San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 05/22/2025. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty 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 cued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can want 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 Chair Moore? Here. Commissioner Braun? Here. Commissioner Campbell? Excuse me. Commissioner Imperial?

[Georgia Shutish (Member of Public)]: Here.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry? Here. And Commissioner Williams? Here. Thank you. We expect Commissioners So and Campbell to be absent today. First on your agenda, Commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero one five eighty five CUA at 2,258. Conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to 06/05/2025. Item two, case number 2020Three-nine469DRP at 77 Broad Street. A discretionary review is proposed for an indefinite continuance. Commissioners, I believe you received a request from the supervisor's office for items fourteen fifteen a through e for case numbers 2015Hyphen012491EN v PCAMAP, DVA, CWP, and CUA for the property at 749 Tollan Street and 2000 McKinnon Avenue, known as the San Francisco Gateway Project, certification of the final environmental impact report, adoption of findings under CEQA, planning code and zoning map amendments, development agreement, adoption of the special use district, and conditional use authorization items. The request is to continue two weeks to 06/05/2025. With that, we should open a public comment, on your continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. Again, only on the matter of continuance, not the projects themselves. Come on up.

[Mark Gleeson (Teamsters Joint Council 7)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Mark Gleeson, Teamsters Joint Council seven. On the matter of the Gateway Project in Tollan, we are very appreciative of those who have seen fit to have the continuance. It'll give us a chance to talk to the developer and have some more conversations about what, the, future holds there. And we also wanna thank supervisor Walton, for his, concerning and and supporting this continuance. Thank you very much.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Last call for public comment on the continuance calendar.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: or your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Move to continue all items as proposed.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items as proposed, commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. And commission chair Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Aye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously five to zero. Placing us under commission excuse me, your consent calendar. All matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are 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 these items 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 three, case number 2020Five-eleven15, CUA at 621 Sansom Street, conditional use authorization. Item four, case number 2020Four-four122, CUA at 1533 Slope Boulevard, conditional use authorization. Item five, case number 2025Hyphen002346CUA. 534 through 536PacificAvenue, conditional use authorization. And item six, case number 2025Hyphen001334CUA at 750 Gonzales Drive, conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these consent calendar items be pulled off and considered under the regular calendar today or a later date? Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to approve all items on consent calendar.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve items on consent, commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. And Commissioner Moore.

[Georgia Shutish (Member of Public)]: Aye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously five to zero. Placing us under commission matters for item seven, the land acknowledgement.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush 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 Ramaytush 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, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Thank you. Item eight, consideration of adoption draft minutes for 05/08/2025. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Last call, seeing none, public comment is closed, and your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Do I

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: hear a motion?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Motion to run.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to approve the minutes.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: And Commission Chair Moore. Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously five to zero. Item nine, commission comments and questions. Okay. If there are none, we can move on to department matters for item 10, directors announcements. Very good. Item 11, review of past events of the Board of Supervisors and the Historic Preservation Commission. There is no report from the Board of Appeals.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs. This week, the land use committee heard supervisor Dorsey's ordinance that would amend the controls for health service uses in the mixed use office district. Specifically, the proposed ordinance would amend the planning code to eliminate retail use size limits and retail ratio requirements, first health service uses, and reproductive health clinics within the MUO District. Commissioners, you heard this item on April 17 and adopted a recommendation of approval with modifications. Those modifications were as follows. The first was to include reproductive health clinics within the proposed exemption to implement Prop O. The second was to remove the retail ratio requirement within the MUO. And the third recommendation was that the board consider removal of ordinance exemptions West Of 7th Street. So only have this applied East Of 7th Street. The supervisor incorporated the first recommended recommendation related to reproductive health clinics. The second recommendation for the removal of retail ratio requirements was applied East Of 7th. And for the third recommendation, the ordinance was amended to eliminate the use size limits for health service and reproductive health clinics within the MEO East Of 7th. There were no public comments and only minor clarifying questions from a committee member. The item was then amended and continued to June 2, as the amendments were considered substantive. Then at the full board this week, there were two appeals for the same project, a CEQA appeal and a CU appeal for the project at 1310 Henipro Serra Boulevard. The proposed project would construct a maintenance facility on the grounds of the San Francisco Golf Course. Commissioners, you considered this project on February 13 when you voted to approve the proposed project with conditions. The appellant raised several issues in their appeal, including the commission's failure to take concerns about health and safety of children seriously, lithium ion battery storage and charging missing from the plans, technicality about lot size, relitigation of FAR lot frontage and rear yard from an earlier ZA determination, conditional use findings, and general plan compliance, fire safety, and dust mitigation. The department's review of the appeal found no valid validity to the claims, particularly the appellant's core argument, which is that the commission made a mistake when it found that the proposed proposal was necessary or desirable, and when it found that it was consistent with the general plan. As this commission knows, you gave this project its due process. You continued it seven times to learn more and allow for more conversations between the parties. Three commissioners independently visited the site. The planning department hosted a meeting with the parties concerned. And when this commission finally approved the project as a body, you were fully aware of the issues, the context, and the nuances of it. Fortunately, supervisor Melgar's office had been working for weeks to try to resolve the appeal before it got to the board. The day prior to the the day prior, the appellant withdrew the CEQA appeal, and the applicant and the appellant agreed on a set of amendments to avoid the CU appeal. Because both appeals were noticed, the hearing was required to take place. And because the agreement between the applicant and the appellant required modifications to the commission's adopted motion, the board had to vote to deny the CU approval and modify the motion. The new amendments included mostly limits on construction related activities, dust mitigation, and a requirement to design and install an external alarm system that provides audio and visual warnings that a smoke or fire alarm in the proposed building has been activated. Only the representatives for the appellant and the project sponsor spoke on the appeal with no other public comment. The supervisors then voted to amend the motion with the proposed amendment, and the project was approved as you had approved it, with only additional requirements added to the motion. That concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions on that if you have them.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Seeing no questions for mister Star, the Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday and adopted survey findings as part of the San Francisco Citywide Cultural Resources Survey for the Outer Sunset and Parkside Neighborhood commercial districts. Commissioners, that will now place us under general public comment. Members of the public, at this time, you 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 fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Georgia Shutish (Member of Public)]: Alright. Before I start, how do I just it's on this machine. I don't know how to advance it. I'm really sorry. I'm sorry. I'm very I'm very

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Just press the buttons.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Which button?

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: The arrow buttons.

[Georgia Shutish (Member of Public)]: I want the pictures to advance?

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Yes.

[Georgia Shutish (Member of Public)]: At two. At two is the down arrow? Okay.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: No. Well, okay.

[Georgia Shutish (Member of Public)]: I'm sorry. I don't even drive. So I mean, how can I do

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: SFGov, can we go to the computer, please?

[Georgia Shutish (Member of Public)]: Yes. Computer, please. Thank you. Okay. There we go.

[SFGovTV/AV Technician — time-bound override]: You got it?

[Georgia Shutish (Member of Public)]: Yeah. But okay. This makes it show the

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: whole thing. I want to show the whole thing.

[Georgia Shutish (Member of Public)]: It's only showing part. I'm sorry.

[SFGovTV/AV Technician — time-bound override]: What do you want to show?

[Georgia Shutish (Member of Public)]: I want to show the whole slide. Sorry. This is like, it's only part of the slide.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Oh, oh, that's how you do it. Okay. All right. I'll play. Yeah. Okay. Oh God. Okay. Oh, well.

[Kei Zushi (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Alright. There you go.

[Georgia Shutish (Member of Public)]: The blind leading the blind. Okay. Hi. Georgia Shutish. Good afternoon, commissioners. So I sent you that PDF. There's a PDF on the May 16 a couple years ago for that, for some other amount, for 4 something. I can't make this move. I don't I I I can't I can't do this. I should just not do this. Okay. Anyway, so look, you you know you can see my PDF. But the point I wanna make is this. When you look at that price history when you look at that price history, it totally mimics the findings of the constraints reduction ordinance. And that says the cost of housing in San Francisco has increased dramatically since the Great Recession two thousand eight, to 2009 with the median sales price of a two bedroom house more than tripling from 2011 to 2021 from 493,000 to 1,580,000.00. This includes a 9% increase from 2019 to 2020 alone even with the face of the COVID nineteen pandemic. And look at that price increase on that sheet I saw on that PDF I sent you, please. And you see it. It exactly mimics. It started out in 2012 way below a million dollars, and it just went up as the things did. And so this is a major alteration. It's one of many that, helped set the median price in the last decade plus. And, today, this project would have a warning letter. And the warning letter is because the calcs are too close to the threshold. And you can see the calcs that I found at DBI records when I went there, and they're very close. They're the b one is over 64. The b two is 48. The c one is a 100% and the c two is 45%. Originally, it was 48%. That's too close. And I don't think a warning letter is is is a warning letter is insufficient to deal with this issue, just like the demo calcs are insufficient, especially to protect sound existing housing in the priority equity geographies. So, I think they're like a cup of weak tea. They don't do anything for you. So the calc should be adjusted per the commission's legislative authority in section three seventeen definitions, and that's in definitions. And that's you must remember that the demo calcs are a definition of demolition, and they do need to be adjusted because of projects like this one. And there's a whole bunch of others that are coming on the market now, again, or newly coming on the market. And this is a problem for the priority equity geographies going forward. And here are my 150 words for the minutes, and I'm sorry I couldn't show those pictures, but I'm incompetent. But there's my 150 words for the minutes. And please look at the PDF that I sent on the sixteenth to get the gist of what I just said. Thank you very much. Have a great three day weekend. Bye.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Last call for general public comment.

[Dave Rodeo (San Francisco Policy Director, The Climate Reality Project)]: Hi, commissioners. My name is Dave Rodeo. I'm the San Francisco policy director for Al Gore's Climate Reality Project. And I have to apologize, but I'm I'm hearing impaired. And so I did not hear at the beginning of this meeting what happened on item 14. Was it is under contingents? It is being passed off to another meeting. Is that correct?

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: It's been continued, sir, to June 5.

[Dave Rodeo (San Francisco Policy Director, The Climate Reality Project)]: To June 5?

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Yes.

[Dave Rodeo (San Francisco Policy Director, The Climate Reality Project)]: Okay. Seems like when there's 20 people here that speak to it, seems like a rather, I don't know, offensive tactic to continue it when, when people have organized and gathered to speak that very issue. So that's all I have to say for today. I guess I'll see you in June. Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Thank you. Final last call for general public comment. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. We can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners. For item 12, case number 20Seventeen-seven468E and V for the SFO recommended airport development plans. This is a draft environmental impact report. Please note that written comments will be accepted at the planning department until 5PM on 06/02/2025.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Joe

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I'm sorry, Joan.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Yeah. But commissioner Williams has a comment.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I just wanted to to to comment on on miss miss Shudisch and the flats policy. Have we scheduled any anything, director Hillis, on the flats policy? And just I'm just understanding that you're gonna be, you know, leaving us soon. And I I I would really like

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: The the flats policy Yeah. Yeah.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just take conversation to start before you leave. And I'm concerned that that that might not happen. And so

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: Sure. The flats policy is you know, we're proposing it be codified as part of the the the family zoning plan that will be before you

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Mhmm.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: Over the summer. So that legislation we're anticipating is introduced in June. The entire package, codification of the flats policy will be included in that. So, you know, we can talk about it at any of the number of future hearings we're gonna have on the on the rezoning. Yep.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. So June so June is going to roll out in June?

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: Yeah.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Okay.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: We'll probably we'll we'll I can't recall the exact calendar, but we'll we're likely to have a hearing in June on the re on the rezoning schedule to talk about it.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Great. I'm I'm really, really glad that that's that's happening. And I I look forward to the conversation, so thank you very much.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: Sure.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Okay.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Item 12.

[Kei Zushi (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Kei Zushi, department staff, and environmental case coordinator for the SFO recommended airport development plan for the proposed project. Joining me today are Audrey Park, environmental affairs manager with SFO, and Tanya Shaner, environmental case supervisor with the planning department. Can my oh, my presentation's up. So the item before you today is public hearing on the SFO recommended airport development plan draft environmental impact report or the draft EIR. The purpose of today's hearing is to take public comments on the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the draft EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA and San Francisco's local procedures for implementing CEQA. No certification of the document is being requested at this time. The draft EIR was published on 04/16/2025. The public review period for the draft EIR began on 04/16/2025 and will continue until 5PM on 06/02/2025. I will now hand it over to Audrey Park with SFO, who will be providing an overview of the existing project site and project proposed project. Excuse me. After Audrey's presentation of the project description, I'll provide information regarding CEQA review that was done thus far for the project, and then we'll go over public comment opportunities as well as next steps of the overall process.

[Audrey Park (Environmental Affairs Manager, SFO)]: Good afternoon, esteemed planning commissioners, planning department staff, and members of the public. My name is Audrey Park with SFO, and I'm here to provide you with an overview of the recommended airport development plan or the RADP. SFO is located about 13 miles south of Downtown San Francisco and is contained on land owned entirely by the city and county of San Francisco, largely in unincorporated San Mateo County. In 2016, SFO published the draft final airport development plan as a long range landside development plan containing the vision for SFO to accommodate growth and demand for air travel to and from the Bay Area. As passenger demand for air travel grows over decades, it would trigger certain RADP projects for development over those decades. The RADP is about, as this growth in passenger demand occurs, how SFO can accommodate that demand in a way that elevates passenger amenities and level of service that is reflective of San Francisco. As you can see in the site map, the RADP is largely contained contains the development of land side developments, such as boarding areas, parking garages, aircraft parking apron, consolidated rental car center, and these facilities are right sized to match the capacity of the existing runway configuration. There are no changes or expansions proposed to the existing runway or to aircraft flight paths, which are the sole purview of the FAA. This slide provides the ADP study goals and objectives, which is reflected in the selected selection of RADP projects. The planning study goals were to continue to modernize SFO and be the airport of choice to and from the Bay Area by elevating passenger amenities, optimizing existing airfield or aircraft movements so that there are no delays for our passengers, and leveraging technology and maximizing common use facilities for our airline partners, and reducing overbuilding or building airline specific facilities. Overall, we want to make smart airport land use choices within the limited airport land that we have today. Today, I've selected three representative projects to describe and are reflective of the RADP. First, the new boarding area h would provide contact gates that would accommodate both international and domestic flights and would reduce the need for capital development of domestic only gates or international only gates. There would be a secure passenger corridor for convenient domestic connections to other terminals, and our passengers would not have to go through security checkpoints again. If passenger demand swings to the international travel side, the the gates would accommodate international arrivals. There would be a sterile corridor to the federal inspection station for international arrivals. And most importantly for SFO and for San Francisco, this new boarding area would remove the need to develop hardstand gates where passengers would need to be bussed to the airfield and then board and deplaned using stairs. While hardstands are common in other continents and SFO could accommodate air travel demand with hardstand gates, we want our passengers to board an aircraft from a comfortable and safe passenger boarding bridge that meets ADA standards as well. The second project example is the central hub. The new central hub would replace the existing central garage, which is located within the terminal area. This central garage is seismically deficient under, current California building code. Instead of an in kind replacement garage, the RADP envisions an integrated multimodal ground transportation and parking facility. We envision the new central hub to accommodate different airport ground transportation modes for our passengers with different levels designated for public transit, shuttle and charter buses, taxis and TNCs, airline and airport employee, parking, as well as public parking. There would wait areas, and cafes for our passengers to enhance a sense of place for all airport guests. For the third and last example, if there continues to be a demand for aircraft maintenance, SFO could develop a new maintenance aircraft maintenance hangar that could accommodate up to two additional wide body aircraft. There is currently an existing hangar used by United and American Airlines for aircraft maintenance today. As with other RADP projects, if there is no demand in the future, we would not build it. These aircraft maintenance jobs could continue to be exported to other countries in Central And South America, or they could stay here, where in that case, we would be able to accommodate those aircraft maintenance jobs here. Lastly, I we get this question often, so I just wanted to, provide this for the, planning commission. SFO is an enterprise department of the city and county of San Francisco. We're operated and maintained with capital developments funded wholly by the revenues generated at and financed by SFO. So, I am an airport employee, city and county of San Francisco employee. My, salary is paid for with revenues generated at the airport. There are no taxpayer funds used for SFO projects, and RADP projects would also be funded by SFO revenues generated on-site. As an enterprise department, SFO has made payments of annual service payments in the city fiscal year of 'twenty four, about $56,000,000. We would like to continue to be able to enhance, generate revenue, and provide that level of service again to our passengers if they choose to fly to or from the Bay Area. I'm happy to take any questions at the end. Thank you.

[Kei Zushi (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Kei Zushi again, department staff. Now I will address the project's environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified in the draft EIR. The draft EIR concludes that the project with mitigation would result in less than significant impacts on cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, air quality, noise and vibration, and biological resources. The draft EIR also concludes that the proposed project with mitigation would result in significant and unavoidable operational air quality impacts. All other impacts from the proposed project were found to be less than significant or would result in no impact. To address the impacts requiring mitigation measures, the draft EIR analyzed three feasible alternatives to the proposed project under CEQA. The no project alternative, which is an alternative required to be analyzed under CEQA, would represent what would be reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the RADP were not implemented. The reduced development alternative would remove from the proposed project the Boarding Area H, international terminal building main hall expansion and aircraft maintenance hangar projects to eliminate project significant and unavoidable operational air quality impacts. The Boarding Area H only alternative would remove all RADP projects, except the Boarding Area H project from the proposed project to eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable operational air quality impacts. The draft EIR contains analysis of the impacts associated with the three alternatives. Those impacts are summarized in the table shown here. The alternatives represent a reasonable range of alternatives for the EIR analysis. The no project alternative would not require any mitigation and reduce project significant and unavoidable operational air quality impacts to less than significant levels without mitigation. The reduced development alternative or boarding area H only alternative would reduce the project's significant and unavoidable operational air quality impacts to less than significant levels with mitigation and require several mitigation measures to reduce the alternative impacts to less than significant levels as shown on that slide. So today, we are conducting public hearing on the adequacy and accuracy of the draft EIR. For members of public who wish to speak, please state your name for the record. We'll have a court reporter transcribe your comments based on the recordings of today's proceeding. When it it is your turn, please state your name and spelling, and we ask that you speak slowly and clearly so that the court reporter can make an accurate transcript of today's proceedings. Staff is not here to answer your comments today. Comments will be transcribed and responded to in writing in the response to comments document. The document will respond to relevant verbal comments received today and written comments received during the public comment period and includes revisions to the draft EIR as appropriate. Those who wish to comment on the draft EIR in writing by mail or email may submit their comments to Kei Zusi, EIR coordinator at 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400, San Francisco, or Cpc. Sforadpsfgov.org by 5PM on 06/02/2025. We anticipate publication of the responses to comments document in fall twenty twenty five, followed by the EIR certification hearing shortly after. Unless the commission have questions, I respectfully suggest that the public hearing on this item be opened. Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Indeed. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. Again, this is the draft EIR.

[Liz Lopez (Member of Public)]: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Liz Lopez. I live in San Francisco. So the airport says that implementing the airport development plan, which is inevitably an expansion project, will not induce passenger demand. But I'd like to know who is guaranteeing that. Who's guaranteeing that there won't be any, demand? So San Francisco's population overall has only grown point 4% in the last decade, and SFO ridership has barely been able to hit pre pandemic levels. This expansion is more likely part of a much larger marketing strategy to entice more customers to use SFO, which will inevitably increase the amount of flight traffic, noise pollution, and chemical pollution over residents' homes, as well as increase greenhouse gases, which will trump the output of CO2 from cars in the city. United, the largest SFO airline, currently has $2,600,000,000 construction project underway and has added over a dozen new destinations to their roster. And they say that modernization paves the way for continued growth. Residents would like to know how many different projects make up the overall expansion and growth development plans that SFO and airlines have in their pipeline, because it's more than just this project being discussed. When the NextGen Aerospace Modernization Project began, Bay Area residents were blindsided with non transparent data, saying that the impact of the project would not be significant. San Francisco officials sat idly by as SFO and the FAA concentrated airplane noise over unsuspecting residents, decreasing their quality of life and impacting their health. This development project is a public health issue, and I'd like San Francisco officials and SFO to be honest and state the real impacts that the impending operational growth will have on residents further away from the airport, such as San Francisco, Palo Alto, and Santa Cruz. Instead of just trying to blindside us yet again, telling us that there will be no significant impact. Please do not accept the environmental review as it is. It needs to include the real impact that increased aviation operations will have. Make no mistake, this is an airport expansion project, which will induce passenger demand and negatively impact residents. Thank you.

[Member of Public (Palo Alto resident)]: Hi. Good afternoon, commissioners. I wonder if you can recognize that SFO's DEIR, has standards from the disco era, as in polyester suits, which guarantees that the public nor you will know the true impacts of this plan. And it will not meet the standards that the public expects to see today in 2025 from a major city's planning office. You will certainly not be able to see the human or environmental impacts as it is right now. Why would San Francisco instead not make the DEIR more relevant to today's audience? Quoting the Secretary of Transportation this week, he asked, I don't know why, when I travel around the world, I think so many other countries have safer and cleaner transportation systems. Why have something second best? We should aspire to be the safest, cleanest, and most efficient in the world. Many ask that question. I grew up in Brazil and have lived in Europe, in countries with excellent airlines and airports. The United States aviation system actually is third rate in contrast to many developed and developing countries. In the European Union, agencies produce highly relevant information on airport impacts. Countries are heavily fined if they do not comply. EU agencies measure everything so that their airports and airlines are much more competitive and effective on tackling the very real impacts on people and the environment. Whereas, in the Bay Area, airports just in the last few years are presenting environmental reviews that hide the real pollution impacts. And this, when big data tools invented here in this region are available to conduct important analytics. A leading aero expert called the amount of data available an embarrassment of riches. And are you aware that a year's worth of all of SFO departures and arrivals overflight data can be processed in three days at a cost that is less than what it would cost to print the DEIR. One final point, SFO's impacts are severe, far South of San Francisco and San Mateo County, It takes just three to four minutes for a freighter to rattle and roar over three counties, many as far as the Santa Cruz Mountains, waking up people of all ages and economic backgrounds. Just in the last few years, SFO has deposited noise where I come where I live in Palo Alto from and I should remind you that the DIR is supposed to look at areas with noise between forty five and sixty DNL as well as reportable noise. A deposit of five DNL did happen in my community. That's the equivalent of your cholesterol going from 200 to 300 or you're putting on 60 pounds. So I hope you will think about this. And that would answer the question as to why our system is a third rate system and is not the cleanest in the world. Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Thank you. Okay. Any other member of the public who wishes to submit their testimony, now is the time to do so.

[Leo Martin (Bayview Hunters Point; Mothers and Fathers Committee; Greenaction)]: Can I speak?

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: On the draft environmental impact report? Yes. Certainly.

[Leo Martin (Bayview Hunters Point; Mothers and Fathers Committee; Greenaction)]: My name is Leo Martin. I'm living in Bayview Hunters Point. I'm the president of the Mothers and Fathers Committee of Bayview Hunters Point, and also with Green Action for environmental health and justice. We already been told that our impact was already bad enough, and we have a lot of people that's dying in our neighborhood from cancer and all other type of stuff. This will only bring more more pollution to our neighborhood, where our impact is already so big. You know, the threshold is over already. To bring up something like this and to take it even higher. We care about our people in Bayview. Not much, but just one person right now, but I speak for a lot of people that live in Bayview, for a lot of people that family that died from cancer, a lot of people that have cancer right now. I've been doing this environmental work for eighteen years, nineteen years now, and only went out one day and did it, and I haven't stopped. It's because I care. I grew up in Bayview Hunters Point since 1966. I was six years old. I'd be 65 this year, and this is my way of giving back. One person does make a difference. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now for your review and comment, commissioners.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Do we have any comments?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I appreciate the acknowledgment of the project's significant and unavoidable impacts with mitigation that affect air pollution, and I look forward to reviewing additional comments and responses to those comments.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Thank you. Commission Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I also read in the environmental impact reports and and its outlines on different mitigation measures. And one particular that, for me that I find, compelling or interesting is the the historical resources or the tribal resources and plans for that in terms of the mitigating in finding those issues. Also, there are a lot of data in terms of the traffic and biking and walk walking circulation, although there are parts of it that I read that was back in 2019, and I think there are some graph that is back in 2025. I wonder if any of those, information when we're talking about the the traffic or pedestrian circulation, if there can be more updated data on that. I saw something that is on 2025. I I'm trying to get it into the there is pretty recent. But I hope the data that we could find in terms of this environmental break board could be in the last or in the last year or two years. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: I'd like to add a comment, if I may. I'm interested as to whether or not we are looking at international met metrics regarding airport noise, airline takeoff noise, and airline emission standards. I know that all international airports are grappling with the same issue. I do know, though, that particularly in Germany, which I'm very familiar with, there are very strict standards, particularly regarding takeoff noise and air pollution at takeoff. And I'm wondering if any of those considerations are being brought to this project or as to whether or not they are overarching international standards for performance because we have a lot of not only national but also international aircraft coming to San Francisco. I think that would be a discussion which I would like to see addressed somewhere along the line because I do believe that the gentleman who spoke about particularly the immediate and nearby affected communities do have concerns. We have other projects in the area coming up in a few weeks, and I think all of those things are ultimately cumulative. We already have data about where the concentrations of air quality concentrations are, and I do think that we need to look at it in a in a kind of layered comprehensive way. Those would be my questions. Thank

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: you. All right, commissioners. If there's no further comments on the draft environmental impact report, we can move on, commissioners, to to the final item on your agenda today, number 13, case number 2020Five-two888 PPS for the property at 2125 Powell Street. This is an informational presentation as it relates to SB four twenty three. Project sponsor, you'll have five minutes.

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: Hello, commissioners. I'm John Goldman of Goldman Architects. I just plugged in the little thumb drive, and nothing's happening here yet. I have this is the first I've seen this laptop, so let me see if I can get it to show you something. I'm assuming.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: SFgov, can we go to the computer?

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: I think I got it now. Okay. How this laptop is working. Okay. Again, John Goldman, Goldman Architects. North Beach 2125 Powell Street. We submitted this project under s b four two three. So this is, the required, presentation under the notice of intent we filed. The project consists of three large family units over a commercial space and a garage. There's an existing building, which you'll see in the drawings, where there's a fencing club there now, which one of the owners of the property, it's it's her fencing club. So it's quite possible that a fencing club will go in the new building depending on how the financial numbers work on that. But that's we're actually showing a fencing club on the Ground Floor of this of this project. So this first image here shows the context. Here's some images of the existing conditions. You can see some images here of the outside of the building, which is a fencing club, as I noted. Adjacent, Edwardian style buildings, which we're picking up on that kind of idea of the context of

[Dave Rodeo (San Francisco Policy Director, The Climate Reality Project)]: the

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: neighborhood. Basically, this just shows the entire building. What we're doing is a 40 foot height limit. And you know, so 10 foot floor to floor are three residential floors, only at least 10 foot floor to floor for the commercial space, which is inadequate for a fencing club or really inadequate for any sort of commercial space. What we're doing is we're going down a couple feet, excavating down a couple feet. So the commercial space will have, instead of nine foot ceilings, about 11 foot ceilings, which will work for a fencing club or an exercise club or a yoga studio or, martial arts studio for that matter are all similar uses, which our draw our scheme will support because we have locker rooms and I'll show you this. Oh, by the there's a small rear yard now. It's about seven feet deep. So that's the existing building. And here in the middle, it's just about a 14 foot high building. Okay. Proposed floor plan. As I mentioned, since we're going down a couple feet, we have to provide wheelchair access to the commercial space. So there's a a ramp when you first enter, on center from Powell Street. There's a ramp bringing you down to the commercial space level. There's a residential foyer, and there's a garage. These are large, as I mentioned, family units, so we thought it'd be useful to have a garage for at least one of the three units. The 1st Floor of housing above the commercial space has a very nice rear yard, private to that unit. These are three bedrooms plus den slash bedroom. So it's really a four bedroom family unit, which is, as you know, very hard to find anything like that in North Beach for sale or for rent. So there's three bedrooms along Powell Street. And this also has three baths for the four bedroom scheme. So the master bedroom has its own bath. The den slash bedroom, which opens up to the rear, what we call great room, has a bath right there as well. And then there's a bath for the other two bedrooms. So quite unique, I think, having 1,500 square foot four bedroom scheme available for families. The next this would be the third and the fourth floor plan. Very similar, but, of course, they don't have direct access to the rear yard. So they have access to a roof deck, which is shown here. Let me back up just a second, point something out interesting. There is something called a limited use, limited access elevator on this three unit project, which is allowed for non a d for for non ADA buildings. Three units or less doesn't have to meet all the ADA requirements, but you're allowed to have a limited use, limited access elevator. We've looked at various unit count schemes and ended up with this family kind of scheme. We looked at three units, five units, and six unit schemes. Mhmm. The problem with greater density, is that under a fairly recent building code, if you have an elevator, it has to be a 3,500 pound elevator big enough for a gurney. That's about 350,000. Wow. And a five unit scheme or a six unit scheme, you can't add another 50,000 per unit. Is that

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Thirty seconds.

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: Oh. Oh. I didn't realize I was limited in time. Okay. Let me just take you through this thing quick and show you some renderings. K. There's existing. There's proposed. As you see, it's related to the adjacent building. Proposed. Another view of the proposed. So and then some aerial perspectives before and after.

[Leo Martin (Bayview Hunters Point; Mothers and Fathers Committee; Greenaction)]: That's it?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: That's it.

[Kei Zushi (Environmental Case Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Well, I

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: I had no idea. I was limited in time. So sorry about that. I would have gone through faster.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Okay. With that, we

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Last call

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: And, of course, any questions you may have for me, I'm here to answer them.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: I'm gonna push myself and say, I think for an s p four twenty three project, I find this a treat. I think it answers all the questions more than we normally see, where, actually, the information is rather scarce and, in many cases, very insufficient. In your case, it's exactly the opposite. And I'm delighted to see such an innovative project in the location that is proposed.

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: We're pretty happy about having family units in North Beach because there's a lot of families in North Beach.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: I like its its

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: building in context. I like the way it respects what is and just kind of seamlessly blends in with a densification that I think is absolutely perfect in that location. And, again, as for as an SB four twenty three project, I'd like to remind us as commissioners that would be the minimum expectation we have. Thank you.

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. Just wanna say I appreciate I wanna echo those comments. I appreciate the way that this blends in with the neighborhood, and I appreciate the the mirroring of the light well for the adjacent building. This seems like a really reasonable project, and, you know, it manages to provide three three bedrooms. You mentioned the fourth space would not take any bedrooms. I won't go there. But a three bedroom unit that is still only roughly 1,500 square feet or less per unit, which just seems like a very modest and reasonable approach to providing family housing that should still be relatively affordable, compared to much larger, projects. So thank you very much. I appreciate that.

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'd like to wish you well. It's a beautiful, project. Three units, four bedrooms up to as somebody who has three children, and it's hard to they take up a lot of space, and it's really hard to squeeze them in. This is a delightful

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: opportunity. For three kids and a and a

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Yeah. And parents

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: in Nashville?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: In the middle of Norpeach, you know. I I speak no. I'm speaking from the avenues too, but the ability to have this space in Norpeach is phenomenal.

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: Alright. Anything else?

[Leo Martin (Bayview Hunters Point; Mothers and Fathers Committee; Greenaction)]: Thank you.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Great to see you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Thank you very much.

[Dave Rodeo (San Francisco Policy Director, The Climate Reality Project)]: Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just wanna echo the sentiments of my fellow commissioners. This is a well done project. You could tell it's going to fit a lot of needs. The bedrooms are a little tight, but you still got a lot done given the space restraints. So

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: What I find is having a little smaller bedrooms and more of them actually works better for families. Yeah.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. For kids.

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: For kids.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I'll buy that. I'll buy that anyway. I just want to echo Commissioner Moore's sentiment about some of the projects that we've seen that have gone through SB four twenty three. And this is very detailed. It's different. It's different in a good way. And so I just want to appreciate that that it seems like you're respecting, a lot of the norms, in, in your area. And I just wanna shine the light on that. Thank you.

[John Goldman (Goldman Architects)]: Thank you.

[Commission Secretary (Clerk)]: Okay. With that, commissioners, we can conclude this hearing today.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President; Acting Chair)]: Thank you.