Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll be right back.

Now I am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll see you next time.

We'll be right back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll be right back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

amella

Thank you.

Good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, December 18, 2025.

When we reach the item you are 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 announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak.

There is 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 so present

Commission Vice President Moore here Commissioner Braun here Commissioner

Campbell excuse me Commissioner Imperial here Commissioner McGarry and

Commissioner Williams here we expect Commissioner Campbell to be absent

today first on your agenda commissioners is consideration of items proposed for

continuance item 1 case number 2024-010467 CUA 50 Quint Street conditional

use authorization is proposed for continuance to January 8th 2026 item 2

Case number 2025-007500 CUA at 2785 San Bruno Avenue.

Conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to January 22, 2026.

Item 3, case number 2023-005928 ENV at the Westside Potable Emergency Firefighting Water System Project.

an appeal of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration is proposed for continuance to March 26, 2026.

Further, Commissioners, under your discretionary review calendar,

item 11 for case number 2025-006120 DRP at 2620 20th Street,

discretionary review is proposed for continuance to January 22, 2026.

And this is just to allow both parties to reach an agreement.

and both parties are in favor as far as I'm aware.

I have no other items proposed for continuance

and so we should take public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity

to address the commission on their continuance calendar

only on the matter of continuance.

You need to come forward.

Seeing none, public comment is closed

and your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Braun?

Move to continue all items as proposed.

Second.

Thank you, commissioners.

On that motion to continue items as proposed, Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

Aye.

Commissioner Moore?

Aye.

And Commissioner President Soh?

Aye.

So move, commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously 6-0, placing us under commission matters

for item four, land acknowledgement.

I'll be reading the land acknowledgement today.

The commission acknowledges that we are on the 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

the responsibilities as the caretakers of this place,

as well 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 Ramathu Shaloni community

and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

Item 5, consideration of adoption draft minutes for December 4, 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 comments close.

Your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Moore.

Move to approve.

Second.

Thank you, commissioners.

On that motion to adopt your minutes, commissioner McGarry.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President Tsoe.

Aye.

So move commissioners that motion passes unanimously six to zero.

Item six commission comments and questions.

I'd like to share some of my own personal thankful speech that I wanted to share with you all.

As we all know last week our mayor and all our supervisor has signed up the family zoning plan.

And it's a happy ending for a long journey.

and I'd like to thank everyone who took the time and effort to participate

through this whole process. It was long, longer than anyone in the public would

like to know. I think it was almost trending five years of work and I like

to sincerely thank my fellow commissioners sitting alongside with me

and also those that are already served prior to me all their effort that

that reflected countless hours of reading and listening

and debating and refining.

Each of you brought thoughtfulness, rigor,

and deep commitment to equity, housing stability,

and the long-term health of our city.

The work was not always easy, but it was done with respect

and a shared sense of responsibility.

And I want to take this moment to also, of course,

acknowledge our planning department staff

and the leadership to our staff.

city planners for their dedication and their professionalism in guiding this complex effort

forward. So it is just my gratitude. I wanted to thank you all here today for all the hours

we put in through this in this room and also outside this room. Thank you.

and then now with

so typically we do this

for someone that had been

spending a lot of years

and you can start counting it as like a quarter of the century

or you know maybe sometimes maybe half the century

have been working dedicate his and her entire career his career to the planning department and

serving city and county of san francisco so i with this a very happy and also sad it's a bittersweet

moment that i got the honor to um recognize our amazing staff aaron star his um quarter of the

entry, I may say, of service to the planning department.

And we have a proclamation to present to you.

And I have the joy of taking a few of them

to read out aloud into our record for today's hearing.

So whereas Aaron more recently

continued his use of artificial intelligence

to truncate the overlay verbals writing of everyone else in the department,

including the authors of this proclamation.

Whereas Aaron worked tirelessly to simplify the legendarily behemoth planning code

so that it might, on a good day and with favorable winds, be considered somewhat comprehensible.

And whereas Aaron has been afforded the greatest possible compliment by one of the city's most prolific tenure and contentious activists by having his work publicly recognized as being adequate now.

and that on the occasion of his retirement, the San Francisco,

well, therefore be it resolved that on the occasion of his retirement,

the San Francisco Planning Commission and the planning director

expresses their deepest appreciation to Aaron Starr

in recognition of his 20 years of remarkable contributions

and exemplary service to the San Francisco Planning Department

and to the people of San Francisco

and issue this proclamation to his honor.

Thank you.

So thank you for all the audience patience,

and may I indulge you with further more appreciation for our amazing Aaron Starr.

We have our supervisor, Melgar, and she would like to say a few words.

Thank you, President Tso.

So I have been the chair of the Land, Docent Transportation Committee for five years now.

And even before that, had the great pleasure and honor to work with Aaron before that.

But for the past five years, I just stand in so much admiration for his professionalism, his clarity in terms of representing the department and representing all of San Francisco

to make sure that our code is clear, concise, and understandable, but also his patience,

sometimes. So I will say that Aaron is the master of subtle shade, and he has elevated that to an

art form. So whenever I lose my patience myself, I of course think, what would Aaron say? What would

Aaron do. And I emulate that because I have seen few public servants with as much grace,

but also crystal clear about what we're feeling and thinking. So I will miss you dearly, Aaron.

I will miss your intellect and your communication skills, but also your elegance and diplomacy

in how you go about these things.

I know all of your colleagues will miss you,

and so will the commission.

I know that you'll still be around,

but I want to say it's been a pleasure working with Aaron.

And from our side, him being the go-between you guys and us,

you couldn't have asked for anyone better in every way.

And I have been so lucky and honored to work with you.

That was so nice.

And Commissioner Moore?

Supervisor Melga's words are hard to match,

but she chose very, very lyrical descriptions of Aaron,

and I would fully second what you said.

Aaron is remarkable in his patience.

Legislation for people who do not do that all the time

is actually difficult, difficult to read,

difficult to understand. It's a real subtle skill to learn. And I called Aaron quite a few times,

actually disagreeing with him. And he was able to really take it apart to the extent that you

really understood what he meant to do. It didn't mean that the code significantly shrank. I think

it actually grew. But as Supervisor Malga said, with the right winds, he could actually sell it

as a light touch.

So thank you, Aaron.

Not only that, did you do your job well,

but you inspired people to travel.

Each time he came back from a trip,

he was either wearing the white shirt

or he commented on something

by which one got curious to ask him

if he had recommendations

about distant places to travel.

And he recommended several things to me over the years,

and he was always spot on.

And thank you for that as well.

Thanks.

that was lovely

Commissioner Imperial

I'd like to say thank you

Mr. Starr and I will definitely

miss your weekly reports

to the commission

your weekly reports are always

entertaining to me

even though there might be mundane

but you've always

mixed it with humor

and there are times when our city

are moved in different ways

and you would still express that

and that's something that I

truly appreciate in giving the tone of the commission as we start our hearing.

So thank you for your service, and I wish you well.

I wish you luck for your next endeavor.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

Good luck, Erin.

I'm going to miss your attire.

You're the best-dressed person in City Hall.

but like everyone said

it's funny

just sitting here

I too am going to miss how you

come to the podium and eloquently

explain the

complicated legislation

from the Board of Supervisors

and everywhere else

and so I think

I've learned a lot

just watching you

how you go about your business

and

And you're a great public servant, and I just want to appreciate that.

And whatever you do, good luck to you.

Great.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aaron, good luck to you.

Your eloquence and your clarity will be sorely missed.

How you managed to get out with all your hair is phenomenal.

I wish you all the best in everything, the endeavors you have going forward, and you will be sorely missed.

Thank you for everything you do at the Sydney County of San Francisco.

Commissioner Braun.

You know, I didn't know this was coming today, and I have a very heavy heart and feeling thrown for a loop.

That's what happens when I'm one time I missed the department holiday party.

but like everyone said I'm absolutely going to miss having you up here before us Aaron and

you have such a clever sense of humor and such a great sense of style as well and you know your

thoughtfulness and your insights when you've brought forward all the legislative items and

and updated us on what's been happening each week at the board you know it's it's phenomenally

helpful and I'm really just grateful for your service. I appreciate it and good

luck to you.

Thank you. Okay, Commissioners, if there's nothing further I will also extend my

congratulations to Mr. Starr on a great career with the department. You'll be

missed. But as this is also the last hearing of the year for the Planning

Commission, I wanted to express my gratitude and recognition for your accomplishments this year,

Commissioners. In 2025, you sat through 43 hearings and considered 247 items, and this was a slow year.

So with that, we can move on to Department Matters, item seven, director's announcements.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. I want to share in Mr. Ionen's thanks to all you have done over

this past year. I only saw about half of it, but really amazing work. I also just wanted to,

and I'll speak on behalf of the department here, just note the department's sense of loss with

Aaron's retirement. We are, I can say that, and this is included in his proclamation,

he really has served as a compass for the entire department as we look at how the planning code

can be shaped, developed, and move forward.

And I've had the opportunity to learn from that

back when we first started together in the early aughts,

but dramatically so over the last six months.

So I just want to second everything you guys said

and just know, Erin, that that is felt by the entire department.

It will be a big loss.

And then the rest of our director's report,

Mr. Sucre will address.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Rich Sucre, deputy director of current planning.

I just wanted to give you an update on an initiative that is rolling out for us on January 1, 2026.

We are shifting the collection of our fee basically away from the building permit application and onto our development applications.

It's part of legislation that you had previously reviewed, but I wanted to inform you as well as members of the public that starting on January 1st, or I should say January 2nd, you'll see that we planning will be collecting the fee.

So it's no changes in how we collect our fee, but the timing of when the fee is collected.

So happy to answer any questions.

Okay.

If there's no questions for the director, we can move on to item 8,

review of past events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission.

Good afternoon, Commissioner Zarin Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs for the Planning Department.

At Land Use this week, first on the agenda was the mayor's ordinance to implement Proposition O, a voter initiative that permitted reproductive health clinics citywide.

Commissioners, you heard this item on June 5th of this year and recommended approval.

There were some supportive comments from the committee members, but no public comment.

The committee then voted to forward the item to the full board as a committee report.

Next on the agenda was the mayor's ordinance to allow parking in driveways.

after public comment where several people spoke in opposition.

It was continued to January 12th of next year to allow for more outreach.

Next, the committee considered Supervisor Mahmood's ordinance

to amend the definition of family in the planning code.

Commissioners, you heard this on November 13th

and voted to recommend approval with modifications.

Most of those modifications were proposed by Supervisor Mahmood.

However, you also added the following.

The first was to make all residential care facilities a residential use

instead of an institutional use.

and exempt residential care facilities from the inclusionary housing requirement.

The second was to amend the definition of household to include single and multiple provider households with dependents.

Third, you directed the department to monitor and implement, sorry,

the implementation of the legislation for potential unintended consequences

and report back to the commission 24 months after the effective date.

And finally, you encouraged Supervisor Mahmoud to consider the CCDC's comments

that were sent to the Planning Commission prior to the hearing.

Supervisor Mahmood adjusted the definition of family based on your recommendation.

However, the issue of making all residential care facilities a residential use is going to be accomplished in another ordinance that is currently being developed.

There were several speakers who spoke in favor of the ordinance. No one was in opposition.

After public comment, the committee then sent the item to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Next, Supervisor Cheyenne Chen's Tenant Protection Ordinance was back at land use.

This was continued from December 8th because the amendments were made and they were deemed substantive.

During the hearing, there were approximately seven people who spoke in favor of the item.

There were no significant comments from the committee members, and then the item was passed out of committee as a board report with a positive recommendation.

Lastly, the committee considered Supervisor Fielders interim controls that would require conditional use authorization for laboratory uses in the PDR1G zoning district.

As interim controls, this item does not require a planning commission review.

These interim controls are intended to address what some members of the board and community feel is a loss of PDR space to laboratory uses.

They feel the loss of these spaces is reducing the number of blue-collar jobs and has a negative impact on the surrounding community.

There's also concern that these lab spaces are being used to develop drone delivery technology.

Some amendments were made to the original file to add some clarifying language and to direct the Planning Department and OEWD to study the issue further.

The file was also duplicated at the request of Supervisor Mahmood in anticipation of further refinement of the resolution.

During public comment, there were many public speakers in favor, some from the community and some representing labor.

The original file was recommended as a committee report, while the duplicated resolution was continued to the call of the chair.

Then at the full board this week, the inclusionary housing waiver, sponsored by Supervisor Melgar, passed its second read.

Surcharge for appeals, sponsored by Supervisor Connie Chen, passed its first read.

There was a tentative map appeal for 333 Mission Street, however that was continued to February 3rd.

The reproductive health clinics ordinance passed its first read.

The tenant protection ordinance passed its first read.

and conditional use authorization for laboratory interim controls was adopted.

So now, as everyone knows, this is my last board report

and my final planning commission hearing.

I'm retiring at the end of the year.

As some of you may be wondering how someone who's 50

and only 20 years of experience can retire,

it's because I'm a good planner.

Seriously, though, the retirement has made me think a lot about these past 20 years

and what it means to be a civil servant.

Being a civil servant is not for everyone.

Not everyone is good at it, and not everyone should do it.

And unfortunately, sometimes people do it for the wrong reasons.

But I can honestly say that most of the people, in fact the vast majority of people,

I have encountered while working for the city do have what it takes.

I have been consistently impressed by the professionalism, dedication,

and integrity of San Francisco's public servants.

Nowhere has this been more apparent to me than in the planning department.

What has made this work more fun, more bearable, and ultimately more rewarding

are the people I've had the privilege to work with over the last 20 years.

I've made friends they'll carry with me for the rest of my life,

and that matters more to me than any other professional accomplishments I could think of.

Retirement has also made me reflect on what I've accomplished.

If I can claim anything at all, I hope that I can humbly say that I have helped in some way to make the city a better place.

The work has had its ups and downs, but I'm proud of what I've done and the small role I've played in the accomplishment of others.

My understanding of city planning has also changed a great deal since I started.

I began with a lot of idealism.

What I have now is a clear sense of how things actually get done.

progress is incremental, compromise matters, and good planning depends as much on listening as it

does on a vision. Over time, I've come to appreciate that some of the most important

work in government is quiet work. It doesn't always make headlines, and it rarely feels

dramatic in the moment, but it adds up. I don't yet know what I'll be doing after I retire.

I plan to travel a bit in the coming year, and I hope to find a second act.

I'm a fool going over a cliff, taking a leap of faith, but with a pension.

And whatever comes next, I hope to find another way to serve my community.

You know, religion isn't something I talk about much.

It's very personal and private.

But I was thinking about this moment.

I was reminded of a passage from the book of Matthew that speaks to service.

It's, you are the salt of the earth, you are the light of the world.

salt preserves, light guides.

But both do their work quietly.

And to me, that's what public service looks like at its best.

Thank you to this commission for your grace and respect

you have shown me over the years,

and to all of you for letting me serve alongside you.

Thanks.

You can okay, you can cry.

We appreciate you.

All right.

I hate to follow that, but good afternoon, President Soho,

Commissioners, Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator.

The Board of Appeals did meet last night.

They considered three different appeals.

one of interest to the Commission as you'll remember the new hotel project at

570 Market Street was before the Commission several months ago it

required a mitigated negative declaration a conditional use

authorization for the hotel use and a downtown project authorization ultimately

after two hearings the Planning Commission did approve that project and

collectively unanimously as you may know the mitigated negative declaration was

appealed to the Board of Supervisors but that appeal was denied the downtown

project authorization was also appealed both by the two adjacent property owners

at the Chancery building and at 44 Montgomery and that was the appeal that

was heard last night at the Board of Appeals it was a pretty robust

discussion and conversation just like the hear the hearings we had here at the

Planning Commission and two members of the Board of Appeals did have a lot of

questions and concerns about the lack of any loading or vehicular access and what

that would mean to kind of the daily operations of a large hotel like that in

terms of garbage collection and removal laundry etc as well as the potential

loading and traffic impacts on Sutter Street but on the whole they came to

very much the same conclusion that the Planning Commission did, that on balance it was kind

of consistent with the Planning Code and the general plan, and that they voted at the end

unanimously that the Planning Commission did not err or abuse their discretion, and

they denied the appeal.

So that project will move forward.

And then related, similar situation, Commissioner Rick Swig, who's been on the Board of Appeals

for I believe 10 years now and other Commission commissions and boards in the

city last night was also his last hearing and he was recognized for that

as well but that concludes my report thank you

okay commissioners the historic preservation Commission did meet

yesterday they similarly well historic preservation Commission President

Matsuda issued a proclamation for Moses correct who is also retiring from the

planning department long-standing employee. They also adopted a resolution

supporting a bust in City Hall for Mayor Art Agnos and then they considered the

community-sponsored landmark designation of the Justice for Vicka mural at 717

California Street and they adopted a resolution not recommending it be

recognized as a landmark. Finally, they adopted survey findings to expand the...

What is it?

That we adopted survey findings for the Castro, Hinoa Valley, and Glen Park

neighborhoods and then commercial areas. Thank you, Mr. Sucre. With that,

commissioners we can move on to general public comment but before we do those of

you standing in the chambers need to find a seat if you cannot find a seat

I'm gonna have to ask you to leave we are setting up a overflow room in room

408 where you can watch and listen to these proceedings and when the item that

you are interested in is called for public comment you can then come back

into the room to submit your testimony okay but if you cannot find a seat I'll

I'll ask you to leave to room 408,

where you can watch and listen to these proceedings.

Thank you. I appreciate your cooperation.

Ma'am, I need you to find a seat.

Okay.

Looks like everybody fit. Great.

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.

Again, members of the public, you need to come forward, light up on the screen side of the room.

Last call for general public comment.

Items not on today's agenda.

Seeing none, general public comment is closed.

And we can move on to your discretionary review calendar,

Commissioners, for item 9, case number 2007,

point 0178 DRM, 2338 19th Avenue.

This is a mandatory discretionary review.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Wesley Wong, Department staff.

The item before you today is a mandatory discretionary review of building permit number 2016-0217-9787 at 2338 19th Avenue.

The project is requesting to modify the elected method of compliance for the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program from providing an on-site below-market rate unit to payment of the in-lue fee.

On July 20, 2020, imagine seeing that three times fast, the subject building permit passed a final inspection and obtained a certificate of final completion and occupancy for the construction of a four-story duplex with two dwelling units in the RH2 zoning district, which did not require planning commission approval.

The subject property was part of a development proposal to construct five two-family residential buildings on a single parcel.

Following project approval, the original approval was subdivided into five individual lots,

which have been all turned into condominiums.

The subject unit has never been occupied and has been continuously owned by the developer.

As part of the original planning approval, the project was required to provide one below

market rate unit on site to satisfy the inclusionary requirements.

Due to the current market conditions, the project is now proposing to modify the elected

method for satisfying the inclusionary obligation through payment of the in-lieu fee which requires

commission approval pursuant to plan code section 415.5 g3 no other changes are being sought under

this mandatory dr request to date the department has not heard any opposition for any members of

the public regarding the proposed change the department recommends that the commission take

discretionary review and prove the changes to the building permit with the modifications and

and conditions as proposed, since the project will remain

compliant with the planning code, including

the inclusionary affordable housing requirements

under section 415.

This concludes my presentation.

I am joined today in person with staff

from the Planning Housing Implementation Team

and virtually staff from the Inclusionary Housing Policy

Team from the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community

Development.

We are available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

The project sponsor will have a brief presentation.

Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

Hello, President, So, and Commissioners.

My name is Jeremy Schaub with Schaub Lee Architects.

As you might infer from the project date,

the project started in 2007.

I started on the project in 2013 as a baby architect.

It took many years to come to fruition.

Unfortunately, the construction completed in the middle of COVID

when everything was locked down.

Several of the units were marketed and slowly sold.

This subject BMR was never sold.

Upon being contacted by the mayor's office,

due to a misunderstanding,

the project sponsor did, in fact,

work with a realtor to market the unit.

All the responses they got from prospective

below-market-rate folks was that it was too large.

It's almost 2,000 square feet,

which means it's very expensive,

even as a below-market-rate unit.

so due to being unable to comply with the on-site unit we are asking to pay the

in lufi instead in which the city can then go out and build additional

affordable units thanks oh and I should say the project sponsors here if you

have questions okay if that concludes sponsor presentation we should hate

public comment members of the public this is your opportunity to address the

Commission on this matter again you need to come forward line up on the screen

side of the room. Last call.

Public

comment is closed, and this matter is now before you

commissioners.

Commissioner

Amin Perio.

I have a question. What

is the unit?

Is it one bedroom, two bedroom?

What kind of unit is this?

It's officially three

bedrooms over two floors.

Two floors, and if

so

it sounds like it has

it went

you applied

or there is

MoCD has seen

the unit on this.

I don't have the answer for that.

Sorry.

What's the process with MoCD?

I think we can defer to MoCD who's online

virtually today, but I believe that they did

conduct a site inspection, but maybe

if you're online, if you can confirm.

Chaska, you've been unmuted.

Hello? Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Hi, good afternoon, President So, commissioners.

This is Chaska Berger from the Mayor's Office of Housing.

We did not conduct a site visit to the property.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

And there is no marketing yet for this unit, correct?

Correct.

There has been no marketing through the Mayor's Office of Housing for this unit.

Okay.

Thank you.

And the reason to pay in in-lou fee is for the market, the financial feasibility of this building?

Is that the main reason?

What other reasons?

Again, Jeremy Schaub, Schaubli Architects.

Understanding is that they tried to market it.

it. The rates are set based on the income level of the prospective resident, and the

realtor that our owner was working with was unable to find anyone that was qualified.

And what's the AMI unit that they were marketing it for?

I'd have to look that up. Sorry. I can get back to you.

Okay. And usually when it's... So that's why I asked whether it has been marketed. It sounds

like it hasn't been marketed through the BMR program.

I can ask the owner to answer some of this.

Cyril, can you?

Yeah.

I do believe it is an AMI of 90%.

90%.

Good afternoon, Cyril Hackett.

I am the builder of the project.

So you marketed it, but not in the inclusionary housing program?

Initially, it was supposed to be in the inclusionary housing project.

I met with the realtor who was recommended by the city of San Francisco, Robert Belli.

And when Robert looked at it, how big the unit was, he felt that it would be very difficult to market.

Okay.

So it's based on that.

Yes.

It's two stories.

It's two stories, a little over 3,000 square feet.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

So, again, I'm a big supporter of our Inclusion Air Housing program.

And even though this is a small project, it's only 10 unit.

And the BMR homeownership, as far as I know, has its faults in its way.

But at the same time, these are a good opportunity for especially what we call middle class or lower middle class families.

And the fact that it's a three unit is actually going to be marketable for that kind of population.

For my opinion, I will not approve or I will not take the discretionary review simply because we have this inclusionary affordable housing program, which in this project will be in compliance for.

the fact that it's just not marketable or it's too big kind of, again,

talks about in terms of how we should run an inclusionary affordable housing program.

But I'd like to hear what other commissioners think as well, but that's my opinion as of now.

Thank you. Commissioner Moore?

I'd like to take a slightly different tack.

at this because I am inclined to approve the discretionary view in order to move the unit,

but recapture the fee with interest. At this particular moment, I think that will create a

better outcome. At the time when this project was designed and discussed with the Commission,

which is quite a while back, we all thought that this was a real step in the right direction,

given the housing type. But since that time, so many things have changed.

fully understanding the correlation between size and affordability,

but also then meeting an ever-increasing rise in housing costs

and an inability of many people not even being able to meet the minimums.

So I still see this as a positive step to bring the units back to market,

and under the really significantly changing conditions, I feel comfortable of doing that.

Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

I just have a question about has anyone on staff, whether in the room or online,

determined what the approximate total amount of the in lieu fee plus interest would be?

Yes. So the housing team has calculated that amount. Again, 8 to 10 department staff.

It's approximately $1 million, which accounts for interest.

and it's using the old methodology of per unit basis to do the initial base fee and then the

accrued interest using the treasurer and tax collector's office interest rates. Thank you.

I appreciate that. I am in favor of allowing the switch to the in lieu fee payment. It is a,

not that this should matter necessarily, maybe, I don't know, but it is a substantial

fee payment that we can leverage with outside funding to produce

quite a few affordable units at deeper levels of affordability.

I do have some sensitivity to the loss of a sort of middle income ownership unit,

but in this case, I'm willing to be in favor of the in lieu of fee payment.

And so I know that there's more other comment, but I'll move to take discretion and review

and approve the change.

Second.

Commissioner Imperial.

I guess I have a question in terms,

are there small development trends

that are switching off from on-site to in-loop?

Ada, or Kate, feel free to come up if you'd like.

Kate Connor, planning department staff.

We haven't seen any sort of prevailing trend as far as this type of a switch that we've seen recently.

Okay.

This one's also kind of difficult, too, just because of the timing of the project and when it was approved and when construction happened.

So I think we've seen kind of more of our switches maybe post-entitlement pre-construction, but, again, no full trend.

Okay.

I'm just worried about

I understand that

building small developments

are already expensive

and

you know

but we have this inclusionary housing program

that allows for 10 units

and up and I want to

preserve that integrity of that

inclusionary housing program

whether we see the trends or not

and the fact that

again for me it's a family size

unit

It speaks volume of actually there are many of lower middle class that looking for this type kind of units.

And again, there needs to have more program in terms of the home ownership,

in terms of the financial assistance toward it as well.

But I don't want to go in ways where doing it piecemeal by piecemeal,

where, you know, as of now, it looks small.

But, you know, I'm also trying to see what's going to happen

in the next two years, three years with these small developments.

It's just something for us to think about as commissioners.

If we're seeing more of this trend, then we need to bring, yeah,

we need to have a conversation around these small developments.

I want to give a little bit of a clarity of understanding of, did you actually list this unit on the market or not?

Or you just had a conversation with your realtor?

Because most CDs definitely said that they have not marketed.

I sort of will hack it again.

No, it was never marketed.

I met on recommendation of the department, I met with the realtor who was recommended by the department, Robert Belli.

And he has experienced hundreds of BMR units in the city.

And he looked at it, walked through it.

And so it never, he was the one who explained to me in detail the process for the BMR unit,

which was difficult at the time for me to understand.

I'm a small developer, a small builder,

and we have to remember that it was a very difficult time because of COVID,

because we were closed down right at the...

We were first off delayed by the Caltrans because of being on 19th Avenue.

So it was very difficult, and it got lost in the shuffle somewhat.

but Robert Belli is probably the most prolific realtor in the city for BMR

units and as per and recommended by the city so he was the one that I spoke

with and then after that made the decision that maybe this project

would be better if I could possibly move on with it and do the

in Luffy. It made more sense at that time after a lot of delays and COVID. Thank you.

Commissioner Williams, or Director, you want to chime in? I just wanted to respond to your

question from the department perspective as well. I will note that one of the things we try not to

do is go through a process if we think we know what the response is going to be, and I think

that's in part why most CD recommends this early process of talking to the

realtor in advance so there is a process of timing here if you went through that

full process of actually trying to sell the unit that would delay all of those

units moving forward and it will also delay most CD from removing the fee so

I think that's why we're looking at this process now instead of after the unit

has been tried to be sold thanks thank you Commissioner Williams just

I'm trying to understand a little bit more about how you got here to this point.

Could you explain, like, was it financial that you're not going forward?

You said that there was a realtor involved and he told you.

But I still don't quite get the full picture of why it's not marketable in the inclusionary housing program.

And so that's where I feel like there's some more clarity than it needs to be.

I don't know if maybe that's the correct language.

This is something I'm used to doing.

But I don't think that's effectively the correct language.

As a small builder, I had never done anything like this before, and I was unsure of the

BMR status, but the project got delayed by quite, as Jeremy pointed out, quite a considerable

length of time.

With regards to being financial, no, it wasn't so much being financial.

It was just, well, you know, I mean, yes, I suppose in a sense financial, because the project was delayed and didn't, you know, I was absolutely struggling financially and mentally through having been delayed and COVID.

But, I mean, you have to remember the building was closed down for two years, completely finished with a certificate of occupancy approved by the city.

And immediately the first day of open house was the day that the city, the mayor, London Breed, closed the city down.

So the units were not allowed to be marketed.

None of the units were allowed to be marketed for two years or were, should I say, were marketed for two years due to the COVID.

And then when they finally were marketed, they had to be reduced in price.

So pretty much I'm here today, thankful that I got out from under this project.

And then when I found out from the city that we needed to move forward with this,

the city contacted me and said that I never rented the unit, I never lived in the unit,

it was never marketed as such.

I mean, as soon as I knew the process, the moment I found out the process and it was recommended to me, the realtor, I didn't have to use that realtor, but I decided to use that realtor because it was recommended by the city and he had a CV of hundreds of the most prolific in the city for marketing BMR units.

and through the process of getting ready to market it

and put it on the market as a BM or a unit,

we figured that it was going to be difficult to market

because of the size of it.

And an opportunity came available

that I was told that I had an opportunity

to be able to purchase it

and that money then would go towards

building more housing in the city

for like a million dollars,

even in this day and age,

me being a construction worker

and me being a builder

knows that a million dollars goes a long way.

So, I mean, I don't think I'm hiding anything here.

I think I'm being very upfront

and I'm willing to pay the in-lieu fee

and move forward and maybe, you know,

reestablish my life and my financial credibility

and my mental state of affairs.

Thank you for that response, and I hope you as well recover if you did take any kind of a loss.

I, like Commissioner Imperial, coming from a low-income background and a working class,

affordable opportunities are very important.

and I'm kind of, I'm caught between understanding,

I'm trying to understand, was it the cost of the unit

that was, why it wasn't marketable

or because, anyway, I'm trying to figure out,

I wish the real estate person was here to kind of explain why he came to that conclusion,

because I think it's important that we understand that aspect of it, right, moving forward.

If in certain locations, if the construction costs are so high and people can't afford the units

and they're in the inclusionary housing program, that is something that I think is important to understand.

and so I'm a little conflicted about the decision.

He's not here today.

I know he's not here today.

You know, at the outset, there was never an issue of it not being a BMR unit as such,

but due to all of the problems we had with the construction

and the unfortunate circumstance of COVID and everything,

it changed everything, and then it just got pushed back,

and as soon as I found out from the city.

So I think if this had happened right away,

it would certainly have been a BMR unit,

and just things got delayed and delayed and delayed,

and then when I sat down and there was a little bit more clarity on everything,

I realized that there was an opportunity that maybe to contribute something back to the city as a developer,

I could contribute something back in a more meaningful and in a more fitting way,

and that being paying the in-lieu fee.

And in talking to people who are developers and knowing building costs and everything,

it was felt that, you know, yes, it's a considerable amount of money to pay in lieu,

but most people would understand it that it's quite a contribution and would

benefit and the BMR program and that's my opinion anyway but obviously

everyone's entitled to their opinion but I felt that the opportunity was there I

mean it's it's written there that you have an opportunity to buy it to pay the

in lieu fee or to put it into BM or units. So I took the second option or in

actual value because I took the first option. I took an option that was

available. I'm asking for an option that is available to me and then paying the

fee that the city have mandated or will mandate that I pay. So I think it's a

win-win for everybody. It is a substantial fee and and I agree will have

an impact. For me, it's just a question of like how we got here. That's to me

something I still feel that I haven't got a real clear answer on.

And so, but thank you, thank you for explaining everything that you had. I

really appreciate it. Thank you. Commissioner McGarry. So this is my neck of the woods. I live on the west side.

I've been tracking this project for years.

I saw the studs go grey, silver, and back to grey, a different shade of grey.

So I do believe there's, I actually saw this project for years in its stated delay.

I think at this stage the city can leverage that million dollars,

and they need the money to leverage it on basically acquisition of other parcels around the city

that can actually be put into motion.

if I saw this going up in the average 8 to 12 months

I would think differently

I'd be all over the unit and keeping the unit

but in this instance

so from start to fruition

how many years did this project take?

The project started in 2007

I believe under a separate owner and architect

we came on board in 2012 or 13 or so.

So for clarity, it's 2007 until.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So do I hear a motion?

There is a motion that it has been seconded.

If there is no further deliberation, commissioners,

there is a motion that has been seconded to take discretionary review

and approve the conditions of approval change in Luffy.

On that motion, Commissioner McGarry.

Aye.

Commissioner Williams.

Nay.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

No.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

Commissioner President Soh.

Aye.

So move, Commissioners, that motion passes four to two

with Commissioners William and Imperial voting against.

If there are any members of the public who are here for item 11 for 20th Street discretionary review, that matter has been continued to January 22nd and will not be heard today.

Commissioners, that will bring us to the last item for your final hearing of 2025, number 10, case number 2025-007116 DRM at 1 Montgomery Street.

This is a mandatory discretionary review.

Commissioners, I'd like to offer a few remarks just as the planning staff and the project team are preparing for this presentation.

Just to go back in time a little bit to speak a little bit about the POPOS program that brought us here.

So our privately owned public open space program was formalized as policy in 1985.

it had a couple of key goals to provide places for both respite and recreation for primarily downtown office workers,

given what at the time was a pretty limited set of public parks downtown.

It also had the goal of integrating open spaces into large high-density developments,

so we're balancing growth with amenities, and for providing spaces for art.

And so I think that framing is kind of a helpful one when we look at this today.

Since the adoption of the downtown plan in 1985, San Francisco has added and revitalized a number

of open spaces in its downtown core, ranging from major parks like Sue Bierman Plaza to pocket

parks like Ecker Square and privately developed plazas like those at Golden Gateway. At the same

time, and more recently, the way people use downtown has changed. I know we all have been grappling

with that as a body since COVID. It's continuing to change. And what we've, you know, an interesting

part of that is that spaces that are open Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., which are

the required hours of our POPOS program, aren't relevant for a large portion of our population,

almost anyone who isn't a downtown office worker. So as you know, much of the city, and you have

been a partner in this, have spent the years since COVID trying to reconcile how things are changing

downtown with an explicit goal of welcoming all San Franciscans, not just office workers who work

from nine to six, back to our downtown core. The proposal you're going to hear about is exactly in

line with that movement that we've been trying to address, aiming to make downtown's open spaces

and the activations within them relevant for broader community use rather than just office

workers. We're pretty excited about the project before you because it allows us to test a different

way of engaging a broader population downtown without changing city policy or weakening our

downtown goals. And it's a pretty unique opportunity. It's not one that is replicable

because it really relies on this unique sponsor and their goals of contributing to our downtown

to democratize how we attract and serve all of our San Francisco community downtown.

We think it's the right public benefit at the right time of recovery.

Dakota's speaker on our team will take you through the details of the proposal, as will the project sponsor.

And Dakota, I don't want to steal your thunder, but I do want to emphasize that what's being proposed today represents an either-or guarantee.

So it really allows us to kind of test these public downtown events.

And if they don't happen, the POPOS reopens.

So we think that guarantee provides us some really good opportunity.

We look forward to describing that in a little more detail.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah.

Jonas, I have a presentation ready.

All right.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Dakota Speicher with the Planning Department.

The project before you is a request for discretionary review to modify the conditions of approval

for multiple previously approved motions and resolutions

to conditionally eliminate public access to the rooftop terrace

located at 1 Montgomery Street

in exchange for free public downtown events.

In 1979, the Planning Commission approved a new 38-story tower,

the Crocker Tower, a new shopping galleria, Crocker Galleria,

and the demolition of 11 stories atop the 1 and 25 Montgomery Street building.

Conditions of approval required the rooftop outdoor terrace

to be available to the public.

To date, the department has received a total of 21 letters in opposition to the project.

Opposition to the project is primarily centered on the loss of existing public outdoor space.

According to the project sponsor, they have hosted several in-person meetings

with individuals and community organizations to discuss the project.

The sponsor has also executed memorandums of understanding with several labor union partners,

and they are here and can speak to both of those points if you have any questions.

A total of 30 letters in support were received, as seen on this slide here.

For the sake of time, there's a visual representation rather than listing them all out in this presentation.

But that said, this morning, one additional letter in support was received by the department,

so in total, 30 letters in support were received.

There have been three enforcement cases opened against the subject property as outlined in your packet.

Most recently in 2022, as relevant, the ZA issued a notice of violation and penalty decision,

but allowed the rooftop terrace to remain closed until a new tenant occupied the building.

That case is still open, and enforcement staff is here should you have questions.

So the project before you proposes to modify the conditions of approval

to eliminate public access to the rooftop terrace located on the roof of the commercial building

at 1 Montgomery Street, which is approximately 7,500 square feet in size.

The project sponsor has agreed to host a minimum of three public events annually,

consisting of cultural, artistic, musical, recreational, athletic, or other similar events

conducted in downtown San Francisco that are free and open to the public.

The map on the right-hand side of the screen visualizes where these events would take place.

Each event would have a minimum attendance of not less than 1,000 people per event,

with a total cumulative attendance of not less than 10,000 people annually.

As stipulated in conditions of approval, the project sponsor will submit annual reporting metrics as outlined in your packet.

Should the sponsor fail to meet these requirements, the rooftop terrace would return to the commission to consider revocation.

The department supports this request as it allows project sponsor to focus on activating ground floor space

and maintain a historic landmark building while satisfying long-standing public benefit requirements

through alternative means that supports ongoing recovery of downtown following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Just making sure I'm on the right slide.

The subject block was developed circa 1980 as a single development site

and carries the majority of the open space requirement for the entire original project

and incur a significant financial burden for the maintenance of the currently underutilized terrace.

The original conditions of approval responded to the high demand for public open space in the downtown area,

coupled with a lack of available public open space at the time of the project approval.

However, since the years, since the advent of COVID-19,

while there is still a high demand for places for the public to gather in downtown,

the ways in which the public want to gather have changed.

Fewer office workers congregate in the downtown area

means that workers do not use the rooftop space throughout the day

for lunch and informal gatherings with the same frequency as in earlier years.

Instead, visitors to the downtown seek larger spaces for one-time events and activation,

often outside the regular business hours.

The rooftop space as condition thus no longer meets the needs of downtown open space users.

The sponsor argues that replacing the rooftop condition with this requirement

to activate areas of downtown with one-time events better satisfies downtown's open space needs.

The rooftop terrace was established prior to the adoption of the downtown plan

and specifically Planning Code Section 138

and was typical for other similar elevated open spaces and sunken plazas that were thought at the time to be refuges from streetscapes.

More often than not, this approach has historically resulted in disconnected and underutilized public spaces that fail to support vibrant urban life.

The existing terrace design does not reflect current best practices in urban design and is inconsistent with the Department's urban design guidelines,

which emphasize the importance of activating street edges and ground-level spaces to create lively, people-centered public environments.

The project sponsor has historically hosted numerous events, which are outlined in your packet.

The benefits of such events and activations throughout the years have not only translated to meaningful, qualitative benefits for the city,

but also significant economic benefits to local food, beverage, and retail stakeholders.

The project sponsor is here and can provide additional information on this.

Through required public events, the project sponsor would continue to invest in San Francisco by leveraging its expertise to cultivate and support the culture, arts, community, and local business.

As part of the project, the sponsor also requests the option, after five years of hosting public events, to pay one time in Luffy to permanently relieve the subject property of its publicly accessible open space obligation.

The department supports this request as it provides the sponsor with a monetary alternative to fulfilling publicly accessible open space requirements and option available to new development projects within the district per an existing fiat mechanism under planning code section 426.

The rooftop terrace has served the public for approximately 45 years and was once a well-utilized amenity, particularly when the Crocker Gallery and surrounding downtown core were vibrant and active.

However, since the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, the rooftop terrace has become significantly underutilized.

The proposed in-lou fee option offers a programmatic and equitable path forward that reflects current urban conditions.

Moreover, recognizing that the project sponsor or any future owner may not wish to host public events indefinitely,

the fiat option provides a mechanism to relinquish this obligation while enabling the city to reinvest those funds into public realm space improvements that may yield greater benefits to the community.

Additionally, because the project would result in a lack of access to the public art that was required as part of a prior commission approval,

the sponsor has agreed to incorporate a major work of art shifting this obligation elsewhere

onto the subject property that is available for viewing from the right of way and their hearing

can speak on that as well finally the project proposes to allow all future change of use

for the project to be reviewed or for the subject property i should say to be reviewed under the

current planning code procedures aligning procedures for the site with other parcels

in the same zoning district. The original conditions required discretionary review, so a

public hearing, to be held for all change of use applications at this site, even if the proposed

use is principally permitted within the district. Last thing I'll note for the commission is that

no work is proposed under this application. However, because the building is a landmark,

generally all interior exterior improvements would be reviewed at a staff level or potentially

elevated to a preservation entitlement to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation

Commission. Overall, the Department supports all requests before you as it is a creative,

modern solution that benefits downtown's recovery, allowing for the rejuvenation of a key historic

property while providing the property owner with alternatives to satisfying their open space

requirement. To summarize, the Project 1 modernizes public benefit by replacing an underutilized

rooftop terrace with contemporary benefit that would draw people to the downtown core.

And I'm sorry.

Okay, that's a less important slide to get to, but last slide nonetheless.

So two, enables property activation to allowing a focus on ground floor activation of a landmark

building.

Three, provides alternatives to meeting their obligation for the city while funds could

be reinvested elsewhere.

This concludes my presentation.

My colleague Ben from OEWD is here with a presentation, and enforcement staff and I are available for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

That'd be great.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Ben Van Houten, Director of Nightlife Initiatives at the Office of Economic and Workforce Development,

here to express our department's support for this project and also for the proposed conditions,

which we think will deliver a significant public benefit that is directly in line with,

and indeed an extension of our work around downtown economic revitalization.

For just a few minutes, I'd like to explain a little bit more context about that,

about our approach to arts and culture as an economic vitality tool,

and then how we have tried to effectuate that in the downtown space and how the proposed conditions around public events further that work.

Next slide, please.

A lot of words on this slide, but really, I just wanted to briefly share our broader vision for the role that arts and entertainment play in economic vitality.

And Dakota hit on it a little bit.

There's really two streams, I think, of economic benefit that come from arts and entertainment.

One of them is the direct economic impact and the ripple effects of spending money, investing in producing arts and entertainment, leads to audience spending, leads to ripple effects in the local economy, and then also tax revenue for governments, which is nice.

But in parallel, there are all of these other benefits that I think are candidly equally important to creating economic vitality.

more arts and culture activity is good because we want creative activity in the city and we want

the city to be an arts and culture hub positive experiences for residents workers visitors

creating space to socialize that meet these uh these people where they are and and provide

opportunities for them to build connection reputationally the enhanced perception of san

francisco as a having positive sentiment that the city is a vibrant cultural hub and a place where

yeah, you go to see arts and culture and to socialize is really critical. And then we also

see tourism and business boosts from investing in arts, culture, and entertainment. So it's really

a critical area for us. I suspect everyone has a shared view that arts and entertainment are

critical to our city's comeback, but just wanted to map out how that plays out in our work. And

that's how we think about it through a downtown recovery lens. How can we make and reinforce

that downtown is a place where people want to be as opposed to a place where they have to be.

It's through creating meaningful cultural and social experiences for people to come together,

supporting the downtown economy, and reaffirming that it is a vibrant, thriving neighborhood,

not just during daytime office hours, but really moving toward a 24-7 neighborhood.

We have done that over the last few years through multiple approaches to leverage arts,

culture, and entertainment to support downtown recovery. So just a little over a year ago,

we launched the first entertainment zone in California, the success of which has led the

board to adopt 23 additional entertainment zones in under 12 months. 16 of those zones have been

active with events. That's a picture of Front Street, which is, I think, which was the first

zone. It has been very successful. Businesses have reported economic benefit to the tune of up to

1,500 percent from these Entertainment Zone events, and other downtown corridors have hosted events.

Ellis Street has one tonight because of the value of arts and culture to bringing people downtown to revitalize this economy.

Additionally, we have supported a variety of cultural activations.

The photo there is from the Let's Glow Festival that just concluded on Sunday.

again, rethinking and reimagining how people experience downtown at night by leveraging culture

for local residents, but also for visitors, draws tens of thousands of people downtown and generates

substantial economic impact. And we think about cultural activations also within the context of

events like our Bongren Beats series or regular programming in Union Square, really, again,

doubling down on arts and culture. And then finally, Vacant to Vibrant also adds another lens

of how do we meet people where they are by activating storefronts,

by activating the ground floor so that people can come and walk our streets

and engage with arts, culture, retail experiences.

Based on the success of these programs,

they demonstrate the power of events and activations

to deliver experiences that our workers, residents, and visitors want.

And by meeting people where they are,

we can continue to drive our downtown recovery.

Events and activations are critical to this.

And I'd say we also know that producing events is a substantial undertaking.

Events can be expensive and complex to execute, but we need cultural events to support and advance a thriving 24-7 downtown neighborhood.

As a result, in committing the project sponsor to produce multiple free public arts and culture events downtown each year,

these proposed conditions will deliver significant public benefits that are very much in service of the same goals

We are working on to continue to support downtown's comeback. Thank you all for your consideration and happy to answer any questions

That concludes staff presentations we should hear from the project sponsor

Through the chair you have ten minutes

Good afternoon.

My name is Ghazi Shami.

And for those of you who don't know me, I'm the founder and CEO of Empire, distributor, label, and publisher here in San Francisco.

I was born right here at San Francisco Children's Hospital almost 50 years ago.

I'm going to pause your time just real quick.

SFGov, can we go to the computer, please?

Go ahead.

And this city has been the backdrop of my entire life.

Growing up, I worked in my father's laundromat. By the age of four, I was already fixing washing machines.

And by 14, I was doing pause tapes with Gemini music mixers.

That early obsession with how things worked led me to San Francisco State University during the dot-com era.

I saw the intersection of music and technology before streaming was even a household world.

world and while I spent my time in in days in Silicon Valley tech firms I spent my nights in

the Tenderloin the Soma and the dog patch mastering my craft as a music producer writer and an audio

engineer I lived in a rinse and repeat life cycle I was laboring in the studio until 3 a.m. and then

I would drive back to Silicon Valley for work and then I would come right back to downtown and get

back to work. And you know I always tell people when you come from nothing you

appreciate everything and you learn that hard work and dedication are the only

currencies that really matter. In 2010 I embarked on a mission to build a company

that treated artists as partners and not subordinates. We started in a small

office in Petrero Hill, the same neighborhood where I was born. Since then

we've grown from a team of one to a global staff with offices in New York,

London, Nashville, Lagos and Johannesburg. But my heart and headquarters never

relief San Francisco. You know, during the pandemic, Clint Riley, who's the owner of the

office building I currently occupy, 235 Pine Street, told me, if you do nothing else in life,

and if you reach critical success, make sure you buy a building. So a year and a half ago,

I found one Montgomery. To many, it's a historic landmark, but to me, it's a really surreal

opportunity to provide a public benefit not only to San Francisco but to my staff. It wasn't until

the deal that was almost done that I realized One Montgomery was historically Crocker Bank,

which is the same bank that I used to go to in Westlake with my mom to make merchant deposits

for my dad's laundromat. It wasn't just a full circle moment for me, it was the Olympic rings

of full circle moments. Today we are transforming that hundred thousand square foot local treasure

into empire's permanent headquarters. We aren't just building offices. We're planning a world-class

destination for artists to bring music and culture back to the city and downtown. I have 35 years of

wisdom in the music business. We have a history of exporting our best talent and I want to reverse

that trend. I feel a profound duty to be the change I want to see while others may look elsewhere

I'm choosing to hire locally and keep Empire firmly planted in the city that birthed and raised me.

I'm banking on San Francisco.

I mean, we literally bought a bank.

So I pray this moment is where the next chapter of our story begins.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, President So and Commissioners.

I'm Shadi K. Lake, Counsel at Empire.

Empire is the largest independent record label in the United States.

and more importantly, the last record label and music company in San Francisco.

By our estimates, San Francisco has lost 1,000 to 2,000 music jobs since 2008.

Spotify, Apple Music, Pandora, SoundCloud, and more have all left.

Despite offers of tax incentives and special treatment from cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Atlanta

to move Empire's headquarters there, Ghazi has, without hesitation, doubled down on his hometown,

making a significant investment in a property many developers looked at but nobody could make financial sense of

at a time when the commercial real estate market in San Francisco was at a near standstill.

That's because for Ghazi and Empire, this isn't about a return on investment.

It's about building a forever home, a cultural, arts, and entertainment destination that breathes life in downtown.

We want talented young San Franciscans to look at Montgomery and say,

I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to work in that building one day.

We believe our proposal to host at least three large-scale public events downtown every year,

which we should note is in addition to all the other free public programming we have been doing

and will continue to do throughout San Francisco, provides a significantly greater public benefit

than this rooftop, which has been closed for almost six years. These events will not only

provide millions in economic impact, our 200-plus San Francisco-based employees will support

the neighboring Crocker Galleria and numerous small businesses in our district and around

Market Street. Further, we have verbally committed to hosting non-profit events for groups like

Soma Pilipinas and AROC at One Montgomery, workshops for underrepresented groups, art

exhibits, and even including One Montgomery and the Victorian Alliance's coming downtown

historic building tours. To talk about our outreach for a moment, I think the following

anecdote is important for you all to hear. We take seriously all of the messages that we've

received from the public, and I personally responded to every one for which we have had

contact information. It was clear that much of the opposition was actually due to limited

information or a misunderstanding of our proposal. Three members of the public that contacted the

commission with concerns about our project initially have now, since learning more about

the project and about who we are written letters of support. I'm proud of that, and I know that

doesn't usually happen, so I wanted to note that. We are an arts company first and foremost and plan

as part of our proposal to commission a beautiful and substantial sculpture or other fixture in the

ground floor portico of the building, created by a local artist which represents the diverse fabric

of our company and this city. Further, rest assured, we are preserving every single historically

designated feature within the building. Finally, it's important to note three critical items

regarding our proposal. One, the reason for this request is simple. The entertainment industry

comes with unique challenges. We've had many security incidents almost weekly, including but

not limited to artists, artist managers, and employees assaulted and robbed at our offices,

along with people impersonating Empire employees to gain access to our building to reach Ghazi and

other prominent people in our staff. There's also a public safety element. If one of our famous

artists visit our offices like K-pop superstar G-Dragon and post on social media, I'm at Empire's

offices, we will no doubt have thousands of young fans on that rooftop attempting to breach our

offices. Further, it's not practical financially or operationally to secure the only route to the

rooftop which is accessible, the elevator, not to mention the three emergency stairwells, each of

which take you directly through our offices.

Our goal is to protect our employees, our artists, and our guests.

We knew this rooftop was publicly accessible when we purchased the building,

but we also knew it's not a POPOS,

and therefore we had an opportunity to negotiate in good faith with the city

to negotiate a greater public benefit while also addressing our security needs.

This proposal does not weaken the POPOS program.

The conditions of approval that apply to One Montgomery predate POPO's policy, and there's no mechanism in the planning code which would allow any new or existing POPO's owner to replicate the requests that we are making here.

This is a unique ask for a unique building for a company with unique security and operational needs.

And thirdly, the power remains with the city.

We must fulfill our commitment and report to the city every single year.

The commission may revert the public access requirement if we ever fail to meet our obligations, unless we pay the in-lieu fee, which at today's codified amount comes to about $19 million, wholly infeasible and not something we ever plan to do.

This restriction also runs to any future owner of the property, the sale of which is equally unlikely.

We want to bring arts and entertainment to an area dominated by tech, AI, and finance in order to accomplish the city's goals of bringing people, particularly young people of all backgrounds, not just white-collar office workers, back to downtown San Francisco.

We want this to be our forever home, a reason for people domestically and internationally to visit San Francisco, and a source of pride for San Franciscans.

Thank you.

I guess the last thing I want to say is that recently I did a panel and people asked me

to describe my relationship to my company.

And I told the audience that it felt like it was in jest at the moment, and when I left

I realized that actually that's what it's really become.

I said, Empire is really a philanthropy company masquerading as a record label.

We provide livelihood to thousands of people globally and here in the city.

And in order to protect that livelihood, I would respectfully ask that we change the

condition on the rooftop so I can protect my employees.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Members of the public, I'm going to request that you refrain from clapping audibly.

If you want to support somebody, move your hands and fingers up in the air because more

importantly, not only is it disruptive, but you can't even hear what the person is saying.

the commissioners can't hear what the public commenters will be saying.

With that, we shall open up public comment.

So members of the public, please line up on the screen side of the room or to your right

and come on up.

Through the chair, you will each have two minutes.

Come on up, sir.

Good afternoon, President Sauer, members of the Planning Commission.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Jay Anthony Menjivar.

I'm an organizer for the Norco Carpenters Union, Local 22, here in the beautiful city of San Francisco.

I represent approximately 4,000 carpenters and 37,000 in greater Northern California.

Today I'm speaking on behalf of all my brothers and sisters carpenters that live here in San Francisco.

in strong support of the Empire proposed one Montgomery remodel this project

represents a kind of serious commitment downtown needs right now and parts

commitment to using Union labor on this project is critical that commitments

translates directly into creating Union jobs for San Franciscans while also of

lifting the surrounding community for carpenters this means good Union wages

strong benefits and apprenticeship opportunities,

the kind of work that sustains families and strains the next generation of carpenters,

while delivering the highest standard of safety and quality.

Just as importantly, it gives us a chance to bring a long, quiet landmark back to life

the right way, with union skill and pride.

Instead of closing off the historic banking halls behind private offices,

This plan opens the ground floor to the public through events and active retail and restaurant uses.

And while rooftop access is being removed, we gain something bigger, year-round free programming that creates real foot traffic and a real economic lift on the streets to help small businesses actually strive.

In conclusion, Norco Carpenters Local Unit 22 fully supports the proposed development at 1 Montgomery Remodel,

despite popular belief there's not that many developers that will work with labor in San Francisco.

Local construction workers have been suffering from the long-lasting downturn spur by the 2020 pandemic,

and this project will likely get that back on our feet.

We ask the commission to support those who support us and endeavor to revitalize the city.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Rudy Corpus.

I'm also a native of San Francisco, born right here in the south of Market.

I'm very honored and I'm humbled to come represent and speak for a gentleman who I know is a person from God.

My brother Ghazi right here, he is humble.

He doesn't tell you a lot of the stuff that he has done for the community and for the people.

Just recently this weekend, and we're not against the Second Amendment.

We are a survivor of gun violence right here.

That man helped us get 212 guns off the streets of San Francisco.

18 of them guns were assault rifles.

Not only that, he supports and helps the brothers coming home for restorative justice.

he's so humble, he doesn't even speak on it, but he takes care of the kids.

From the elementary to the penitentiary, this brother right here has been helping even before he even got this building.

So anytime I see somebody who's not just a native of San Francisco, but somebody who wants to help the people, I'm going to come stand up for.

This man right here is just like, you know, to me, a great opportunity to rebuild and vitalize our city, our downtown area.

But more importantly, to help our people to bring economic and equality justice to our people.

And so I'm going to say thank you, Ghazi, for always standing.

Always standing for our people.

You know what I mean?

Me and him go, that's my guy, me and him go back like a hot bowl of grips.

That's my dude, man.

And I got nothing but love and respect for him.

And any time he asks me to come to speak and represent, I'm going to come up and do it.

Because when he jumps, I'm going to jump with that brother without a parachute.

Thank you guys for standing for truth, King.

Happy holidays to everybody.

Merry Christmas.

Happy New Year's.

And happy everything.

Good afternoon, President Su and members of the commission.

My name is Emmanuel Sanchez.

and I'm a native San Franciscan business agent, Ironworkers Local 377.

I am here to support the proposed project at One Montgomery.

While I appreciate and concern, I can appreciate the concerns around setting precedent

if we modify an existing open space, I can also think it's important

about what segments of our community actually have access to the existing one.

The fact is currently privately owned public open space serves a very narrow demographic, and the proposal before you would pivot that to a much broader community benefit that more San Franciscans can access.

Let's put the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few and let this be the beginning of a long-term relationship with the project sponsor who I believe is deeply committed to working with the community and the future opportunities of this area.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Brendan Green, Local 6 business rep.

We represent all the electricians here in San Francisco.

Personally for me, working downtown for the last 25 years, walking by one Montgomery,

it is a beautiful building and it really hurts my heart when I see it empty, not being able

to be used by anybody.

This is just coming from me personally here.

But for a full labor agreement that he's given here, to get us back into that building, it's

just, I think it's an opportunity here that we're going to be regretting if we deny it.

And promising for a 100% union, that's something we're not getting from developers down there.

downtown now that are buying these buildings and this is an opportunity I

think we have to get 100% by thank you very much

good afternoon Commissioners my name is Diego Hernandez and I'm a business rep

for laborers local 261 I'm also a native of San Francisco and this project brings

everything brings labor brings community artists you name it so we're

I'm here on behalf of our 4,000 members in San Francisco that fully support

one Montgomery thank you

are you doing commercials I'm here today to support Ghazi Ghazi has definitely

supported my nonprofit the city eats we've been running for 13 years feeding

low-income families and he has been a big heart in what we do so 10,000

families have been fed because of this man you know and I'm thankful for what

he's doing I'm all for whatever project he does and I'm in full support so let's

go let's do it

good afternoon commissioners my name is Brandon Brockamonte and I'm

representing Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, and I'm here in strong support of Empire's proposal.

This project represents a $40 million private investment used in union labor, creating more

than 100 high-quality union jobs at a time when downtown construction is limited. These are

family-sustaining jobs that support local workers and apprenticeship pathways. From a planning

standpoint, the proposal activates a long-vacant landmark with year-round free public programming

that expands public access and generates consistent foot traffic for nearby small businesses.

Importantly, it preserves and reactivates historic interior spaces by opening them to the public rather than privatizing them.

Empire is a longstanding San Francisco employer with a demonstrated commitment to the city.

This proposal aligns labor standards, public benefit, and downtown recovery, and I respectfully urge your support.

Thank you. Happy Holidays.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Walter Orellana.

I'm a business agent for Mesa's Local 300.

I represent here in the city of San Francisco nearly 500 members

and a total of about over 3,000 members.

I support this project for a simple reason.

It is a better outcome than what we have today.

The prior concept would have turned a historic public interior into public space.

This plan brings that ground floor back to the people through events that retail and dining and will actually draw visitors.

This is how we create safety, energy, and pride in downtown core.

From a labor perspective, this is the kind of job we want.

A major union build funded by the sponsor with the scale to put a lot of our members to work.

As for the rooftop, I understand the concern, but the reality is that it is slightly used.

Limited hours amenity cannot compete with a year-round public programming that activates the whole district.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Joe Sanders.

I represent painters and drywall finishers Local 913,

and I'm here on behalf of my union to support this project.

This is just the kind of commitment that downtown San Francisco needs.

Empire is putting a lot of their own money into this project

and committing to all union labor, which means jobs with benefits

for a lot of people for a prolonged amount of time.

I think that the benefit by the public events outweighs the access to the rooftop, and I urge you to support this project.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Israel Vargas.

I'm here representing the plasters and cement masons here in Northern California.

I'm here to speak in favor of this proposal.

in Paris proposal I think is very good. It comes in a moment where the city is living an excitement

moment of recovery and I'm very happy for it right now. Also it has a 100% commitment for union

and that's one of the things that gets me happy. One of the things that gets me happy for is

20 years ago, I had an opportunity in projects like this because it has a path for bringing

apprentices.

That's how I pretty much started.

Okay, San Franciscans here need these right now.

We have a momentum and we need to keep it going, not only for union labor construction

buildings, but for the San Franciscans' revenue here in downtown.

Thank you.

please consider to move this forward.

I'm afraid I'm going to unleash a mob scene

because I think I'm the only one here to talk in the opposition.

Rather than lose what is probably San Francisco's premier popos,

I'd like to encourage a radical solution,

one that's definitely not in vogue these days,

and that is compromise.

Nobody gets exactly what they want.

Everybody gets something.

Everything everybody has said here is great.

Union labor, Ghazi's a god.

He's doing wonderful things.

But only 1% of that has anything to do with the Popos.

He can still be a philanthropist and keep the Popos open.

The Holbrook House at One Sansom shares their Popos with the public.

They're allowed to close a couple of days every month for private events.

Empire could similarly designate a few days when access to the rooftop is restricted

to alleviate security concerns for their visitors.

The statements that they've made about the access and their inability to make it secure,

I think they're very overblown because the access to that popos has always been

through the Crocker Galleria, not through One Montgomery.

This solution would obviously be greater for the public than a full closure.

It would kind of, sort of, keep in place what is supposed to be permanent public access.

And it would help restore the community's faith that privileged interests are not being prioritized over those of the public.

Don't underestimate how riled up people are over Ghazi's media statements about making the rooftop private and mega cool so that his employees never want to leave the office.

Empire clearly believes that public officials will rubber stamp their efforts regardless of the existing requirement for the popos.

Oh, wait, wait, what?

Everyone has two minutes.

OK, I just think everybody's sharing means that everybody wins.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Josh Fowles.

I'm a business proprietor with Shoot Metal Workers Local 104.

We started in San Francisco in 1903.

We've been here a long time.

We don't want to lose anything in San Francisco.

And Ghazi's saying he's going to stay here in San Francisco.

We've lost everything, everything, right?

Every record label, construction business, big tech business, they all leave California.

He wants to stay here.

Let's approve it.

Let's give them what they want.

It's going to benefit everybody.

It's going to benefit the community.

It's going to benefit the construction industry.

It's going to benefit the vast majority of San Francisco.

So we need to keep that right here.

We need to let them do what they got to do and get this work done.

100% union labor is going to be great for us.

It's going to be great for them because it means it's going to get done on time.

and on budget or under budget.

We all know that.

So let's get this done.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Colin Johnson.

I represent the Bricklayers and Alley Crafts at Local 3.

I myself and my wife live in Richmond, just across the bay,

but frequent over to San Francisco with my kids on the weekends

to enjoy the benefits of San Francisco.

This is a serious commitment from an entrepreneur trying to bring business back downtown.

We'd like to catch the ferry over and walk around downtown from the ferry building and check out everything down here.

I didn't grow up in San Francisco, so a lot of this is still my first time seeing everything.

And it's a pleasure to bring my children over here so they can enjoy the same kind of vitalization of downtown.

Representing the union that I do, we greatly benefit from restoration, and the workers

there are going to be committed to maintaining the stability and the historical aspect of

One Montgomery.

And with Ghazi committing to full union labor, that creates jobs for the city and will help

revitalize downtown with all of the union workers eating and visiting the places that

we go.

So as every union member in here can attest, you drive by a building and tell everybody you know that you worked on that building.

So everybody likes to revisit those things.

So I'd like to thank you for your time and please approve this project.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Trevor Long, and I'm the business representative for Glazer's Local 718 here in San Francisco.

Now, I sat down and wrote out some words that I don't want to regurgitate now because I've

heard all of my colleagues come through and make all those points to you.

Ultimately, I think the benefits of the approval of this project outweigh any negatives.

I think this is a step in the right direction towards bringing some fresh energy, fresh

blood, and fresh money into San Francisco.

And I wanted to come up here and say that.

Thank you very much and happy holidays.

Here, give me a moment.

My name is Olga Miranda, and I'm the president of SEIU Local 87.

I represent the janitors in San Francisco.

We are the skyline of San Francisco.

All the twinkling lights when you see up, bother to look up and enjoy the city skyline.

Those are my janitors turning the lights on and off. For us, this one Montgomery has been vacant.

We lost those jobs. And when you think about what the American dream and what the promise is and why

it is we bet on San Francisco, these are the hardworking men and women of a union that

represents predominantly immigrants, but it's the children that we hold and that we raise that we

want more promise and opportunity for them. No one is a god here except the great one and the prophets.

But I will say that to be able to see somebody come back and give to his community and his city is exemplary.

The lady who spoke earlier about what she said, while I respect the First Amendment, I also know what crazy sounds like.

This is an opportunity, and I appreciate the task and the work that you all as a commission have upon on your shoulders.

But think about what the city needs a comeback.

The mall will be closed in a few weeks.

I have 60 janitors out of work. One of those could potentially still have health coverage

and still be able to cash a check when One Montgomery opens. This is what we represent.

On a janitor's wage, we could buy a home. We could still provide for our families and retire with

dignity. But the opportunity of One Montgomery is very significant to us because we lost those jobs.

And no one knows bullshit better than our members because not only can we clean it,

we can smell it and we can call and name it when we look at it too.

So to the commission, we hope you support One Montgomery.

We want to be able to work and provide for our families and our babies too.

And for Ghazi, thank you for coming back.

Thank you for giving us and thank you for betting on San Francisco like we do every day.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Marcus Alvarez.

I'm the organizer for the International Union of Elevator Constructors.

I'm happy to see this project come up.

It makes sure that we have 100% union labor,

providing families with the ability to pay for their bills

and to continue serving the city of San Francisco.

but more than that what I'm really excited about

is the future opportunity this brings

to the city of San Francisco

with the guarantee of the free events

and free concerts it makes me something

excited to look forward to as an

expecting father that I can keep coming back to the

city and bringing my

family to those special events

and to see the city of San Francisco

grow we need something like this we need

to be able to enjoy

ourselves and this is going to bring that

opportunity not just once

but three times a year and free.

That means that we can also be able to support our businesses in the area

at the same time so provide amazing union opportunities for everybody here

and who works in service in the city of San Francisco.

Thank you so much for your time.

Happy holidays.

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Lada Keswani.

I'm the executive director of AROC, the Arab Resource and Organizing Center,

working with, serving, and representing thousands of working-class Arab Muslim Palestinians across the city of San Francisco.

I'm also a proud daughter of immigrants, working-class immigrants, and I wouldn't be standing in front of you

if I did not believe that the vision that Empire Records and Gazi have for this project

would be in service of all of our most vulnerable communities in the city of San Francisco, along with others.

We've spoken to our members and leaders, and everybody is so excited about the potential

with this project can bring to San Francisco and to that area that has long been abandoned.

I know firsthand from our own community members how they feel alienated, isolated from the city,

don't feel safe walking through the streets. So when I think of this project, I think of culture,

revitalization. I also think of safety and community, something that's very well,

much needed in this moment. I also know and imagine you have a lot of questions,

and as you should, for such a historic project. And I encourage you to engage those questions

with Ghazi and Empire. If I did not believe firmly that they are going to be collaborative,

work with community partners, work with the city to ensure that all of our concerns are addressed

and that this is in best service of everybody, I wouldn't be standing here before you. I encourage

you to support this proposal and look forward to working with you in the coming days. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Avi, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Chinatown CDC

in support of Empire's proposal for One Montgomery Street.

Empire has a strong track record of elevating Asian and Asian-American artists

and creating platforms for cultural expression

that are often missing from highly visible spaces in San Francisco.

We see them as a thoughtful cultural partner and a responsible steward of this site.

As the city works to revitalize its downtown,

it is critical that arts and culture are part of that effort.

bringing curated community-oriented cultural programming into the financial districts not only

will help restore vibrancy but also expand representation for communities like Chinatown

and so yeah for these reasons we urge the commission to support this proposal thank you

hi commissioners I'm David Harrison speaking today on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber

of Commerce in strong support of this proposal. We have been doing so much thinking and work

about the future of our downtown and this goes to show how we can find creative ways to think about

diversification of uses of bringing activity and vibrancy and arts into the downtown to enliven it.

I think also being creative about public open spaces and are they serving their best use for

for the community in various capacities.

And I think this proposal brings a tremendous amount

of public benefit to the downtown,

to the people of San Francisco,

and certainly our partners in labor.

So I'm super excited to be in support of this proposal

and look forward to seeing you move forward.

Thank you.

Hi, honorable members of the commission, Rudy Gonzalez with the San Francisco Building

Trades Council.

A pleasure to be before you.

And before we get on with it, I want to thank the hardworking staff of your department,

from the MEA ranks to the IFPTE 21 ranks to the SCIU members and the analysts and so many

other working professionals as they gear up for your final meeting.

I want to recognize their work. They are going to be staring down a massive budget deficit

made worse by you-know-who in D.C., who has stripped away health care for tens of thousands

of people and put another $400 million hole in our budget deficit. And that's going to mean

some tough choices for City Hall to make. And that brings me to the project, because what we need is

more people willing to invest in San Francisco in the short term for the jobs for people I represent.

in the long term for the revenue and the ability to actually staff a robust public sector from our

health care system, right, to our ability to actually staff our own division of building

inspection, for example, to our public works and street cleaners. We need all of that funded. And

the way that's going to get funded is by investment in San Francisco, and not just in a transactional

manner. I think you have a unique situation where POPOS is being thrown around a lot. I've even

fallen prey to that, but really the existing framework predates that idea, that concept,

that code section in the planning code. I think we should look at reasonable trade-offs that we can

make at this body, and then I also think as leaders in this space, you all bear a secondary

responsibility to make sure that this is not the only conversation that is had about community

investment and community commitment. I think you can all help facilitate more conversations

that are not necessarily in the code, but are in the community. And I stand here to support the

project. And I know that this project sponsor is committed to both this code change, but also the

community investment. Thank you. Hi, my name is Steven Bracco. I'm a Castro resident and long-time

Popos lover. I moved to the city in 2003 and first found out about Popos through the public

library's city guides program, which actually has the city spaces and public places tour,

which is actually going on right now, which used to include this popos, which I couldn't believe

that it's been closed for six years. It's hard to believe that you can say that it's not active

when it hasn't even been open for like a really long time. That seems kind of crazy. But to keep

it short, I hope there's some sort of compromise that we can find here to keep it open because

this Popos is one of the two best in the city, with the second one being at 343 Sansom.

I'm always bringing my friends to these places, and it just seems strange that we can't keep

this open.

Three events a year doesn't seem like a good deal for the city.

That's just one weekend.

Even downtown First Thursdays is once a month.

so I mean at least 12 seems like that would be a good compromise let's see yeah just in general I

hope we can find a solution to keep this popos open because I fear that once this commission

allows it to go it's going to be gone forever even though there seems to be some rules to bring it

back but from my experience that really never happens we all want people to come downtown

I'm downtown all the time.

I'd love for there to be more things to do.

They have some really awesome plans for things to do on the ground floor,

but that's not on the rooftop.

I just don't understand how we can't find a way to keep it open.

So thank you so much.

Excuse me.

Last call for public comment.

Again, you need to come forward.

Seeing none.

Public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry.

So this is really cool for me.

This is basically San Francisco.

This is the American dream here.

Ghazi, you actually bought not just the branch but the bank of that basically you and your parents deposited checks when you were a childhood.

But that is absolutely phenomenal.

The working class of San Francisco out here, except for one, Colin, who says he comes in here, BA3.

Colin does more for San Francisco and his members here than a lot of people here.

The fact that every labor union in San Francisco here, and I am a labor union representative,

the fact that every one of them are lockstep behind this project is absolutely phenomenal

because anybody who knows labor these days have not been in lockstep behind in any way, shape, or form for quite some time.

So I believe this project, when finished, will go a long way to not just reactivate but revitalize downtown as we know it.

The building has been offline for five years plus, but more importantly, the private sector, construction industry,

Basically, we're well into the sixth year of what I can only describe as a savage recession.

We have two administrations telling us that basically everything is fine.

But the reality is our members basically are losing health care every day of the week.

And many of them have lost it for quite some time.

And as we all know, we are basically hourly workers in the construction industry, which means if you don't work, you don't get paid.

We need a vibrant downtown. Downtown has been our bread and butter for years.

Downtown basically, as we know it, may cease to exist, but it can be revitalized.

And I believe this project doesn't just revitalize the building, but basically many blocks around it.

The creation of an entertainment zone is phenomenal.

I think it's exactly what the city needs.

I hosted a panel basically a couple of months ago on adaptive reuse and the possibility of office to residential.

I don't believe that's possible unless you actually have an active, vibrant downtown.

Because who wants to live next door to a building that is basically 60% occupied and 50% of those are basically working from home.

So the construction industry, the working class of San Francisco

who work in the construction industry,

basically desperately need this work

because this job here reverberates.

It is the ripple in the pond that basically creates confidence

on the building across the road.

I've seen the florists go.

You know, the building shut down, the florists go,

the shoeshine go, the cobbler gone.

the basically coffee shop gone, individual retail shops gone,

and then basically I've seen two of our biggest hotels almost gone,

brought back to life, and we've got rejuvenation there.

This is more rejuvenation in San Francisco, and I'm delighted to support this.

And basically I will make a motion to take discretionary review

and approve with conditions.

I believe arts, culture, and entertainment is San Francisco, and I think this is exactly what can actually be the shot in the arm to bring us back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner LeBron?

So, first of all, I want to acknowledge the immense investment that's being made with this project and the work that would go into the building,

and I want to appreciate that.

I can be a little sort of technical at times, and, you know, I'm also thinking that's not really, I'm not really approving the user here.

I'm approving a change in requirements about the public use of the rooftop terrace.

And so, in general, I've long been very skeptical and concerned about reductions of public access to our private open spaces,

whether it comes in under the downtown plan or whether it comes in through prior one-off agreements and conditions of approval.

Because like two of the speakers we heard, I think our, I'll just refer to them blanket here as popos.

I think our popos are a really great resource.

They're some really unique spaces.

It's been disappointing to see how property owners over time in some cases have made them very difficult to access,

put you through a lot of hoops or had their security guards steer you down

while you're trying to access the rooftop popos.

And so I've tried to hold the line in some cases on attempts to privatize these spaces.

One Sansom comes to mind where I was trying to be very cautious about the number of events

and enclosures that were allowed and was not in favor of expanding them when it came to us

because I wasn't seeing a commensurate public benefit being offered for the closure.

And so I looked at this very carefully.

I spoke with the project sponsor.

I spoke with folks from Office of Economic and Workforce Development as well as department

staff.

And I have a couple of questions, first of all.

So I do want to, you know, one thing that hasn't really come up very much is the fact

that there's another publicly accessible open space

on the rooftop northwest corner of Crocker Galleria.

That's still there, right?

And that's not subject to this, correct?

That's correct.

So it's separate ownership.

They are retaining their open terrace

on the roof of the Crocker Galleria.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then my other question is about the...

It's an unusual and creative solution

to have this suggested alternative public benefit

of the event programming.

I appreciate the creativity,

but I don't think we have a lot of history

of monitoring events as a planning department

that's primarily focused on land use and design.

So I'm curious,

how is it that we're going to monitor compliance

with that requirement if this is approved?

Yeah, definitely.

So those are baked into the conditions of approval.

The sponsor will be required to submit annual reports to the department.

And the conditions of approval were crafted specifically to provide a strict threshold that you need to meet.

So it's three events.

It's 1,000 people per event.

And it's 10,000 people annually.

Those are sort of the major ones.

And so the sponsor is going to provide those numbers to the department for review.

And assuming that they are meeting compliance, then they would continue to have that rooftop

terrace closed.

Who would be responsible for estimating the attendance at those events?

Or would that be done?

The project sponsor would be responsible for that.

Could I maybe ask the project sponsor then?

What sort of, how is it that you would estimate the attendance at the events?

What's the methodology there?

Yeah, absolutely.

Many of our events are in an enclosed area, but we have multiple additional methods.

One of those methods is we, even though they're free, have either used Eventbrite, Partiful, or RSVPify to track RSVPs and then confirm them when people arrive at these events.

We've also taken sample size photographs of the events at the peak of those events and used software to estimate with a good degree of certainty how many people are present at those events.

And is this a type of reporting you regularly have to do for other purposes?

Is this a pretty established kind of approach?

These events are a significant financial and operational undertaking to put on.

And so we'd like to know what we're doing, what the cost per person is, and what the commensurate benefit is when we do these events.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Just to clarify as well, if I can direct your attention to page 9.

So condition 2, subsection, or condition 3, subsection 2, says the attendance of each public event along with the explanation and the methodology used to determine the attendance.

That will be included as part of the reporting metrics.

Okay, thank you.

And actually, Dakota, if you don't mind staying up, I, you know, I think you can see where I'm driving up with some of my questions.

What I'm trying to really understand here is the balance of what's the public benefit if we're losing one type of public benefit, which is a public space open during business hours.

What are we getting in exchange for that in terms of community benefit?

And so my last question on those lines is about the NLU fee payment option.

So after five years, actually, I just thought of a different question, too, as I'm saying this.

Would they still have the option of the in-lieu fee payment after five years if they're not in compliance with the public event requirement?

So if they were not in compliance with the events requirement, staff would effectively bring this item back to the commission for consideration of revocation.

So it would be at the discretion of the planning commission.

So, no, that in-lieu fee option only becomes available after five years of complying with these events requirements.

Okay. And I recognize also we have discretion if it does come back to do whatever.

So, okay.

My last question then is, for the in-lieu fee payment option after five years of compliance, I'm seeing it put out there that it's a $19 million in-lieu fee payment.

The implication of that is that it's the in-lieu fee amount of around $2,500 a square foot times the total square feet of the existing public rooftop area.

I guess, is that, as I understand it, this space took on more of the requirements for the whole development project initially in the early 80s than just for this building itself.

and I'm a little concerned that the in-lieu fee payment might be based on what the obligation for open space would be based solely on this parcel,

which could, I imagine, potentially be less.

So how would the in-lieu fee payment be calculated?

Yeah, definitely.

So I think what you are referring to is, so Plan of Code Section 138 basically determines how much open space that projects need to provide.

So that number is set. Section 426 basically says for every square foot of usable open space not provided, they pay that $2,500 per square foot.

So it's determined based on the existing square footage of the terrace as it exists today, if that clarifies.

That clarifies it. I'm a little concerned about it. I'm concerned that the obligation might be set based on what the obligation would be based on the square feet of development on the site rather than the existing open space.

Commissioner, our fees are set per code.

And so as the code states, we charge the fee based on the square footage of open space that is.

Whether what you might imagine might be required or not is not what would be replaced if they chose the in lieu option.

So we would only be able to charge the fee as it exists in the code, which is based on the square feet that would therefore be removed by paying the fee.

Okay. As long as I have that assurance, I'm comfortable with this because I just want to make sure this is calculated based on what's on the site now, not on some recalculation of the obligation based on the square feet of the usable space in the building.

So, okay, with that assurance, then I appreciate that.

And those are my questions.

Thank you.

So, like I was saying, it gave us a lot of thought.

I think if this came to us as a request for removal of the condition to simply close the rooftop terrace to public access, that would be an easy no.

I think that this time is different from some of the prior requests to close off public access to spaces because there actually is, in my opinion, a commensurate sort of offer of an alternative community benefit.

And so, you know, this activation of downtown through the events, I see that as being a reasonable alternative to a business hours only open space, especially given that there are others in the area.

And right now, at least the Crocker Galleria one is still there as well.

And hopefully Crocker Galleria will be sort of active again in the future soon.

And then also, you know, the in-lieu fee payment, if this is a $19 million payment, that seems like a reasonable both incentive to maybe not want to pay that and to continue the event programming so long as that's possible with the current sponsor.

and then if there is a 19 million dollar fee payment by by in the future that's quite a lot

of revenue that can be used to reinvest in our truly public open spaces as opposed to business

hours only spaces so i think that this trade-off is is a reasonable trade-off in my opinion

and so i am i am comfortable supporting this project with this set of community benefits

I don't see it as a precedent per se, so I don't want it to be taken that way.

But in this unique circumstance, I do support the project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Braun.

A lot of detail has been laid out and presented.

Today I'm really thrilled to hear a lot of union members spending your precious before holiday time show up here.

it is a job

that is a project that really truly

going to sizzle downtown back to

hopefully the next

century and decades

and we always talking about how do we activate

streets

how do we enhance downtown

it is a very

I'm really sympathetic about some of the

people mentioned about their experiences

about these rooftop access, and I take a look and I think about it.

Rooftop access.

This particular one predated many of us who actually probably haven't born

when this thing was enacted 45 years ago, right?

So not revealing everybody's age, but just thinking about that.

And the acronym POPOs didn't exist until probably 20, 25 years ago.

So just keep that in the perspective about this is a very unique scenario.

This is a very unique scenario with a development agreement that was predated many of us who hasn't been born.

But I'm looking at in the light of, I agree with all my fellow commissioners have been spoken right now,

But in looking at having something that is so hyper-local, someone who were born and raised in the city,

Palestinian-American, decided to invest back in our city and throw himself and everyone together

and attract so many talent.

Also invest in elevating minority women,

all different men and women of different colors

to be in the leadership position

and uplifting creatives, artists,

that otherwise are really struggling to provide housing for them.

I don't know what else to say.

This is just speaking just literally music to my ears

of having you guys there.

And I really applaud my planning staff

and also with the OEWD department

really is looking at working collaboratively

with the sponsor to really come up with this set of proposal

that create, how can we enable continuing

to revitalize our downtown

and encourage people to come back

that has all these multiple benefits that Ben showed us in these slides

in addition to tax revenues.

It was just kind of like I am really in full support of it,

and Commissioner Brown mentioned that there's also rooftop access in nearby location.

I think right now, if we're looking at a truly urban design and urban planning,

even just looking at principle,

we should also as designer in architecture and urban planning we should look at we are designing

spaces to encourage behavior and shape our people not just from an idealistic standpoint but looking

at a practical way of how can we actually engage to actually really activate the spaces that is

left been left as a void so this project has my full support with my fellow commissioners

If no one has seconded the motion, I will be seconded in it.

And then I think that my other commissioners also like to speak, and Commissioner Imperial.

Yeah.

Thank you, and thank you for everyone for coming out.

First, I want to, you know, first congratulate Mr. Ghazi in buying this building.

I want to also appreciate, also validate your experience here in San Francisco

and how you have also amassed the community support for your project.

And, you know, it is important that we also support San Francisco Native investing back in San Francisco.

But I also want to ground us, and especially me, in terms of my connection in the south-of-market community

and how the popos in the side of market has been something considered as important

because side of market is one of the area that is very dense and has only one public open space,

and that is only the Victoria Manolo Draves Park.

And many of the community activists also advocated for popos

because it's a way to be integrated in the developments that are coming up in this out-of-market.

And throughout the years, these POPOs have been underutilized.

There has been studies where the project sponsor or the developers or the owners don't make the POPOs that accessible.

And that's why I think here in the commission we've had a lot of conversations in the POPOs that I've been in tenure

how to make the popos more accessible and more cohesive with the community, with the residents,

especially in the areas where there is a lack of open spaces.

So I just want to ground that in terms of the perspective of popos,

at least in how I brought up in the community.

one thing that also reminded me

back I think a couple of years ago

is there is this one

that is actually inside the building

I think the conservatory

one conservatory building

in one San Somi

and I enthusiastically supported

that popos in a way that there are events

that are open and there are days that it's closed

in order to support the businesses, the business.

And I think they came back to the commission

in terms of trying to expand more closed days for the popos.

But they returned to us with a report

of how they're really activating the popos

in the days where they don't have events.

They actually, kind of like you, Mr. Gazi,

they actually had a lot of community support

work with the community and having events in one sense so mistreated.

And so I think we approved it at the end of the day

because of how well-intentioned the owner of that.

So it just also, you know, one of the conversations we had here in the Planning Commission,

there's, you know, one thing, too, that we also talked about was the Transamerica

and I think the connection to the Maritime Plaza

and how Maritime Plaza,

it's actually in the second level,

it's in the rooftop.

And because of the COVID pandemic,

the Maritime Plaza is not that,

I mean, it's not,

I'm saying it's accessible.

It's actually, you can still walk around in Maritime,

but it may not be that popular

because there's no activation.

And in the commission,

we've had conversations of like

how to make Boboos to be more activated

in a way that is also connected to the downtown revitalization.

And I always think that the best way to make popos activated

is to have constant programming in there by the owner

in a way that they're making good means being part of the community as well.

So, you know, I just want to give the background of these conversations about the popos.

and what I would say one of the successful rooftop, you know,

popos is a sales force.

I always go there and you will see people and, you know,

having a picnic, walking around.

There is a cafe there.

There are morning exercises that I've gone there at some point to.

And there is that activation.

and you feel that it is in the middle of offices, but it's pretty well active.

And I always think that that's one of the successful rooftop popos that we have.

So I'm also taking this not lightly in terms of closing a popos.

and just because once the popos is closed,

I would think, you know,

I'm trying to think that it's beyond

what the building or what the owner would do,

like what would it look like in the 10 years, 20 years.

Will, you know, if the building gets sold,

will, you know, that means we will,

will it revoke back the popos in itself?

So that's also one question that I'm wondering

too, because this is more like, I'm not saying it's a policy, but something to think about

in the future as well. Nevertheless, I have a question in terms of the public events that

you would like to hold. And my understanding, are these public events going to be conducted

on the rooftop or not necessarily?

I think that's best answered by the sponsor.

Thank you for the question.

So because it is a downtown public benefit,

we wanted to offer a commensurate downtown public benefit.

And so the planning staff designated

the geographic boundary of downtown.

And part of this is that the goal is to be creative

in terms of continuing to bring people downtown.

And so we plan to host events all throughout that geographic area.

And as I briefly mentioned, that will include the rooftop on occasion.

That will include the banking hall that's going to turn into a flexible event space.

But it's also going to include all of the areas we currently host these events in the entertainment zones, in Embarcadero Plaza, so on and so forth.

The three that are designated for downtown are going to be specific to downtown.

but we are already in talks with doing a post-Chinese New Year's concert,

Chinese New Year's parade concert, reggae concert near Babuena,

a mission concert on Valentine's Day.

This proposal is for three to give back specifically to downtown,

but those three are in addition to the activations we'll be doing throughout the city,

in one Montgomery and otherwise.

And so there will be...

There will be something on the rooftop. That's what your answer is.

So there will be no public event on the rooftop?

There may be.

There may be.

There may be.

Yeah.

Okay.

So at least three, that means minimum of three.

And would you consider increasing from three to 10 or 12?

You know, we've thought about this carefully, and we really are more at 10 or 12.

As I mentioned, the three are specific to downtown.

These are tremendous financial and operational undertakings.

They require creating an entire additional team at our company to do so.

We have been spending upwards of $500,000 per year to produce these events.

They take months to plan.

We have to coordinate safety.

We have to coordinate with the city.

We have to coordinate permitting.

We wanted to do something that accomplishes two goals.

One, to keep these fun and creative and actually attracting people.

We don't want them to become stale.

First Thursdays and Fridays on Ellis and Night Markets are awesome right now.

Well, they'd be awesome in 10 years as long as we keep them interesting and make people want to go to them as destinations.

And secondly, we want to make sure that we can fulfill our promise to you every year.

A thousand-person event, that's our minimum, is not easy to produce.

it is not easy to convince 1,000 people to come out onto the streets of San Francisco three times a year.

And we're promising to bring 10,000 people.

Just to put things in perspective, to serve 10,000 people on the 7,500 square feet of our rooftop,

40 to 50 people would have to visit that rooftop every single business day for an entire calendar year.

It's unlikely.

So we've thought about it very carefully.

This was not like a random, flippant decision.

Okay. Yeah, I would assume because the minimum attendance that I would also think that the total attendance of 10,000, that is a pretty high, you know, minimum of 10.

Although it looks like you've done other events that had 20,000.

Our events last year did over 30,000.

Again, this is commitment for these three specific events,

but if you take all our events together, again,

we want to make sure that we can fulfill our promises to you for decades to come.

Okay.

So you mentioned that the main reason for closing

or the intention to close the purpose is for security.

security purpose. How do you anticipate, so if there is a purpose that open, how do you

anticipate, or how's your security look like right now?

Well, we're not currently at this property yet. It's been demoed on the interior. So

We've been taking things one day at a time, admittedly.

We haven't planned our events, and we are bringing in a security consultant generally.

But as an example, when we hosted the Civic Center concert on September 15th, honoring our 15-year anniversary, security was the highest priority of Ghazi.

Not, let's make this the coolest event and show off Empire.

it was if we can't protect all of the people coming to this event,

this is going to be a terrible, terrible thing for Empire in San Francisco.

So that's the first thing we consider.

We work in conjunction with San Francisco Police Department up to the chief level

to make sure that these events are adequately staffed.

If ever, whether we host on the rooftop in our banking hall or Fridays on Ellis,

that's the first thing we think about,

and we do that in coordination with the city and the police department.

Okay.

I mean, those are my questions.

I, for me, I'm trying to figure out as well in terms of, because, again, I'm concerned about closing out the Popos forever after five years.

and I know that we laid out conditions as well

that there needs an annual reporting of this

but after five years

that's what I'm still concerned about

in terms of the, even though the

you know, it's kind of

knowing that this is a historical building as well

the importance of that weighs heavily as well on this

to me and you know, it's part

I mean, the building itself, when it was a bank, you know, it's such a beautiful building.

So I weighed heavily on that.

So, yeah, so I'm still kind of like in the edge.

I'm not – it does make me feel a little bit uncomfortable that there is a – you know,

There is something, a condition in here that after five years, it can be purchased and it can be taken off.

To be clear, I just want to clarify.

I didn't mean to interrupt.

Can I speak on that?

I have no desire to ever fee out.

Okay.

That's just, I'm also almost 50 years old.

You just never know what happens from a, if something physically happens to me or something ever happens.

I have no desire to ever leave the city.

I have desire to make that my headquarters permanently.

And it's a company for the community, by the community,

for as long as the community is there to work there.

So I have no desire to fee out.

That was something that was requested of me to have a tradeoff

if I stopped performing my duties and producing the events.

Every year we've been producing more and more events.

But like Shadi said, it's just a significant undertaking

because I'm technically not an events company.

I'm a record label and a publisher.

I employ people on the executive side of the business.

Event production is a whole other arm of business,

and I've been fortunate to find partners in the city that have partnered with me to help me produce these events.

But I have no desire to ever fee out or leave this space, so I don't think that's ever going to be an issue.

I just wanted to stare you in the eye and tell you that I was asked to have a solution for this.

I don't care about that solution.

I want to stay here forever.

I hope my children's children's children can help be stewards of this building and stewards of the city.

I live in downtown. I'm raising my children in downtown.

I made a conscious decision to stay in downtown when no one was in downtown.

I was the only person living in my building.

And everybody told me to leave downtown, and I stayed.

And not only did I stay at Double Down, so I have no desire to leave the building.

I have no desire to fee out.

I only have a desire to stay, produce these events,

and produce as much culture and arts in the city as I humanly can.

When I started, Empire was one employee 15 years ago.

It's 200 people in downtown now, 50% women, people from all walks of life.

We probably speak 30 or 40 languages.

The diversity is at an all-time high.

This is not DEI because of policy.

This is DEI by design.

This is who I am.

I promised to build a company where nobody felt invisible and everybody had a voice.

So I want to be a voice for the city and a voice for the community

and show people that when something is done right in the city,

this is what it looks like.

So other people can emulate.

And hopefully imitation is flattery.

I hope a lot of people imitate what I've done

because it's as authentic and as impactful as possible.

I just want to let you know to Mr. Ghazi,

I sympathize with your vision and the vision for your company

and also in terms of what you want to contribute to the city as well.

I want to let you know.

But at the same time, you know, I also want to, as a commissioner, I also want to protect the integrity of the programs that we have here.

And it's not you.

You know, again, it's about the youth.

But I fully, I'm fully aware of, you know, I'm not trying to dismiss your project.

I just want to make sure.

But I think for us in the department, we want to make sure to as well that, you know, this is more for us in the department to talk about the, you know, the proposition that's what's in front of us right now.

Do you mind if we should just clarify a little bit about the program?

Can you define it a little bit?

Yeah, just to clarify on the record, and I really appreciate, thank you, Ghazi, for speaking on that.

In the unlikely and terrible opportunity that we lose Ghazi, and that commitment can't be upheld,

and I think he just said it to you in person, the way this is written is not that they pay the fee after five years.

It is that that opportunity, that option, only becomes available after five years.

So I just want to make clear, the way this option that we're presenting before you is proposed is they produce events on an annual basis, and we verify that they prevent those events on an annual basis.

If they don't, on any annual basis, we go back to the way things are, right?

Opening up the rooftop.

After five years of successfully doing this, and only after five years of successfully doing this event, the option to pay the fee becomes available.

Just like other projects have downtown through our public open spaces.

And that would come back before you again with that option.

So you're not granting anything today other than the ability for Empire to do these events on an annual basis for a year and for us to make sure it works.

And if it doesn't, all of those other triggers come into play.

Okay. Thank you.

And we'll have another heated debate here again.

And you'll have the control over, you know.

Yeah.

Those are my comments for now, and I'm also willing to hear what others said.

And Commissioner Williams?

Thank you, Ghazi, for your inspiring story.

You've galvanized a lot of folks who believe in you and your vision and your company and what you do.

It's noticeable.

there was a lot of people here today

and so that's

a testament to you

who you are

and so

I just want to highlight

that

observation

I too am from San Francisco

born and raised and so

I really appreciate someone

that is homegrown

and is

really being successful

and bringing people with him.

And so, you know, I have a lot of respect for that.

So I just wanted to let you know that.

You know, the thing about what's in front of us today,

as a commissioner, you know,

I have to look at a lot of other things

other than, you know, what you bring to the space.

as far as a public benefit.

Unfortunately, since I've been here on the commission,

I've seen a lot of trending towards...

We've given back a lot of the benefits to downtown

that I'm not always in agreement with,

but benefits for developers and stuff and, you know, to get downtown going.

And so a lot of those benefits, unfortunately, impact lower-income communities like child care and stuff like that.

That has nothing to do with this, but it's kind of when I think about a public benefit,

you know all those things come to mind so this is you know this is it's just bigger than than

you know one montgomery uh the other thing that's you know that that i think about is um

you know what kind of precedent this could send uh to other uh folks that

own buildings that may want to

may not be wanting to continue to have them

public be a part of that.

And I know there's been a lot of

folks saying otherwise that this is just a one-off.

But as a commissioner, I have to seriously think about that.

Because I value the popos, the public-private spaces.

I think they serve a good purpose, and they're a public benefit.

It's just like a street, a park.

It's not mine.

It's not anybody here's.

It's the public's.

It's everybody's.

So that carries a lot of weight.

and so

you know I think

also

you know I'm very

aware of the benefits

to the community

that you have

put forth

you know you have a lot of community support from a lot of great organizations

and that's again a testament to yourself

I'm conflicted

you know

I

right now

I'm more concerned

with the public interest

and it has

nothing to do with you personally

but

I

I just feel that

that this could

set some kind of a precedent

and

I'm concerned about that.

I don't

want this to be

something that

kind of

starts this whole

effort

to start

closing these

public spaces that a lot

of people care about.

So, anyway, did you want to say something?

I see you're jumping up in your seat.

Commissioner, I appreciate that.

Andrew Junius on behalf of Empire.

You know, the precedent question I think is really interesting.

It's impossible for this to set a legal precedent because we are outside of what the planning code currently requires.

If this POPOS was subject under Section 138, we wouldn't even be here because that's a code requirement.

The only reason that this is before you is because the Planning Commission 45 years ago created a special rooftop open space before the downtown plan was even completed.

So, you know, rest assured there is no precedent here.

There is not going to be a bunch of people lining up to make changes to Section 138 because that's just not possible at the Planning Commission.

Okay.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you for that.

I seen you were anxious to say something.

So I wanted to let you speak.

The city attorney, do you have anything to add as far as what was just the information that was given to us?

What's your take on it from one attorney to another?

Thank you, Commissioner Williams.

So if I'm understanding your question, you're asking whether or not the decision today will have any precedential effect.

And I believe Mr. Junius clarified that, well, his view is that, you know, this is a condition that was initially imposed as part of a 1979 approval.

Today we have a code requirement that requires something similar.

So it's very, very, very unlikely that you'll see something similar.

That's probably true.

I would say that in general, the commission, there's no legally binding precedent.

These are policy decisions that the commission gets to weigh and determine.

So to that extent, if a similar project were to come forward in the future,

there are projects out there that have pre-19, pre-POPOS, Section 138 requirements that may come forward.

you wouldn't be bound to get to the same outcome

as a legal matter.

It would be a policy decision.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

That's it for right now.

I want to hear from Commissioner Moore.

Thank you, Commissioner Williams.

Commissioner Moore?

Okay.

I fall into the category of people

who were around when this started.

And I am delighted to see downtown moving away

from a single use, just being lawyers' offices

and bankers and people in sweepy suits, et cetera.

And I'm really excited about that

because that is ultimately the vitality of a city

and one that can accommodate that shift in users.

So that's a wonderful thing to see.

I'm delighted to see the support of the community you have.

You seem to be totally ingrained in every part of that community.

The only thing that was a little bit strange for me

is that many people came today who supported you

based on a project that I have not seen.

I have read about something.

However, the real nature of what you're intending to do with the building

is totally unclear to me.

And I think it's good.

I'll ask you.

Thank you.

I've heard descriptions.

I've talked with David and heard things.

But until you see it, you don't quite know what you are going to approve.

Talking about, and thank you.

Thank you for taking this bold step and trying to do this.

I want to put a couple of corrections into the narrative.

The rooftop garden on top of the banking hall was actually the brainchild for what later on became the purpose.

And when you read the exchange between city planning and the development expectations on the Crocker Tower,

together the commitments the Crocker family, who at that time I think still owned that building, made,

they're very clearly indicating to the public-private benefits of making this rooftop a public-private open space.

And that idea then ultimately became policy and laid the foundation of what now is the Popo legislation.

In that sense, it should be grandfathered in, and I think the descriptions, when you look at them closely,

create a clear understanding of what the intent is

and that this is indeed the prototype for purpose.

That said, one second, please.

It is only with COVID that all of a sudden a break occurred

where literally every relationship we had with any open space started to cease.

We couldn't go downtown.

We couldn't sit in any open space.

We couldn't walk anywhere. We were literally confined to perhaps the length of the street on which we walked our dog.

And with that, something died, and that is indeed the collective feeling that originally at least existed in this open space

that I've been frequenting for the entire time that I worked downtown, which was almost 30 years.

and that open space, just to remind you,

I think has on its door only an occupancy capacity

of about 90 to 92 people because of exiting requirements.

And so it was one of those sunny, quiet living rooms

where people who wanted to be outside,

not at street level, where buses, cars,

and people were walking by,

but wanted to sit in a quiet space,

meet their friends, actually quietly converse with a colleague perhaps,

or perhaps ever congratulate somebody to the birth of their child or a promotion,

but it was always a very kind of settled open space.

Some people went there for suntans.

Some people took their suit jacket off, rolled up their sleeves,

and just enjoyed as an office worker to be able to sit outside

and just do what you want to do, just kick back and let an hour go by

and then go back to your office and do what you do.

This particular theme was picked up in a very pro-pro-pro article

in the San Francisco Business Times in 2019,

actually a day before the summer solstice.

And I'm tempted to read one sentence to you

because I would like to correct some of the narrative,

which was kind of quite negative.

and since I experienced it as a very positive,

very powerful open space

because of its quiet removedness from city life

but it was publicly accessible,

I want to read that sentence to you.

Again, this was the one day before the solstice.

With Somerset to officially begin with tomorrow's solstice,

the rooftop purples offer a chance

to see that often elusive sun,

not to mention grand views of San Francisco Bay and some close-up of that ever-changing skyline.

And that particular sentence, other than seeing San Francisco Bay, totally applies to this space.

If you're a photographer, and for professional reasons, that's a little part of what I do.

I'm not a photographer.

You can see the most amazing overlays of historic and new buildings from that roof.

and it just creates the most amazing imagery you ever saw.

That was one of the reasons why many architects went up there,

just sitting there and just looking around, et cetera, et cetera.

I am very torn about this,

and I picked up on two comments during today's public comment.

The gentleman, one of the gentlemen sits there.

I don't see the young woman who spoke about,

is there a middle ground?

Is there some kind of a philanthropic overlay

by which this open space, this public-private open space,

can still remain open independent of what you may consider after five years.

The reason why I'm saying this, underneath this roof deck, there was a bank,

and probably one of the more powerful banks in San Francisco

and probably one of the oldest, San Francisco-founded bank, Wells Fargo.

their million dollars and their safes and whatever the else had in the basement,

there was never an issue that there was a threat to the safety of that bank any time that I know of.

The access path is very controlled.

The area on which you circulate is very defined.

There is an elevator.

Few people used it.

the majority, the majority of people came through the ascending galleries of Crocker Galleria and

then came to the rooftop. So there was never a feeling that there is a physical threat to anybody

in the building, which was the banking portion of the office was right underneath, and then there

was the banking hall. But there was never a feeling that the bank would be broken in coming

from the rooftop because the open space closed at 5,

and the gates of the Galleria closed at 6 or 7 or 6.30, whatever it was.

So that thing was a closed, secure building on its own.

And it's really my concern that exchanging a public asset,

public real estate, so to speak, or publicly shared real estate,

which is a definition of popo, would be taken away in perpetuity.

And I'm looking for a philanthropic interface between public and private to continue,

even if it's modified from its existing current use.

I'm looking at Mr. Shove at the Transamerica Permit.

he totally renovated the permit

and made it a spectacular contemporary building

he actually took on Kitty Corner

a historic building

and added a modern addition to it

never asking that the use of the entire Redwood Park

would be modified

but what he did by making the connection

through the buildings

he recreated a meaning

of the public-private use of the Redwood Park

in a manner that it makes it a fantastic public gathering space

that I believe will ultimately revitalize

and already is that particular quadrant of the financial district.

I'm kind of trying to find a middle ground.

I'm a strong believer of public-private open spaces

and their absolute necessity to exist in San Francisco.

San Francisco invented the idea of public-private open spaces,

and the rest of the world kept looking of what a great idea that was.

They had already built so much they couldn't retrofit.

Can we think differently about them?

Yes, we can.

Does it have to be giving them up completely?

I'm not sure.

I want to leave you with that question.

I'm really struggling with this project and I love the idea of you coming into

this building but I like to see a slightly different solution of how

ultimately the the rooftop park is being used.

I also do you want I have actually a question. Please go ahead.

Oh okay. If you have any comment and response to what I'm saying I would like to hear from you.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner Moore.

You know, we value public-private partnership very much.

And yes, we're trying to secure this rooftop.

We're not trying to secure a bank's money backed by the FDIC that's in the drawer behind the teller counter.

We're trying to secure the safety and the lives of our employees and our artists and our guests.

And while bank robberies may never have happened at Wells Fargo Bank,

there are well-documented instances of violence against our employees and our artists. And

respectfully, we care very much about that. It's impossible to operate a business where we cannot

guarantee the safety of the people that support this company. We're not SHVO. We're not an

international development company who can station three guards in the Redwood Park to protect

property. Again, these are the lives of our employees. The last time we had an incident

at our offices on 235 Pine Street, we had to staff police at our building for three weeks,

and employees wouldn't come in. We care deeply about public-private partnership, which is why

we are inviting people into the historic banking hall. We've already made agreements with non-profits

to use that space to host our exhibits there. We told the Victorian Alliance they could continue

doing their historic tours there.

In fact, Shelley, I don't know if she's still here,

the woman who objected against the project

works for City Guides.

I met with her at the building.

She used to give tours of One Montgomery,

and she used to take her tours

and sit on top of One Montgomery.

And I spoke with her colleague, Dawn McLaurin,

who hadn't had a chance to meet with Dimitri,

the head of City Guides,

but we already told them,

I wish we had spoken a week sooner.

We are happy to let you continue your nonprofit work

and take tours of One Montgomery, we haven't put the cart before the horse.

We're trying to ensure that we can safely operate within this space

before we iron out every single detail.

And it would be impossible to codify every single public-private benefit

that we already do and that we would be enabled to do even further in this building.

But we are committed to that.

We think inviting people into our space, while not 9 to 5 every day for the office workers,

is going to allow people from all backgrounds to enjoy the space in a manner that another operator of the building would not have allowed.

And just lastly, our company is unique.

We're not a 9-to-5 company.

We're a 24-7 company.

We have to secure the space at all times.

And we can't predict when somebody is going to come and try to get a hold of one of our artists or our employees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I do not have any other comments.

I think the security requirements seem very strict, probably put in other issues relative to the reuse of the building.

So I'm completed with my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I do have some – I really want to emphasize that I'm really always concerned about my safety anywhere I go in San Francisco.

and lately in these recent years, not just COVID,

but it just, when you're up there in the middle of somebody's roof,

I don't know if I'm really comfortable being there.

So let's just leave it like that.

I felt like public safety is a big concern

and our mayor actually wanted to make sure that no one needs to be worried

and afraid to go anywhere publicly.

And by doing that, we need to encourage people to really use our street.

And we actually have these activity.

And what was worked before 45 years ago might not be always a perfect solution for what is coming ahead of us 45 years now and ever.

But I actually had a question, kind of technical, since we have the lawyer in the room.

I think it's you.

Thank you.

I don't really know your name.

I'm so happy to help.

Thank you.

What can I help you with?

Yes.

Can you elaborate and clarify a little bit about the POPOs or conditional approval processes a bit?

I think not just us, but for all general public who are interested in this matter,

just explain it to us a little bit more about what are we here for today.

Of course.

Again, it's very, very important to keep in mind that the planning code requirements for POPOs,

for buildings that have been built since those requirements have been in effect for the last 20, 25 years,

those are governed by the planning code.

There's nothing that this commission could ever do to eliminate one of those.

If there was any changes in that, it would, of course, have to come from the Board of Supervisors.

The Board of Supervisors would have to pass an ordinance to make any changes to how the POPOs legislation works.

but this open space is not governed by those rules which is why we can come

here and have a conversation about you know much a much different benefit to

the city and I couldn't agree more with Commissioner Moore a lot of history here

this would this has been around for a long time but you know times do change

and this is an open space a rooftop terrace that has not been used for many

years you've got a very unique building owner that has a very unique need with

respect to the security that we just heard about.

But this is not, this is about this building and about this request and about the history

of this building.

And it really isn't about the code, the planning code section 138 and the requirements for

new developments to create new POPOs are not this.

And we're not, there's no way those two things connect each other.

Does that help?

That's really good.

So in other words, that's why Salesforce Tower designed the way it is.

because Salesforce Tower has a component for public access.

That's why they were able to create an elevator garden.

Absolutely.

Because there's a ground-up kind of vacant design from clean slate.

And that's an interesting observation because between Salesforce Tower

and some of the other larger indoor popos that are much more consistent

with the way the planning department and the planning policies

have been moving forward in the last couple of decades,

those popos are, again, they're not going away.

they're required by code, they're fantastic, they're indoor, they're protected from the weather,

they're going to be around forever, and this one's different.

And this one creates an awesome opportunity for the commission, I think, to step in

and allow for some different ways to approach this, but very much not.

So in other words, what you just tell us, and also with the general public here,

is that what we decide today, it doesn't open up like a huge floodgate for everybody to come in and say,

let's get rid of my popos.

That's absolutely correct.

Okay.

Only the board of supervisors could open that question through different process, different ordinances.

That would not be before you.

This is a very unique situation for a very unique building.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

and Commissioner Imperial

I have a question

I'm trying to find

middle ground here

will the project

sponsor, you mentioned earlier

that your

office

will not be

9am to 6pm

it's a 24 hour type

kind of

facility or building

will you ever be open

and having the rooftop terrace be open in the weekends?

I mean, I work, excuse me,

I work in the record industry.

It's seven days a week.

Like this is not,

the arts are not a conventional nine to five operation.

You know, people are in the office

seven days a week working.

We have artists coming from all over the world,

from Indonesia, the Philippines,

Vietnam, Nigeria, South Africa, North Africa.

There's artists here seven days a week.

So we're on 24 hours a day.

Just case in point, I wanted to sign an artist that I saw on Instagram the day before Thanksgiving.

I flew him in Thanksgiving evening.

He flew in his wife, and we were at the office working on a deal on Thanksgiving.

So we're 24-7 operation, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

And I have a question to the ZA, Mr. Teague.

With the notice of violations they're having, what's going to happen when it's, if let's say this is approved?

Sure. Happy to answer that.

Good afternoon again, President Seventh-day, Commissioners.

So the notice of violation is very specific to the original conditions of approval that created the requirement for this rooftop terrace.

So if those conditions of approval change, then the basis of that violation kind of goes away because it's kind of resetting the requirements, essentially, if that's what is approved.

So the violation right now is active because under those conditions, it's required to be open to the public.

But I think it's called out in the staff report.

But any action on that violation is on hold and no penalties have been assessed because there was an understanding this is a single tenant building.

It's a very unique building.

Until there's a tenant inside that building, you can't even actually provide access to there.

So I hope that helps answer your question.

But the bottom line is if we change the requirements of how that rooftop terrace is used from what they were originally,

then the basis for the violation would go away.

Thank you, Mr. Tick.

Those are my questions.

Commissioners, I see no other request to speak, and if there is no further deliberation,

there is a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve

with conditions on that motion.

Commissioner McGarry?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Nay.

Commissioner Braun?

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial?

No.

Commissioner Moore?

No.

Commissioner President Soe?

Commissioner Braun, you have a comment?

We could finish the vote first

Oh

Okay, I

Okay commissioners that motion fails three to three is there an alternate motion?

Commissioner Brown I

Would like to move to continue. I'm personally

Given my own concerns about the closure of the space. Although I find that there's a reasonable

alternative community benefit that's been proposed I understand other

commissioners don't feel that way so I would like to make a motion to continue

but as part of that I'm hoping we can have a discussion about what well there's

two pathways I mean I'll make that motion and if we do then I want to make

sure that there's it's worth everyone's while like that there is some sort of

guidance that can be provided by commissioners who voted no for what the

sponsor should work on alternatively I'm also open to if we settle figure out

figures out somehow today that's fine to suggest one thing should we take a 10

minute recess sure yeah okay as of cover to take a 10 minute recess

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll be right back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule rule

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll be right back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll see you next time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

for Thursday, December 18th, 2025.

Commissioners, we left off on Item 10 for Case Number 2025-007116 DRM at 1 Montgomery

Street, Mandatory Discretionary Review.

Commissioner Braun, I believe you are in the middle of a motion.

Yes, yes. I will go ahead and complete the motion to continue the item.

But like I was saying, if there's anything that's fairly straightforward and in the vein of what's sort of already on the table that could get this approved today, I'm open to that.

But for now, I'm putting in the motion to continue, and we can have a discussion about what should be worked on with that motion to continue if that's the direction we go.

Our next hearing is January 8th.

Sure, if we think we have room in the agenda for it.

Plenty of room.

Plenty of room.

Okay, yeah, January 8th.

I think there might be unavailability on some of my commissioners in that week.

On January 8th, okay.

We should certainly have a full complement of commissioners.

MR.

MR.

January 15th is the next hearing.

MR.

I don't have any.

No one has let me know that they're out on the 8th, but.

MS.

I have to think about that.

MS.

Commissioner McGarry.

MR.

I would ask that if there was some way we could actually get to an agreement here today,

it would be preferable.

I find it kind of embarrassing that we're at this stage.

I believe this is a story of a hometown kid who did really good,

came back and bought the bank in the middle of town.

And basically, we have got to sort this out,

and we have to have a decision,

because if we care about revitalizing, activating San Francisco,

basically, we should be able to make this decision here today

in a profound way that, well, not profound, in a very direct, simplified manner.

If there is an ask or something that basically the project sponsor could do

or something that basically would adhere to making commissioners' decisions or opinions a little at ease,

I think we should basically explore it and ask those questions, because leaving here today, be it continued or basically it not being approved, kind of defeats the purpose of us being here in the first place, I believe.

So I would ask I will stay here for the evening.

If we have to stay here for the evening, we can debate it out.

I think this Popos here was basically, technically, I believe this building may have inspired Popos, the modern, what we think of modern-day Popos situation, but it certainly wasn't built and designed to have one.

The ones that came afterwards had specific entrances, elevators, and access and exit to their purpose.

This one doesn't.

21 people spoke in favor of this.

One person spoke against.

And the person who spoke against this, basically, I find out later on that she has a business that utilizes this purpose.

I think we have a duty to actually make sure we go home here today with a positive situation on this.

Thank you, Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams?

Thank you.

I have a question that came to me, and I wanted to check in with the project sponsor.

As far as developing the inside, the bank, and all of that, you own the building.

Is that something that's in the works?

I mean, I know a lot of the building trades came out for you, and so that wasn't really talked about, and I'm just curious about that.

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Williams.

Fair question.

this is the key that unlocks this project for us.

We cannot, and I said this a couple of times now,

if we cannot guarantee the safety and the operational control

in order to keep safe our employees, our artists, and our guests,

we can't invest, not to mention the tens of millions of dollars,

but the years' worth of design and construction

and entitlements required to operationalize this building.

We have done some design work,

but because this matter before us is its own individual matter,

which lets us know if we can actually operationalize this building,

before we went and expended all of those resources and spent all of that time,

we needed to know whether this building actually made sense for us.

Okay.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

I appreciate you answering that question.

I'm not exactly sure.

I mean, I still feel a little conflicted.

but I'm kind of curious to see what my other commissioners,

there was some conversations, and so I'd like to see what else is happening.

I mean, to me, it's not really, you know, it's about the public space for me personally

and losing that space.

I'll just be honest with you.

As much as I have a high regard for what you guys do

and everything that your company is about,

I just feel like there could have been some compromise around that space,

given the importance of it.

And so I haven't felt like that compromise has been met.

And so anyway, yeah.

Commission Abrahman?

Like I said, my comments, it seems

like there's a little bit of an issue of the balance

and judgment of what's being lost as a community benefit

versus what's being gained as a community benefit.

And my fellow commissioners are making those own judgments

for themselves.

And I think the two areas that came up during discussion

that I was tracking were the idea, first of all,

of having partial or part-time public access

or a certain level of public access to the rooftop.

And the other issue that came up

was the number of annual events

and whether it was a reasonable trade-off,

you know, three events a year,

a minimum of 10,000 people total at those events.

There was a question about that.

So I'm curious if the project sponsors team

could speak to those two areas

where there was a desire to see maybe some movement

from commissioners.

So it's allowing some partial or part-time access,

not completely limiting public access to the roof,

and then also a number of events as well.

Thank you, Commissioner Braun.

And while we will be opening our space to the public

periodically, we've said we need to be able to control safety

24-7.

If an artist lands to do a concert at Chase Center

on Saturday, and he's flying out to New York on Sunday,

that's when the artist is in our building.

We always need to secure our building.

With that said, we've discussed, despite the financial

and operational burden that these events already take,

we will offer a fourth additional large scale event,

and we're happy to remove the in lieu fee from our proposal.

OK.

So a fourth large scale event, and then with the elimination