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

Thursday, January 22nd, 2026.

When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the

screen side of the room or to your right.

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

will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up.

When your allotted time is reached, I will 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 Soh?

Present.

Commission Vice President Moore?

Here.

Commissioner Braun?

Here.

Commissioner Campbell?

Here.

Commissioner McGarry.

Here.

And Commissioner Williams.

Here.

Thank you, Commissioners.

First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance.

Item 1, case number 2023-009469 DRP at 77 Broad Street.

Discretionary review is proposed for continuance to February 12, 2026.

Item 2, case number 2025-007500 CUA 2785 San Bruno Avenue.

Conditional use authorization is proposed for an indefinite continuance.

Further commissioners under commission matters, item 6, the election of officers is proposed for continuance to January 29th, 2026.

And under your discretionary review calendar, item 12 for case number 2025-006120 DRP at 2620 20th Street,

discretionary review is proposed for continuance to february 19th 2026 i have no other items

proposed for continuance so we should open up public comment members of the public this is

your opportunity to adjust 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

commission Imperial move to continue all items as proposed second thank you

commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed Commissioner Campbell

I Commissioner Commissioner McGarry Commissioner Williams I Commissioner

Braun I missionary Imperial I you're more I and Commission President so I some

of commissioners that motion passes unanimously seven to zero placing us

under your consent calendar.

The only matter listed here under constitutes a consent calendar

is considered to be routine by the Planning Commission

and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote.

There will be no separate discussion of the item

unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests,

in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar

and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

Item 3, case number 2025-009847CUA.

at 760 Bryant Street, conditional use authorization.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that this matter be pulled off of consent

and considered under the regular calendar today.

You need to come forward seeing none.

Public comment is closed, and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Imperial?

Move to approve.

Second.

Thank you, commissioners.

On that motion to approve item 3 on consent,

Commissioner Campbell aye mission of McGarry

Commissioner Williams aye Commissioner Braun aye Commissioner Imperial aye Commissioner Moore

Commission President so I some of commissioners that motion passes unanimously seven to zero

Commission matters item for the land acknowledgement

I

will read the

Ramatush Ohlone acknowledgement.

The commission acknowledges that we are on

the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatush Ohlone,

who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

As the indigenous stewards of this land

and in accordance with their traditions,

the Ramatush Ohlone have never ceded,

lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place,

as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory.

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

we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, the elders, and relatives of the Ramatushaloni community

and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

Thank you. Item 5, Commission Comments and Questions.

Commissioner Imperial.

Thank you.

I just want to thank Ms. Sherry George for following up with the request that I asked back then

during one of our hearings for the traffic analysis approach for autonomous vehicles, or AV.

And I appreciated sharing that information from the SFCTA.

I know it's not in the purview within the planning,

But, of course, we see projects here where AV are being proposed as an accessory.

And for me, the issue was that having enough data or how to analyze the data that we have to make sure that AV and the traffic congestion are part of the studies.

and it seems like there are still some data challenges

in terms of how to access the AV companies

and sharing that data with the city.

And I hope that these companies will provide more data to us

because that could also help the planning department

in terms of how AV or AV parking are going to be placed in a neighborhood

or whether one neighborhood is better than the other.

So I don't know what would be the next step.

It sounds like that is the missing link is more data.

And I don't know if that would need to be a legislation,

you know, if something that probably whether the board or the mayor can do

so that we have more data on the AV

and how are they affecting our traffic congestion as well.

So I just want to highlight that

and thank you for following up on that.

Okay, commissioners.

If there's nothing further, we can move on to

Department Matters, item 7, director's announcements.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I don't think we, as a department, have a whole lot of announcements.

I'll do a little bit of a precursor to our budget item, just because that's a big thing

to talk about.

But I think between Liz and I and our team, nothing else to report this week.

Okay.

Item 8, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the

Historic Preservation Commission.

There is no report from the Board of Supervisors or the Board of Appeals.

However, the Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday and considered its first batch of landmarks related to the family zoning plan.

And there were a large number that were sponsored by Supervisor Mandelman.

Two were continued out to the February hearing at the request of the property owner.

and then the Historic Preservation Commission also initiated amendments

to the landmark designation for Compton's cafeteria.

If there are no questions, we can move on to general public comment.

At this time, members of the public may address the commission

on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission

except agenda items.

with respect to agenda items your opportunity to address the Commission

will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting when the number

of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit general public comment may be moved to

the end of the agenda members of the public if you have general public comment

you need to come forward seeing none general public comment is closed and we

can move on to the regular calendar for item 9 case number 2025 hyphen 0 1 2 1 7 2 CRV for

fiscal years 2026 through 2028 proposed department budget and work program this is an informational

presentation it will be coming back to you in February for your endorsement

commissioners before Deborah get started I just wanted to give a little bit of an introduction

we have a we've our budget team has this well underhand and they will give the bulk of the

presentation but a couple things I just wanted to put at the outset one last

week I mentioned to you the mayor's announcement of the beginning of a

process to unify permit center planning department DBI the budget you'll see

today is a budget that reflects our revenue our general funds and our

activities and so and that is what we knew up until a week ago in part it is

also what the planning portion of all that is going to work on. There has been a transfer

function placed by the mayor's office to bring 20 positions from the permit center and 20

mainly IT positions from DBI into the planning department over the next 30 days. So that

is something that will join to our budget that you're not going to see here today. That

will come with its own revenue.

All of this will be, you know, those folks are paid now,

and they will be work-ordered to be paid with us.

So it isn't impactful to what we see today,

but I did just want to acknowledge that

because that is happening adjacent to the work you see today.

The other thing that's worth noting,

and Deborah, I know you're going to cover this,

but I feel like it's worth hitting some punchlines.

We are, this is not an exciting budget

that we're presenting to you today.

It is a responsible one.

and we're looking at a scenario in front of us

where we're not foreseeing any dramatic changes

in development activity

as much as we'd like to see more housing come forward.

I think we're not looking at major changes

over the next 12 months in terms of revenue coming in.

We did have lower revenue than expected last year.

We've made some smart moves

and Deborah will go over them

about how we collect our fees

that will offset some of that revenue loss

so that we actually are getting paid when we're doing the work,

which you guys have opined on before, which is great

and actually does impact our budget in a very positive way

and helps us cover some of those losses.

We're also doing smaller moves like reducing our footprint physically

so that we can collect sublet rent and not pay as much just, you know,

per square foot for our employees.

So we're being smart about the space we use.

We have lower grant revenue, but we'll continue to look for grants.

So it's just a rational budget that allows us to keep doing the work we've been doing.

No major additions to the work, no major additions to the revenue, but also no impacts to the

work that you've supported us in doing over the past year.

So with that.

Thank you so much for that introduction and for covering some of the topics that I'm sure

people would have had questions about.

I appreciate that.

So I will now get on to the boring presentation that nobody really ever wants to hear that

we come to you twice a year with.

So we do have a few slides from the mayor's office.

We're going to present those to you first.

And then the background and highlights are how we prepare to prepare the budget.

The volume trends feed into the revenue expectations, and then our expenditures are based off of

what revenue we anticipate to get.

The work program you have in your memo, and then, you know, again, we go over the calendar,

but we'll be back in a few weeks after going to historic preservation.

So the overview from the mayor's office is, yet again, more deficit.

So no surprise there.

It's been a few years that we've been hearing that.

And we are looking to be responsible,

and as we have tried to be the last few years,

so that we can help and offset any citywide pain that people might be feeling.

The projections that you see here are that expenditures citywide are going to outpace

the revenues that we're getting.

So again, everybody's asking for all departments to be fiscally responsible.

At this point in time, we don't have a specific general fund reduction target from the mayor's

office.

So if we get that before we come back to you and before we have to publish our memo, we

will absolutely share that with you.

But at this point in time, we don't have that number.

So we are looking at growth, which is great.

Love that.

But again, even our revenue growth from the slide before is less than the expenditure

growth that's projected for the city.

So with that, we will move on to the planning department more specifically.

So we are, as we have been for a very long time, primarily fee-based.

And so the fees that are coming into us are building permits and planning applications.

And one of the changes, as our director just referenced a moment ago, is that we are now

going to be collecting 100% of fees for most building permit reviews up front, whereas

previously it was 25% up front and then 75% at issue. So that does help us in our budget

for the upcoming budget cycles. So that change was legislated, I think it was November? Late

2025. And, you know, as always, we keep track of our revenue and we keep track of our expenditures

and we cut back on spending where we can, when we can, if that needs to happen.

In terms of budget instructions, we are sharing all of the information that we have with you

right now.

And for us, it is going to be primarily a status quo from the last few years.

So as I mentioned before, we look at volume first.

We go volume, revenue, and then expenditures.

So our volume is going to be about the same as the current year as far as we can anticipate.

There were very, very active years through the 15 to 2018 years mostly.

And things obviously with the pandemic declined.

We increased.

And we're seeing a little bit of softening.

But it's pretty much the same.

So that is the volume that we're looking at.

In terms of our revenue, so the fee revenue we're looking at pretty consistent for the

next few years.

And I think the big change that you're going to see here is grants.

So last budget cycle, we had a number of very high-dollar grants that we are not seeing

offered at this point in time.

If anything comes up that we're not aware of, we obviously will apply for it.

But right now, we are putting in our budget the Ocean Protection Council for $735,000,

the HUD Pro Housing for $1.5 million, and National Park Service for $40,000, because

those are the ones that we believe that we can count on.

So anything else would have to come in through an accept and expend process that goes through

Board of Supervisors. And we hope that we can see more opportunities in the coming year

than we are seeing at the current moment. But again, this is the information that we

have. So that's the major change. Once or if we get a general fund support target reduction,

we will adjust the budget and come back to you with that information. At this point in

time, we don't have one. So we are using the base budget number. So for anybody who is

not remembering because we only come to you infrequently, you know, two hearings a year.

So it's base budget, department budget, mayor's budget, board of supervisors budget. So the

base budget is where all departments start. So we are using those numbers for right now

because we have not yet gotten a target number for any reductions.

And, you know, hopefully they come back with us and say,

hey, let's give you an addition instead of a reduction.

That would be nice.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

So on the expenditure side, as always, the people are the big cost, right?

The salary and fringe.

so we are always the majority.

This cycle, it's looking at 74%

and the next year 76%.

So basically 75% of our budget is us.

It's the people, the work we do,

the work programs, the projects.

And then overhead is not really something that we control. The controller's office puts

that in there. I would like to point out, though, that we have a request for equipment

this year. Oh, sorry. So projects is the line where the reduction in grants is reflected

on this expenditure side. The IT equipment that we're requesting was out of date for

maintenance in 2018. We've requested it for several years now. We are requesting it again

because we do think that it's necessary to keep our infrastructure running. And so that's

why you're seeing that big number there and zeros on either side. We tend not to ever

really put in equipment requests. I think maybe in the ten years that I've been at planning,

we put in a request for a vehicle because people need to go out and see sites. And our

vehicle wasn't working anymore. But this is a very rare kind of request. I did want to

point it out because we do think it's necessary. And again, we have requested it a few times.

But every year that passes, it's a little scarier. And then interdepartmental services,

we get those numbers from the other departments. They say, here's what we're going to charge

you. So that's where those come from. And interdepartmental services in particular

will continue to change because a lot of things are loaded from central agencies during the

mayor's phase. So they, as you know, with everything here, there will be change. But

The overhead number and the interdepartmental services, I think, are probably the big two

that we don't have control over.

They're just going to put them into our budget, and we'll see what happens.

So for an overview for the work program, this is, as you can see,

we've changed a few titles for our divisions.

So development review used to be current planning.

Environmental planning is still environmental planning.

Community planning used to be citywide planning.

But it's just a name change.

It's not any financial change or anything that, aside from on paper, makes it a very

big difference to the work that you do here at the Commission.

And, okay. So, yeah, overall, our FT, we're predicting to remain stable, and we shall

see with any other changes that might come from above in the next few years, there might

be some FTE changes. But for this budget and for the planning

department, we think that things are going to be fairly status quo, at least financially.

So we will continue to keep you informed on anything that might change.

But again, for now, this is what our plan is, and this is what we know.

So if anyone has questions, we are here to answer.

Thank you, Deborah.

If that concludes staff presentation, we should open up public comment.

of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this

informational presentation. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public

comment is closed, and this matter is now before you Commissioners.

Commissioner Moore?

Thank you, Deborah, for representing.

I can only say, over the years, this department has shown a steady hand on the helm, and you

are clearly leaving those questions which are pending open and conditioning your presentation

on what you know how the department operates,

and I greatly appreciate that.

I have confidence in what you're saying.

I'm very sad to hear that the essential numbers

which have kept you buoyant over the past few years

are again diminishing,

and that is unfortunately part of the reality of where we are.

So I'm in full support of this very thorough overview,

including the additional comments you provided for me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes, I'd say, first of all, this is not at all a boring presentation every year because our budget and the priorities reflected in it really reflect the priorities of the blind department.

So I think it, you know, in some ways goes beyond just being a budget document.

I appreciate the really thorough presentation.

And looking at the current state of the budget document, I mean, it's certainly very sobering to see the need to continue to address the slower growth in revenues.

And also, it's very striking how much the grant funding didn't come through.

In fact, I was comparing this budget document against the one we adopted last year, which I know went through further amendments through the mayor's process.

But still, we had such a high assumption for the grants we'd be receiving in that year, and this is a big decline, so that's unfortunate.

I think generally the priorities identified for this budget and for crafting it seem right to me.

and I was trying to pay a lot of attention to the priorities reflected in it,

just because the document sort of alludes to those priorities being part of how we're competing for the general fund,

or I shouldn't say competing for, but how we're sort of, you know, putting forward our perspective on what the general fund needs.

So I appreciate that.

But I am a little curious.

I mean, is there sort of a back and forth process now with the general fund?

Kind of along those lines, you know, I know that it's not going to be, well, all options

are on the table for instructions we receive from the mayor's office, right?

But do you have a sense of when those instructions might come through at a department level?

Or is this just really hard to predict?

Unfortunately, I do not.

I think at this point it's hard to predict.

There are a lot of moving parts for the entire city.

And so I would anticipate that we would get the information that the mayor's office shares at the same time as they share it with other departments.

but I really

wouldn't want to

give you a

oh we're going to get this by

next Tuesday

without having any certainty there

I really only want to

share information

that I know is solid

and I cannot

predict right now

when that might happen so I apologize

No that's okay I appreciate you not going out

on a limb that you shouldn't go out

So that's okay.

But we will definitely, of course, get back to you once we have additional information.

Thank you.

I had maybe two other questions for the other questions.

So one is, you know, one thing I noticed, I was also looking at any organizational changes

that are sort of implied in the budget.

And again, comparing against last year, there's definitely a couple of changes.

One thing that stood out to me is that this budget document refers to a lot of the environmental review functions being kind of pulled into current planning.

I might not have the, or development review, I guess it's called now.

And that kind of stood out to me just because I saw how many more full-time equivalent positions were in environmental, under environmental review last year when we looked at that budget.

So I'm just curious if anyone could shed light on what types of environmental review sort of functions have been shifted into development review.

Yeah, maybe I'll start on a meta question.

And then we're joined both by Lisa Gibson, our ERO, and Liz Wadi here who can speak a little more to the details.

But one thing to note, and I do think it's important, it was not something Deborah dwelled on.

But as you look at our work program overview, it does reflect the kind of changes we've talked about, the unification of our community equity team and our citywide planning team, now called community planning, which we're very excited about.

And I just want to make sure you all understand that doesn't mean a change in work program.

It just means those teams are doing it together, right?

So the projects we were still working on and the focuses we still had are still there.

So that's one thing that's reflected here.

You will also see, and I'm going to get the FTEs right, so Liz and Lisa, I'm going to turn to you about some of the integration of our environmental planning team into current planning so that on the lower tiered environmental reviews, we have a more seamless system rather than it being a project over here and then a project over here.

It's a little more unified, so they can speak to that.

But it is only a part of environmental review.

And then embedded in environmental review and in our other divisions, we do have a component there where we are, and I just want to make sure you all are aware of this, because this is also how we're trying to guard against any potential future cuts that may come from the mayor's budget office.

We've been very cautious over the past six months for any vacancies that we've gotten to only fill them if they are fundamentally required and there's no way we can operate otherwise.

And that's important to me as a director.

I know it's important to our team because that is our best way of guarding against layoffs.

We still have those positions.

We can still fill those positions.

There's one on environmental review.

For example, we just lost Liz White.

We were very sad about that.

Not yet backfilling her on that.

Hopefully, we will be able to backfill her on that.

But we're going to hold on those backfills until we're sure that we don't have future cuts to get so that those cuts don't have to result in layoffs and we can deal with them through vacancies.

So just wanted to clarify that as well.

And then, Liz, maybe I'll turn it over to you, and Lisa, you should join in.

Sure.

So I'd say at a very high level how we've thought about bifurcating or sort of the not consolidation of our divisions,

but rethinking about the work and how some aspects of the work of environmental review and development review can become one.

We've really looked at breaking apart the environmental review process to some degree and what our current functions are.

And so the folks that are moving over are folks that already work really hand-in-hand with the folks who are in our current planning division.

So their day-to-day job doesn't really feel all that different because they were doing that kind of work, and it just made sense to sort of align them.

So, for example, part of our intake process right now involves doing a pretty robust environmental screening as part of the intake process.

And so we already had two folks who were sitting in the environmental planning division previously who are now just joining our intake team in current planning.

So we're more deeply embedding them in that team, but they're continuing to do that same screening process.

Another example is we had dedicated cultural resources staff who are in our environmental review division.

Specifically, we had three people who were sitting over there.

We have, and I'm going to completely butcher the exact number, but I would say in the high teens, number of historic preservation staff who are sitting in current planning.

They work really closely together.

They already have combined cultural resources staff meetings regularly together.

So those staff are joining.

But again, still focusing on the environmental review side of cultural resource review, but embedding them more closely with the rest of that team who's already doing that.

And then lastly, we have a couple folks moving over.

And I would say this is the part that's actually the more we're kind of feeling it.

We're going to feel it out a little bit and see how this works.

But for levels of environmental review that are below EIRs, so exemptions, CPEs, GPEs,

NEG decks, things of that nature, moving staff over and more so embedding them in our development

review teams where they will be the sort of environmental review expert on those teams

for those projects with the goal really being in the short term that if we've got a planner

who's working on a new office tower downtown that's maybe eligible for an egg deck or a gpe or

something of that nature that you would have like your colleague who sits on the same team who's an

expert environmental review doing that part of it the idea being that in time maybe that entire

project the development review and the environmental review could be done by the same person we know

we've got a long training road ahead of us to ever get to that stage but starting by sort of embedding

the same people on the same team, just even just the proximity of like being in the next cube close

to each other in the same team meetings is sort of our goal on that. And so what remains then in

the environmental planning division, and Lisa can certainly speak to this, is public projects. A

huge portion of the work of our environmental planning team that often doesn't come to this

commission is our public projects that still need environmental review. And if you think about it,

really very, very few of those are housing projects. So those aren't ones that have really

benefited from a lot of the streamlining. So there's still a lot of that work to be done,

as well as EIRs that are just their own complicated beasts. And there's a lot of unique expertise in

the environmental planning division that it just made sense to keep those really, you know,

there are few of them, but they're intense. They require high level expertise. So that's sort of

the bifurcation that we're looking at is the stuff that really feels more of sort of the churn and

burn part of the routine development review projects. Let's try to integrate that more closely.

and then the stuff that's a lot more complicated or unique

or doesn't have that synergy or crossover with development review projects

stays in environmental planning.

Might have missed something there, Lisa, but jump on in.

Thank you, Liz.

Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer,

and I think that Liz and our director covered it very well.

And so the only thing that I would just add is that we are, of course,

still committed to implementing CEQA

and ensuring that all of our work complies with CEQA.

this is not about really downsizing environmental review.

It's just, as has been explained, you know, reorganizing where it occurs.

And I think that for the environmental planning division, we will remain focused primarily then on our public projects.

I should say focused in the sense of the balance of the projects at this point are largely public in nature,

given the state of development applications.

And over time, you know, when there's an uptick, we know that will happen,

we'll evaluate our staffing and determine, you know, where we will be doing the backfilling.

But the changes that we're making are intended in part to enable us to be more flexible,

to be able to pivot, that staff who have expertise on ministerial projects can do that work.

And if there's CEQA review that's required, that we can do that as well, but that people have more cross-training.

And that is reflective of the organization of most large cities' planning departments in the state.

So we're kind of moving towards that model.

And I would just say one other thing that I think is really important to us is we know a lot of the work of planners has really changed over the last several years.

It's certainly a lot different than when I started as a current planner.

and so we're also as an organization looking at ways that we can introduce like professional

growth opportunities for our staff and opportunities to learn so we saw this as you know no one has to

take on you know environmental review who didn't start no one who started as environmental review

has to take on development review but we're creating kind of an ecosystem that for those

planners who want to grow who maybe have seen the type of work that they're working on change in a

that they want to do something different, it's a little more sort of natural and easy to pivot and

take on and learn a little bit more. So I just wanted to plug that we saw that as another really

important part of this. All right, thank you for that very thorough explanation. And it sounds

very promising. You know, it sounds like a process that could enhance our efficiency by aligning

the staffing around the processes that it takes to actually get projects reviewed and approved.

So I really appreciate that the flexibility and having people cross-trained

makes perfect sense to me.

So I hope we can just continue to hear some updates

on how the reorganization is going.

I'll just ask one other question, and that is,

I'm curious about the State of the Equity team.

I know that we have now moved into a phase

of implementing our kind of second phase equity plan

across the department, and so we need to have folks

working in all the divisions on that.

But the three staff who are still assigned to equity, I mean, are those three specific people or is that more of a full-time equivalence?

And then also where do they kind of fit within the organization right now?

Yeah.

So this is what is so hard about breaking ourselves down into divisions, right?

And I think we heard it a little bit when we were just talking about how do we do environmental review moving forward in the context of state laws and how are we working as a team?

I think our equity work is similar. There are parts of our work that break down cleanly into

divisions, and there's a whole lot of parts that really should work together. And so when we try

to shove people into divisions, the blurring that I think we were just talking about in that aspect

and in the aspect of our equity work isn't shown because you have to put it on one side or the

other. So it always makes me a little uncomfortable, frankly, and it's hard to talk about. I think it

shows starker divisions than we want. So a couple of things, as I mentioned, and then I'm going to

to point to Lisa and to Claudia Flores who are here today as well.

So as I noted, our community equity team, when it existed in its own division, smaller

division, retained a couple of components of work.

Some of those were community projects and community liaisons work where we're working

directly with communities.

Some of that was our racial and socially equity work for the department internally as our

HR team and externally in terms of how we work with the world and communities and deal

with our code.

And then there's our equity council as well.

And so in this blurring of lines that we've kind of created where we've unified community

equity and citywide planning, our liaison work, our community planning work is still

happening through the team there.

They're working directly with communities.

And then we did retain a core team that we're calling our equity team here just for the

purposes of explanation, that really serves the entire department and isn't in a division, right?

They're working with current planners, with community planners, with our admin team on our

hiring and other processes that are really focused on specific equity actions internally in the

department, externally as we work with communities in terms of how we work and our equity council.

And so we have a team of three planners. One of the amazing things as, and I don't want to

say that we've created capacity within Lisa Gibson, but she has volunteered to maybe do 120%

of a job by adding leadership of that, you know, department-wide serving equity work

under her leadership with three staff there representing leadership from Ms. Flores,

who's here to talk about that a little bit too. And so I don't know, I mean, if you guys have

anything you want to add to that, please do, but Commissioner Braun or others, you may have

specific questions just about the focus areas and the work they're doing that they can speak to?

Well, I think, you know, we've seen the plan and we've seen the efforts that, you know, we've been

trying to implement. So I guess unless there's any major updates on that, I think I'm satisfied with

the response. And okay, so my takeaways from this are simply that, you know, we, I appreciate that

we are trying to find an organization that works to have the department work more efficiently,

especially given the budget difficulties.

And I also want to make sure that we still have our eye

on the equity plan implementation.

It sounds like that is still happening,

and there's a lot of thought going into that.

So I appreciate that.

Claudia Flores.

Yes, there aren't any major updates.

We just adopted the phase two just in June.

So as we've been realigning,

we're just kind of figuring out what should we start

in terms of prioritizing.

But we can come back.

The next update to the Office of Racial Equity

is due later this spring, so we can come back and give you kind of a more comprehensive

update on where we are with implementation at the time.

I'd appreciate that. Thank you.

Commissioner Imperial?

Thank you. Commissioner Braun, you always ask the questions I'm going to ask.

Just kidding.

But it's really, actually, it's good to hear.

I am actually a proponent of cross-collaborative functions, especially now that there is – I mean, we have to accept it.

I mean, the world is changing.

Planning is changing.

And, you know, we are in a world where multi-uses are, you know, the kind of multi-uses in land use are probably going to be the more effective one instead of, like, having kind of, like, separate silos that really limits of communication and how we work together.

And so I appreciate that there is actually a move toward cross-collaboration.

I think for me is also making sure that when we're doing this cross collaboration there's constant communication and especially for me when it comes to the community planning and with equity and the environmental and you know from and it's nice to see also in the in the graph that overarching of this is equity.

And so I hope that in the future hearings that we're going to have, I'd like to hear how the equity is really working in different departments and how is the staffing informing one another and how are they being coordinated.

I think that is really important.

One thing that I also have a question on is around the goals from the last year that seems like it's going to be seemed in this year.

And it seems like vacant positions may, I mean, I try to be realistic, vacant positions may stay vacant.

and so that also worries me in terms of the equity

there were ones from last year that we talked about

liaisons in some communities and

I'm afraid that that may stay vacant

and in these times I'd like to

hope the department can prioritize when it comes to the

liaisons to the community be prioritized of this budget and not be

be cut off, especially that we may anticipate another

cut. So that's one thing that I'd like to highlight

on for the budget. And also from last

year, we had this conversation about, you know, for us in the commission

tracking of really what's going on in terms of the plans. I think

last year, Commissioner Braun was suggesting perhaps twice a year or

perhaps toward the end of the year, we get some updates on what's working on

in terms of the priorities that especially laid out in the budget plan

and where we're at on that.

Like when I was looking into the housing policy

and housing element implementation,

I mean, those are the things that we talked about last year,

and also I'd like to hear what are we in terms of those implementation strategies.

Kind of like what we've done in the family zoning plan

where there is a constant updates in the commission,

I hope we can still have that constant updates

about the housing element implementation.

And I don't know if that would be through

the community planning division at that point, right?

So yeah, so that's one thing that I hope that throughout

becomes a practice that we actually track

and where we're at perhaps toward the end of year

so that for the budget is coming, we already have a sense of like, okay, what's actually,

what's being continued and where we're at on this.

So I just want to highlight that.

I want to acknowledge all those comments and just maybe working backwards

so we can talk about what we can do to respond to that.

On the work program updates, I think that's excellent.

One of the really hard things about presenting a budget to you today is that we can't go through

all of the various components that make up the work program of that budget.

So we'll talk to our senior managers about how we do kind of a cadence of updates on the division's portfolios and work programs and key projects,

just so you have a better sense of what we're working on.

And then I really love the idea of kind of an end of year, what would be accomplished, what haven't we?

So thank you very much for that suggestion.

And I know we're not covering too much of that today because we're covering the numbers side of things.

But I want to acknowledge I think that's an excellent point.

and then the other thing to know I do just want to make a point thank you for understanding that

I think this that hopefully we don't keep our vacancies vacant forever there's a certain amount

of vacancies we'll have to keep for attrition that is part of the budget process all the time

but we are being additionally extremely costous just for this period in time when we don't have

cuts from the mayor's office and we're worried we might get some you know so that's hopefully a

point in time that we'll be able to move past, which will address some of your concerns. So,

you know, our goal is not to keep them vacant forever. It's just to be prudent about when we

fill them so that we don't put ourselves at a risk of layoffs just when we're about to face

a budget and there may be more cuts coming from the mayor's office. And I think your point on

liaisons and other work is well taken. We always have more work that we want to do than we can do,

particularly the last couple of years as our budget has not been great. That said, we are

trying to be strategic about how we do things with the class collaboration model. So we were

really excited to be able to appoint and ramp up since the beginning of the year a Bayview liaison,

which we have not had. And we're doing that through people we already have, which is fabulous.

But it actually is a really great model because one of our great planners that is filling that

role also has worked in current planning and understands how project in that neighborhood

are rolling out and is a really great explainer and conduit for the neighborhood about those

changes so all that is to say hopefully we'll fill them eventually until then

we'll try to be strategic because we share those goals well there's a lot of

question and answered and and I actually wanted to just make make a note to say

that despite all the challenges that are actually out of anyone in this room's

control. Looks like these revenues coming in, the biggest cut is federal grants and state

grants, and that has tied into the shift of who is in the White House. And we really,

I hope, San Franciscan, we're not going to forget climate change is real, and it's really

evident to show that these where the money and focus is going to somewhere

else and that's kind of disheartening but we are stay on course and I am the

only thing that I'm hopeful is we will have a much more positive growth in the

local tax growth seeing our economies picking up everyone's having parties

everywhere, everyone is moving into these offices. So I am really hopeful that we're, the market is

a little bit more bullish this year, and that will help us a little bit more. But I do really want to

say Deborah and Tom, and also a, what's her name again? Bianca. Bianca, right, Bianca. I really,

Bianca and Tom, I think, get all of the credit for this year.

Well, and you took the hit. You have to stand here and tell us this presentation.

I mean, I put on a suit.

Nice. Thank you.

I really want to appreciate, despite these situations and also the evolutions of organizational changes that have been happening and will be happening more,

you actually stay on the course and keep the mission of our planning department of holding on the same allocation on resources and funding to address our equity and community program, housing policy, and housing element implementations.

Those things are really important for just adjustable San Francisco.

So I really appreciate that and I am just looking forward to just continue to just stay on course

and I hope that our morale will be continued to be positive in this.

We're all in it together and thank you for keeping the budget,

making sure that we're not losing sight on what is really important to the core mission of our department.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Williams?

Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you for all the hard work you guys do as department heads,

or I should say department heads in the planning.

I'm glad.

Thank you for the commissioners for asking so many great questions.

A lot of the questions that I had rolling around in my head

or along those lines, one of the things that I just wanted to bring up that I think is important,

I mean, it's important to me, is the fact that our housing element that was,

our current housing element was centered on racial and social equity.

And, you know, I'm glad that our commissioners are focused in on that.

It's important that the planning department center its work on racial and social equity.

And so I'm not thrilled to understand that there's been some changes there.

I understand that the reality is reality as far as funding and stuff like that and reorganization.

But I just want to put it out there that it's important work, and I think once a year maybe for me, I think is too much time to let pass to understand what's being done and how everything is – as far as how our equity folks that are still available at the planning department, how they're integrating into other work,

and how that's all.

I'm interested in that, and I'd like to hear it more than once a year.

I think it requires more frequent understanding of how all of this is playing out.

And so I just wanted to make that point.

Thank you again for all your hard work.

I know it's challenging, especially during these times where there's so many changes.

not specifically are doing as a city or as a planning department.

A lot of the changes that have been made at the state level and federal level are affecting things.

So anyway, those are my comments.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGarry.

I'd also like to thank you for your presentation. It's a tough one. This is a budget, but it's a very modest budget. The fact that 75% is people and basically equity can only come from people.

and if the equity is actually built in to the people who are doing it.

And those individual silos are being broken down from a cross-training point of view

or construction from a self-structure point of view.

One person is there, the other person slots in.

It's a plug and play.

It's the ideal system.

It's what ideally makes things work as efficiently as possible.

We will come out of this.

construction it was 2024 was stay alive till 25 and 25 was terrible 2026 is teed up and it's teed

up for all the work that's being done here and basically in the department the hard work with

the 75 that is all people who make up this budget uh 2026 out there is is looking good everybody

every construction company I speak to basically are looking at 2026 like, wow, it's finally about to pop.

So I think the thinking's built in, the work is being done,

and I want to applaud you all for what you do and how you're doing it.

Thank you.

I think we all hope that's true, and that would be great news.

Stay optimistic.

Okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, we can move on to item 10.

for case number 2025-010671 PCA, expansion of limited commercial uses planning code amendments.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Veronica Flores, Planning Department staff.

The next item is the limited commercial uses expansions ordinance introduced by Supervisor Fielder,

and we are joined by Miss Anna Herrera to introduce the item thank you good

afternoon commissioners my name is Anna Herrera and I'm here on behalf can you

still hear me okay I'm here on behalf of district 9 supervisor Jackie Fielder this

legislation was created out of circumstances that arose when a beloved

small business in our district, Casa Maria, a neighborhood grocery store,

attempted to legalize a rare yard structure that the business has relied

on since its store opening 20 years ago. Casa Maria is located in the Mission

District at 23rd and South Van Ness within the Calle 24 Latino Cultural

District. The store sells fresh produce, meat, and Latin American food staples at

reasonable prices and is a long-standing neighborhood anchor. The

The store operates seven days a week and is rarely closed, as the store owner, Mr. Socorro Arana, known as Coco to Most, takes very seriously his commitment to serve the local community, particularly low-income families and seniors who rely on the store.

The store's refrigerators are located in the rear yard structure, and without this expanded space, Mr. Arana has explained he would have to cease operations, which would be devastating to the community.

Under current laws, there's no way to permit this rare yard structure for Casa Maria, despite how long it's been in use and the store's broad community support.

In order to help Casa Maria and potentially other small businesses in similar circumstances, Supervisor Fielder introduced this ordinance to allow limited commercial use businesses, or LCUs, to make minor expansions, provided that the expansion does not encroach or expand into residential use.

which is key. We appreciate planning staff's recommendations to ensure the intent of this

ordinance is met and are in support of all of them. Thank you to Veronica Flores for your support on

this ordinance. Mr. Socorro Arana, the store owner of Casa Maria, is here and will speak at public

comment and I am here to answer any other questions as well thank you again

the proposed ordinance in front of you supports our limited commercial uses or

LCUs by providing them a little more flexibility to be able to expand today

LCUs are not allowed to be enlarged expanded intensified but the proposed

ordinance would allow PATH to do so. I do want to emphasize that the non

residential use size limits would still apply so there is that safeguard there.

Many of these LCUs are also small businesses so the proposed ordinance

creates a path to them to expand their operations if needed and does so in as

easy a manner as possible. The proposed ordinance emphasizes that the

expansions should not include any residential conversions or residential

demolitions as defined under 317. I'll get a little bit more into this during

the recommended modifications. The proposed ordinance also allows LCUs to

expand into the required rear yard and do so through a zoning administrator

review outside of the variance hearing process and this allows the

administrative review to review and approve exceptions from the rear yard

requirements of section 134 the department supports the overall goals

of this proposed ordinance again it helps supports our LC use many of which

are small businesses it strengthens the viability of the city's neighborhood

serving small businesses and it allows these reasonable modifications and

expansions to help these businesses in some cases really survive the department

recommends you adopt a recommendation of approval with three modifications. The first recommended

modification is related to protecting tenants' rights and housing services. Housing services

are defined under the administrative code as a service provided by the landlord in connection

with the use of a rental unit. So these need to be written within the lease or other contract

agreement. Some examples, typical examples include off-street parking, laundry facilities,

or storage areas. The recommended modification is to require that applicants and or the property

owners submit an affidavit identifying any existing housing services and confirming that

these, that the tenants have been notified and that any proposed relocations have been made

and or any just compensation has been provided if any of these housing services have been removed.

We do have a similar process in place under our local ADU program currently,

so you may be a little familiar with that process already.

The second recommended modification is to establish clear criteria and thresholds

for the zoning administrator to apply or consider when reviewing the request

to expand into the required regard.

As currently drafted, the proposed ordinance prevents these LCU expansions

from triggering any residential conversions or demolitions through Section 317.

That does not account for perhaps some minor expansions that do not trigger the thresholds of 317,

and in order to really meet the goals and the intent of the ordinance,

we want to safeguard all of the residential space of the primary unit so

we will continue to work with the supervisor on this amendment and some

potential items for consideration would be thinking about the loss of open space

if any and evaluation of whether the waiver addresses a demonstrated

practical difficulty for the LCU we also want to make sure that we include

additional flexibility for corner lots which is similar to how we review rear

yards or regard exceptions for not LCUs lastly the department recommends that

the ordinance be amended to prohibit LCUs from expanding into any portion of

the residential use or the residential unit again as drafted the ordinance

talks about residential demolitions or conversions as triggered under 317.

Oftentimes, this involves either the complete removal or elimination of a residential use,

but it does not really consider when there's the minor expansion that I mentioned earlier.

And in those cases, it essentially results in a smaller residential unit.

To be clear, we do not want any of these LCU expansions to have that impact or have that effect.

So we will continue to work with the supervisor and the city attorney's office to really make sure that this is clear in the proposed legislation,

that expansions will not in any way reduce the square footage of that primary unit.

Again, the recommendation is that you adopt a recommendation of approval with modifications.

And as you heard earlier, the supervisor is amenable to all of the staff recommended modifications.

This concludes the staff presentation.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

With that, we should open up public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

You need to come forward.

Mr. Arana is going to speak in Spanish.

I'm going to translate for him.

Buenas tardes, Comision.

Mi nombre es Socorro Arana, dueño de Casa Maria

por 20 años.

Casa Maria vende frutas, verduras,

comida típica de Latinoamérica.

Con el apoyo de organizaciones como Calle 24, MEDA,

nosotros vendemos alimentos y frutas y verduras

a familias de bajo recursos con un gran descuento.

So we can support that the entire community has a good health.

In Casa María, I've seen clients grow from adults to adults,

and we have clients of all ages, including older clients that depend on our store.

We are open for seven days, every year.

Since I opened the store for 20 years, we've always used the back space for our refrigerators,

que mantenga en todo nuestro alimentos en buen estado sin poder mantener ese

espacio para para mi negocio tendría que serrar mi negocio y sería muy lamentable

estoy aquí para que por favor apoyen la legislación que beneficiaría a todos los

pequeños negocios del barrio de la misión como casa maria muchas gracias

Good afternoon, Commission. My name is Socorro Arana, and I have owned Casa Maria Produce Market for 20 years.

Casa Maria sells vegetables, fruit, and typical Latin American foods.

With the support of organizations like Calle 24 and MEDA, we sell food, such as fruits and vegetables,

to low-income families at a significant discount, so we can help the entire community maintain good health.

At Casa Maria, I have watched customers grow from babies to adults,

and we have customers of all ages, including seniors, who depend on our store.

We are open seven days a week, all year round.

Since I opened the store 20 years ago, we have always used the back space for our refrigerators that keep all our food fresh.

Without being able to maintain this space for the business, I would have to close my store.

I am here to ask for your support of this legislation, which benefits all small businesses in the neighborhood like Casa Maria.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Susana Rojas, and I am the executive director of Calle 24 Latino Cultural District,

and I am here to express our strong support for the legislation spanning limited commercial

use as presented today and highlight why this matters through a real community-rooted example,

Casa Maria.

Casa Maria has served the Mission District for decades and is a trusted neighborhood-serving business

that provides essential groceries and culturally relevant foods for working families, seniors, and long-time residents.

It is not just a store. It is a part of daily life and a fabric of our community.

Without the ability to expand its limited commercial use, Casa Maria faces serious operational constraints

that put its long-term viability at risk.

This legislation gives businesses like Casa Maria the flexibility they need to remain open, compliant, and community-serving.

Supporting this legislation is about protecting legacy small businesses, preventing displacement,

and ensuring that cultural districts like Calle 24 remain vibrant and accessible to communities that they were created to serve.

We look forward to hearing from you guys, and we support Don Coco with all of our heart,

and we can't wait to hear your results.

Thank you.

Last call for public comment.

Okay, seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Brown.

I'd just like to thank the supervisor for bringing this this legislation forward I

agree with the intent and just kind of broadly speaking I'm glad that we're

moving as a city towards kind of a greater acknowledgement and or a

greater acknowledgement of the reality that we have all these long-standing

mixed-use areas with commercial uses among residential areas and that we are

making it easier for the businesses in those spaces to remain open or for new

businesses to open in them and I also want to point to our you know one that's

not related this legislation but you know the legislation that was passed a

few years ago about allowing limited commercial uses in residential districts

also known as the corner store legislation so we're actually on sort of

path of really rebuilding and supporting what makes the urban fabric of the city

great and you know it's these walkable community anchors and destinations that

are that are a big part of that I fully support legislation I also fully support

the staff recommended modifications in particular the modification about needing

clarification about the criteria for the zoning administrator was something that immediately stood

out for me. And then once it's out in the staff recommended modifications, I was glad to see it

there. But yeah, this is my full support. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Campbell. Thank you.

This also has my full support. I think cases like Casa Maria shine a light on well-intended code

that just has become outdated and really creates an opportunity for us to right a wrong, not just

for Casa Maria, but for LCUs across the city.

So thank you.

And I thank also the supervisor for bringing it forward.

It has my full support.

I also support all of the recommendations

to the modifications made by staff.

And curious what other commissioners have to say,

but I would make a motion to adopt a recommendation

of approval with staff's recommended modifications.

Second.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you.

Yes, I too think this is a good piece of legislation.

Obviously, I've been to Casa Maria, and we shop there.

I think probably a lot of people, if you live in the city, probably have walked down 24th Street.

It's obvious that this is a neighborhood center.

and so obviously we want to make sure that places like Casa Maria are able to thrive and survive

because they do a great service to the community.

And so I'm in full support of the legislation,

but I did have a question about the rear yard.

just thinking through how all that's going to work out.

And so, Corey Teague, do you have – I had me to put you on the spot.

But you're going to work with the supervisor and figure out some parameters around this?

Thank you, Commissioner Williams, for the question.

Corey Teague, zoning administrator.

As you mentioned, LCUs by definition are in our residential districts.

So these are going to be properties that have a required rear yard.

So what this ordinance would do would be right now,

if you want to extend into your required rear yard, that requires a variance.

This would say under these circumstances,

there could be an administrative path to allow that extension to the required rear yard.

As drafted, there's no real criteria for review for the zoning administrator

to consider when determining whether to grant that.

exception or not. And so we identified that there need to be some criteria for review.

And just like the common sense ones, some of the, that they were basically already read out

in terms of considering what are the impacts to housing services on the property? What would be

the impacts to open space? You know, kind of assessing the need, like a want versus a need

for the LCU. And then just in general, looking at, are there any potential negative impacts on

adjacent properties that would kind of be the process but it would be

administrative as opposed to being a process like a variance that requires a

public hearing etc so there it wouldn't technically be a separate application

and a separate process it would be something that would be reviewed and

considered and decided as part of just the project application I'm I'm I have

100% confidence in you as a zoning administrator that you will take all the

delicate intricacies of business and residents into consideration when you

make your decisions. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

Commissioner Moore? I think this is a good piece of legislation. I'm very

supportive of the very detailed and sensitive modifications that planning

is suggested. I have one question

for Ms. Flores, if I may.

That is also probably including

our zoning administrator.

Sometimes when

a rear yard

is small and directly

on a corner lot influences

the units next on

either side, the issue of

noise, I think, is definitely

a consideration, and I

would like to see that that is being

considered, that, for example,

in most of these places,

the bedrooms face to the rear, that there is indeed at odd hours not any intrusion of noise

or level of comfort for those people who live in the adjoining properties.

That would be my biggest concern.

It's not spelled out.

I'm sure it will be considered, but I'd like to just raise a flag on that

because noise travels incredibly loud, particularly in off hours.

that is garbage can removal, people going to opening, closing, wheel shed doors, et cetera.

I would like that to be considered, but otherwise I'm in full support.

Had you discussed that?

I see Zoning Ad Minister Teague nod on the subject matter.

Thank you, Commissioner Moore.

So we have started brainstorming and thinking about the different items or topics for consideration.

So certainly it's really also thinking about what we already consider, too, and then adding that finer grain of detail for these LCUs.

So I imagine noise has come up as a concern or consideration before.

But as I mentioned before, we will continue to workshop this criterion or list, and then we'll be able to move forward in the next step of the legislation.

But we continue to working on this.

I appreciate your considering it.

I would like to also add bright lights.

When at sleeping hours, bright lights go on.

It distributes tenants in bedrooms to the way of buildings as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, I first thank you, Supervisor Fielder's Office, Legislative A,

coming here and explain the reason why.

and it's because of one small businesses,

but I think there's also many.

I lived in this mission.

Literally a couple of days ago,

I was walking down Folsom Street starting 26th and then 25th

and just keep walking towards where my next muni stop,

you know, just keep going to 16th.

And I just looking at it, I'm like, I was thinking,

this is how vibrant Mission

neighborhood is. If anyone can just

rent little tiny units

and they can just go

to every block, there's a corner

grocery stores. They can just

go get their veggies and milk

and other

things that they can sustain

themselves. They don't have to even

get on the bus and go to a Safeway.

So I think it is the fabric that

you created in your

grocery store at kind of

basically at the legacy and tapestry of that vibrancy of mission.

And I am in full support of trying to make anything we can to make your business thrive,

continue to thrive, to maintain the tapestry of our mission district.

And I also really thank you, our staff, our zoning administrator,

and our legislative liaison actually work really closely with supervisor fielders

to really hone into all the technicalities that makes it work.

And one thing that you mentioned, Veronica,

that is try to make it consistent with the ADU regulations.

I think it might be helpful to kind of put some numeric square footages

in terms of what are we talking about here when we allow the expansions

because restrooms or refrigerator, depending on what the businesses are,

could be small or could be rather big.

So if that could be...

I trust that you know what to do taking it on further.

Just because we have...

I mean, it's an evolution.

Like, our ADUs, I remember where Veronica started at,

like, it was, like, a lot of different kinds of ADUs.

And then now to the point where we have, like,

a two-page double-sided 11 by 17 big table

and everyone can clearly know that for a business owner or for a homeowner to say,

okay, if I am this and this, I can do that, right,

and I can expand to this certain square footages or percentage or whatever the matrix is.

And I think it just creates that sort of streamlining,

the understanding of the processes for both departmental review,

administrative level review and also for local businesses and supervisors way to help to I hope

you will spread the message to all your all your friends who own other stores down the block you

know every every block that you know this is where you can do you know and so there's no

confusions and and hopefully everyone feel more confident and continue to serve our much needed

communities for milk, groceries, and broccoli.

So thank you.

I'm in support of it, and I think two more commissioners would like to come in, and then

we're ready for a vote.

Commissioner Braun?

Yes.

Just briefly, I want to say I want to second Commissioner Moore's point about some of the

criteria taking into consideration noise and bright lights.

I'm really glad that you brought that up.

Three of the four places I've lived in San Francisco were above adjacent to or across

the rear yard from commercial uses, and I can attest to having had, you know, some challenges

with both those considerations.

So, yeah, I just wanted to say that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Campbell?

I wanted to confirm if that's something I should add to my motion, the points that

my fellow commissioners have made around ensuring that that gets added to the dialogue moving

forward with the supervisor and concerns around tenant you know sensitivity to

light and sounds is that something that we can incorporate in some way that that

gets addressed thank you Commissioner Campbell yes you're always I'm certainly

able to do so but you know I think sitting here and miss Herrera is here

we have had some of these conversations and will continue to do so.

So I can assure you that we will have these in the discussions and whatever format it is.

But certainly if you feel the need to have that additional level of assurance,

you're able to do so today.

I think just acknowledging the comments is sufficient because we are not legislators.

You will figure out how to best integrate that into the criteria

by which you will be reviewing future applications. Thank you. Perfect. Then the motion stands. Thank you.

Very good, Commissioners. If there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to

adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications. On that motion, Commissioner Campbell?

Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner

Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Soe? Aye. So move,

Commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0

the machineers that will place us on the final item on your agenda today as item

12 has been continued item 11 case number 2025 hyphen 0 1 1 8 5 2 PPS for

the property at 329 Bryant Street this is an informational presentation as it

relates to SB 423 project sponsor you have five minutes I want to plug in for

presentation

Where can I do that?

I think you have to pull out the mouse connection.

It's on the other side.

Or maybe not.

I don't know.

There it is.

I'll try and make this quick.

My name is Steve Allen.

I'm from Stanton Architecture.

Before you begin, SFGov, can we go to the presentation on the computer?

Thank you.

Go ahead.

I'll most likely just leave it on this page unless anyone wants to see more.

My name is Steve Allen.

I'm from Stanton Architecture.

Would you pull up your microphone, please?

Thank you.

Okay.

Give that book some.

How's that?

I'm Steve Allen.

I'm with Stanton Architecture on behalf of ownership.

Thank you for allowing me to present this project for 329 Bryan Street as a residential shower.

This is being submitted under SB 330 to lock in the planning code

and also serves as a notice of intent to submit a housing development project presented to SB 423.

It's also using the state density bonus to have a 100% increase in the base building.

Base building original units, it has 130 units, and so we're asking for an additional 130 units

for a total of 260 units.

The height would increase to 33 stories with an additional three stories below grade of

Bryan Street with three stories of parking with 139 stalls.

the building is surrounded by three streets it's a Bryant to the north and

then Federal Street and Rincon and then the adjacent to north is the bridge

off-ramp from Fremont Street as well as the bridge the project will of course

comply with density bonus requirements and inclusionary housing requirements

and with that I'm happy to take any questions okay if that concludes your

presentation we should take public comment members of the public this is

opportunity to address the Commission on this matter you need to come forward

last call for public comment

I'm Sue Bushnell and I'm a resident in the area that's you know was projected

there on the screen. This has come to the attention of the residents very

quickly. There are many major concerns but one of them is traffic. If in fact

you've approached the Bay Bridge in the evening or after a baseball game, the

Bryant Street entrance, the 2nd Street entrance, the 3rd Street entrance, and

then all along Brandon is a nightmare so to a certain extent I don't know what

evaluations your committee implements but I would certainly think it is

extremely important to evaluate the traffic that will be increased during

the construction and just living in general also it's mentioned here that

they're going to have 139 parking units which is approximately half of the

number of units right now residential parking in this area is a nightmare you

know and it's very it's very densely occupied but you know the concerns

about the traffic and I don't know how those are addressed this is my first

ever in one of these committees. So, you know, how do you keep the neighborhood

informed? How do you address our concerns, aka traffic, density, and the whole thing?

So I have questions for you guys, too. That's it. I'm done. Thank you. Next speaker.

Okay, if there are no other additional requests, come on up then, folks.

Hi, I'm Masha Geller.

I live at 301 Bryant, so the building that is being proposed will be less than 15 feet from my kitchen window.

In fact, it will be in my kitchen window by about 15 feet.

There's just simply not enough room for a building of this size to go on a lot that is less than half an acre.

Sue has mentioned traffic.

The Federal Street and Rincon Alley is the de facto approach to the Bay Bridge.

There's no left turn there to get onto the bridge, but everybody does it anyway.

The Bryant Street is the approach for HOV vehicles only for the Bay Bridge.

That is not enforced at all.

The entire neighborhood, the entire corner of where this building is supposed to be going up,

is the de facto approach to the Bay Bridge.

So you add 139 new cars, 313 bicycles to that tiny little postage stamp,

and that's just a recipe for disaster.

Not to mention that when the speeding cameras went up in San Francisco, our camera on Bryan Street, 4,000 more speeding tickets than anybody else in the city.

That's ours.

That's the corner that we're talking about.

That's the two-block radius that we're talking about.

And that's on a normal day.

We have Chase Center games.

We have Oracle Park games.

We have Embarcadero events.

We have the Ferry Building.

It's a busy neighborhood.

Not to mention, as you were talking before, this is no corner store.

There's no commercial level planned.

There's no broccoli, no eggs, no milk.

No dry cleaner.

Everybody who's going to be occupying this building is going to be using those 139 extra cars and 313 extra bicycles to add to the traffic.

And did I mention?

15 feet from my kitchen window.

Not just our building, 200 Brannon, one federal, Bayside Village.

It does not fit the character of South Park.

Betterville Street is a historically paved, I'm not sure of the exact terminology,

but the paving of that street is on a historic registry, has been for 36 years.

Half an acre, where are they going to put the cranes, the building materials?

How are they going to ensure that that street is not damaged?

Would love answers to all of these questions.

Would love to know where they're going to put the crane, how they're going to deal with the traffic.

Why there?

Why such a gigantic tower on such a tiny, tiny spot that the neighborhood does not need,

that adds nothing to the neighborhood except traffic, congestion, a nice sore, and some really angry neighbors.

That's it.

Last call for public comment.

Okay, last chance.

Okay, seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matters now before you commissioners.

Again, this is just an informational presentation.

Commissioner Moore.

Just for the public who has not been listening to 423 or 330 presentations,

the Planning Commission themselves, as we sit here,

are not really approving or denying the project.

We are only here to take comment.

Under specific state legislation, that is SB 423 and SB 330,

We are only advisory.

However, we are dealing with a limited set of information on which we will be basing our comments today.

Just want to let you know we hear you.

I appreciate your comment, particularly the subtle observations by people who live next door.

But that is unfortunately not what we are taking in today.

I looked at this project, and here are my few comments.

and I compared it to 555 BLC Wall Lot 330 that we just had two weeks ago.

It is a project which is quite large.

It sits right down the street from you at the Ambucadero.

And would I regret that today's project, not only in its submittal,

but also in the presentation that was made by the architect,

falls short of letting me fully understand

the extent of what you're trying to do.

And again, it is informational only for us,

and I would just comment that the information

that was given to me makes it very difficult

to understand the project,

particularly how it operates on the ground floor

and particularly how it deals

with the two adjoining historic buildings.

The middle building will be demolished.

it is not a contributory, however the other two buildings are.

So those are my comments, and I regret that there was not a little bit more meat on the bone.

Thank you.

Commissioner O'Brien?

Yes, and just to add on to the clarifications for those who came and spoke today,

the actual approvals process for this project doesn't ultimately fall to this commission.

It's going to be a matter of whether or not the project complies with the applicable, objective, existing planning code requirements and local and state laws.

However, the opportunity with this pre-application discussion is the opportunity for the project sponsor to hear thoughts and input and local perspective on concerns and issues.

and it's an opportunity for the project sponsor to determine whether or not to

adjust the project based on that and I do hope that you'll continue to you know

hone and refine the projects based on the input you hear here and maybe as part

of continued I would encourage you to continue engagement with the community

as well to to hear any other concerns because it can certainly make for a

better project in the end for everyone in the new building and the existing

buildings I and then also at the same time you know staff has not department

staff has not reviewed this project yet and so these comments from commissioners

are also an opportunity for staff to maybe give a second look at the project

in certain areas just to make sure that we really are thoroughly reviewing the

project as staff department staff is very good always does there are oh and

just a note as part of that review there is the environmental analysis as well

which may or may not get it identify any any issues with traffic circulation or

congestion but again that review has to happen I had two thoughts about this

project I guess to the product sponsor I have one question so the I noticed in

the packet that it doesn't look like there is a plan for any of the three

bedroom units to be deed restricted affordable housing is that correct as

as it's planned right now?

I think they would be deed restricted.

I think we are required to spread that evenly or proportionally

across each of the different kinds.

So if that's not listed, that's an oversight.

And that would absolutely be a requirement from planning.

OK, thank you for that.

And that was also something I was going

to point out to the planning department staff,

that we should be looking at the unit parity

for the affordable units.

Because the packet right now, it says that the three bedrooms

none of them would be affordable.

And then my only other comment is, you know, one of the best ways to reduce single occupant vehicle travel is to make it kind of inconvenient to park at the origin or destination of that trip.

And as folks have noted, your parking ratio is about 0.5 spaces per unit.

Right now, I understand it looks like it's probably a condo project and that there's some marketability issues with needing some parking on site.

But even so, I'm always in favor, both from a sustainability perspective as well as some of the comments we heard,

of reducing the parking ratio to the extent possible, which provides encouragement for residents to take alternative means of transportation

and maybe more environmentally friendly means of transportation than driving solo.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams?

Yes.

I just wanted to thank you, Commissioners, for your comments.

And just want to highlight again what Commissioner Moore stated.

We're just hearing this as a planning commission.

State law has basically taken our authority away.

It's an unintended consequence of SB 423 and SB 330.

I don't always agree with a lot of the unintended consequences, like not having a say in what happens in your community.

That part of it I have a real hard time with.

I want to make that known.

I've said this before, I think.

And, you know, unfortunately, this will go through a ministerial process.

And if everything checks out, hopefully the project sponsor will be sensitive to some of the concerns of the community

and will listen to your neighbors.

I think that goes a long way.

And so to foster some goodwill, understanding the circumstance.

And so those are my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Moore?

I wanted to just point out to you what most likely is a typo.

On your part, I'm not sure if you have a document in front of you.

On the project in land use tables, you are listing that you have 220 affordable dwelling units,

which I kind of doubt that that is probably the case, and you have 40 market rate units.

I just want to point that out for you.

Perhaps somebody has already told you I called it in, so it could be corrected.

but in any case it needs to be reversed as you'll be submitting.

Thank you.

Okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, that concludes your hearing today.

All right.

Meeting's adjourned.

do

You

Thank you.