the way state law works is if we don't have those changes in place to accommodate, state law changes it their way for us, right?

That's kind of the way it works.

So I think when we talk about the near-term exemptions and meeting our interim 50% threshold on the few set of parcels that Sarah and Josh referenced in the map, most of those will be minor density changes, right?

Just it's our density might say it allows 100 units and to meet the SB 75 criteria, it needs to provide 110.

So those are the kind of tweaks that we'll be looking at and probably bringing forward to you in the near term.

And we do take your input about your statement about community input to heart.

However, I think in this narrow instance of meeting the near term threshold of July 26,

our focus is just going to be on understanding what does MTC say?

what are the small tweaks we need to do to make sure our plan moves forward and not the state's

plan and getting those forward. And there won't be a whole lot of back and forth to discuss about

that because we'll just be doing what we can to protect ourselves from the immediate impacts of

what SB 79 would otherwise impose. If that makes sense. And I'll just add to what Sarah just said.

I mean, the benefit of having done this family zoning plan is that the city as a whole

has the capacity, you know, the big test is does your local zoning have equivalent or greater

capacity than SB 79? And as a result of the family zoning plan, we can comfortably say that is true.

And so it's just these individual parcels and the rules that apply to them. And we're in a much,

frankly, in a much better position than a lot of other major cities. And we were in close contact

with our colleagues in Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, other cities that are scrambling.

because they would have to do much more significant rezonings across their city to be able to meet this test,

whereas we've just gone through this big process,

and we're fortunately well-positioned to move forward with this alternative plan in the near term.

Well, thank you.

I understand the process, and I understand that these are small parcels,

and I think for me as a commission it's understanding those parcels.

parcels. That's the most important thing for me in order to understand what we're trying to

achieve here. So thank you. Thank you. Director, you have further comments? Commissioner Moore?

Before hearing the very thoughtful presentation by all the multiple aspects that come together,

it is very confusing to stand on the outside and see how those two things potentially could

benefit each other. Mr. Schwitzke, if I understand you correctly, if you wouldn't mind answering

this question, in the end, since you created a family zoning plan that has more capacity,

you will be able, if I interpret this correctly, to composite the SB79 over the family zoning plan

and try to sort out where those objectives meet each other and where you potentially shift

certain density allocations based on the transit priority considerations of SB 79.

Is that a correct interpretation?

Yes, we've already run the analysis.

We did it over the last month or two as both the family zoning plan was going through its final stages

and after SB 79 was solidified and approved.

So it's a very complicated set of calculations with the massive spreadsheet

with 150,000 rows and dozens of columns and many calculations.

But yes, we've overlaid both the SB79 densities and heights

and all of those provisions, our own local zoning,

inclusive of the family zoning plan,

and we've calculated where all the differences are and what the totals are.

So we've run that analysis, and we will continue to refine it.

It would be actually interesting, at least for me,

particularly hearing people talking about the fuzziness

of when you try to overlay or understand maps with each other

to see the compositing in-life presentation on a large screen

so people really see the interactive potential benefits of both things working with each other.

One of the questions that is probably at this particular scale of presentation not possible

is to ask, does this affect upzoning in priority equity areas,

which has been a concern all along because priority equity areas are often located within the tier one of transit proximity, et cetera.

Are you asking, does SB 79 affect?

That's correct.

Yes, it does.

And we can certainly provide.

So we have to see upzoning in those areas.

Again, to clarify, and maybe, Josh, can you bring up the map that you had with that small sunset of orange parcels?

Actually, maybe I could also put on the overhead this other map.

We also published this fact sheet that's been on our webpage for the family zoning plan for some time

that actually has a couple additional maps on it that we didn't share in the presentation today.

So I'll just start with this.

This map is a map that shows the difference between the SB79 height limits

and our local zoning height limits, inclusive now that the family zoning plan has adopted.

And so everything that you see colored on this map in yellow and orange is where SB79 would allow higher height limits than our local zoning.

So when Sarah was talking about 57,000 parcels, that's what this is.

It's actually more than 57,000 parcels because it's also areas outside the family zoning plan area.

That is good to know, but if you keep that particular image static for a moment,

if you would overlay the boundaries of priority equity areas over that, many of them would fall into it.

Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

This upper map, this is not exactly the boundary of the priority equity geographies.

It's fairly similar.

This purple area are the low-income, or sorry, not the low-income, the low-resource tracks,

the state opportunity map low-resource tracks.

It's not exactly the same as the PEG, but it's somewhat similar.

So you can see these are the areas that the state considers low-resource.

it's somewhat similar. We can certainly overlay the PEG map with it as well. But you can see a

lot of the southeast part of the city is in those areas. I believe that fine-tuning will have to be

very sensitive about those areas in order not to burden the massive amount of upzoning into those

areas. I think the concerns of the community have been expressed pretty uniformly about need for

protection of those areas. And it's going to be a careful balancing act to hit the sweet spot,

by which the burden of SB 79 does not fall entirely into this area.

And as the director described, the zoning changes that would be needed to meet that

50% at a parcel level are minor changes. They're not going to be major density changes.

And so we will bring them forward and we'll talk about all the details.

I think it will be interesting. We'll begin generics here in a particular set,

you know when we don't. It will be very interesting of how you carry that forward, and I've all

trust that you would do that. On a completely different note, I'd like to know how SB79

potentially makes RENA cycle numbers irrelevant. We have a RENA cycle adjustment in 2026,

is that correct? Well, the next RENA cycle is our next housing element in 2031.

How ultimately do you see that we know cycles will remain relevant or will they ultimately be absorbed in proper response to the mandates in front of us?

Well, that's a good question.

The SB 79 actually explicitly directs HCD to figure out before the next housing element cycle how cities should account for SB 79 in their zoning capacity.

So over the next few years, HCD will have to figure out how we ought to account for this as part of our zone capacity.

Well, I think that is good to hear because many questioned as to whether or not that conversation was properly had before

and numbers that were given were relevant to what is really actually happening in certain communities.

Those are my questions, and I had a lot of others, but they really clarified themselves in an excellent presentation.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Just a couple comments.

What sticks out to me, looking at all the state bills, is they're very punitive.

And there's a lot of stick and no carrot, basically.

And what I mean by that is we're doing another upzoning.

with SB 79, and there's no affordable housing money attached.

There's no mention of affordable housing.

There's no mention of anything for low-income communities, for seniors.

And it's just a comment.

And to me, it just speaks to the people that are writing these bills, unfortunately, not prioritizing those communities.

And so, you know, I would say that it's kind of depressing, actually, to be here, sitting here,

and understanding that the great need for affordable housing, as it's implied in our housing element,

57% of all new housing should be affordable housing,

that none of this is going to be realized

or is attached to any of these new bills coming out.

So, you know, for me, that's something that stands out.

I have to mention it.

And so another thing that kind of stuck out to me

is how this new upzoning, how is our infrastructure?

How is it going to impact our city infrastructure?

How many more new units?

How many more...

How many more...

How many more...

How much more impacts is it going to have on our neighborhoods?

And so is there any kind of analysis?

I know that there's been, we just did the family zoning plan,

that there was a lot of analysis done there, but this is going to add more, if I'm not mistaken,

right, it's going to add more upzoning to what's already been done. So is there going to be an

additional analysis done for the new upzonings? Is that... Commissioner Williams, maybe to clarify,

and I think this relates to some of Commissioner Moore's points too, and I want to apologize

because SB 79 and how we comply with it, both near-term and long-term, is incredibly complex,

and I think it gets buried in some of the details here.

But the punchline and the response to your point, are we going to require more upzoning?

Pretty much no.

The real punchline here that staff is trying to get to is that because of the pending adoption of the family zoning plan,

The impacts of SB 79 on what will happen to San Francisco hereafter the adoption of the family zoning plan are minimal, incredibly minimal.

There are two things that are happening here, and I think this relates to Commissioner Moore's point.

With regard to near-term compliance, and we have two thresholds, right?

We have near-term compliance where our low resource areas are temporarily exempt.

So to Commissioner Moore's point about the priority equity geographies, and we're dealing with slightly different geographies but very close geographies, those are exempt.

With regard to long-term compliance, the way SB 79 is set up, it says if you have an alternative plan that gets you the same total housing capacity as what SB 79's map would get you,

and those other parcels are no less than 50% of the total density of what SB 79 would have told you your density has to be,

you are also exempt.

And so what the family zoning plan does is it basically meets that threshold

with the exception of that very small subset of orange parcels that we can bring back up to the map.

So I just want to be crystal clear about that because it is kind of confusing.

And I think you are right that for many communities, SB 79 is going to either impose or require cities to develop their own plan to upzone.

We have already done that through the family zoning plan.

So with that pending adoption, we're good is really the punchline that I want to make sure you guys understand.

Well, I appreciate that analysis.

I just think the public should understand that.

And so hopefully that message that you just eloquently gave is going to carry over, because there has been a lot of concern about the family zoning plan, as we all know.

And so, yeah.

Again, I just want to kind of bring up again that where's the money for affordable housing?

I mean, and I know we can't solve that here on this commission, but I think it's worth stating over.

Because what I see the state doing is, again, they're doing everything but actually funding the housing that we need most.

And so it's, I don't know what else to say, but to say it plainly.

And so I just want to make that point.

Thank you.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you for the briefing.

And Commissioner Moore, you have more?

Yes, I have one more question.

I had many, and as I was going through them, there's one that is kind of urgent.

Does a density bonus apply to SB79?

And does also density decontrol come into play?

Those are two tools which are very difficult and very hard to understand

when it comes to understanding projects three-dimensionally.

And those two things have been conceived as threats,

which people are very uncomfortable with.

So if SB 79 were to apply to any parcel, yes,

a project can use the state density bonus on top of what SB 79 allows for.

However, there are strict limits in SB 79 about how projects can use the state density bonus.

It does not require cities to approve projects that exceed the height limits of SB 79.

So a project could use a state density bonus, but they couldn't necessarily get more height out of it unless the city was amenable to it.

And in terms of density control, no, SB 79 does not provide explicitly for form-based zoning.

it provides for those specific density limits that are prescribed in the bill.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner McGarry.

I just have to go on record again.

SB 79 is not an option for San Francisco.

It shouldn't be an option.

And I have to applaud the department for the family zoning plan

and all the work they put into it.

Basically, it's a disagreement around the city,

and I think there's a serious misunderstanding

of just what the impacts are.

SB 79, you lose control.

Family zoning plan, the city took control.

The city not just took control, but in the future,

it will fan out housing right throughout the city,

whereas SB 79 would concentrate or allow that housing to be concentrated in certain parts of

the city, the certain parts of the city that we feel should not be impacted but have taken the

brunt of all housing in the last few years. So I live on the west side. I think the west side has

done literally nothing for the city and county of San Francisco to build new housing. I welcome new

housing on the west side. I've got neighbours who do and neighbours that don't. But I really have

to applaud the department and the city for all the work they've done because SB 79 is, there is

nothing but it's basically, it's do what you want, as opposed to control it, basically allow for

low-income housing to go on the west side for years it didn't you know there's there's a there's a

movie and this chambers is within that movie fault line regarding how the west side has done

absolutely nothing so the south needs a break and it's so dense right now there's there's nothing

there's nowhere left to go so uh one story the whole way up Geary street the infrastructure is

going in. It's hard, but there is a whole new source system and water system going down Geary

Street right now. And the city is preparing the infrastructure in the last few years for what is

coming. But the fact that we've done nothing for years has got us in the situation we are and the

deficit of that 82,000 units that have to be built. Everybody who comes here and says no, no, no,

another version of just saying no, but it's either a yes in my backyard or no in my backyard.

But at the end of the day, our hospitals are popping out kids. Those kids are getting older.

They're going through school. We are losing parents at middle school out of the city because

the middle schools are not that great. Or basically, they can't upgrade into that two-bedroom

apartment that should really be a three-and-a-half bedroom because they're basically living in a

shoebox. We either create a bigger shoebox or it stays the same. And the same right now is

unacceptable. The state has come in and said SB 79 is the law of the land if we do nothing.

And we've done something. And I would like to applaud the Planning Commission for everything

we've done. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Campbell? Thank you. Thank you for the presentation.

I think it does shine a light on just how much change is coming down from the state. I have a

very general high-level question, which I'm going to direct to you, Director, which is,

are there resources online available to the public or potential project sponsors to keep up with all

the SBs and the ABs coming down from the California legislature? Or do we see that being part of this

centralized digital portal that's being required from AB 920 as part of that kind of resource?

Thank you, Commissioner Campbell. I don't have a good answer for that. I think the short answer

is no. And I think Lisa Gluckstein will come up and talk a little bit. We've talked a lot

in the department about how the speed and magnitude of what comes from, you know, in state

law in the magnitude of ways that it touches planning, and you've heard a bunch of them today,

is a lot. And we have staff full-time assigned to this, and we still miss things.

So we've been talking about how to do better.

Lisa, you want to?

Yeah, I believe this 2024-2025 session, there were 60 housing-related bills alone.

And that doesn't include all the other planning-related bills that just don't have anything to do with housing.

And so it's hard for us to keep track of, let alone you all who don't do this every day.

So what we can do is circulate.

There are some end-of-year, end-of-session summaries that get produced by other organizations that we could circulate to you all.

I can try to pull some of the most helpful ones if that's of interest.

And, of course, if you have specific questions, you're welcome to ask them of me or my colleagues.

But we're trying to figure out how we can be a little bit more comprehensive in how we're tracking everything and be both proactive about responding to changes.

It's a constant struggle on the department side, just tracking legislation as it gets introduced and then changed, and it might get gutted and amended to something entirely different.

And so it's very breakneck at the state level, and there are flurries of activity that make it very hard to track.

But we endeavor to keep you apprised of the major things that are happening, and we can try to at least circulate some summaries for this session.

And then as the next session unfolds, let's just keep thinking about how we can be in better contact around things.

You know, we don't want to inform you of things that ultimately end up changing because that often happens and we don't want to waste folks' time.

But we are certainly open to input as to how to do a better job.

Yeah, I just can't help but wonder if this centralized digital portal that we're required to create, especially in light of all the advancements in AI, if we could really future-proof that so that it's linked up with all the changes live that are happening at the state level.

It's funny you mention that.

I mean, the digital portal is more about applications for projects as opposed to tracking codes.

But there are several efforts that I've heard about in recent weeks around using, you know, agentic AI to track state legislation and square that with local codes and understand where there are gaps or opportunities.

I think it's naive to think that that's going to solve all our problems.

but we are certainly looking at ways that we can use some of those large language models to

to conduct more review and and keep closer tabs on what's happening at the state so stay tuned for

more thank you i'd like to take this moment to really appreciate our planning staff while i

remember there are a few public comments and also some of my fellow commissioner requested

to hear more about SB 79 just two months ago

when we're in the midst of also looking into

a deep dive into family zoning plan.

And I know that you all are really busy.

There's a lot of things to do

and a lot of things to digest all around.

Our department is not one of the largest departments

with thousands of staff.

So I really want to take a moment to thank you,

thank everybody and thank you for all my commissioners

doing this. I am really proud of San Francisco

Planning Commission and Department because it's proud for me

to say that not too many planning commission in our Northern

California does these kind of presentations and also

speak eloquently and honestly about this thing is just

constantly evolving and you have to track

the balance of confusing all of us more or try to wait until it's kind of solidified a little bit

more to let us know. So I really appreciate you taking that courage to do that because

demystifying some of the information is helpful. So you took the risk to get into further confusion

or help us to demystify it and also help us to make sure that we restore transparency

and understanding to the public.

So I'm really happy, really appreciate you do that.

And I think that some of my commissioner made really good relevant points.

Let's not forgotten, housing is very important.

We have not done much of anything in the past decades, even prior to my child was born.

So now this is, I'm just genuinely really optimistic about the future of San Francisco.

Not only it's very important to be able to carve out opportunity for deeply affordable housing,

but it's also very important to enable housing for all different types,

the missing middle, workforce housing, and senior and assisted living.

and very importantly also continue to not let our guard off of tenant's protections.

So now we're collaborating or continue to follow and are chasing after MTC

for all the amazing multimodal transportation enhancement with infrastructure.

So I just look forward to see what we can do in the next six months

to continue to be more informed to our general public.

So thank you for everybody.

I missed saying thank you for you all and Thanksgiving,

so this is my thank you speech.

So I think we're ready to the next item.

Thank you, Jonas.

Very good, Commissioners.

It'll place us on item 10 for case number 2025-004714 GPR

for the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan amendments

enabling the Mission Bay South Block 4E project.

These are general plan conformity findings.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Matt Snyder of Department Staff.

Before you today are amendments to the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Plan,

and this is an association with a 100% affordable housing project on Mission Bay Block 4E.

This is one of the last vacant lots in Mission Bay.

For today's presentation, I'm joined by Philip Wong of the Office of Community and Investment

and Infrastructure.

And just right after giving you a little bit of context, I'm going to hone in on the actual

action that is before you, and then I'm going to turn it over to Philip, who's going to

dig a little bit more deeply into Mission Bay South and Block 4E.

And just as a quick orientation, Mission Bay South is the south portion of the Mission

Bay neighborhood south of Mission Creek as a redevelopment project area. It is under the

jurisdiction of OCII, who has full jurisdiction over land use entitlements. Block 4E, as I mentioned,

is one of two of the last vacant parcels. It is located on Third Street. It's a one-acre site,

just kitty corner from the Mission Rock development site.

And so the project itself, Mission Bay South Block 4E, is looking to have a 100% affordable housing project that will be constructed in two buildings in two phases.

Phase 1 on the south side of the parcel or on the left side of the image on the screen would include 165 units in a structure that would have a tower element that would reach 160 feet.

Phase 2 would be built later.

It would include 233 units. It would be 225 feet tall.

Both faces look to provide affordability at a wide range of AMIs,

with a significant number of units reserved for families that had experienced homelessness

and a large percentage of family-sized units.

It will feature off-street parking for both vehicles and bikes

and would include a significant amount of amenities and on-site services for its residents.

So currently Mission Bay South redevelopment plan, which of course provides the broad parameters

for the development in Mission Bay, caps the number of units across the plan to 3,440 units

and the height of buildings to 160 feet. The phase two portion of the project would be above this cap

and its proposed heights would be above the 160-foot height limit.

The proposed amendments would increase the cap by 250 units

and enable a structure on the north side of the site to reach 250 feet.

The Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure

recently took several actions to approve the project.

So one of them was the redevelopment plan amendments

that we'll talk a little bit more about what we just talked about.

Other actions include amendments to the Mission Bay South

designed for development that essentially made some tweaks

in terms of street wall height requirements,

tower separation requirements.

They also made amendments to their owner participation agreement,

which kind of acts as their DA.

It had a similar cap that capped the number of affordable units

that was raised so they could do phase two.

And then they approved the projects themselves through approval of conceptual schematic design for both sides of the project.

So the action before you, our role is a little bit more constrained but very important.

When we have amendments to redevelopment plans, we need to make consistency findings with the general plan.

and staff is recommending as provided in the draft motion before you that you do find these

amendments consistent with the general plan, most specifically with our recently updated

housing element that is, of course, is centered on racial and social equity, along with this

providing affordable housing at various AMIs and setting aside the units for homeless families.

The project has targeted holders of certificates of a preference, or COPs, both in the project's

programming and design, and is prioritizing the units for COP holders.

COPs, as you know, are documents provided to those that were negatively impacted by

previous redevelopment agency activities, such as the community in the Fillmore.

Another point of consistency is the project's location in Mission Bay, which, of course,

is a vibrant, amenity-rich neighborhood with great access to transit, and especially being

right on the 3rd Street and the unit's rapid transit network.

Again, staff is recommending that you do find these amendments consistent with our general plan

and would recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors.

With that, this concludes my portion of the presentation.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

And again, Philip Wong is here from OCII to further the...

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Matt.

I think especially for your dedication and precision when it comes to advancing a project

as incredible as Mission Bay South Block 4 East and 100% affordable project, but also

the number of affordable housing projects that you've supported.

So thank you, Matt.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Philip Wong with the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure, OCI Housing.

And I'm going to give a little bit more detail on the Block 4 East project, although Matt has done an incredible job describing it.

So the Mission Bay South project area where Block 4 East is was established in 1998.

It was established to address blight but also expand affordable housing opportunities.

and it was always envisioned as a mixed income and mixed use community.

And Block 4 East is one of two remaining affordable housing sites

and we think it's going to be a fantastic addition.

As Matt mentioned, the owner participation agreement

caps the number of affordable housing units at 1,218

of which 1,053 have been completed.

The remaining 165 are going to be built in phase one of this project.

And then in terms of history for the project, it's been ongoing for many years.

I joined OCII two years ago, approximately when the request for qualifications went out in November of 2023.

And since then, we've brought on an incredible development team.

It's Curtis Development and Babu Senior Services.

They're the co-developers.

We're joined today by the incredible Charmaine Curtis of Curtis Development, who also developed 400 China Basin, a 100% affordable homeownership project.

Pretty close to 4 East.

And then we have Yaku Eskew of Y Studio.

They're our lead architect.

Perry Architects is the associate architect.

GLS Landscape Architecture is the landscape architect.

And again, as Matt mentioned, we had an incredible set of major approvals that was provided by the OCI Commission last month on November 18th.

of the commissioners present,

they unanimously provided major approvals.

So that was the basic concept and schematic design approvals.

And then all of the specific technical amendments

to plan documents,

including the redevelopment plan amendment

to facilitate the phase two project,

both projects, but specifically the phase two project

for the redevelopment plan amendment.

And this is a slide that's an overview

of the development program.

It's quite ambitious.

Again, 100% affordable, providing 398 units across the site.

80 of those units are going to be set aside for families experiencing homelessness,

and that will be subsidized by the city's local operating subsidy program.

We're also providing quite a large range of incomes, from 30% to 95% area median income.

That's to particularly accommodate our priority certificate of preference holder community, as Matt mentioned, those that were affected by formal redevelopment actions.

And the unit mix, again, is focused on family-size units.

We have 25% one-bedroom units, approximately 50% two-bedroom, 25% three-bedroom, and notably in Phase 2, we'll have five four-bedroom units and two five-bedroom units.

And then in phase one, we're going to have a modestly sized approximately 1,200 square foot community serving commercial space that's going to have tentatively a youth or senior service focus.

And the project is also going to be providing on-site parking, 88 parking spaces across the site and secured bicycle parking spaces.

But 4East is a transit-oriented development.

So we have multiple modes of transportation available, not just the on-site parking that I mentioned.

It's close to regional transit.

Like the T3rd, Mission Rocks stop, is right adjacent to the project.

Ferry landing.

We have about half a mile away is Caltrain.

And we have lots of, although the map said it was a low resource area, we think it's quite resource rich.

With Chase Center down the way on 3rd Street.

And also, I want to note Mission Bay School, which is opening up in August of next year, which is quite exciting.

This slide is an overview of the environmental review that was conducted with Assembly Bill 1449, which went into effect in January of 2024.

It allows an exemption for 100% affordable projects, including those with plan amendments from CEQA.

And this slide outlines all of the exemption criteria, and OCI has confirmed that based off this exemption criteria, Block 4 East is exempt from CEQA.

So this is a beautiful slide that shows where Block 4 East is situated within a very complete neighborhood,

and we think that Block 4 East will make that neighborhood even more complete.

And I'm going to turn it over, if I can, to a very talented architect, Yaku Askew,

to take us through a design overview.

Thank you, Philip. Yaku Askew, principal at YA Studio.

As mentioned, this is a joint venture between ourselves and Perry Architects.

Excited to walk through some of the elements of the design for you.

We're going to have a short amount of time, but available for questions as well.

This is an illustrative site plan of the ground floor.

Things to note are we really took a lot of attention to activating 3rd Street,

providing a lot of the sort of active uses along there,

really helping to reinforce the pedestrian experience

and really tucked all the parking and loading and sort of services

as far as into the center of the building as we could.

Here are a couple of street views of the two entries.

So one located on the north on Parcel 2 on the right,

and the one on the left is Phase 1 orienting towards the south.

Again, just very inviting entries and lobby sequences

to really activate 3rd Street and the corners of China Basin and Mission Rock.

And this is just a glimpse of some of the design elements that we included into the project.

Really looking at both history and texture and articulation to emphasize the design of the building.

I wanted to look at cost-effective but also really durable rich materials that provide a lot of shadow, a lot of depth, a lot of texture, and a lot of variety along the street face.

So you can see here some of the inspiration that we took for the design.

design. And then an illustration of phase one. So this is looking from the south

towards the north, towards the northwest. And so this is phase one here in the

foreground, phase two rising behind in the background. Again, really a lot of

emphasis to accentuating the activity and improving the pedestrian experience

along Third Street and providing a very dynamic building. And then a quick

illustration of phase two again looking from the north down towards the south

west and you can see phase two and then a night view just the cap the end of the

illustrations and I could be available for any other questions and I wish we

could conclude on that very beautiful rendering at night of the project it

will look even more magnificent I think in reality and to speak to when that

reality will become true for us. After this commission hearing, we're going to be

intending to introduce redevelopment plan legislation to the Board of Supervisors next

Tuesday. And then the Phase 1 project will be applying for financing throughout 2026,

intending to start construction at the beginning of 2027. Phase 2 is staggered by year and will

also be applying for financing throughout 2027 with the intention of starting construction at

the beginning of 2028. So a little bit of a long time horizon, but we are we are

trying to move as quickly as as we can. So again, we're joined by our fantastic

our fantastic lead developer Charmin Curtis, Yaku, myself, OCI staff, Matt.

We're all here to receive your comments and answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Okay, if that concludes all presentations we should take public

comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the

Commission on this matter. Afternoon, Commissioner. I'm Whit Turner from the Housing Action Coalition.

San Francisco is in a housing crisis, and whenever we have the real opportunity to add affordable

homes for families, especially in the neighborhood with transit, schools, and daily services already

in place, we should absolutely take it. Mission Bay is one of the few parts of the city where

adding height and density isn't really controversial because the entire district was sort of zoned

for it. The surrounding blocks already have tall buildings, wide sidewalks, excellent

transit, open space, so allowing more affordable homes there is responsible planning. Every

day we hear from people trying to stay in the city, raise kids here, or return after

displacement. And projects like this don't just solve the housing crisis alone, but they

move it in the right direction. This is the chance to turn an empty lot into 400 affordable

homes, or nearly 400 affordable homes, and give families stability and make the Mission

Bay a more complete neighborhood.

So we urge you to support these amendments

and keep this moving on.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight, this afternoon.

My name is Peter Brandon.

I'm a going on 13 year resident of Mission Bay.

I've seen it from inception.

It was one of the first residences located just down the street from this project.

And it is an attractive project.

And it's an exciting one.

I can see why so many people are excited about it.

My fear is that it's way too costly.

Well, a candidate, Mayor Lurie, frequently mentioned that he considers his crowning achievement

that he was able to build housing faster and cheaper than city hall projects.

His organization, Tipping Point Community, built affordable housing for $377,000 a unit

versus up to $1.2 million per unit for city-led projects.

He called this an innovative model that shattered the norms of responsible San Francisco housing crisis.

This project is not that innovative model.

While there is no economic or cost analysis in the Planning Commission documents, this

project is likely to exceed $1 million per unit, and it may cost half a billion dollars

on 400 units per acre.

the highest density affordable housing project in the city, I think.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

This project is not necessarily to build costly high-rise housing.

All prior affordable housing in Mission Bay are lower cost per unit designs that are really

nice five to seven-story units, buildings.

In fact, I think all of them are five to seven story, including those surrounding immediately this project.

The only high-rise units are a handful of market rate, one market rate 16 story, and I believe three market rate condominium projects that are also 16 story.

And nowhere near the density level of this project.

So I urge you to do some comparative cost analysis to look at this project as it relates to the other prior five- to seven-story affordable projects, unit height projects in the area.

Because if historical numbers are correct, this is twice the cost per unit.

and I fail to see how it will be economically feasible

to attain financing or I'm not sure where this money is coming from.

So thank you very much for hearing me.

I really appreciate it.

Good afternoon, President So and Commissioners.

My name's Samantha Froher and I'm a resident of Madrone, which is literally just opposite the new building we're talking about here, the Block 4E.

I come from social housing back in the UK and I, like you guys, I would love to see everybody housed.

but I do have a concern and my concern is is this proposal being advanced safely

responsibly and with transparency on land that does also have significant geotechnical risk

just like the guy who just shared before you know we are you know lower lying blocks

around that area.

And also, it was interesting,

I was here when you were just sharing

about these zonings.

I made a little note here.

Mission Bay is, you know,

below sea level, sinking,

groundwater, et cetera.

And I think if, you know,

this law that you just spoke about,

sorry, my notes all over the place,

the one from state,

if that comes in in June,

Mission Bay would be under that area of threat that potentially wouldn't be able to go this high.

So again, I just want to focus back down on we don't need it so high.

And one thing, I actually went to the meeting with the OCII,

and I've been asking our concerns for the sinkage of Mission Bay.

Just recently, I was actually given two reports, one from 2005 and 2025.

so back in 2025 it was shown that mission bay is actually on rubble loose sound organic material

and up to 124 feet of very soft mud that's why we're getting cracks in pavements

there's actually legal stuff going on at the moment with other condos

now i asked for some environmental geotechnical research to be shared or at least done before we

go and grant higher levels there was something that was done in 2025 but it was only for block 4e

not the rest of the environment or the community now i'm standing here as a member of the community

who would really like to see this project thrive and just from the get-go we're asking

there's asking for let's build more let's build more let's pack more let's have more density

at what cost somebody mentioned to me that there was a project called the geneva towers

and it was high and it was a lot of numbers and it was actually really devastating it got pulled

down because it was not successful please consider integrating this building into the community and

the things that we need from an environmental standpoint for the people who live there and the

people who are going to live there.

So environmental survey, please.

Thank you.

That is your time.

Last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Thank you.

Commissioner Moore.

I just want to express my excitement about the project.

I think it puts a dot on the I on many of the concerns we had through all the lengthy decisions about affordable housing in the upzoning plan, including the housing element.

This is the first step in the right direction in an area that was planned for decades, even pre-1998, a date that was mentioned today as a beginning point of what we see today.

Given that, I believe it is exactly that area where this particular height

is already a noticeable urbanization of the area of Mission Bay,

which used to be basically rail yards, endless rail yards of nothing.

This is, I think, a point of noting an area which can't afford additional height.

It's designed in a sensitivity that spreads the massing in a U-shaped form, slowly layers up from east to west.

And I believe it is a great project.

What is interesting is the detail, an emphasis on mixed income, an emphasis on affordability and a response to absolutely necessary unit sizes that most denser projects avoid.

The spread of one bedroom, emphasis on two, three, four and five bedrooms is something we rarely ever see.

And I think this is the area to do it.

This is indeed an area very rich in resources, not only parks, transportation, nearby hospitals, schools, etc.

I couldn't see any more appropriate response to this type of housing at this particular phase of Mission Bay overall.

So I'm in full support.

I'm actually admiring of what you all have achieved.

presentation was exquisite, and I am in full support of what those changes are that this

commission will be supporting today, which is height and unit numbers. That is basically only

our responsibility, but I want to express the broader support, including for a developer to

step forward to participate in such an ambitious project. Thank you. Commissioner McGarry?

I totally agree. I'm totally excited about this project. 398 units, basically well-resourced area.

It wasn't always that way. I became a member of Local 2236 on 18th and 3rd in 1997.

and basically this was a terrible area

and to see how it has been transformed

it's a perfect example of what urban renewal should be.

It wasn't just rail yards,

it was abandoned industrial buildings

that were every window was knocked out of them.

It was just a really bad part of town

and to see what it is now

and with the new school about to open up as well

it's amazing

and the fact that basically every part of San Francisco,

from one to a five-bedroom unit,

from 30% of AMI to 95% of AMI and 100% affordable,

encompassing everything and the best of us all,

and it will make the best of us all in one community,

is absolutely amazing.

And it has my full support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Imperial?

Just want to say hear, hear to Commissioner Moore

and Commissioner McGarry's comments.

And I also want to thank the OCI and the Planning Department

in working on this.

In these times, affordable housing is greatly needed.

And the fact that you're pretty much covering 100% affordable housing

with increased height from low income to middle income.

This is from 30% AM, 95% AMI.

And that's kind of like missing middle income

that actually been really looking into this still part of this affordable housing.

So this is one thing that if we're looking into changes into affordable housing,

the diversity on the income levels is something that should be adopted in projects in years to come.

And so we, and in terms of the location of this, this is a perfect location,

and I definitely commend you also, Commissioner McGarry,

on what you're saying that urban renewal should look like this.

I also want to applaud OCII in also taking considerations on the COP holders

and also their comments for this project as well.

And I think, again, when we talk about affordable housing, sometimes we talk about the COP holders that has been displaced back in the 30, 40 years ago.

And the effort to still do that is still very important until now.

And that applies to their descendants.

So that's something that I want to also emphasize, too.

And thank you for the architect for considering in terms of the inspiration for this project as well.

I'm looking forward for this to really be built

in the timeline that we have

and yeah I'm just really looking forward to this

so thank you

oh okay there are other commissioners too

so I was going to make the motion

you can if you may want to

I'll make a motion to approve

second

it's like early Merry Christmas

Thank you for the presentation.

I really appreciate this map of Mission Bay South,

like the aerial view of highlighting

what the future is like in a diagrammatic form,

which helps us kind of evaluate what we're asked to do today,

is to look at if this proposal adjusting the height

is consistent with the general plan.

And I found it is consistent with the general plan

for the future of Mission Bay.

A lot of my fellow commissioner had complemented many

of the same sentiment that I have,

so I'm not going to repeat myself in that regard.

But I do want to call out the, I really appreciate

the on-site parking, the family-friendly units

with more bedrooms.

It's something that it's really identified we really much

needed in San Francisco.

Senior living is also very important to me,

looking at our aging population in San Francisco.

In general, I also really appreciate the design intent

to show the idea of these fenestrations.

I really appreciate this slide, which

kind of delved out into my personal appreciation

to OCII in collaborating and encouraging BIPOC

development and design team.

Really appreciate this effort, which truly represent why we need to do what we need to do,

have been doing for these years for San Francisco to continue to move forward

and adding diversity in all level of professional practices.

And I really fully support this project and also what you asked for us to do today.

And I also want to close it with I wish you secure the financing you need in God's speed.

and with that I'll pass it on to

Commissioner McGarry you want to further

comment? Okay so that would be

you do right?

Well the reason the sidewalks

are actually sinking in Mission Bay

is because they don't have a foundation

none of the buildings are sinking

because they do have a foundation

but there does seem to be a problem in Mission

Bay with whoever is laying the

sidewalks or has in the past

So.

Commissioner Williams.

I want to thank all the commissioners

for all the thoughtful analysis on this project.

It's a bright light, this project, and all the work

that's gone into it.

But more than all, you've checked off a lot of boxes

that everyone has kind of alluded to with this project.

And so I just want to say thank you for all the work that's

gone into it, OCII for the very important work

that they do carrying on the work of the redevelopment agency

in this area.

There's been many generations that have had a hand in this

area.

the vision of affordable housing and the important vision

of inclusion.

The COP certificate holders, I thought

that this is the first time that I've

heard in a while the COP certificate holders mentioned,

which points to the equity and what you guys

are trying to accomplish here.

And so it's just greatly appreciated.

And so again, thank you very much for all the work.

Thank you for checking off all the boxes.

Thank you for making this an equitable project.

Thank you for making it bigger and including everything

that you have.

I know it's a little bit taller than most of the projects

around there, and that's brought up some concern.

But I think when you look at the totality of the project

and what it brings, I think that we're,

well, at least most of us that believe in affordable housing

are willing to accept some inconsistencies as far

as the rest of the neighborhood.

And so that's it.

That's what I have to say.

Thank you.

Great.

We're ready for a vote.

Indeed, commissioners.

There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt general plan conformity findings

and a recommendation for approval on that motion.

Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Soh?

Aye.

So moved, commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously.

6 to 0, placing us on item 11 for case number 2020-0110101 OFA for the property at 120 Stockton Street.

This is an office development authorization.

I believe, Commissioner Campbell, you have a disclosure.

I actually have a request for recusal.

My employer is Gensler, and we are the architect of record for 120 Stockton.

We are actively still working at the building and will continue to be working there or possibly continue to work there.

So I think it's most appropriate given that fiscal relationship that I recuse myself.

Commissioner Moore.

I make a motion to recuse Commissioner Campbell.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners, on that motion to recuse Commissioner Campbell.

Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President So.

Aye.

So move commissioners that motion passes unanimously 6 to 0.

Commissioner Campbell, you are hereby recused.

I will.

And within 10 days, thank you.

All right.

All right.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Jonathan Vimmer with department staff.

The application before you is a request for a large cap office allocation of up to 111,660

square feet of office space for the property located at 120 Stockton Street at the northeastern

corner of O'Farrell and Stockton streets within the C3R zoning district.

The subject property was substantially remodeled circa 2019, and the proposed allocation would

represent conversion of up to 61,661 square feet of existing retail to office space atop

the existing 49,999 of office.

No exterior work is proposed, and if approved, the allocation would capture just shy of 10%

of the square footage currently available in the large cap.

Department staff find that the proposal is reflective of recent legislative changes

that have made office use in the subject zoning district principally permitted,

regardless of use size and floor level,

and further represents the evolving mix of uses necessary to assist in the revitalization

of the large-scale buildings throughout our downtown area.

The department further notes that retail will remain the predominant land use at the site,

most significantly at the ground floor.

Two letters in support have been received echoing similar sentiments with no correspondence expressing opposition to the proposal.

This concludes my brief presentation.

Project sponsor is in attendance with one of their own.

We're both happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

We should hear from the project sponsor.

You have five minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Tuya Catalano with Ruben Junius and Rose, representing the property owner and the sponsor

for this request. So if I could have the overhead, please. This is the building that we remember

from up until a few years ago, the former Macy's Men's Store building, not the prettiest building

in Union Square. It worked great as a single tenant department store for decades, but it was

certainly not transparent or conducive to multi-tenant occupancy. The current owners entitled

the building in 2017 and 2018, shortly before Macy's moved out. We received approvals from

the Planning Commission and HPC in April 2018, including Commissioner Moore at the time,

and those approvals included a Prop M allocation for 50,000 square feet from the small cap pool.

With the rest of the building, which is approximately 190,000 square feet remaining

as retail. Construction commenced in late 2018 and was completed in late 2022.

On the next page is an image of the building after the renovations, showing the rooftop,

which has been occupied by Chioto Mate since October 2023. And then here is a photo of the

full building. The other current tenant in the building is Conveen, who is meeting an

event space facility and have occupied the fourth and fifth floors since October 2023.

So this building, I think, is an example of quite significant investment by a project sponsor in

San Francisco since they purchased the property in 2017. The transformation of this building from

the former bunker, so to speak, to the current building took many years, resources, and certainly

significant expense. It is a great building today, and the owners continue to believe in Union

Square and San Francisco.

But it has been a tough time since the start of construction,

for reasons we all know.

The upper floor retail in the current market

remains really difficult to achieve.

So what we're asking today is an additional 61,000 square feet

of Prop M. But since the prior allocation

was from a small cap pool, it would all

be coming out of the large cap pool.

If approved, the building would be more evenly split

between retail and office, with about 53% retail and 47% office.

That's about 110,000 square feet of office

and 130,000 square feet of retail.

So we're certainly not proposing to eliminate retail,

but this is really to provide more flexibility

to allow the building to achieve a higher occupancy sooner.

For example, having a retail company

would be able to utilize a significant portion

of the building both for office and retail uses.

So this request is really about giving the building additional tools to provide for the activation that will help also other nearby buildings.

I'm going to pass it over to Todd Saunders for the property owner to say a few words.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Thank you for considering this application.

My name is Todd Saunders, and Tuiya, thank you for doing such a nice job.

I'm not sure I can add an awful lot that she hasn't already said.

but I've had the privilege of being in charge of this project for the last six years.

We were in front of you.

You all were very thoughtful along with the planning staff and helping guide, I think,

what is the design of the project, which hopefully we think it's a beautiful project.

We hope the city believes it's a beautiful project and a great addition to Union Square.

I'm going to underscore, I think, something that Tuya said,

and that is we have, because of the timing in which we got our approvals,

The small cap M of 50,000 square feet or 49,999 was the right thing to do.

I think today, having spent the last six years trying to lease out that space,

we've realized that we've missed so many opportunities to pursue larger tenants,

tenants in the 100,000 square foot range.

And in talking this over with our leasing teams, talking it over with our investors,

I think our conclusion was if we can increase the size of our pool that we can pursue

for office space and bring those tenants into Union Square,

we think that's going to be a positive at the end of the day.

So we greatly appreciate your consideration for this,

and I'm happy to answer any questions you guys might have.

Thank you.

Okay, if that concludes sponsor presentation,

we should open up public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity

to address the commission on this matter.

Again, you need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed.

This matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Moore?

I'm in support of adding the request for additional office.

I think this building has made a remarkable transformation,

and I hope that at this particular critical moment in revitalization of Union Square,

we can indeed take full advantage of the layered nature by which this building may be a great

contributor to activating, reactivating not only Stockton Street, but the overall transition from

Union Square down Stockton Street onto market. During COVID and with the closure of other major

retail stores on that particular block, it has been a difficult street to enjoy because in the

beginning as a transition, it was always fun to go down. There was Barneys and everybody else.

You could really see things, informally hop into crate and barrel, go to Nespresso or whatever else

they were doing, and it all of a sudden came to a screeching halt. Then came the construction,

but I think it's right now Phoenix rising from the ashes, and let's give it the lift to create

the mixture by which this building can greatly contribute to activating Union Square,

the entire retail environment, and I can only see it as a timing by which there are other sparks

bringing back Uniqlo, et cetera, that this comes all together in one revitalization effort.

So my support is here, and I'm prepared to make a motion because I'm very excited about it, so I do.

Commissioner McGeer?

Was that a motion?

Is there a second to that motion?

Yes, second.

Second.

Oh, wow.

Great.

And I'm up.

This suit was bought in the former bunker that was Macy's Men's.

And it was a great building, you know, but it's an example of what went wrong with Union Square before COVID.

Macy's had to downsize.

Everything went into around the corner.

And this project was transformed into what it is today at a time where I'm sure the expense and the resources went into it.

And I totally understand the size of the loss you've made not having the 100,000 square feet to lease out.

And then I see the potential of the tenant improvement on that, the people going to work, the cubicles going in, the hard offices going in, the foot traffic in Union Square.

Union Square is bouncing back.

It is the phoenix rising out of the ashes.

and something of this magnitude leased out.

It's about the foot traffic and the activation,

and it's what Union Square needs on a daily basis,

not just Saturday and Sunday.

So I'm in full support of this.

Commissioner Williams?

Yes.

I can agree with everything that's been said.

and just remembering that building.

When it was Macy's, I used to spend a lot of time there shopping

and happen to like the bunker, but I like what was inside more.

But you've done a remarkable job transforming that building

and just want to say that I'm in full support as well.

The Chotomate stays, right?

Okay.

Okay, Commissioners. With that, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Soh? Aye. So move, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 5 to 0.

Commissioner Campbell, you may rejoin us now for Item 12, case number 2024-011561 CUA for the property at 524-526 Vallejo Street and 4-4A San Antonio Place.

This is a conditional use authorization.

Commissioner Moore, you have a disclosure.

I wish to disclose that I have a professional relationship with the husband of Ms. Holly,

who is the planning consultant listed on this project as a project sponsor.

Ms. Holly is not the property owner, and I do not believe that that relationship I mentioned

has any impact on my ability to be impartial on this matter.

But I ask that the minutes reflect this disclosure.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Vincent Page, Planning Department staff.

The project before you today is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant

to Planning Code Section 317 to legalize the merger of three dwelling units into one

unit and to reinstate a fourth dwelling unit on the ground floor of an existing residential

building located at 524 Vallejo Street in Supervisor District 3.

For context, the subject property was originally developed in 1907 with two residential flats,

524 and 526 Vallejo Street.

Between 2013 and 2016, two unauthorized units,

4 and 4A San Antonio Place, were legalized as part

of an interior and exterior remodel.

At some point between 2016 and 2022,

all four units were merged without authorization.

And the subject property has been functioning

as a single family dwelling ever since,

even though the assessor recorders data for the property

reflects that it is legally a four unit building.

The Planning Department opened an enforcement case in January 2022

in response to a public initiated complaint about the merger.

The project proposal is to legalize the removal

through merger of two of the units

and to replace the fourth unit that was also merged

through the addition of a studio unit on the ground floor

behind the garage.

While the Planning Department cannot definitively

determine whether or not the units proposed for merger

are subject to the rent ordinance,

this being the exclusive purview of the rent board,

it can be assumed that based on the age of the building,

these units are likely rent controlled.

The department has received nine letters in support

of the project and five letters in opposition, two

from former tenants who were bought out during the remodel,

one from a neighbor, and one from the China County Community

Development Center, and one from an interested member

of the public.

Opposition to the project is centered on the fact

that it would result in the loss of two units

of rent controlled housing, and that approval could set

a precedent where property owners merge units

without authorization with the expectation

that this may be legalized at the Planning Commission.

All of the letters in support of the project

come from friends or neighbors of the property owners.

Support for the project is centered around the fact

that it would preserve a family-sized dwelling unit

and would replace one of the units that was merged.

Supporters of the project also note

that the current owners are not the ones who actually

caused the merger.

The department's recommendation that the Planning Commission

deny the project is rooted in the objectives and policies

of the housing element of the general plan,

which called for the creation of 82,000 units of new housing

and discouraged the loss of existing housing,

in order to respond to the city's decades-long housing

shortage and housing affordability crisis.

Approval of the project would result

in a net reduction of units of available housing

in an amenity-rich part of the city,

further burdening the city's overall housing supply.

In light of all these facts, the department

is unable to support the project, and finds that the project is neither necessary nor desirable for,

nor compatible with, the community and the neighborhood in which it is located,

and would conflict with the generally stated intent of the general plan.

This concludes my presentation, and I am available for any questions.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Thank you. Before we get going, we have some slides. Can we have a moment to get things loaded?

Sure. Thank you.

Oops, sorry.

Okay.

Thank you, Stephen.

Can we go to the computer?

Sorry.

Thank you. May I start?

Yes.

Commissioners, thank you so much for your time today.

My name is Caitlin Holloway.

My husband, Ben Ramirez, and I own the property at 524 Vallejo.

We live in this home with our two young boys, Luca and Juno,

and we are here today because we want to do exactly what the city encourages homeowners to do,

create real, safe, livable housing. And I want to emphasize that we're here in partnership today,

not as adversaries. Ben and I have called North Beach home for more than 22 years.

After a lifetime of renting and building our lives and our careers here, we finally became

first-time homeowners in 2021. When we first bought the home at 524 Vallejo, we inherited the

home exactly as the family before us had lived in it, and more strikingly, exactly how they had

received it from the developer who renovated it before them. For nearly a decade, through two

sales, thousands of photos, MLS listings, and lender inspections, the property has had one

layout, one architecture, and one use, a single family home with a single kitchen. But shortly

after moving in, we learned that the city's record showed something very, very different. A four-unit

plan approved in 2013 that, best as we can tell, was never actually built, but rather exists on

paper only. In 2016, DBI issued a certificate of final completion for the actual structure that

existed on site, and by the 2017 sale, the floor plans already matched exactly the home in which

we are living. It is clear that the four units from the 2013 plans haven't existed in this building

for nearly a decade, if ever. Not one of those units that was approved has ever been available

to rent. Not one has supported a family, and not one has added to our inventory. So now, as the

family living here full-time, we're put in an interesting and strange position. We're being

asked to preserve or reinstate units that don't actually exist. But that's why we're here, to fix

a long-standing problem, a problem we did not create, but one that we're willing to take

accountability for and solve openly, honestly, and with your support. We tried in earnest to follow

the initial direction to reinstate all four units. We filed plans, paid the fees, and hired top

architects. And it became clear that in doing so would not only be grossly infeasible and inefficient,

it would require major reconstruction, produce low-quality units, and would almost certainly

displace our family. So we looked for a better solution, one that aligns with your policies,

with SB 330 and with your recent approval of 1090 Randolph, a nearly identical fact pattern.

We're asking for support to convert our long-standing single-family home into a true

two-unit building, a family home upstairs and a studio downstairs, safe, quality housing that

someone in this neighborhood can actually live in. The greater good here is this, turning ghost

units into real homes for real people. We just want to live here peacefully, compliantly, and in

partnership with our community that we love so much. A denial leaves us carrying the consequences

of a developer's choices. An approval turns us into a win for a city, a win for our neighborhood,

and a win for our family. So I'll now turn it over to our architect, Stephen Sutro, who will walk you

through the visuals that show why this home hasn't ever functioned in alignment with the 2013 plan.

Thank you very much. Hello, commissioners. My name is Stephen Sutro, and I'm the architect for 524

Vallejo. I had no involvement with the developer's work. I'd like to walk you through the physical

evidence of what the building actually is and why the proposal for you is the only feasible unit

producing path. We completed full as-built documentation, and the layout matches the

2017 MLS floor plans and photographs exactly. Everything reflects the single-family layout

with one kitchen, one interconnected stairway, and no unit separations. One key example is the

open modern staircase that connects all levels. Its floating design and glass guardrails cannot

be made fire rated as the developer plan would have required. It is completely incompatible with

multi-unit configuration. This type of stair must be built during framing and it cannot be

retrofitted after final inspection. DBI issued the certificate of final completion on May 9,

2016. The structural inspection showed that the building's structural layout was fully established

at that time. The structural layout matches the condition that we see today, not the developer's

plans. The differences between the 2013 developer plans and the 2017 as-built include

grossly relocated load-bearing walls, a different position of the elevator shaft, the open stairwell,

and consolidated circulation. These are all framing stage elements that cannot be modified

after final inspection without a major construction project, leading us to question when it actually

happened. Reinstating the four units approved on paper would require major structural reconfiguration,

multiple new kitchens and bathrooms, new fire separations, and entirely new egress paths.

Even then, the resulting units would be extremely small and not well-suited for families.

At 1090 Randolph, you approved a nearly identical fact pattern, as Caitlin mentioned.

Units existed on paper, but not in the as-built condition.

The commission relied on the verified physical layout, just as the evidence supports here.

So in summary, a two-unit configuration is really the only reasonable path that keeps

a four-person family in the building in North Beach, adds another real-use housing unit,

and aligns with the pattern along Vallejo Street, where family units are part of the fabric.

Thank you.

If that concludes project presentation, we should open up public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

You need to come forward.

Thank you, James.

Thank you.

I need to get another try.

Thank you.

Mr. Tratley, are you ready?

Yeah, my first drive didn't work, but I've got it on a second drive.

and I'm ready.

Very good.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jerry Durantler

and I fully support the Planning Department recommendation

to deny the CUA to remove two housing units

from the subject building.

A 2011 Planning Department NOE

for 524 to 526 Vallejo

and two units at the back of the building

as business offices documents the existence of the four housing units.

There is no discrepancy in the city records, and there are no phantom units.

The $4.9 million, 3,700-square-foot property has been illegally occupied

as a single-family home for the last eight years,

and the city has never addressed the illegal deck.

The 2023 building permit filed by the project sponsor to address the 2022 NOE was never issued.

This is a Peter Iskander project.

He also illegally merged housing units and constructed an unpermitted deck at 460 Vallejo Street, which will be before you as well as some other projects.

This is the permit that legalized the total of four units.

Why are two Peter Iskander unpermitted roof deck and unpermitted dwelling unit mergers on Vallejo Street unresolved years after the NOE was issued?

The image on the right is 460 Vallejo Street.

The deck there includes a swimming pool.

That house was offered for sale for $13 million.

Are these Peter Iskander projects representative of the planning department's code enforcement efforts?

On the left part of the slide, you see 460 Vallejo Street.

The NOE has been under review for seven years.

This is images of the penthouse on the top of the subject property and the unpermitted front deck.

On the right image, you can see buildings in back of the penthouse.

This is an image of the deck that's unpermitted behind the penthouse.

The barbecue is under the fire escape and is sitting on a wooden deck.

The barbecue is the barbecue three to five feet from the property line, and does the installation meet the fire code?

I doubt the people in the adjoining buildings find the illegal deck necessary or desirable.

This building, the as-built of 4,516 square feet, includes a 736-square-foot garage, which is 302 square feet larger than the proposed 432-square-foot unit.

The numbers on the left are nonsense because they can't be 4,500 some feet because they don't include the garage.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Teresa Flandrick, North Beach Tenants Committee. I'm here in support of the denial of this project.

I commend both the department as well as I'm urging you as a commission to support us in not

going along with the CUA. Again, public records have showed different things at different times.

Certainly enforcement is one.

But what has been clear is that this was a four-unit building built in 1907.

You also have the letters from two of the tenants.

I understood there were going to be three, but anyway.

So when two of those tenants say that they were forced out in 2013,

One having lived there for 27 years and one having lived there for 17 years,

something is very different than what you've been hearing thus far.

I do know that in 2013, we had a huge wave of speculation that swept through and swept out 69 tenants within eight blocks of this site.

They were rent-controlled buildings. There were different ways of getting people out.

And again, 69 people looking for an alternative home in that same year in just eight-block radius.

So we cannot afford to lose and legalize what was lost here in terms of three additional units that housed four households.

I'm asking you to not set a precedent, to not go along with doing the legalization of the existing two-unit building there with the rear having an additional two.

This is nothing against the people who currently live there.

It is against we cannot lose more and contribute to the loss of more rent-controlled housing above all.

So please don't allow this to be set as a precedent.

There are alternatives.

Certainly, I personally would sue not only the realtor, also the developer, and then use money from that.

Because believe me, the developer has made millions over the years.

but to then restore those units that have indeed been removed.

So thank you, and please support the denial of this CUA.

Thank you.

Hi there. Good afternoon.

My name is Jamie Vigil.

I am a neighbor of Ben and Caitlin's across the street at 533 Vallejo Street.

We've lived there for approximately 20, almost 23, 24 years.

My husband and I own the building.

We didn't eat for three years when we first got married.

And we both come from lower-income backgrounds.

I'm a fifth-generation native to the area.

My husband's third Mexican-American.

And I have to say a couple things in support of Ben and Caitlin.

This property has changed hands several times over the last over a decade or longer.

The notifications that we got over the years were that, oh, the property's coming on the market.

The work was being done.

We lived through all the construction.

If there was a problem before they purchased the property, then maybe the attorneys who owned it before they did could have divulged that.

They weren't told the truth, I don't believe.

I'm a real estate agent, a residential real estate agent.

I'm not party to any transactions at all to this specific property.

But I can tell you that they're such kind, wonderful people, and their family is lovely.

They had no knowledge of this, and they should probably be slinging lawsuits all over the place.

But they're such kind people that once they found out that there was a problem, they're trying to mitigate it and fix it.

So I would like to support them in any way possible to stay in their home.

If they have to move forward and do what is being asked of them, we'll never see them again.

They'll probably have to sell it.

We won't have homeowners in the neighborhood.

My understanding is they come from a very similar background as myself,

not huge property owners whatsoever.

So I think that we'd like to see them stay in the neighborhood.

I have a child also that I'm trying to raise in a city that is not childhood friendly,

that is not financially feasible to be spending money on things

that they have no knowledge about prior to purchasing the property.

So I think that if the questions should be asked of the people that owned it before them,

they shouldn't be punished for other people's doings.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Kevin Liu, and I'm a longtime friend of Ben and Caitlin.

I've known them for over 16 years.

We met at work and have grown up professionally together in San Francisco over the past 16 years.

Like me and my wife back here, we've all chosen to raise our families here in San Francisco

through tough times, right?

You're all here.

Through COVID, through the exodus,

we made a commitment.

We would chat about it.

We were saying, San Francisco, we're here.

And we've all made our commitment to stay here.

They have both their kids in public school

and they're leaders in their community

and at work creating jobs

that create economic opportunity

for residents of the city.

And they've been in North Beach

for as long as I remember.

They moved here from Stockton.

I remember when they lived on 5 First Street,

700 square foot apartment

with their first baby in one room.

So I know they would not want to live anywhere else.

Given the situation, as you heard,

they bought the property in good faith

during the pandemic,

and they had no knowledge of that illegal merger.

And they're inheriting the liability

for that corruption from over a decade ago, it seems.

And I see them working collaboratively

with the planning department here

rather than finding in court another speaker here

suggested that they just sue people, right?

And that's not who they are, right?

It sounds like the plan aligns with the city goals.

It adds a legal unit.

There's no demolition.

It doesn't displace any family, including their own family.

It just legalizes what exists, and it solves the problem proactively.

So just my question as a resident, as someone who's raising their family and lives here and loves the city,

do we want to retain a family like Ben and Caitlin's who invests in the city, who doubles down during tough times?

And do homeowners who buy in good faith, should they bear the full burden of the previous owner's violation?

And if they do, should they be given a chance to rectify it?

And I think that the proposal aligns with the Planning Commission's goals of more housing, notice placement, and bringing everything to compliance.

So just in closing, I believe that Ben and Caitlin, their family is exemplary of the kind of family that SF should be working to keep.

And I think that's the underlying principle of trying to make housing affordable.

We want to keep families.

right and I think this this this path allows allows us to keep Ben and

Kaitlin's family thank you

hello Commission thank you for your time my name is Alex Knorr I am a neighbor

on the 500 block of Vallejo and here in support of our neighbors application my

wife and I are relatively new homeowners ourselves we understand how important it

to navigate San Francisco's housing and permitting and landscape in a responsible way.

Caitlin and Ben have worked tirelessly for several years to find a solution that supports

the city's housing priorities.

Their proposal adds a unit while resolving a unique situation they inherited.

My wife and I are active in the community, and we have both seen firsthand how much this

family contributes to the community, especially to neighborhood youth and families.

They are thoughtful, civically engaged, and always striving to do the right thing.

We hope the commission will consider the facts of this edge case and support their pathway forward.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Susan Taylor, and my partner and I own the building next door to Ben and Caitlin's building.

We bought in 2011, so we were there during the entire construction process.

and it was clear to us during the entire process

that what was being built next door was a single family home.

Our windows look onto each other

so we have a long-standing joke about the fact

that what happens in one house stays in that one house

since we can see each other all the time.

So there was no illusion on our part

about what kind of construction was going on next door.

it was always going to be a single-family home. I cannot emphasize enough how much this pair and

their children mean to our neighborhood. It's the reason why we have a neighborhood and not just a

block. They are tirelessly committed to the cohesion of our merry little band on Upper Vallejo.

and they are completely civic-minded.

I hate to see the sins of their predecessors being laid upon them.

And there's also an element to me of economic waste.

This building was purpose-built as a single-family home,

and I'm not sure how realistically it becomes anything else

without literally taking it all down and starting all over again.

and that doesn't seem to be logical.

So I'd love to see a family that is this committed to San Francisco

and to seeing San Francisco be the great city it is,

be able to stay right in place where they are doing the good work that they do.

Thank you.

Okay, last call for public comment.

Can you fix the clock for me, please?

Thank you.

As someone, Georgia Schutish, as someone interested in the flat policy, this project caught my attention when I read about it on today's agenda.

It is shown as two flats on the Sanborn maps, but from the record, it is clearly three, if not four, legal units.

This application for conditional use raises many issues going forward in terms of tenant protection and new projects under the rezoning.

The staff has written a pretty emphatic recommendation for denial of the CUA.

In order to be consistent with this recommendation for denial, and in the future under the rezoning and under the proposed TPO, the department guided by this commission and the managers should be reviewing all proposed projects with the same mindset and diligence that the enforcement staff does their work in reviewing violations.

When former Director Hillis reorganized the department and folded the ZEA and the enforcement staff into current planning, it seemed like it would be a good opportunity for project applications to be reviewed with the same stringency and viewpoint that is necessary in an enforcement case, even under the accelerated time period now required by the state.

This is particularly important not only for any demolitions of existing housing, but for any demolitions or major alterations where there may be tenants or multiple units or where there may be UDUs.

This CUA illustrates the need for strong tenant protection, not just when there is a demolition, but for major alterations like occurred here where a project has a complete interior makeover.

While this was a major interior alteration that required a 311 notification in 2011, alterations of even a relatively minimal amount of interior demolition can displace tenants and cause evictions which should be concerning in the future.

It is unfortunate that the current owners before you are in this situation.

The Commission has a difficult deliberation and vote.

However, it is also unfortunate that the tenants who lived there over a decade ago were in that situation,

as written in the letters from Mr. Grant and Mr. Montesat.

That is on your commission website.

It is a situation that should be avoided with future projects under the rezoning.

And I'll just add, when I put these letters, I looked at the 2009 Google Earth,

and if you look at the side where the street is now blocked off,

there were four little holes that showed meters.

I assume those were meters for the meter reader.

So I think there were four units.

I don't think they were paper.

And there's that paper, my letter for you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, everyone.

I'm Lindsay Liu.

I'm also a dear friend of Ben and Caitlin.

I'm struck today by everyone feeling a little bit confused

about the situation and how we got here.

And I feel deeply sad for our city as a resident of San Francisco

that we could ever be in this position.

Speak louder, please.

Oh, yeah.

Thank you so much.

especially as someone who

or a family who is wanting to raise their

kids in San Francisco

I'm also fifth generation San Franciscan

Ben and Caitlin are dear friends, they love this city

they love it so much, they invested in this city

in a house that they wanted to be in, in their neighborhood

of North Beach

I think we're all probably sitting here a little confused about how this

happened. And I hope that I know that this decision feels weighted and that it has more

weight than just the people here. But I also think, what are we trying to communicate to

families that invest, have their dream is to live here and to be here and choose to

make a purchase here, which is not a small purchase as some of us know. It's a big investment.

Ben and Caitlin chose here

they chose North Beach

they chose the dream of being here

and choosing to allow them

to make this into two units

is allowing them to continue

with the dream of being in San Francisco

a dream that I'm sure every single person here

cherishes and appreciates being a part of the city

so thank you

Okay, last call for public comment.

Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is not before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Williams.

Just want to say this is a truly tragic situation that's before us.

How it got to this point is a question that I'd like to, and I don't even know if Ms. Waddy, if you could weigh in on any additional information that the city might have on how this all, how we got here today,

how the city missed this merger of four units into one

and how it was able to exist for so many years?

I mean, I don't know if you can add anything,

but I just need to ask the question.

Yeah, no, absolutely.

I mean, what I would say is our enforcement process,

both at planning and at DBI, is a complaint-based system.

So we find out about things when somebody files a complaint.

We don't proactively go walking through people's homes and looking for mergers.

And so I think that's unfortunately the problem is that the complaint came in once these owners lived in this building as opposed to when it happened.

There was illegal work that originally there was illegal work where they went through legalization.

I know Vincent can sort of talk about that before under prior owners.

But between that moment in time, when it was legalized as a four-unit building, I mean, the irony here is it was legally a two-unit building, originally, originally.

And then they illegally added two units.

That got legalized.

That got caught.

That got legalized.

They executed it.

And then they undid that illegal work to bring it back to a single-family home.

So, I mean, the irony here is if they had not added those two illegal units, they would have had a two-unit building.

It would have been a much less difficult resolution of the problem of where we are today, but that isn't the case before us.

So, you know, I think really the crux of the issue is we're a complaint-based enforcement system, and the complaint came in two owners later, and now they're stuck dealing with the problem.

Thank you.

Also, the irony is the four families that were unfortunately displaced by the actions,

not of this previous owner, but of other unscrupulous individuals

that carried out what's happened here.

unfortunately I

I'm gonna have to agree with the recommendation of

of the planning department and I'd like to make a motion

for a denial second

Commissioner McGarry

this is tragic tragic

anybody second?

Oh thank you, thank you, thank you.

Sorry, this is truly tragic.

This is a two unit building that was turned into a four unit building,

a San Francisco special, pretty much that's what happens.

Chopped two unit, chopped up into a four unit,

and then basically back to a two unit,

but skipped that and went straight to a single family home.

But the person I want to see here is Peter, I can't pronounce his last name, I-S-K-A-N-D-E-R,

Iskander, sorry if I'm butchering that, Master Builders, SF Twin Boys Corp, pull the permits

on this, aka Master Builders, has done it elsewhere.

That's the person I would like enforcement basically to go after, speak to, talk to,

and whatever else they can do to them, they should do.

Because I've looked him up online.

There is a plethora of basically instances,

people just like you who he's basically,

they're not here yet, but I'm sure they're coming.

So I feel really, really uneasy in this situation here

because you're a victim twice removed.

It's not even you.

If anybody knew about this,

it was the previous owner, the one you bought it off.

If they had any indication, well, they bought it off him.

And if you go online about him,

you have to know everything you need to know

about this individual and his companies.

Companies, because the naming of these companies

are terrible too.

That should be a red flag.

Anybody smiling has done their homework.

The sad thing is I have to support the denial,

but I am looking for some way that this could,

or the possibilities of the planning department

or somebody that we could actually go back

and look at this as a two-unit building,

as it originally was, not chopped up into the four-unit,

because I don't believe, you're not at fault here at all.

You know?

you're twice removed

you're not even close to being at fault

and what we can do

how we can do it

or if there's another avenue you can go

and the fact that you're actually working with DBI

and all the rest

you don't do that

you just keep going

but unfortunately our hands are tied

and I have to go with the denial

but I'm really putting it out there

if there's anything

any other avenue

where you can be helped on this

the city should be there to help you

because they are taking your property tax.

You know, there's the permits were signed off on.

So these are things we can't ignore.

Can we turn to Imperial?

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, this is, again, another one tragic,

one tragic situation we are in here.

And, you know, looking into the, you know, I empathize with the current owners because it's not your doing.

It's the whoever the developer and the real estate agent that turned this into a one single family home.

However, I, you know, I still look into the, for me, in the bigger picture as well.

and we just had this tenant protections ordinance.

And the tenant protections ordinance,

when it was being put on,

I mean, these were kind of the things

that we were thinking about

because there were other cases

that have happened like this.

And I'm more worried about the precedent

that it will do in the future.

the fact that there are, you know, there is, I mean, I'm looking into the record,

it is recorded as a four-family dwelling unit.

And so, you know, it's very hard to see that there is this family that's taking this over.

But at the same time, you know, looking into the zoning,

and that's what the Planning Commission Planning Department is all about,

are the codes, the planning codes that we have to adhere.

And someone did this illegally without any hesitation what the planning code is all about and what we're here to.

And so I'm in a way for Commissioner McGarry.

There needs to have some accountability as well, whoever the developer is, that this should not happen again

and should not look into victimizing another family

that's actually want to invest here in San Francisco,

want to live here in San Francisco.

There needs to have a strong enforcement,

and I'm not sure if this developer in the blacklist in the TBI,

we should look into that, whatever projects that he's on,

and really need to get a closer look in those developments,

because it cannot just go on like this,

continue victimizing future families or current families,

and also at the same time displacing former tenants.

So he's doing double whammy, you know,

screw the tenants and the current homeowners.

And I feel like, again, this is, you know,

this is what the Planning Department and Planning Commission is,

and I will have to support that denial.

Thank you.

Commissioner Moore?

it is getting increasingly more difficult to sit here and have to deal with issues

which I believe actually should not be considered by us,

but by those people who potentially participated in them.

And I have to look towards DBI.

I have to look at inspection, including no follow-up when initially concerns

about illegal construction in this particular building were noted prior to these owners.

being in the building. Then I'm asking what disclosure requirements are being made during

high-end sales? This is a $4.86 million building. And who's responsible selling this thing?

Who's responsible? Where is disclosure on what I believe is a real estate disclosure? And how are

potential owners are being made aware that even if you buy a house, there may be still something

that is not being properly disclosed. And why does the buck stop here? When you sit here and have

this happening again and again, which it has, ultimately our ability to just sit here and decide

starts to be limited, and that's why I believe that at some point we need to draw a line,

and that that line indeed may be today, because the extent of what happened here indeed got

four households, many of whom have left the city, also wanting to live here and not being

here anymore. And it is in the confluence of this incredibly tragic chain of arrows,

oversights, neglect, where it comes to a crash where I believe I cannot continue having to sit

on, reflect on other people's destinies, disappointments, destruction of dreams, when

we need to support that the brakes are put on earlier than us sitting here listening to

life stories that almost bring tears to people's eyes because you have to emphasize and put

yourself potentially into that same position. I do not envy Mr. Wimmer as a planner to have to

basically go into the depths of researching of what went wrong with this project. He as a planner,

if everything would be fine, would basically speak about something that is easily supportable and approvable,

and he has to sit here and go to the extreme, not only reflecting what has happened over the last 15 years,

but also reflecting on the most critical moment where we are relative to upzoning

and all the blood, sweat, and tears that has gone into the creation of the housing element

and the legislation that was approved by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

So I am exhausted.

I am disappointed.

I am hurt.

I am empathetic.

But I do not believe that I can take this any further, and I have to, I cannot extend, I will have to support the department's recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for all being showing up here.

and I feel I'm really sympathetic for both sides.

I also want to say a few things,

like displacing people out of San Francisco, keeping family here.

It's kind of where we're looking at it all the time.

Previously, there are some cases where homeowners purchased a house

and immediately wanted to do some excavation to add more square footage,

and that's when they find out that what they had purchased was not what was being documented in the record.

Some of the homeowners decided to quickly spend their money to revert back to what was actually allowed them to do

and then ask for a little bit more leniency by respecting our land use

and keeping housing units and stock in our city.

They revert back to the number of housing units in their house

and then proceed and ask for a little bit more excavation.

And I do believe in process of how you find out or you ended up here

is that you submitted a set of plan, wanted to excavate further to add a unit

to your existing property.

And I think this is kind of in light of where we are,

where we are today, just giving you some perspective

of what other San Franciscan family had made their decision

to move forward with.

I do echo Commissioner Moore's comment about

this is a pretty high-end purchase,

and I do believe there had been some due diligence in the real estate transaction,

some level of, what do you call that?

I forgot.

I'm not a real estate agent.

During, before the title.

Right, there's disclosure.

Thank you.

To check mold and termite and check all the stuff,

and I'm sure you've got to have to receive a three-hour report.

That in there, it really basically signify in your title what type of property you're purchasing.

If that had missed or deliberately omit from your purchase,

that is something I really want you to take a really closer look at what really happened there.

Because I personally have not seen that happen.

I don't think you can.

And, again, I'm not a real estate agent, but I do not think that they can redact this information because that is fundamentally the key information why you purchased that piece of property and what is your land value and what is your projected tax that you have to purchase there.

But I do, however, you seem like a lovely family, lovely neighbor, and I'm really sympathetic for your situation.

I really do.

it's really hard to have family here

and also be able to

work your way up and be able to

own a really nice house

and I do have

sentimental understanding

on some of my commissioners

talking about what happened

before you

got the opportunity

to purchase this

we can all take that as a lesson learned

moment of what can we do better

in the future

what can we do inform people when they purchase houses the excitement of having a really big house in San Francisco

and what the key pieces that you really need to look into before you sign that document.

It really is sympathetic for your situation.

But I probably have to agree with my planning staff that it is for the matter that is coming before us,

what we're asked to do in the policy that is governed by the planning department,

I need to be standby my staff.

And Commissioner Williams and then Commissioner Campbell.

I just have an additional question for Ms. Wadi.

There was some permits that were signed off on the construction of the building

at some period after the initial or sometime.

And so I'm just trying to wrap my head around the process of pulling a building permit

for a major renovation and then not understanding the unit count on the building

and how did that get missed.

And just so I'm not sure if now there's a way to, you know, when a building inspector or whoever pulls the permit through the building department,

if they check to see, you know, how many units there is to make sure that, you know, what they're looking at is legally, you know, a one unit, a two unit building.

Is there a process for the building department?

And I'm sure that you could probably answer that.

But is there a process that's now a part of the permit process to make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again?

That's basically what I'm trying to get to.

Sure, sure, sure.

So two parts of this.

One, the building inspector should be crystal clear on what the unit count is that they're inspecting.

Like, that is a primary aspect of their role, especially when the scope of this permit was to legalize two units.

That really is the last permit, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong here, but the last permit that we have on file was to legalize this as a four-unit building, taking it from a two to a four.

so that being the scope that's what you're inspecting on is that there should be four

final units there that's what's being legalized so and that's what was signed off um what we don't

have because our technology is very antiquated is photos or videos of said inspection we have a

sign off we have a date that's what we've got as evidence right we've got the plans and then the

date that it happened what i will say in terms of moving into the future one of the things we're

actually working on with as part of Permadoft SF technology project is looking at ways to leverage

technology like photos in the field, videos in the field, things like that during inspection.

So there's no mincing of words or truth lost in translation of what exactly is being approved.

And so I personally am really excited for that being one of the advancements that we're able

to launch with this new technology project. But the way it is right now, the facts are a

approved set of plans, you know, what stage of an inspection, you know, rough, final, that sort of

thing, date, and the person. And that typically ends up being the bulk of the information that

we have right now captured in the system. Yeah, I appreciate that. I think that's a great idea

to have a photo accountability of what's being inspected. You know, as a general building

contractor myself, I've, you know, I've had to deal with many inspections and deal with

with inspectors.

And they never take a photo of your work.

But I think that's a great idea, just

to have that record, that photo on record, as well

as the building permit and everything else,

to go back just in case there's any kind of question

about what you inspected.

So I think that I agree.

I'm excited to hear that that's going to be part of moving forward with the building department.

And I think there's a lot of areas, because we've seen stuff like this before,

and I think now that there's these changes in DBI,

I think this would be a good opportunity to, like you're doing,

is exploring to find solutions to some of these problems that have come up,

because it's not fair, some of the things that we've heard,

as well as what's happening today, when folks

find themselves in a situation that happened well before them.

And so thank you for that.

Yeah.

Commissioner Campbell.

Thank you.

I echo the sentiment of a lot of my fellow commissioners

This one has me particularly sick, to be honest.

One of the first things I thought to ask for was the 3R report as well, which the assigned planner was able to give to me.

And I think just as part of classic due diligence, that's what should have been provided to you upon this transaction.

And it's clear that it was identified as a four-unit building in the eyes of the city.

I think what I really struggle with here is that denial of this means that you really have no choice but to build these four units.

And if you're going to stay in this home, it's not a very sustainable and practical solution.

You're going to do that, and then you're going to try to live in it as a single-family home, which I think doesn't make good sense to me, although we're righting the wrong.

So I just wonder if there's alternative solutions that have been explored or if there's precedent for reinstating the units upon sale or delaying that.

And I suspect we want this cleared up as soon as possible, but I wondered if there's precedent for delaying the work to another point in time when it's more reasonable for the family,

or if that's even something the project sponsor is interested in.

I don't know if that's a Vincent question,

or if that's a Liz Waddy question, or if that's a Sarah question.

She might not have heard it, so maybe you want to take it.

I will.

Liz, this will be a team effort in responding to Commissioner Campbell's question.

I don't know.

So in this case, I have in the slightly awkward position

of both being the case planner and the enforcement planner

assigned to the project.

So in this role here at Planning Commission,

I'm speaking as the case planner.

The decision about how we proceed with enforcement

would be the zoning administrators

who, under the enforcement case, after the hearing.

Liz, do you know if there is precedent for the...

Could you repeat your question?

Sure.

I'm wondering if there's precedent for reinstating the units upon sale versus doing it at this point in time,

just knowing that it doesn't meet the needs of the current owner,

and if they were to do it, it would be somewhat gratuitous,

and then they'll continue to occupy it as a single-family home as best they can.

But is it something they could do later?

I don't even know if that's of interest to the project sponsor, but just curious.

We have definitely had dwelling unit merger cases before

with a variety of different unique personal circumstances

where we've effectively authorized a merger

and required the restoration of the legal unit count

upon sale or change of circumstances.

I know we've had some where there have been the needs for caretakers.

I think we had one where I don't think it was quite yet a reasonable accommodation,

but it felt analogous to that or the need of different unique familiar situations

where there was some, I think, sort of empathy to cut an opening between two units,

keep both kitchens, allow them to use it as one, restore it upon sale.

So we've definitely done things like that in the past.

You know, we maybe don't have the exact mechanics to present to you today on exactly how, you know,

we could do that and execute that.

Certainly if there was a majority of commissioners here who were interested in that, we could go back.

You know, we could continue this for a week and come back with that information.

That's probably the best path forward if that's of interest.

But we definitely have done that where we've basically allowed to, it's effectively punting the decision, right?

We're saying, hey, ultimately we're restoring these units to the housing stock, but we're not going to restore them to the city's housing stock until the property transacts.

You know, I do think the other factor to keep in mind is the amount of construction that will be necessary to restore those.

Usually in those circumstances, the amount of construction is pretty minimal.

It's like, you know, fill in a door opening or something along those lines.

And we've maintained, you know, we've required maintenance of plumbing and kitchens and things like that.

So it's a fairly low cost restoration, if you will.

I think this is a bit different.

You would have to create new kitchens, probably new circulation, right?

I mean, just the expense.

We heard the story here of what the expense would be to restore it.

So I think that would probably be our hesitation to taking that approach in this scenario.

But it is a concept that we have certainly done in the past.

Well, seeing the direction that this vote might be heading, I would be curious to hear

if the project sponsor is even interested in that option.

From my point of view, that would be something I would be willing to support, but I don't

know how my other fellow commissioners think about it.

I think maybe we start with the project sponsor.

First of all, I want to say thank you for offering a creative solution.

I think we're open.

I can feel myself getting emotional, and I know that's not the point.

creative solutions are welcome. I think from a practical standpoint and from a

sustainability perspective I would lean towards that as a compromise in this

situation. I think it's a bit of a win-win. It keeps a family here in the

city, it provides them a home that works for them, but upon sale it gets us back

the units that we're looking for in the market.

Commissioner Moore?

I do think that the applicant expressed their willingness to do things.

However, Architect Sutro described to us in elaborate detail

how they were modeled to a single-family home, relocated utilities away from a future subdivision

or retrofitting it into a building with multi-stories.

And the costs that were described in going down such a pathway seemed exorbitant.

I think we have a description of that in the staff report.

And so I think that that may be an idea, given, however, the analysis that has already been done.

It makes it somewhat peripheral, if not impossible.

Not to talk about the glass stair, indeed, and not having stacked utilities anymore,

as you ultimately have in a multi-unit building.

So if Commissioner Campbell wants to have architect Sutro restate his observation on the multiple units, that's one thing.

But if this building would have to be reconstituted to multiple units before their leave,

I don't think there would be much benefit to a sale anymore because the money has already been spent.

And this is already a $4.86 million home.

So I'm probably going up as we speak,

because this particular size of unit

is indeed the desirable thing that everybody wants,

but it's very difficult to get in San Francisco.

So that just would be my observation,

just recalling what we heard earlier.

Commissioner, there is a motion that has been seconded.

Shall I call that question?

Yeah, Commissioner Gilbert Williams

has put a motion in,

and it's been seconded by Commissioner Imperial,

and Commissioner McGarry had some more comments.

On the motion, I was wondering with Commissioner Campbell,

could we amend the motion,

Or is that what you were thinking about?

An amendment to the motion to reflect the possibility of this scenario,

of these units reverting back to their original four units at the point of sale?

I think the issue right now is the motion that's on the table is for a disapproval.

Disapprovals don't have conditions of approval.

So I think if this commission wanted to take sort of the alternative approach,

we would likely need to continue it out so we could draft an approval motion with conditions.

So it would be approving the merger, but effectively like a finite merger with a commitment to build effectively three additional,

two additional units before the sale.

So we would need some time to figure out how to craft a different staff report effectively.

It's a different motion for you.

I think the motion, Jonas can correct me if I'm wrong, is to take the staff recommendation of disapproval, and there's a second on that.

I asked because I didn't hear an alternate motion.

I heard a suggestion.

I can make one, but I think that would be a continuance.

Got it.

Right.

You need to make a motion to continue.

Do I do that now?

I didn't hear it, so I apologize.

Motion to continue.

Okay.

Okay.

So there is now a motion to continue that has been seconded, which takes precedence as a procedural matter.

So we shall call that question first.

On that motion to continue, how long do you think you need?

Okay.

On that motion to continue, December 18th, Commissioner Campbell?

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Nay.

Commissioner Imperial no mission your more no and Commission President so I

that motion fails three to three with Commissioners Williams Imperial and more

voting against them on the motion to disapprove Commissioner Campbell

Commissioner McGarry. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye.

Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commission President Soh.

Nay. Okay that motion fails three to three if there is not an alternate motion

the conditional use request is de facto disapproved I'm not hearing a alternate

motion so there you have it it's a 3-3 vote just a de facto disapproval with

With that, Commissioners, it concludes your hearing today as the discretionary review

calendar items have been continued.

Meetings adjourned.

We'll be right back.