San Francisco Planning Commission Hearing – March 12, 2026

The San Francisco Planning Commission met on Thursday, March 12, 2026, at approximately 8:15 PM to consider a consent calendar, adopt minutes, and deliberate on two major regular calendar items: a package of planning code amendments related to street trees (Item 9) and two items (10A and 10B) modifying conditional use authorizations and delegating authority to the Planning Director. The meeting included extensive public testimony and commissioner discussion, with final votes on both items.

Consent Calendar

• Item 3 – Conditional use authorization at 388th Street (case 2025-009706 CUA) was approved unanimously (5‑0) on consent.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Street Trees (Item 9) – Nine members of the public spoke, nearly all in opposition to the proposed amendments.
  • Michael Rothman (Telegraph Hill Dwellers) strongly opposed, arguing the in‑lieu fee of $2,590 is too low and eliminating Board of Appeals review disenfranchises the public. He cited a case where three ficus trees were saved by an appeal.
  • Mark Mulouf (Teamsters Local 853) expressed concerns about the tree trimming permit process but noted ongoing positive dialogue with the mayor’s office and DPW.
  • Sean Auckland (Fairtrees.org, SOMA West Neighborhood Association) urged rejection, claiming the CEQA exemption is legally absurd, the ordinance violates the General Plan’s environmental justice framework, and that over 900 individuals and organizations submitted feedback, 100% opposed.
  • A landscape architect (name not given) argued that fee‑outs will lead to fewer trees and higher long‑term costs, and that developers will avoid planting trees to stay competitive.
  • Michael Nolte (citizen planner) asked for major revisions, noting his district has only 4% tree canopy.
  • Razar Bell (D1 resident) opposed the removal of appeal rights and characterized the fee‑out as “throwing money at the problem.”
• Items 10A/10B – No public testimony was offered.

Discussion Items

• Land Acknowledgement, Minutes, Director’s Announcements – The commission read a land acknowledgement, adopted draft minutes from February 26, 2026 (5‑0), and heard a brief report from legislative affairs on recent Board of Supervisors actions.
• Item 9 – Street Tree Planning Code Amendments – Staff presented a proposal to allow development projects to satisfy planting requirements via an in‑lieu fee ($2,590 per tree), exempt ADUs, and create a separate account for tree planting funds. The Bureau of Urban Forestry described its current workload (1,000+ permits/year, 125,000 street trees, 13.7% canopy – later corrected to 12.8% in public comment). Commissioners debated the fee’s adequacy, equity concerns, and the impact on small property owners. Commissioner Williams expressed strong opposition, citing insufficient funding, equity gaps, and environmental justice failures. Commissioner Imperial questioned implementation and the urban forest plan timeline. Commissioners McGarry and Braun supported the legislation as a way to consolidate funding and scale up tree planting. A motion to approve with a modification to include UDU legalization in the exemption passed 4‑2 (Commissioners Williams and Imperial dissenting). Commissioner Imperial’s request to note that large‑scale development should be exempt was noted for staff.
• Items 10A/10B – Conditional Use Modifications and Director Delegation – Staff presented two ordinances: (A) codifying when enlargements of conditional uses in NC districts do not require a new CU (e.g., up to 500 sq ft or 25% of floor area), and (B) granting the Planning Director limited authority to remove conditions of approval and approve minor modifications (e.g., performance period extensions, unit count changes below 20%, requiring no more than a 10% reduction in affordable housing). Staff recommended modifications: add tenant notification for housing services reductions, and exempt cannabis and formula retail. Commissioner Williams raised concerns about tenant input, cultural districts, and reporting. A motion to approve with staff modifications passed 6‑0.

Key Outcomes

• Item 9 – Passed 4‑2 (Commissioners McGarry, Braun, So, Campbell in favor; Williams and Imperial opposed). The motion included a modification to exempt unauthorized dwelling unit (UDU) legalizations from the tree‑planting requirement. The commission also directed staff to convey a note to the Board of Supervisors recommending that large‑scale developments be exempt from the in‑lieu fee option.
• Items 10A/10B – Passed 6‑0 with the recommended modifications: (1) tenant notification for reductions in housing services, and (2) exemption of cannabis retail and formula retail from administrative approvals. The delegation of authority to the Planning Director was also adopted.
• Consent Calendar – Item 3 approved unanimously.
• Minutes – Draft minutes of February 26, 2026 adopted unanimously.