San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, Jan excuse, January. 06/12/2025. When we reach the item you're interested in 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 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. I'd like to take role at this time. Commission Chair Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Braun? Here. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And Commissioner Williams? Here. Thank you, Commissioners. We expect Commission President Tsao to be out today. First on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number 2020Three-eleven606CUA at 935 Gary Street, conditional use authorization as proposed for continuance to 07/24/2025. And item two, case number 2020Four-eight188 OTH, for the Community Investments Toolkit in Equity Geographies, informational presentation is proposed for an indefinite continuance. Commissioners, I have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on their items proposed for continuance, only on the matter of continuance.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United San Francisco)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Yes. On this item for continuance, community investment toolkit, toolkits in the inequity geographies. I guess if it's possible to have someone comment on why this item keeps getting continued. This is an important component of the housing element implementation plan. And I think we'd just like to understand why it keeps getting continued. Thank you.

[Joseph Smook (Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Joseph Smook with the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition. I'm also addressing the item titled Community Investments Toolkit in Equity Geographies. I just want to state the rep appreciated the letter that we received yesterday from Director Hillis, which states the department agrees that the toolkit must be shaped by the priorities of those most affected. We look forward to working closely with the staff working on this toolkit to make sure that it's relevant and responsive to the needs and experiences of residents and workers in

[Naima Hall (Member of the public; housing navigator)]: our communities. We support further continuance of this item to allow

[Joseph Smook (Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition)]: for the time for this engagement and collaboration to happen, and we look forward to hearing from staff with an updated timeline and specific opportunities to engage. Thank you.

[Georgia Shudish (Member of the public)]: Hi. Georgia Shudish. I prepared something, but I'm carrying it around for several weeks to submit, and I'll just wait till it comes. But I guess my question is is, like, you know, s b four twenty three applies to the whole city, and it just seems contrary to the intent of the private equity geography neighborhoods to have s b four twenty three apply to those neighborhoods. And I really encourage I will continue to encourage, the city to lobby Sacramento to remove the priority equity geography neighborhoods from being, having to be under s b four twenty three. That does not seem right. Doesn't seem like what was intended by the city and county of San Francisco when, the product geography SUD was created. So we'll see what happens this summer or whenever. Thank you. And I do hope looking forward to hearing that. Thanks.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Commissioner Imperial? Before

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I make a motion, is is it possible for director Healers to explain about the process of community toolkit if that's just Sure.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: Information? Happy to. I mean, I think we got comments from the public. I think mister Schmook sent a letter, that that we wanted to be responsive to and discuss with the community some of the elements that are in the toolkit, as well as work with the Community Equity Advisory Council who've also had questions on it. So it's to it's to do some additional engagement Thank you. When we come back.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items as proposed, Commissioner Campbell?

[Naima Hall (Member of the public; housing navigator)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And commission chair Moore. Aye. So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously six to zero. Commissioners, it'll place this under your consent calendar. The matter listed here under constitutes your 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 this item unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item three, case number 2025, Hyphen001061CUA at 1635 Divisadero Street, conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that this matter be removed from the consent calendar and considered under the regular calendar today or at a future hearing. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comments closed, and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to approve item three as proposed.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve item three on consent, commissioner Campbell.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. And commission Chermore. Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero, placing us under commission matters for item four, the land acknowledgment.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Commission of Brown, Bullwede, the land acknowledgment today.

[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 preceded, 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.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Item five, commission comments and questions.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Commission

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Perio. Thank you, Vice President Moore. Just wanna take this opportunity that, also announced that, last Tuesday, planning department together with African American cultural district, commissioner Williams Braun, I and also there is also art commissioners that were attended. We attended the the African American cultural district tour, and it was a very a very enjoyable experience. We went to the Bayview Hunters Point Shipyard, and also we went to the Bayview Opera House. And in that tour, you know, we learned a lot about the history of the in the shipyard and also in a way of how it also shapes the neighborhood of Bayview. And also, there were also other community stakeholders that was also present

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: in that tour.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So there's gonna be a next door that is around on the 3rd Street corridor that's going to be facilitated by economic development on 3rd Street. This was something that I announced months ago about inviting the commission to attend this tour to learn about the Bayview the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood and also to hear about, you know, the challenges, issues, and also just, his history of the neighborhood as well. I don't know if we can arrange another African American cultural district tour with other commissioners. Perhaps we can extend that extend that tour again for other commissioners who are interested. It was really enjoyable for me personally. And also, again, for other commissioners who would like to attend the 3rd Street Corridor tour, please, how do we coordinate this? I guess you can also let me know or

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: Yeah. We can organize. We'll reach out to commissioners to see if others are interested in in organizing additional tour. Yeah.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. So so, yeah, just so just for other commissioners, this the African American Cultural District tour is about four hours. So that's, like, half of your day, so just FYI. So you need to spend some of your time on this tour. So, yeah. So, yeah.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: As commissioner Imperial said, I was on that tour, and I just want to acknowledge and thank the African American Arts and Cultural District leadership for hosting and leading that tour, especially April Spears, Mayes, and Jennifer Gayden. But also thanks to all of the other attendees in the tour, to department staff for helping to coordinate it, as well as there's also SFMTA staff there too. It was a very educational tour. It was great to learn more about the history of the shipyard especially and the community's deep ties to it and what an important place it holds in the history and the heart of the community. And so, yeah, I'm just grateful that we had this opportunity.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just wanna echo, what was said about the tour. It was really it was really educational. I I really enjoyed it, being from here and not having gone to the shipyards, ever and really exploring it and understanding it the way the way it was presented to us by some of the artists and historians that have been working at the shipyards for, like, twenty years. We're working on the history and putting together these exhibits. It was really interesting. And it made me feel more connected to the Baby Hunters Point too, which is nice. The Opera House too is somewhere I've never been inside of. I've driven by quite a bit, but I've never been inside. And to understand there's all these really nice great events happening there made me realize that there's a lot lot going on in in the Baby Hunters Point. And it's it's some really amazing and wonderful people that are there. We got to there was a drum circle, as well. And, some of the elders that have been there for seventy years were on these drums, and then they came out and they gave testimony about some of their experiences growing up in the Bayview Hunters Point. It was it was really nice. And so I I just want to thank the residents of the Bayview Hunters Point, the Opera House, and the African American Cultural District. Thank you for for for giving us that tour and for sharing all those spaces with us and educating us about your community. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Just to add one additional thought. Speaking at least for myself, looking at Commissioner Campbell and Commissioner McGarry, if there is an opportunity to make a repeat of that, I think it would be greatly appreciated. In addition to that, I'd like to remind people that the Opera House itself in the late sixties was up for demolition, and it was then planning director Alan Jacobs and the planning department to encourage the city to buy the building. That is why this particular facility is still there and has become such an important ingredient in the community. Thank you. Commissioner Keb.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thank you for adding that on. I'm gonna switch topics a bit here and just give a shout out to the, Downtown Concert Series that's starting this summer. This is another Planet Entertainment in Rec And Park, and it's kicking off at Embarcadero Saturday, with, with Dirty Bird. Check it out. Last year, I think there was, like, tens of thousands of people that came downtown, which is pretty unprecedented for the weekend. So just wanna give it a shout out.

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Seeing nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to department matters. Item six, director's announcements. Nothing. Item seven, review of past events of the Board of Supervisors. I have no report from the Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, SF Planning)]: Good afternoon, Commissioners Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs. This week, the land use committee considered Supervisor Cheryl's ordinance that would allow two projecting business signs for corner commercial businesses in all NC and RC districts. This commission heard the item on May 15 and voted to unanimously approve it. There was no public comment before the committee members unanimously voted to move the item forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. Lastly, the committee heard the ordinance titled Interim Housing in Hotels and Motels sponsored by Mayor Lurie. This ordinance would amend the planning code to allow certain shelter in place hotels to be reestablished as hotel uses. These hotels and motels discontinued their use when they participated in the city's shelter in place hotel program, and this ordinance would allow these hotels or motels to be reestablished. Commissioners, you heard this item on May 8 and adopted a recommendation of approval with modification. That modification was a technical amendment to add a missing block and lot to previously added eligible property. At the hearing, the mayor's office proposed amendments that would incorporate the commission's recommended modifications. Additionally, the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing proposed other amendments to authorize interim housing at three additional lots. These, lots are associated with the hotels that are included in the mayor's breaking the cycle vision to expand interim housing and recovery bed sites. Supervisor Dorsey introduced the item, citing his support for enabling a much needed category of housing, especially for those working towards recovery. He noted the importance of providing maximum flexibility for hotels to provide interim housing now and easily revert back to hotels in the future. During the hearing, supervisors raised concerns about labor representation, the ordinance's narrow scope, and the need for future legislation to expand the program. There were no public comments. That item was amended and read into the record and continued to next week's committee hearing as some of the amendments were considered substantive. Then to the full board this week, supervisor Dorsey's ordinance that would amend health service uses in mixed use office districts passed its first read. And the mayor, motion to reappoint, Chris Foley and Diane Matsuda, Both were adopted, and that's to the Historic Preservation Commission. That's all I have for you today. Thanks.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, that will place us under general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on 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 Shudish (Member of the public)]: You're going to start my time? Oh, I want you to give them out first.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: They're not going

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: to be able to

[Georgia Shudish (Member of the public)]: read it.

[Howard Lee (Member of the public; Infinity resident)]: Can't do

[Georgia Shudish (Member of the public)]: that way? Okay.

[Howard Lee (Member of the public; Infinity resident)]: They're not going

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: to be able to read it while you're speaking.

[Georgia Shudish (Member of the public)]: Oh, no. Okay. Well, there's certain things they can read. Okay. Good afternoon. I'm George Asutish, as you know. What you're getting is resolution number 17428. And I tracked this down because it's not in department files. CP your records department's great, but they couldn't find it because I don't think it's there. So I got this from the clerk of the board. And what this is, as you can see, is the Planning Commission resolution passed on 05/17/2007, to start 03/17, thanks to Supervisor Maxwell. And I highlighted certain parts on the resolution that I hope you'll notice. As you know, the board did approve it a year later, and what I've highlighted there has pretty much stayed in. You see on page two, number seven, is the definition of demolition, and it's pretty clear cut what it is. At the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Committee on March 2008, which you can see on SFGovTV and I recommend you watch because it's kind of interesting, a couple of things were said. One of those things were said was the reason for, the adjustment is to be able to catch all the projects that should be caught, they should catch, without the legislative process. So the commission could do it. The commission could adjust. You didn't have to go back to the board to change the numbers. That's the whole point. Also said was that the reason for three they made three seventeen(two) d. Originally, it was going to go either way. It could have gone down. It could have gone up. They made it reduce the adjustments, and that was to make it more stringent. So as you know, that subsection was put in to, quote, implement the intent of section three seventeen to conserve existing and sound housing and preserve affordable housing. And as we know, it never happened. Eighteen years. Seventeen years. So I sent two examples of one mini of the mini that I've sent over the years, but I sent two on, Jan June 6, which I think really exemplify the issue. And if you read my email with the attached PDFs, I think you would agree that those projects are contrary to the findings and intent of section three seventeen. So one more final thing on the back of the handout you just got is the chart if the values had been reduced. And based on everything I've seen, I really only started looking at this since 2014. I mean, at the hearing is so interesting, those hearings, Supervisor McGoldrick, he talked about he'd been looking at it for twenty years, and that's back in 2008. So anyway, look at those numbers. I think the values for year two, if it had been reduced twice since the commission approved this resolution, that would have been a good thing. I think the housing would have been preserved. So that's all I've got to say, except here my 150 words for the minutes. And I'm glad that you have this in your records now, resolution 17428. Thank you very much. Have a good day.

[Catherine Petren (Neighborhoods United SF)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Catherine Petren here today representing Neighborhoods United SF. We are a coalition of long established neighborhood groups, civic organizations, and merchant associations. Our mission is to promote equitable growth, protect valuable resources, ensure public input, and prevent displacement of residents, tenants, and small businesses. I'm here today to address you on the matter of SB 79, a bill introduced by state senator Scott Wiener in January 2025. It would impose unnecessary and unwanted height and density increases and allow multifamily housing up to seven stories on parcels within both one quarter and one half mile of varying levels of transit service. In our seven by seven mile city, this is with hundreds of bus stops and rail stations. This legislation would apply almost to the entirety of San Francisco. It has no affordability requirements and no protection for historic resources. It represents overreach, and it really voids the many years of planning, wasting millions of dollars that this department has undertaken, on local planning efforts. It passed last week at the state senate narrowly and without opposition, but it received the required 21 votes. It will now make its way through the process, the legislature over the summer. In our letter, in the NUSF letter to this commission dated March 26, we urge the commission to ask the planning department to conduct a full analysis of SB 79 in the same way that this department did for SB 50. We, and USF, and many California organizations and now cities oppose SB 79, and we certainly hope that the city of San Francisco will stand with vast number of citizens in opposing this overreach into local planning and zoning control. The letter that I distributed to this commission represents NUSF's analysis of SB79. It was addressed to Senator Ayesha Wahab. She is the chair of the Senate Housing Committee. She opposed this SB79 in committee and on the floor of the Senate last week, specifically citing the lack of affordable considerations in the bill. So we, again, we reiterate our request for this department to provide some analysis on SB 79. Thank you very much.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United San Francisco)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Bridget Malley, also here on behalf of Neighborhoods United San Francisco. I've handed to the commission secretary a letter from Los Angeles city attorney Heidi Feldstein So to. And I would like to summarize Ms. Feldstein So to's very thoughtful and well informed letter related to Senator Wiener's SB 79. And obviously, I've provided you with copies in case you haven't already seen this important correspondence. SB79's mandates would apply to all cities, including charter cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, and especially and explicitly states that no state reimbursement will be provided to fund this mandate. Ms. Feldstein So to does a very good job of laying out why this is of consequence. She states that SB 79 would establish new state zoning standards within one half mile radius of every transit stop or many transit stops, overriding local zoning to permit by right multifamily buildings of six or more stories. While the intent of SB79 is to further address issues around the supply of housing, the bill's provisions impose billions of dollars of costs on local jurisdictions, undermine local government, circumvent local decision making processes, and impose unintended burdens on our communities. The costs that Ms. Feldstein So to predicts will be imposed on LA are jarring. Over $1,500,000,000 in infrastructure and first responder costs. There would certainly be a comparable cost in San Francisco as a result of an implemented SB79. NUSF asks that the planning department, the planning commission, and the city attorney's office conduct similar analysis to Ms. Feldstein Sotto's and disclose that information to the residents of San Francisco. We all need to understand the impact to San Francisco by the unfunded mandate that is SB79 and to realize that these state laws are not providing truly affordable housing. They're not providing the low, very low, and deeply affordable housing that we need. So please, I ask you to take the city of Los Angeles' example and to do this very similar analysis for our city. Thank you.

[Naima Hall (Member of the public; housing navigator)]: Morning, committee. I'm new to this. And I was invited by Asil Farah, the commissioner for planning. My name is Naima Hall. I'm a housing navigator, a volunteer with We Heart SF, a decentralized social justice committee or organization. I'm a recent graduate of the TNDC's Community Organizing Leadership Council, and I am a small business owner living in the Civic Loin and working to rebuild stability for my family after surviving years of housing insecurity and systemic barriers. I just want to speak today about the Racial and Social Equity Action Plan.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: It is I'm sorry, ma'am. Excuse me. But we're just taking general public comment at this time. The Racial and Social Equity Plan will be coming up later, and we can speak to that when we call that matter up.

[Naima Hall (Member of the public; housing navigator)]: Pardon me.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: That's quite alright. That's quite alright.

[Naima Hall (Member of the public; housing navigator)]: Maybe I should let me know. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: We'll we'll you'll have an opportunity shortly to speak to that. Again, members of the public, we're taking general public comment for items not on today's agenda. For items listed on the agenda, you'll have an opportunity to speak to that or those matters when we call those them up.

[Unidentified member of the public (Tenderloin resident)]: Good morning. I live in Tenderloin. I know you're talking about the commercial on about the housing. We do, we live in housing in Tenderloin. When we My brother coming from Yemen. We're looking for apartment. It's not apartment. It's a small apartment. Do you know how much is it? It's 2,100. And how my how much he work? He work in New Port Town because he's new, no English, no nothing. I know you told me we're talking about the commercial and about housing. We need the housing for people. You we live we now have make a lot money, 5,000 a dollar a month. We make any 2,000 a dollar off. 3,000 when we work part time and full time everywhere to make it, to get apartment, small. And then the guy, when we got to rent him from him, is in in our Boston city in bulk, he said he doesn't have a credit to get apartment. He doesn't have we give him a trust paper. We can when he has any I know you can tell me we're talking about commercial. That is inside the commercial because when you help the commercial to be to get the a building and a housing, we need low income housing. We need they trust us. We can pay rent and we get a way to live. Please, can you help us for the commercial? When you talk to them, say, you can have people low income because they say, oh, he now have a credit. He now has nothing to to get it the apartment. I know I know. I'm sorry because I got the line. We coming for tender line about, but I wanna talk to you about my situation about the housing. Thank you, anyway, if you hear me.

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

[Naima Hall (Member of the public; housing navigator)]: So just just to say something, I am a housing, I am a housing subsidy recipient. Again, I'm Naima Hall. And just having, the knowledge of what's going on in the city, being that I'm just getting into, the politics of housing as an advocate and as a homeless survivor, it helps that everyone's transparent. I'm not sure if everyone's take on it, open source data, and things of that nature, even for families that receive subsidies, it would be helpful, for whatever programs that you guys are voting in positive light and putting those, funding those funds and allocating funding for families, you can also include people in the conversations. And that'll be my goal, to help, homeless survivors to become homeowners. So it would be really just beautiful to see you guys vote in a positive light of what's going on in this statement. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Last call for general public comment again for matters that are not listed on today's agenda. Okay. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. We can move on to our regular calendar commissioners. Commissioners, we've received a request to take item nine out of order. There's a press conference that some people are attending at the front of City Hall that would like to speak under or on the Racial and Social Equity Plan. But because the two items or two events are scheduled at the same time, We will be taking item nine out of order for case number twenty twenty three hyphen zero zero three eight four CWP for the rail yard site development, ProLogist develop.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Excuse me, Jonas. I have commissioner Williams wants to make comments.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Are you finished, Jonas?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Are you

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, I was just gonna just this is an informational presentation.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. Go ahead. I I had a question regarding the the public comment, to director Hillis. On SB79, is there any studies, that are being done? And are you guys, what what's what's going on with

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: Absolutely. We are tracking SB 79. It's still working its way through the process, and we don't know what the ultimate ultimate language will be in it, or if it will be adopted. It's gotta get out of the assembly. Josh, I don't know if you wanna speak a little bit about it. There is a provision also in SB 79 that allows us to present an alternative zoning plan to SB 79. We would anticipate if SB 79 passed as is today, we would submit our rezoning as that alternative plan.

[Howard Lee (Member of the public; Infinity resident)]: Mhmm.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: I'm not sure that's gonna remain in the legislation or the legislation's gonna get passed. There's tons of information on s b 79. We can try to pull because certainly, we're analyzing it and we can talk more when we have our rezoning discussion. But we can send you kind of the information we have Yeah. About SB seven nine.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: It's, yeah. It's it's concerning to me that that, the city of Los Angeles is is raising the flags about cost to infrastructure, unfunded costs that are being, acquired by the city if things go the way that they're shaping up to. And so I I would just say that that I think it's worth it to to do some kind of a cost analysis, you know, if it's possible.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: I'm not sure what I saw from the city attorney in Los Angeles is appropriate. Like, every all housing could could create additional infrastructure costs. It also creates additional revenue. Right? People pay property tax on new housing that's built. So I'm not sure the analysis I see from the Los Angeles City Attorney is the one I would wanna necessarily Okay. Mimic. But we would but certainly, we want analysis of s p 79 and what it's going to to do. The city also has a process for the city to weigh in on legislation and support or oppose legislation that's worked through kind of a a a sampling of the board of supervisors and the mayor. So we don't take. We certainly inform that committee and the broader city on state legislation, but we don't take a position on state legislation. But as far as providing you information on where it is, absolutely, we can do that.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: So so who who who who who analyzes the impacts of of a legislation? Who who does that? How how does the public

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: We're analyzing how this would work with our our zoning program. But again, like I said, this is this has a provision in it that says we could submit an alternative plan. And if that provision stays, we would submit our rezoning as an alternative plan, thereby having no impact of SB 79. So I think we have to see what the legislation ultimately says. But we can, again, at the hearing we have on the housing on the family rezoning plan that's coming up in two weeks, we can certainly make this a topic too so we can inform you where things are.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Absolutely. I I would appreciate that, director Hillis. Again, when I when I see things like this, it just, you know, it it it raises concern, and so that's why I'm following up on it. So but I appreciate that. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: There's nothing further, commissioners. We've already called up item nine for the rail yard site development informational presentation.

[Howard Lee (Member of the public; Infinity resident)]: Great.

[Rachel Tanner (Director, Citywide Planning Division)]: Thank you. Just before Matt Snyder gets started, just wanna say we're very excited. We had a great presentation back in January if you remember Allison. Alberici was here and talking about the railroads working group. Last week, we had a great presentation about the portal, and this week, we're gonna have another presentation. So hopefully, we are building your knowledge and awareness of the railroads projects. We're really excited to be joined by our project partners, both within the city, from OEWD, and other agencies, as well as from the project team and from Caltrain. So Matt, take it away. Yeah.

[Matt Snyder (SF Planning staff)]: Thank you, commissioners. Matt Snyder of department staff. And, Rachel just, said what I was going to say was just to queue it up. Again, you had a presentation in January for a whole slew of interrelated projects in around the rail yards that looks to improve, that rail service, both in terms of capacity and its reach into downtown. Last week, we had a informational presentation from the TJPA to talk about the portal, which brings looks to bring that transit station into Salesforce Tower. And today, we're gonna hear from Genevieve Kaldewater who, are Prologis, of course, the owners of the site. And we are anticipating a development agreement application, later this year. Before Genevieve starts, Leotinsky, excuse me, at the Office of Economic and Workforce Development also wanted to have some remarks. Thank you.

[Lee Lutensky (Office of Economic & Workforce Development)]: Thank you, Mac. Good afternoon, commissioners and vice president Moore. I am Lee Lutensky with the office of economic and workforce development. Again, just wanted to say a little, few words to set the stage in how the city has been engaged, in this project, in this collection of projects. City departments and our county transportation agency, Caltrain, and the TJPA have been deeply engaged with Prologis for at least the last two years in a formal working group to advance the collection of projects that, you have been hearing about, but specifically to sort of preplan and pre coordinate what this railyard site could become, with the intent of making sure that all of the major transportation investments that the city, county, state are making in this neighborhood are really well coordinated and enhanced by the potential for major private investment here, major economic development and growth, with what could become, a really high density transit oriented development in this neighborhood. From the city's perspective, we see a couple of key benefits here. One, as I said, enhancing all of the transportation investments that the city, county, and state are already making, improving streetscape and connectivity and access. This site is very cut off and really separates the neighborhoods of Showplace Square, SoMa, Mission Bay, and so really a lot of opportunity to create porosity and enhance streetscape and safety. And then, of course, as I said, leverage private investment with public investment to create major economic growth. We get the question a lot, especially in our department of, well, is anyone really going to be able to finance and build this much development given the current state of the market and what's happened in the last few years? This project is visionary. It is long term, and I think it's incumbent upon us in the city to really invest in our city's future growth, and that's what this project has the potential to do. So I'm excited to bring up Genevieve Caudwalder from Prologis. She'll take you through the presentation, and we're available for questions. Thank you.

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: Alright. I think that's good. Thank you, Rachel, Matt, and Lee for the introduction. Good afternoon, commissioners, director. I'm Genevieve Kedwalader with Prologis, and I'm excited to be here today to preview the work that we've been doing to re envision the rail yards, which is the 20 acre site you can see on the screen in turquoise. It's bounded by 4th And 7th Street to the east and west and Townsend And King Streets to the north and south. The site serves as the 4th And King Station for Caltrain as well as their northern storage and maintenance yard. There we go. Great. So as Lee mentioned, Prologis owns the land and Caltrain has an easement to operate. And our efforts here represent a true public private partnership between our parties. In addition to the collaboration with Caltrain that has been ongoing for a number of years, we've been coordinating with planning staff to ensure city priorities for the site, some of which Lee mentioned, such as connectivity, and really enhancing all of the infrastructure investment in the area, are reflected in the plan, which we'll talk about today. We also have an MOU with all the agencies listed on this slide with a regular cadence of meetings to ensure that all the planned and completed projects in the area are coordinated and connected to the site and what we're envisioning for the master plan. Okay. Great. So we have a fantastic team working on the master plan that has designed some of our favorite local projects. They bring a wealth of experience in creating incredible spaces in complex environments. There are many lessons learned and successes we are drawing on, from those projects. Like Mission Rock, the power station, and Tunnel Tops is just a few examples.

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: There we go.

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: So, the railyard site which is represented in orange has a lot happening adjacent to and overlapping it. It's at the convergence of an enormous investment in infrastructure the city and region have committed to making. You heard from Adam Vanderwater from the TJPA last week about the portal project that will connect trains from the rail yards to the Salesforce Transit Center. That's represented in pink on this map and you can see it overlaps a portion of the orange. The Pennsylvania Avenue extension, which is in purple, is a study of undergrounding the rail all the way to twenty second to remove the at grade crossings. And then of course you can see the completed central subway running along 4th. And then not pictured, but very important is the major investment and successful completion of Caltrain's quarter wide electrification project. There we go. So how do you put all these puzzle pieces together, enhance the investments already made in the area, coordinate with the ones that are planned, and find space for transit oriented development? The culmination of several years of technical work completed in conjunction with Caltrain, this slide shows the framework for development that underpins the master plan. It may look simple, but there were at least 20 scenarios that we studied along the way to arrive here. Essentially, the trains move underground with a new station and development occurring first between 4th And 5th Streets phased so that the rail will continuously operate. Eventually, the storage uses will move off-site, freeing up the area represented in turquoise to be developed in phases over time. We're planning for the long term future while designing a development that can start in the near term. We've done quite a lot of outreach to date and will continue to host opportunities to engage as the project progresses. We've had a series of public workshops where we've shared all the information you're seeing today and more. We hold regular site tours and station pop ups. We've also created a focus group with many of the same members who participated in the railyards working group, which was led by the city, and helped guide the public realm study, which Rachel mentioned and you heard about in January from planning staff. Many of the key themes from these meetings have shaped our plans. We've heard a desire for safer streets per for pedestrians and bicycle bicyclists, a desire for something to happen, with an exclamation point on that one, and for it to be a destination worthy of a regional transit hub. We've we've also heard a desire for density that enables a vibrant street life, a request for green greener streets, and really an application of a thoughtful planning, process and principles. So what is the project? It's first and foremost an infrastructure project. Reconfiguring the rail will enable a world class transit oriented development that can stitch together the surrounding neighborhoods that have been closed off from each other by the site, Central SoMa, Mission Bay, and Showplace Square. The key components of the project are a modern train station that also serves as a destination, 7,000,000 square feet of mixed use development, thousands of new homes, signature parks and plazas, and comfortable streets for bikes and pedestrians. Most importantly, we focused on how we can create a neighborhood of places. The site is quite long. It runs a half a mile from 4th to seventh, which presents an opportunity to think of it as a series of places with unique characteristics responding to their surroundings while also breaking up the scale. At 4th Street, we have the station area, the confluence of all the major nodes of transit, a place for retail and meeting spaces. 5th Street becomes a neighborhood connector, a key pedestrian access across the site that doesn't currently exist and also makes the Mission Creek Park accessible from Central Soma. The bricks district near the freeway allows for buildings with larger floor plates reflecting some of Soma's character. Under the adjacent, under and adjacent to the freeway overpass is the 6th Street Park, which we are envisioning as an active recreation and program space such as pickleball or basketball courts as an example, something that draws people there for a purpose. The sidings can be a quiet residential area that is scaled to the character of Berry Street and Mission Bay North, and finally Showplace Connector completes the corner at 7th And connects to the design oriented and maker spaces to its west. In the station area at 4th, there is a sense of grand arrival, comfortable walking, waiting, and gathering areas, and easy multimodal connections. This image is looking Southwest at the main station and office entry from Townsend Street. It's a place that welcomes you to stay. We call this the Station Lane. It's a pedestrian retail area adjacent to the station between a commercial and residential building. It provides places to sit and eat and meet in a car free environment with great visibility through the site to various modes of transit. And along Townsend Street, there will be an opportunity an approximately 40 foot setback to accommodate the portal, so we've created a promenade with a variety of types of uses along its length. This image shows one example of a green and family friendly design. So how are we thinking about height and density on the site? We're grounding it in the city's approach to urban design. There are several factors that influenced our thinking. The first is San Francisco's urban design element established in 1971, which contemplates marking transit with height and the idea of shaping this height as a hill. We are a city of hills and our built environment reflects this. If you look at our urban form, you can see it's organized in mounds with the tallest towers at transit hubs and tapering down. So height at transit, shaping the skyline, and the third is the Central SoMa plan adopted in 2018, which envisions the area around the station as a place for height, density, and distinctive architecture. Tallest height of about a thousand feet. The San Francisco Rail Yards is the second most important and therefore the second highest with our proposed maximum height of 850 feet. And the hub and at market in Van Ness with a planned height of around 755 feet. Here's the iconic view from Treasure Island showing the concept of the sculpted mounds with the San Francisco Rail Yard serving as a bookend on one side and Transamerica Pyramid on the other. Here's a view of that from Twin Peaks. We haven't marked it, but you can also see the hub overlaps the transit center, the Salesforce transit center at this angle. And here's a closer view from Mission Creek Park where you can see the tallest towers and most density are organized around the station, and then there's an organic tapering of the buildings as they step away. In one of our workshops, we showed a variety of ways the height could be organized on the site, and this plan was overwhelmingly the most, popular for its organic expression. Here's another view looking north from Mission Bay Kids Park where you can see the 5th Street connection becomes kind of a gateway and an access point to Central SoMa and the Mission Street quarter beyond. Keep in mind that these are massings and not architectural design at this point, but it gives you a sense of the scale. So we have a lot of work ahead, but we are excited to be here with a plan that can move forward. We will continue to collaborate on all the infrastructure with Caltrain, TJPA, and others. We'll be submitting a project application later this year, which will kick off environmental review, our D4D, and development agreement discussions with the city. And we will continue our outreach and engagement efforts over the course of this process. It also goes without saying that there'll be lots of communication with Caltrain and their board on our partnership agreement. We have a website, where we'll continue to provide updated information as well as post all of our upcoming events and recaps of our previously held ones. And with that, I look forward to hearing your thoughts and questions. We see this project as a vote for the future of San Francisco, and we are very excited to be a part of it.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. That concludes, presentations. 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.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United San Francisco)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Appreciate this presentation and information. I am a little distressed that the word affordable housing was not mentioned once in this presentation. I do hope that as this project moves forward, that there are ways that we can collaborate with the developer to think about how there can be elements, in this plan that, allow for and promote and encourage, the deeply affordable housing that the city needs. Thank you.

[Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition)]: Hi. Good evening, commissioners. We're proud to support the vision for the Prologis railroads project, and we appreciate the continued progress and planning one of San Francisco's most transformational sites. At 20 acres, this is one of the largest remaining infill opportunities in the city. It's a chance to be able to reimagine the space into something that serves people, connects neighborhoods, and builds towards a more equitable San Francisco. There's a lot of new home opportunities here, and I don't think I need to belabor the point that we are in a really serious housing crisis. And being able to provide people with dense mixed use housing opportunities in one of San Francisco's most critical transit hubs is an opportunity that I really would stress that we shouldn't pass up. It's exactly the type of housing that creates really vibrant neighborhoods and cities. It's well connected, sustained, and rooted in thoughtful neighborhood design. And we when we build homes next to transit, we reduce car dependency, cut emissions, and give more people access to jobs, schools, and other opportunities. We also appreciate the ambition and scale of this project. There's a lot of really interesting and exciting things that I think a lot of young people would love to access and be able to really create the culture and the vibes there that I don't think exist in in the the current layout of the area. We also really want to thank Prologist for its commitment to communicating and collaborating with the community. So we really just want to urge not to lose momentum as the city works to meet our housing goals. Projects like this are not just essential, but they create real homes and real lives, real memories and communities. So let's continue to shape the future of San Francisco, one that is better connected, and more livable for everyone. So we look forward to supporting this project as it moves forward, and we wanna thank the team, for their work and partnership. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment for those persons in the chambers. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, we'll go to our reasonable accommodation requester.

[Sue Hester (Member of the public)]: Good afternoon. This is Sue Hester. I agree with the person who spoke two speakers ago. Now once was the word affordable housing mentioned, but the additional problem is this is not being broadcast on SUGOV TV. So the audience that is hearing has the ability to understand. I have I'm doing it on my phone, which is how I can find out what's going on. But I would ask you to please put this on your website with the the next time you do an agenda, the presentation should be on the website. There's additionally, the only other thing that is scheduled today to be heard is a presentation on SB as well as SB four twenty three, which is an informational item in our calendar item or input, but it allows people to get information on it. So I would plead with the planning commission to direct your staff to put a link to the presentation that was made on the website when you send out the next calendar, which next week is not a meeting, but maybe it's two weeks from now. So I would appreciate it being able to see the presentation, which you can't see because it's not being broadcast. Thank you very much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Final last call for public comment. Seeing none public comment is closed. And just for the benefit of the commission, we're not being broadcast live on television due to, I believe, budget hearings, and SFGov TV is having technical difficulties with their live streaming. However, if you go to the SFGov TV website, you are being redirected to a livestream on YouTube, so people are able to view this live. And as far as the presentation is concerned, all of our presentations that we receive here at the planning commission are posted on our web page for presentations on the date that they were made. So as long as we receive it from staff or ProLogist, then we will post it on our web page. With that, commissioners, this matter is now before you. This is an, again, an informational presentation.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you, sir. Katerra Yooning, for this clarification and the information. I have questions, and thank you also for the presentation. My question is in terms of, like, who's gonna do what? Who's responsible for committee engagement and outreach?

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: I thought you were gonna ask about the more complex question of Well, okay. How this is all gonna come together. So I mentioned the rail yards working group, which was a group that was run by the city focused on the public realm. We, Prologis, also in conjunction with our partners, Caltrain, are running the public engagement process for the the master plan and the development portion of the the site.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I see. So Prologis is the primary

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: That's right.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Primary project that we'll do, the community outreach and engagement. In terms of the the design process, how is that what will be the process for that? And is that the prologist that is going to lead that to get and how is again, how's the the committee engagement part that was going to partake in the design process?

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: So it's it's ongoing. We we have been working on design, vision, master planning for over a year. We have had public workshops over the course of that time, both in person, virtually. And we've also been doing pop ups at the station. We've had office hours. So there have been lots of opportunities for the public to participate and provide feedback on the design as it develops. There's a lot more material that wasn't shown in this meeting that has been previewed in those public forums. And we'll continue to do that as we advance the design after the project application is submitted.

[Rachel Tanner (Director, Citywide Planning Division)]: Maybe can I also add a little bit, Commissioner Imperial? I think, just to emphasize, you know, they've been working with staff also, throughout this time as well. And we've been giving feedback as well. We've, attended all of the workshops. And I will just say as as an attendee, they've been just very, very well attended. Lots of participation and lots of very highly interactive engagements at these workshops, in addition to the rail yards working group, Prologis, and Caltrain also participated in that group for two years. So, there's always room for more. It's ongoing, but it has been a really remarkable process, so far.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And so, thank you, director Tanner. In terms of the role of Caltrain and TGPA, so their role is gonna be mainly on the infrastructure on the rail yard. Is that, we've had this presentation last week, and that is also my understanding. But But the one the presentation that you have in front of us right now is the development that the Prologis will be developing.

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: Yeah. So this is where it gets a little bit complicated. TJPA, of course, is is managing the portal project. That is distinct from this project, although it does overlap the site. And so there's quite a lot of coordination on the technical and design side that is happening with TJPA and also with Caltrain and TJPA on the rail component. We have been working closely with Caltrain on the all of the rail and infrastructure components that are sort of in addition to the portal project that are necessary for the vertical development to happen on the site. So we are we, Prologis, are leading the the design of the vertical development with participation and and feedback from Caltrain and coordination with TJPA. Caltrain is taking the lead on all of the technical infrastructure pieces that marry with that. And we spent two plus years on a technical study with Caltrain that we call the preliminary business case, which really established the the goals and priorities from all parties, and allowed us to come up with, excuse me, a a a plan that worked for all of their needs current and future, as well as enabled the feasible development to happen. So, we're each leading components of it very closely coordinated.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. And in terms I don't know if I how to go about with this question. The the infrastructure funding plan, and that is something that I'm I'm assuming that the three lead agencies will be who's leading that? I guess that's my because there's yeah. Again, there's a lot of

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: Yes. At the moment, it's it's a collaborative effort to establish what the plan will be. And that is something that we'll be spending a lot of time on over the next year plus. So we are we are all working on it together.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And is that something that also be informed to the planning commission in terms of the fund infrastructure funding plan?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yeah. Do

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: you want that? Yeah.

[Lee Lutensky (Office of Economic & Workforce Development)]: Thank you, commissioner. So we in terms of the entitlements and the approval packages we're anticipating here, this project would be subject likely to a development agreement that the planning commission would review and approve. That would be associated with, likely a special use district and design guidelines that would sort of holistically govern how the site is built out. If we do advance proposals for public financing mechanisms, like tax increment investment or other things like that, we generally do include a financing plan in our DAs that spell out the intent to do those things. All of this work is, as Genevieve said, to be determined as we move forward together to collaborate on those types of features. So the answer is possibly it would be incorporated into a master entitlement when we get to that point.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. And, just wanna echo the comment earlier from the public in terms of the affordable housing. Is there any, has there been conversation about affordable housing investment?

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: Yes. So was it oversight? Absolutely. There will be affordable housing on in the project. How it is implemented and and what levels are still in conversation. It's early, and we look forward to continuing the conversation on what's appropriate for this site.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I'm looking forward to hear more on this. Those are my questions. Thank you.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you for the presentation. I have a couple of questions related more to land use and then a few questions related to those connection to transportation and the project. Actually, I'm going to start really micro before I get to the big picture questions. Just I'm just curious, and this is not really part of this project, but where is Caltrain's new yard going to be that that's being that's replacing the current location of this yard?

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: We don't know yet. That is that is something that will be part of, all of our work to figure out.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Interesting. But but okay. So, my first question is, I see that there's there there might be more detail available, but I just see it in what you presented. There's 7,000,000 square feet of total development, it sounds like, 1,500 to 4,000 new homes. There's a lot that's a big range in the number of housing units And also, you know, within the 7,000,000 square foot envelope, it sounds like there's a lot of potential different moving pieces. So I'm curious to hear more about, what is sort of the overall vision for sort of the the ratio of of office and and housing in the area? And, what's gonna determine the actual sort of build out numbers given, again, the really big range in the number of units here?

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: Yes. Great question. It is a big range, and it's intentional, for for a number of reasons. I think first and foremost, the goal of this project is to be a mixed use development. We wanna ensure that there is a vibrancy that is created by the level of density. So there are people using the site, going to and from work, living there, using all of the modes of transit. So really, mixed use is a very important component of that. So we don't want it to be all residential or all commercial. The Central SoMa plan specifically looks at this as an area for jobs growth in the city, and it is one of the few areas where there is a high level of opportunity for jobs growth. So that is one of the reasons why office will be an important component of this project. I mentioned this is a long term project and a vision for the future of San Francisco. We wanna ensure that we can meet the future needs of the city and also meet where the market is at the time that it makes sense to develop the site. 7,000,000 square feet is quite a lot. It's not going to come online all at once, even if it could. It will be built over a very long period of time. And so that flexibility allows us to continue to be able to build out the site as appropriate at the time. So that's why we have the the large range and we'll have the ability to toggle between product uses.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. I, I completely understand the need for flexibility. I mean, we even recently made some zoning changes in the Central SoMa area that related to allowing additional housing. So I understand the the spirit of that. I would just kind of give a plug for creating in order to create the vibrant mixed use community that we're trying to aim for here. Know, everyone we wanna make sure that there is both housing and and, commercial uses, from my perspective. And, you know, this is really a low I think it's beneficial to have that because this is a location, as you've said, that is the like, going to create essentially another new regional hub of our transit and transportation system. And, putting people within reach of jobs and also jobs within reach of people, you know, both are important. And, so I appreciate that. I do want to follow-up on the questions and comments made about affordable housing in the area. I understand that this will be hashed out as part of the development agreement. I would just say I want to give my support as well for including as much affordable housing in the area as possible because this is going to be such a major addition to San Francisco and such a good community in which people can live with a lot of amenities as has been presented here. And I want to make sure that everybody of all income levels can participate in that and enjoy the access to jobs this will provide. And I think it's especially reasonable that there be a reasonable, a decently sized ask for affordable housing as part of this project given that there will be multiple market cycles, as you've stated. And there will be several probably strong market cycles when it's possible to deliver that on the project's finances. But also if the city is kicking in, In the end, any revenue through a financing district or other funding source, I just think having the affordable housing is really a top priority. My other sort of questions is more about the transportation side of this.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: again, this is a major transit hub. It's going to be very multimodal. And I'm interested in the efficient use of space for people and jobs and not so much parking. So that's kind of where my next question is. I'm curious to learn more about the, what the vision is for the amount of parking, like in terms of either a ratio to the office space or housing space. Where's this kind of heading right now?

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: Sure. That is also something that we are currently working through, and we're having lots of, robust conversations with, planning staff and MTA. We, you know, first and foremost, see this as a transit oriented development. And we're looking at parking ratios that are commensurate with surrounding neighborhoods, but also ways in which this can be a very forward looking transit oriented development and what that means both today and in the future. So we hope to have a more specific answer for you when we come back. But we are trying to balance both the goals of the city, the area, and also ensuring that what we have approved are marketable buildings. And so we also need to look at sort of what what is our competitive set in the in the neighborhood surrounding. So it it's a balancing act.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. I'm I'll just give a plug for ensuring that there's a very given the transit access, I would want to prioritize, again, space for people and jobs over the parking. And so I'll be curious to see what that ends up looking like and how that relates to our existing requirements as well as you've alluded to. The other flip side of that is bike parking. And so I would just, again, say I do want to make sure that there's robust bike parking in the area. Historically, lots of people have biked to Caltrain itself. And there still will be a station here. And people will be biking to their jobs. So I I'll give a plug, for that as well. But those those are all my questions and my comments. And so I just really appreciate you coming and and sharing this update.

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: Thanks. If you don't mind, just on the bike parking, that also is very important to this project. We've we've been looking very closely at how we can enhance the existing bike infrastructure, make it feel safer and more connected. And as you mentioned, there are lots of bike riders on Caltrain. It has a very, very high ratio of bikers, using their trains. So that's a very, very high on Caltrain's priority list as well. We've spent time with them already looking at how we can make the bike experience exceptional.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Great. Good. Glad to hear it. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Thank you for presenting this exciting story. It's a wonderful opportunity site, Half a mile of property, even if it's a narrow site, is really quite a challenge. And I think it bridges well the discussion that actually the department in a more design oriented sense told us a few months ago. I do appreciate your storytelling. I personally would like to see what you're saying more expressed in physical plans, in diagrams, in conceptual placement of buildings and open space, and generally, your concepts about placemaking. This particular commission does not really engage much on architecture, but we are interested in the physical art of city planning in terms of urban design, and that, I think, is at this moment, for me personally, as a professional, missing in the discussion. And you you I think you phrase it very well saying that the architectural imagery you're using is really the buildings are not designed yet, but I need you to discuss with me where you're placing the buildings, how you're basically grouping them with each other, prioritizing of primary spaces, discussions about how how landscaping will visually kind of modulate the site as a site against an industrial phenomenon, being the the railroad itself, and the whole story that comes together in a good urban design plan of which we have quite a few. There is Mission Rocks. There's Balboa Park. There is the other Portrayo Power Station. I think that level of planning and disclosure in terms of drawings, diagrams, three-dimensional depictions is essential for this commission to bring it really into the realm of all other projects that we are reviewing, commenting on, ultimately approving, and supporting moving into a development agreement together with an appropriate package of guidelines. So I encourage you, to take the good story and really put the pencil to the paper and bring it into the context of what is really actually slightly larger than just the site that you are considering itself. We have the story about Central SoMa that is being reexamined and being retold. We obviously have the long, long story of Mission Bay that rose from the ashes and very much a similar land use that you are actually building on and bring it also into that evolving story as these places are building out. Ultimately, I am personally interested in seeing how it completes the story as we are moving south on the waterfront all the way down into Bayview and Candlestick Point. That is ultimately what sits as a city together in a much, much larger comprehensive view in which by which this project is actually an important ingredient. So if I can encourage you the next time we're seeing each other that you'll bring a little bit more detail, I would greatly appreciate And I would support every comment my fellow commissioners have about the amount of what what type of use, housing, affordable housing, height of housing, housing in relationship to institutional uses, housing in relationship to open spaces, etcetera, etcetera. All of the things are important because, again, a good plan is designed that it will change over time. However, it's not just a response to changes in market force. The type of considerations you give to office buildings versus retail or housing are quite different. And so that is not just like throwing up confetti and seeing whereward lands, but housing remains housing. The heights may differ, the intensity may differ. However, the prerequisites for housing to be in the right space doesn't change. So I'm picking up on Commissioner Brown's question, how much, and you answered that correctly in terms of market response but not in response to good urban design and planning. So I encourage you to take it further, and I'll be excited to see the next situation of your work. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, we can move on. Shall we now take up the racial social equity plan? Commissioner Moore? Commissioner Moore? Yes. We take up the road. Very good then. Item eight, case number 2020Hyphen009640OTH for the racial and social equity plan. This is a request for your adoption.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: And commissioners, if I can give a little context too to this item that's coming up, because I think it's important. I mean, we're taking on this phase two. It was a while ago. I can't remember exactly how many years it's been since we did phase one of our racial and social equity plan, which was more internally focused, like how we change things within the department to advance our goals. And I don't wanna make it seem like we're coming to you and we haven't been doing the work. I think you know we have been doing the more external facing work already, whether that's the Tenderloin Action Plan or MAP 2,030, working with the cultural district. The tour we had is a great example. Our historic preservation work and where we're doing contact statements to the work we're doing around the housing element and the family rezoning. So this work is ongoing, but we did want to kind of commit ourselves in paper to the to the action plan. But the action plan, I also will say, is adaptive. Right? We want to be able to change our work plans and come back to you and talk about work plans as they evolve and change over the years. So just wanted to put that in context and thank our team for taking this on and just taking on the work over the last many years and for the community members that have been partners with us. So with that, I'll turn it over to Carla.

[Carla DeMesa (Community Equity Division, SF Planning)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Carla DeMesa with the Community Equity Division. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. On January 16, we presented to you the draft phase two strategies of our racial and social equity action plan. And so today, we're requesting adoption of those strategies. I'm honored to be joined by William Cartagena, a member of the Community Equity Advisory Council and founder of Cletcha, an organization that provides support services to our local small businesses. We'll also hear from division directors Rachel Tanner, Lisa Gibson, and Liz Waddy. So first, I'll turn it over to William to make opening statements.

[William Cartagena (CLETCHA; Community Equity Advisory Council member)]: Good afternoon, commissioners, director Hillis. I'm a San Francisco native. And ever since I was a little kid into my adulthood, the planning department has always been an adversary to our community. We've had a claw, fight, kick, not literally, but, you know, figuratively, to get things done, to get in the door, to be included. I just came from outside where the city has united and spoken in one voice because of inclusivity. The department has always been historically a department for those who have a lot of resources and for the elite. I'm honored to say that under the stewardess of director Hillis and the equity planning council, we've changed the culture. We've created institutional changes where the planning department now serves small businesses, people with that doesn't have resources. It's an inclusive department now. It's no longer the department that you would go and be like, we'll figure it out and there you go out the door with no information. It's a department now that you go and be like, well, you're not there yet. Let's work together and get you to where you need to be. And why is that important? Because we're at a moment in time where we're changing institutionally this department. And I'm here to put a memorandum because regardless of the budget, who the mayor is, who the governor is, and Lord knows who the president is, this department should serve all San Franciscan, not just the elite, not just those with an abundant amount of resources. We've done tremendous work in the equity department. We've helped so many businesses in those commercial corridors that usually and historically have been neglected by this department. From the Mission District 24th Street to the Bayview to Visitation Valley, we've done tremendous inroads. And I wanna ensure that we don't go back regardless of who our next director is, who the next commission may be one day, that these changes are institutionalized, that the culture doesn't change. Because the planning department should no longer be just for the elite, but it has to be for all San Franciscans. Thank you.

[Carla DeMesa (Community Equity Division, SF Planning)]: Thank you, William. Could we have this screen again, please? So I wanna begin by acknowledging the weight of this moment and the challenges that we face. It's been an especially difficult time for our most vulnerable communities, who are still living with the effects of systemic inequities. This includes our immigrant communities, who contribute daily to San Francisco's economy, to our vibrancy, and to our cultural richness. And while the city has made progress in our recovery from the pandemic, that progress is not shared by everyone. Many communities still face barriers to affordable housing, economic opportunity, and safe living conditions. And yet the strength of our city lies in our diversity, in our culture, and the resilience of our communities. San Francisco's vitality depends on confronting and addressing inequities, and our equity plan is a road map that guides us towards a future where all communities can thrive. So for today's for today's presentation, we'll provide an overview of the equity plan, a summary of the phase two strategies, share how community and commissioner feedback, informed revisions to the strategies, and how our department is advancing equity together. And then we'll conclude with a request for your adoption on our phase two strategies. So city ordinance requires every agency to have a racial and social equity action plan to address inequities in government operations and our public services. Our equity plan is made up of two phases. The first phase, phase one, primarily focuses on our internal operations, such as hiring, promotions, and staff culture. And phase two addresses how we show up externally through planning and community engagement. Both sections guide our department in how we center and institutionalize equity and planning. This slide highlights key milestones from 2016 to today, including the adoption of phase one in 2019, adoption of our equity resolutions by this planning commission and the historic preservation commission, the creation of our community equity division and the equity council, and implementation of key actions from phase one, including developing resources like our budget equity tool and our equitable hiring guidelines. Today, we're finalizing phase two, which allows our department to fully focus on implementation, progress monitoring, and evaluation. This process was made possible through the voices and leadership of many, from community partners to commissioners and staff. So I wanna take a moment to recognize and thank all of those who contributed to this work. It's because of everyone's dedication and collaboration that we've reached this important milestone today. So now I'd like to provide an overview of our process for drafting phase two, the community feedback we received, and the revisions that were informed by commissioners and equity council. The development of phase two strategies was informed by community members engaged through listening sessions, workshops, and neighborhood planning efforts over the past several years. And to summarize that feedback, we heard for a need for more inclusive outreach, transparent practices, real accountability, acknowledgment of past harms, and equitable and representative decision making. So these principles guided how we drafted phase two of the plan. And then last fall and winter, we presented the draft phase two strategies to the equity council and this planning commission. And so now I'll provide you an overview of your feedback and the way that we revised the strategies. You shared concerns about staff capacity, budget constraints, and the feasibility of fully implementing our equity plan. There was also a call for greater clarity around what outcomes the department can directly control versus what we can only influence. You also provided us with a strong emphasis on the need for available data to track impact. Your feedback underscore the importance of continued support for equity communities, including the role of a dedicated liaison in neighborhoods like the Bayview, which has received limited support. There was also strong support for our department's involvement in an equitable downtown recovery. And then finally, there's an expectation from commissioners and the equity council that equity tools be applied consistently across all divisions, reinforcing shared accountability for this work. So we revised the strategies to focus on feasibility, accountability, and impact. This means prioritizing actions that strengthen staff and community capacity, enhancing actions that speak to inclusive and accessible engagement, and adding actions from the equity council's vision for an equitable downtown. To address concerns about the feasibility of the plan, we have prioritized existing projects that already have dedicated staff. These actions will be completed first. And the feasibility of taking on new actions will be evaluated at the one, three, and five year checkpoints. And for all actions, we have defined clear deliverables, outcomes within our direct control, and indicators to measure progress and success. And then finally, we're working to improve the consistent application of equity tools by providing more staff training and resources. We also aim to increase accountability through a regular application of our staff culture surveys, which we do every two years. To limit additional administrative burden on our staff, we're leveraging existing resources to track data we already have access to, such as our equity dashboard, city performance data, and data gathered through individual projects and outreach efforts. Your commission packet shows the new phase two strategies in more detail. So for the next couple slides, I'll just provide a high level overview. Equitable planning strategies address housing, cultural preservation, environmental justice, and downtown recovery, all with the goal of supporting thriving resilient communities. These six strategies embed equity into our work by focusing on equitable housing that supports the housing element implementation to meet our city's affordable housing goals and other actions that directly support equity communities. Community capacity building elevates community led planning in neighborhoods most impacted by equity inequity. Cultural preservation uplifts cultural districts and ensures diverse voices lead our preservation efforts. Equity and regulation integrates equity into the policies and processes that shape development outcomes. Environmental justice focuses on building climate resilience where environmental harm has been concentrated. And then finally, equitable downtown recovery aims to expand access to resources, funding, and programs so that recovery investments benefit all communities. The community engagement strategies strengthen how we connect with and engage communities by building staff and community capacity, improving coordination, and using data to tailor our outreach. These four strategies focus on tools, trainings, and resources to help staff lead inclusive and consistent engagement across our projects, outreach coordination to reduce duplication and community fatigue by aligning efforts across planning and other city agencies, accessible processes and information to bring planning to the community and making technical information easier to understand. And a great example of this is the DAHLIA tool, which we developed in partnership with community organizations, Booker T, Washington, Friendship House, and YCD, along with our sister agency, MOHCD, to explain the affordable housing application and lease up process. We're going to share a couple of copies with the commission secretary in case you're interested in seeing them. And lastly, community data, like our pilot neighborhood data hub, to help us design effective outreach strategies, assess equity impacts, and make decisions informed by reliable and accessible data. Each division within our department is advancing equity through their core work, whether that's long range policy planning, environmental review, historic preservation, or project review. So now I'd like to pass it on to our division directors to share how their staff are advancing our department's equity goals. First, we have Rachel Tanner with Citywide.

[Rachel Tanner (Director, Citywide Planning Division)]: Thank you. I want to thank Carla for all of her great work and Claudia as well. Good afternoon, commissioners. Really excited to be part of this presentation and, really happy that all of the division directors are here to talk about our work because all of our work is racial and social equity. And that's where we've centered, the department based on your leadership. So it's great to be here as a team, to talk about the work and to be supported with our community partners. So as you know, the city wide division, we are the long range planning division and function for the city and county of San Francisco. We focus on things like housing. That's often, what we're here to talk about. But we do have other projects in our portfolio. We have resilience and sustainability, thinking about climate change, adaptation, and mitigation. Urban design and public realm is another part of our work. And that's, for example, with the Prologis project and Caltrain working on the urban design with projects of that scale and scope. We also do land use and community planning, as well as looking at transportation and working in partnership with our transportation agencies. We have been working very hard along with our other partners to repair and redress the harms that have been done to communities in the past. And so our housing element is an example, that document itself, centering racial and social equity. And out of that housing element, our commitment through the rezoning to rezone in well resourced areas, and through that, to affirmatively further fair housing. And that's to say areas that were once literally and by law, by deed, by financing regulations exclusionary and literally said that folks of certain ethnic groups, backgrounds, skin colors could not live or could not purchase property in large parts of our city. We are now doing the opposite. We're saying we actually want to make it easier for more folks of diverse incomes, diverse backgrounds to have homes in those neighborhoods by having homes of various scales, from the homes that we see now to smaller apartments being able to be built and everything in between. We also, again, looking at our portfolio of sustainability and climate change adaptation work, We have our Yosemite Slough Neighborhood Adaptation Plan led by Danielle Ngo in our department. And she and her team are doing really fabulous work that really is community centered planning, really understanding from a kind of technical end what are the risks of inundation from sea level rise, but then really engaging with the community to understand what are the potential responses that we can make. Do we want to build something? Do we want to use nature? Things in between. What are the different ways that we can intervene to help to protect that area from sea level rise as the seas continue to rise? And how do we come to alignment as a community so we can advocate both within the city but also with the federal government for the improvements that we need in an area of the city that has been left out so far of our sea level rise planning. And we noticed that gap and created this project and successfully had a grant to to support that work. So we look forward to continuing. That those are just two projects among many, in addition to supporting the Tenderloin community action plan with our urban design and our public realm work. So those are a couple of things that we're very excited to continue and continue to do the analysis, the outreach, and really building really robust public engagement. So with that, I'm gonna hand it over to Liz Waddie for current planning.

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: Great. Thank you, Rachel. Liz Waddy, director of current planning. So I'll just touch on a couple of the items that we are working on specifically in the current planning division, which is our permitting and regulatory agency that are focused in race and social equity. You know, as you all know, you know, when we started this effort, it was before several of the state ministerial bills took effect. And so we really did have to pivot and and think a little bit differently about where we could plug in and plug in these principles within the work that we have, but given some of the regulatory constraints. So there are three primary areas that I'm gonna touch on, directly related relating to the planning department. First up, historic context statements. We're currently developing historic context statements in collaboration with the American Indian, Chinese American, and Pan Latino communities. These efforts really help acknowledge and elevate the histories and contributions of historically marginalized communities, laying the foundation for future planning and preservation decisions that reflect the full cultural richness of San Francisco. What's really critical is these historic context statements are basically the, sort of the the history book that is the underpinning of San Francisco survey effort. So our larger surveying effort, citywide. As you all know, our team has been, conducting field work and doing community engagement as part of SF survey, and so much of that comes from these historic context statements that really lay that foundation. Our ultimate goal of how this manifests into real, tangible, differences in our community is the historic context statements really form our histories and the background. And through SF survey, the the byproduct is identifying, basically, those gems in the communities that represent the rich culture of San Francisco. So we wanna make sure we continue to, document additional context statements that represent all of our, cultures and our rich histories in San Francisco so that ultimately we can find those buildings and those places in our community that really need to be celebrated and elevated. Next up, the planning code equity audit. So we started this in 2021, but this effort is really identifying basically doing a deep dive through our code, which is voluminous and, often hard to understand. But going through the code and identifying provisions that may have, either led to unintended burdens or inequities, inequitable outcomes, or that have had sort of disproportionately negative impacts on marginalized and underrepresented communities. The goal of this is to really address structural inequities and establish a sustained process for equity focus code reform. So as as you all, likely know who have been on the commission for a little while, you know, Aaron Starr, our legislative affairs manager, often comes annually with what he calls, like, a code cleanup of things in the code that are either errors or were unintended or just, you know, typos, things of that nature. We're planning on taking this effort on in a in a similar manner, where this just be kind of becomes part of our annual work. We'll we'll bring forward a couple items annually, and they may vary, in sort of significance, but our the point is that this becomes a part of our core work. That annually, as we identify things, it could be anything from, you know, gendered language that we wanna change, sort of at a simple level to, entire code provisions that we realize may have been created at one point in time with some sort of bias, now that we're able to reflect back in history and see what the results have been. So it's gonna be a combination of those types of efforts. Lastly, our impact analysis guidelines. This is the one that we've really had to pivot the most on given the number of ministerial permit, regulations that have really kicked in in San Francisco. But we are working on developing a pilot impact analysis, toolkit that basically incorporates equity consideration into our review of development agreement projects. As you know, development agreements are projects where it is a contract with the city. So these are opportunities where the city really is saying, you know, there's a give a give and a get here. And so we feel it's important for us to put our policy priorities forward in those negotiations. And so we think this is the perfect typology of project to start with. Again, we don't have a we don't have a road map for this. We don't have a recipe book for how to do this. And so I think starting with development agreements is really the the right place. Those projects also have, much larger impact, than the average day to day, you know, individual property, that we see. So those are our three primary areas where we're focusing on equity. I do also wanna take the opportunity to plug some of the efforts that Permit SF team, I'm sort of switching hats here, is doing and, sort of wanted to make a note of this, especially in reaction, to William's comments. You know, one of the primary foundational components of Permit SF is to really focus on supporting our small businesses, noting that the small businesses are really the backbone of our community and are gonna be the the core part of our economic recovery here in San Francisco. And it's our small businesses who struggle the most with our, Byzantine set of regulations that have been layered on one after another. And so we're really looking at sort of deconstructing the regulations that have been added over time. Obviously, the regulations will help, you know, any regulation that we can fix and streamline will help all of our customers, but I think they will really have a disproportionately positive impact on our small businesses. And so we've been doing a lot of outreach with our small business communities to really hear what their biggest pain points are and really trying to focus on those as the first problems that we solve. So, it's a little bit of a shameless plug for your next commission hearing on June 26 that we will be coming forward with a legislative package. Our first package is part of permit SF. So, hopefully, you all can come out and support, but really wanna give a big shout out to our our business communities who have been partnering with us, giving us lots of of very specific tangible suggestions that we can help be part of the solution. And with that, I will turn it over to Lisa Gibson.

[Lisa Gibson (Environmental Review Officer)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer. I lead the environmental planning division. And in the environmental planning division, we've been thinking creatively about how we can center equity at a time when at the highest levels of government in the state, there's pressure to implement the California Environmental Quality Act in a manner that doesn't increase burdens to development projects. So we have that as our goal along with continuing to protect public health and the environment. And we do that in a manner here in San Francisco where in our department or in our division, we're supporting other divisions. And we've heard discussion about the housing element. We conducted environmental review for that, and then we're advancing equity by supporting that project and that program. We're also participating in the action for the impact analysis and we'll be looking at how for DA projects we can focus on advancing equity for those projects perhaps by changing our notification in ways that targets the equity communities, priority equity communities differently perhaps. But within environmental planning, the strategies I'd like to focus on include Action 5.2, where we would create a pilot program to raise awareness of mitigation measures in historically underserved communities. And those would provide residents with the knowledge and the tools to understand and benefit from the environmental protections that the law would provide. Also, action 5.5 would establish a streamlined tribal consultation process for environmental reviews, as well as for ministerial housing project reviews. And that would benefit from what we've learned on how we can ensure that Native American engagement is both meaningful and conducted in less time. And finally, action 5.7 would continue to apply more protective air quality standards in health, vulnerable zip codes, those areas where there is poor air quality as part of our environmental review process. And over time, as the areas where the air quality changes, that the air pollutant exposure zone is mapped as it changes. And we've found in our work that centering equity has been deeply meaningful, and we're grateful to have participated in this process. Thank you.

[Carla DeMesa (Community Equity Division, SF Planning)]: Thank you to our division directors. So I just wanna conclude this part of the presentation by highlighting some of the actions that support other community led initiatives in the department. So the work of our community liaisons, which some of them are here today, support our community action plans in the Fillmore, the Tenderloin, SoMa, Mission, and with the American Indian community. We're also partnering with MOHCD to continue to support our cultural districts in developing and implementing their CHEST plans. And another example of supporting community initiatives is through educational and capacity building resources. It was mentioned earlier, our community investment toolkit that we're working on drafting to help align city resources with community priorities. And so, if you would like to see the draft copy of that, we can, email that out to you. So today, we are respectfully requesting your adoption of our phase two strategies, which completes the department's racial and social equity action plan. This action will reaffirm the department's commitment to an inclusive and equitable city. Adoption also sets the the stage for our next steps, which is in the summer and fall, including publishing our full equity plan, making the equity dashboard publicly available, and beginning in the process of progress monitoring and evaluation. As we close, I wanna leave you with a reflection that speaks to the urgency and the hope embedded in this work. We live in challenging times, and doctor Martin Luther King Junior reminds us that even in moments of uncertainty, there is still possibility and even clarity. This quote from his final speech offers perspective on where we are and where we can go together. The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land. Confusion all around. But I know somehow that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. If that concludes staff presentation, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. If you're in the chambers, please come forward.

[Dale Seymour (Community Equity Advisory Council)]: Good afternoon, commissioners and director. My name is Dale Seymour. I've been around a while. I'm on the Equity Council. And it's so ironic that you quoted Martin Luther King, that the staff quoted Martin Luther King. Because sixty two years ago, I walked with doctor King in Chicago desegregating the school system. Nowhere in hell would I think, sixty two years later, we're still talking equity. If I get to heaven soon and run into him, and he will ask me, what were you doing last week? Since I was at the equity council, he'll probably just fall out. So what I wanna say, I wanna thank you all. You're a new commission. As miss Moore can probably tell you, I've been coming here over twenty years. Usually, when I come out yelling and screaming, sometimes cussing, but twenty years ago, you all would cuss back. So it was good. So I just wanna thank you all for you know, we got I wish you all would have been downstairs in that immigrant ICE meeting that we had on the steps of City Hall. We're in for over an hour. What this plan has done that we didn't realize it was gonna do, it put us together. It got places across the street from my office. I have never been in. Now I'm starting to go in because we all are united. There wasn't an original plan to unite unite communities and organizations, but that sure is what happened with this plan. So I just wanna thank you all very much. I know this initial plan is a lot external, and the next one's gonna be more internal and external. But we're working hard together to put our city together. And what I mean is not like us apart, but we still have some diversity matters that we need to deal with. I would love and and the staff has heard me say this before in our meetings. We we put a lot of work into this. We meet once a month, but we have subcommittees, and we have community meetings all month long. So this means a lot to us personal. You know? I would like to see my grandson come to San Francisco when he's grown twenty years from now and not see a Japantown, not see a Chinatown, not see Bayview, not see Fillmore, but to see San Francisco, the city of Saint Francis. And it all starts in this room here. You know, years ago when I did come here, I thought it was a bunch of rich folks helping other rich folks get richer. But now that I've been around and come into your meetings and reading your dialogues, I see you're people just like us that are for the better good of this city. Richard, I can't look at you because I I'm getting emotional. Thank you for everything you've done for us in this city. Thank you.

[Leah Johnson (Friendship House Association of American Indians)]: Good afternoon, members of the commission. My name is Leah Johnson, and I'm here today on behalf of the Friendship House Association of American Indians to support the adoption of phase two of the racial and social equity plan. For the past eight months, I have spent my time working on the village initiative, a community led vision of indigenous wellness focusing on sobriety, housing, healing, youth programming, and climate resilience. This project directly serves our community, offering health services and wellness programs that promote intergenerational learning, as well as offer safe spaces for ceremonial and cultural activities. To achieve the vision that we as a community have for the village, we require the steadfast support of city agencies, which has come in many forms and most directly for me as Planning's community liaisons who have worked tirelessly to remove barriers that separate the city with the people it serves. Friendship House has benefited immensely from technical and hands on support of our liaison who has contributed to the acquisition of over $30,000,000 in grants, successful community engagement events, and invaluable connections across all city agencies. 92% of California natives live in urban areas, with at least 18,000 native individuals calling San Francisco home. Investing in urban Indians is crucial to the health and wellness of a population that has been deeply underserved and long forgotten. Broken treaties, stolen land, and forced displacements have erected walls of distress between the American Indian community and city government. I have seen these barriers addressed firsthand through the work of our community liaisons and seen what they can do firsthand and accomplish within our communities. What we ask of city government is to make an effort to remove these barriers, starting with the racial and social equity plan and the long term investments into other underserved communities such as Bayview, Fillmore, Mission, SoMa, and the Tenderloin. Thank you.

[Athius Cervantes (Friendship House; City Fellow)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Athius Cervantes. And I get to follow that. Thank you, Leah. I too work with the French Impala Association of American Indians and also through the end of this month as a city fellow with the community equity division. I just want to take a step back and center this discussion on the recent and ongoing attacks to our country's democracy and why it's so important that we adopt phase two of the equity plan. Since Sunday, we've all witnessed what many are calling this federal administration's Reichstag fire moment, the manufactured crisis meant to justify militarized crackdowns, silence dissent, and bloodstained playbook of history's dictators, using fear and chaos to consolidate power. Make no mistake, this is a full scale assault

[Howard Lee (Member of the public; Infinity resident)]: on our democracy. First in LA, and then here in

[Athius Cervantes (Friendship House; City Fellow)]: SF, and now the entire country, First in LA, and then here in SF, and now the entire country, people are rising. Communities are saying enough. We will not be silent as ICE raids terrorize our families, as immigrants are dehumanized, as our streets fill with soldiers deployed not to protect us but to suppress us, all while military drones fly over our cities to surveil us while we raise our voices against these aggressions. Folks like Friendship House and every other community group that I know that this commission and the city works with have been on the front lines of these types of attacks every day for a long time. Our groups provide housing, health, wellness, legal aid, and other services to our vulnerable neighbors. And we've seen how afraid they are to leave their homes these days because they might be kidnapped by ICE or targeted in other ways. We've had to work extra hours recently to do what we can to help mitigate all of this chaos. As American Indian people, we know what happens when governments use divide and conquer tactics to control, displace, and erase. We know the long shadow of state violence. We've seen what happens when our communities are torn apart, our ceremonies outlawed, our languages silenced, and our children stolen. We carry these lessons in our bones and we are not the only group. This list is very long. What we do know is this. And this speaks to directly to what phase two is bringing. Together is the only way forward. Together is stronger than hate, stronger than ignorance. This is not the moment to be quiet or pull back. This is the moment to rise and come together. And from the top down, show the nation what the city of San Francisco stands for. The planning department has been doing exactly this, bringing community voices into the room with city government and then getting things done in record time, I might add. With Friendship House, we have created educational material, the DALIA pamphlet, to help our community members access affordable housing, help to raise funds and awareness for our programs.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: We recently Thank

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: you, sir. But that is your time.

[Athius Cervantes (Friendship House; City Fellow)]: All right. Thank you.

[Krista La Conduna (Mission Economic Development Agency)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Krista La Conduna, and I'm here with Mission Economic Development Agency. I'm here to express META's strong support for both the work of the equity team and their phase two action plan and recommend its adoption at the commission. This work has been critical to supporting stability and opportunity in the Mission District and other neighborhoods for working class residents and mom and pop small businesses, and also addresses the past disparities in the treatment of these communities. Expanding this team's work into the areas of planning community engagement is crucial to support the long term health and economic sustainability of communities like in the mission and to ensure that past harms are not repeated as we move forward in this partnership. We ask for your endorsement and adoption of the plan today. Thank you.

[Annie Chung (Self Help for the Elderly)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Annie Chung, and I'm with Self Help for the Elderly. So in my work at Self Help, it's always about getting access for our seniors. We serve close to about 50,000 seniors in five Bay Area counties, but we work in San Francisco the most because this is where a lot of the low income immigrant seniors live. Many of us are fighting, you know, to achieve parity in the sense that adequate funding for our affordable housing, adequate health care for our seniors who are suffering from TB, highest TB rate, and very high, suicidal rate. I was asked to serve by Miriam to join the community equity council a couple years ago, and I thank you and thank her and Rich, you know, for giving me the opportunity to really be the bridge between our community and the city planning commission and staff. I think access is very important to, as I said, achieving parity and equity. And I need to come and ask you to support us again, adopt the strategies that Carla presented because I've never joined a group that works so hard, on this equity plan. I'm amazed at all of the work that put behind, you know, we just, come to meetings once or twice a month, but, you know, seeing the plan, you know, they were presented just shows the hard work and commitment of the staff. We submitted the 11 of us on the council, and then we're very, very committed and dedicated to this work. And I think that on behalf of our council, we really want to urge you to adopt the strategies and the plan, but more so to continue the partnership, the collaboration, and the deep commitment to achieve parity in our underserved communities. So that's all I want to say. Thank you very much.

[Eric Arguello (Calle 24 Latino Cultural District)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Eric Arguello. I'm representing Calle De Cuatro Latino Culture District, and we are in support of the Racial and Social Equity Action Plan phase two strategies. This plan works really well in conjunction with the cultural districts and its strategies. It also helps create an even playing field for low income communities of color throughout the city. It will help these low income communities to thrive and survive long term. If these communities of color, low income communities do not thrive, the rest of the cities doesn't thrive. So it brings everybody up. Everybody will lift because of the strategy. So we're in support. Please support the plan. Thank you.

[Naima Hall (Member of the public; housing navigator)]: Hello, again. This is thank you for your grace earlier. My name is Naima Hall, and I am a housing navigator, a community organizer, a business owner, and a single mother raising two incredible kids in San Francisco, our so called sanctuary city. Today, we're here to discuss phase two, excuse me, phase two of the equity action plan. And I want us to look beyond the document. With what's happening globally from mass displacement to economic instability, we have to ask ourselves, what is San Francisco really doing to be a sanctuary? What are we protecting? Or what are we protecting people into? We need we need more than shelter. We need stabilizing systems that reflect the reality of women like me, survivors who are still trying to raise children with dignity, balance, and beauty in a chaotic world. In my business, I created a project in this phase have created projects that merge as housing, wellness, clothing, and nutrition, and served I've even been served with white linen and soft music to teach my children to be elegant in a hectic world. A touch of grace in a time of grief. Even the food gave giveaway is more than outreach. It's ceremony. This is the kind of initiative phase two must fund. This is the kind of work your department excuse me.

[Sue Hester (Member of the public)]: Let me start over.

[Naima Hall (Member of the public; housing navigator)]: Excuse me. REAP gives departments the framework to correct these disparities, but correction without transformation is just paperwork. We need action. Community centered procurement, technical assistance for BIPOC entrepreneurs, and trauma informed stabilization programs that still reflect the reality of who San Francisco economy is leaving behind. If the city wants to invest in just the future, it must commit to building us up, not pushing us out. And that's what REAP is supposed to do, stabilize outcomes, seed ownership, close gaps, and move us towards something that this city has long avoided. Support REAP like you would support a startup with potential because communities like mine, a local a true local economy, give us the tools, the trust, and the time to flourish. Thank you.

[Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition)]: Hello. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Brianna Morales, and I am with the Housing Action Coalition as their community organizer. First, First, I just want to thank the planning department and all of the different partners that were mentioned in the presentation on this work and on this plan. And we also want to thank the department for all the leadership of the communities and organizations that have been calling for these changes for a long time. As a housing organization, we believe that racial and social equity cannot be separated from how we approach housing in San Francisco. We are living through a housing crisis in California, and the impacts have not fallen equally on on shoulders that burden that that that carry that burden. And that's why these conversations matter. Every neighborhood deserves access to stable, safe housing and to the resources that make community truly livable. Parks, transit, childcare, cultural spaces, all of these things that you hear on a daily basis as you're going through your planning jobs and work spaces. And it's really important to center equity in the conversation of building housing in a way that strengthens communities and residents. And I think more than anything, I've heard that this work is very meaningful, but more than that, the conversations and being able to loop in different partners at various different times. So I'm really excited to learn more. I want more conversations and being able to dive deeper into the issues, how they occurred, and how we're going to address them. So thank you for all the work that you've done. Thanks.

[Ethan Looper (Tenderloin Community Benefit District)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Director Hillis, you'll be missed. My name is Ethan Looper, and I represent the Tenderloin Community Benefit District. And I'm lucky enough to be a recipient of some of the work of the staff with the Tenderloin Community Action Plan. And the first thing I'd like to say is that I don't need to be here. Similar to the last time I was before you, I was thanking you for actions you hadn't taken yet, partially to manifest it happening. We know that this plan is necessary. We know the next step have has to be taken. We also have already heard that we're gonna be doing more with less. You heard that we're not gonna do new stuff. We're just finishing the stuff we were doing. We're finishing our bite and swallowing, knowing that there will be more people in need that need this work that won't get it. So if I'm urging you to do anything, it's just to help us understand if for some reason you think we shouldn't move forward, why? I'm gonna say something that's kinda true. We don't we don't need you. Community doesn't doesn't need you. We're going to do something no matter what, but we want you. We want your support. One of the things that I do is I convene in the Tenderloin, the youth access network meeting, and it's a bunch of of folks who organize space. They're responsible for space that youth can access, And there's an open door for one of the staff, a Silferra, to join that meeting. And of course, he does. And he ties things together in ways that we could, but they're much more efficient when the city is talking to the city. When we were struggling with, what do we do to talk to DCYF as they're trying to make their decisions before they did their their five years of funding? And I talked to SF Planning and I said, well, I could call them. I've got relationships, but you all should talk to one another. And that turned in to a whole report on the needs of the tenderloin reflecting what we were talking about. So, yeah, we need you. I I shouldn't have said it that way, but I just said it just for fun and giggles, because we are going to do what we need to do no matter what, but we do want you with us. Go Giants.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United San Francisco)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Bridget Maley on behalf of Neighborhoods United San Francisco. Congratulations on this moment, on bringing together folks from across the city, from varying cultures, from wide ranging socioeconomic backgrounds, and from diverse communities to reach this milestone. But we still have much work to do. Let me say that again. We still have much work to do. We can't become complacent. NUSF is an organization, a consortium of neighborhood groups from across the city who are working toward housing in every corner of the city that will help us solve our housing affordability crisis. We've said this to you many times. We have an affordability crisis, not a housing unit crisis. We need policies that encourage truly affordable housing, the low, very low, and deeply affordable housing units that we desperately need. We don't need more and more market rate units that are occupied by investors, not families. Encouraging rezoning in well resourced areas is commendable. But when the result is only high end market rate rentals or condos with bay views and luxury amenities, how is this encouraging racial and social justice? How are these folks who really need housing able to access these units? They can't. How will these speculative projects support small businesses? They won't. With upzoning, we will see displacement of residential tenants in small scale rental units, rental buildings. We'll see demolition of these units. We'll see a systematic degradation of our small businesses. Study after study has shown that upzoning does not result in affordable housing. I challenge everyone in this room to think about how we can have equitable planning when we're lowering inclusionary requirements. I challenge us to question how we can have equitable planning when we have state laws that mandate housing with no affordability requirements. I encourage us all to work with the city's developer partners to include affordable units even when they're not required. We still have a lot of work to do. Actions matter. And if we continue down a path where we're advocating for and approving housing projects that do not bring us the affordable units we need, how are we truly planning for social and racial equity? Thank you.

[Patty Rodriguez (Owner, SF Parking LLC)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Patty Rodriguez, and I am coming from, to represent a small business. I am, the owner of SF Parking LLC, the only a 100% Latina owned parking business here in Northern California. So as you can see, I'm very proud of that. And I'm also very proud San Franciscan. I'm here to support the plan because I started my company in 2011. And moving forward fourteen years later, you with this plan, you can see the difference in the work. The resources, the response back, the the assistance that I've get, it it shows. So I'm just here in support. Thank you very much.

[Leah Johnson (Friendship House Association of American Indians)]: Good afternoon, commissioners.

[Alma Caselanos (Director, KLECHA)]: My name is Alma Caselanos, and I am the director of KLECHA. We do small business support here in San Francisco citywide. And I really urge you to really adopt this, the equity plan as it represents, a significant step in that we've seen ourselves as a director myself working with businesses in the most marginalized communities. These barriers can be very huge for those businesses. We've seen businesses actually shut down because of this or been displaced just because of the barriers. And in the years, we have seen the differences. I mean, even in the past six months, we've seen the differences. So I definitely urge you to invest in these communities, which is the Bayview, Fillmore, Mission, SoMa, the cultural districts, and other communities that right now, as we all understand, are being extremely hurt by the immigration stance that's happening. I mean, it's not a secret. Everybody knows what's going on. I myself am coming from the rally outside, and the press conference. And the fear in the community is strong. So to have one more barrier to not be able to operate your business in a proper way because of a barrier of a permit or something going on through the city stands is very crucial to a small business. So I definitely, ask, and I plead that you please adopt the equity plan. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now for you, commissioners.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I would just like to thank the community for coming out. I would really like to thank Clara and, Claudia, Lisa, Rachel for educating me on this plan. I sit here in full support. This is our community. This is our city. And, basically, I've just heard the best of us here today. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Commission Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you for the public, the staff. Director Hillis, wanna thank you. I think you played an instrumental part in the racial social equity plan. And I, of course, without a question, support all of the strategies that is in the racial social equity action plan. You know, all of the strategies are has been in discussion, I think, for for over five for about five years now since the housing element. And I also wanna thank you to the Community Equity Council in putting effort and also helping the department in shaping this racial and social action plan. For me as a commissioner, I also rely on the, you know, on the expertise of the Community Equity Council. And so when I would have a conversation with Miriam, you know, you know, how does the Community Equity Council play on this? And you guys play a big role. So I wanna thank you for, you know, for shaping this. And so so, yeah, it's been an emotional week, and I think this is a very timely to have this. I also, you know, with what's going on with over in the city's budget, I hope that the planning department can have a talk with the mayor to really prioritize the racial social action plan. I mean, all of these action strategies will need to be implemented with true investment. And so I hope that those are conversations that we can have the mayor as well when we're talking about community equity, community engagement strategies, from environmental justice strategies. I mean, all of these are worth of investments. And so I hope, these are not just strategies, but it's going to be implemented. But, again, I'm I'm in full support of this strategy. Thank you.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you, commissioners. One, I'm just great grateful, very grateful that that this plan is is where it's at right now. I'm somebody that truly believes in racial social equity. And, I I just want to thank the collaboration for, you know, with, director Hillis, with everyone, everyone on planning and for, putting your expertise onto this plan. Not only did you have community, folks that gave, gave their input, but you also, you know, put a very professional, intentional plan together that, that when you look at it in its entirety, you can just see that this is a plan that should, that should be at the center of the city policy. It should be at the center of state policy. It should be at the center of all policy, because it has so many, so many equitable and tangible things that uplift communities and keep communities healthy. I mean, one thing that's been growing their parents at San Francisco, one thing that's, you know, that's always been interesting to understand is like how investment in low income communities, how it pays off in the end. You know, if if we don't make those initial investments, things don't usually, you know, pan out very well. I've just experienced that, you know, myself coming from a low income community and understanding my peers over the years, seeing where they've all ended up. And so having said that, I'm really grateful. Again, I just, you know, want to make sure that, everyone understands. I think you guys hit this one out of the park. And the only unfortunate thing that I understand as someone who has been involved in affordable housing and fighting for funding and and stuff like that is is the lack of funding towards the things that we need most in this city. And it's it's really, you know, it's beyond discouraging, but I mean, I don't want to get too negative. This is a a celebratory moment, and I want to focus on on the good work. But the city has fumbled many good opportunities, especially in investing in our affordable housing. And, you know, it's not too late to change course. And I'm hoping that when folks start to read this, they start to understand how important it is and how we need to prioritize affordable housing, funding sources. And, and, the woman that came up here and she said something that really struck me. And she says, we need to, we need to stabilize systems that uplift low income communities. And I and I think a lot of times that that is missing from the central conversations around how how government is funded. And so my, you know, my my hope is that that this is gonna bring some clarity to to folks, especially in government that are in positions to fund initiatives like this, and they start to really understand that the payoff is great when we invest in people. When we invest in our communities, the payoff is great. We build stronger we build a stronger city. And those are the kind of investments, I think, that we should prioritize as a city. And so I don't know what else to say other than, thank you. And I am definitely for approving this.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Thank you. Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I'll start there too. I want to I want to, say thank you to everyone who's been participating in the equity council. You know, this is the culmination of so much work and so much time, and it's a labor of love. And it really shows in hearing the comments made here today by people who've been engaged in that process. You can really see how much effort has gone into this. And so I'm I'm very grateful for your work on this. And then I also wanna thank the department staff and and everyone in the planning commission who came before my time in the commission who has been, you know, who kind of initiated this process. So, yeah, my gratitude. And I think it's also really telling that there are, that the division heads of the department are here sharing how their departments are implementing parts of the phase two, actions. And, you know, the leadership on this has to come from the top. So from director Hillis and then to all the division heads. And and so, thank you so much for for sort of leading the way and and being an example for the entire department that this is really a priority. This is really important to us. You know, I, in general, I I it's really exciting for me to see this phase two work. When I first joined the commission in 2022 and I started understanding the work that had been done on phase one of this, I was sort of thinking, well, this is so internal phasing. When do we get to phase two? When do we get to the part of us that's external phasing? And now we're here. And that's really exciting to see. And I had a lot to say about the draft when we heard it and follow ups with staff. So I appreciate you listening to me and my ideas on this. I think staff has done a really great job of responding to the ideas and concerns raised by me and from what we heard from other commissioners as well at the last hearing. I just wanna call out a couple of things that sort of stood out to me because they were sort of on my radar. I'm glad to see that we have the definition and breakdown now of these outputs, indicators, and outcomes set up for each of these actions. Because, you know, to me the output is how there were references in public comment about we need to actually implement this and stay on track. And the output metric is how we tell if we're still doing this and hold ourselves accountable for implementing this plan. And that helps maintain momentum. I was also glad to see that as part of this, you know, we there was some kind of thinking additional thinking put into, you know, differentiating what is under our control and not under our control and therefore, you know, what is sort of an indicator versus an output versus an outcome. We're still tracking important information about outcomes of the work via action 4.1 of category 10 and the equitable planning strategies about the, dashboard and tracking the equity metrics. So I can see all this coming together and and again, kind of pulling ourselves accountable as we move forward on this. I was also the other one of the other concerns I had about the original draft was there was a lot about how to how to engage in getting community feedback and that process, but there was not a whole lot in there about what does one then do with that community input. And so seeing now in the community engagement strategies, Action 1.2, there's the guide for integrating community input. To me, that's a critical resource. We talked about being able to sustain this, change the culture, And having that as a resource for staff in the future, I think, will be really important. And the opportunity to look at best practices for incorporating the feedback that is received from engagement is really critical to me. And so I'm glad to see that in there. And so I just want to say great job all around to everyone involved. I'm really grateful for all the work that's gone into this. This has my absolute support. And I'm glad to see there's also a two year evaluation and five year evaluation process here because I'm sure we didn't get everything right. And so we get another chance to see what's working, what's not, and keep on improving in in partnership with the community, community equity council as well, equity advisory council. So thank you so much.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: I want to first address the community, because it is your testimony and support that is what's shaping today's adoption and support for the equity action plan phase two. It wouldn't have been for you and how you worked through this with us and all of your openness and all of the many things you shared with us, I don't think we could take the step today that we are taking. So thank you to each and all and everybody. Not everybody is here, but it is still a significant part of the different groups that came together to speak with one voice. And I do want to thank the department. I think the department has fully risen to the occasion of really buckling down, not being distracted, but standing in the fire of a very, very difficult con conversation and in very difficult decision making. And I do wanna actually address director Hillis. Director Hillis has a great ability to make people laugh. He has a wonderful sense of humor. But today, something happened where, actually, somebody had tears in their eyes because of your contribution, and I want to acknowledge that because I know how difficult it is to have a department go to that depth, and I want to personally thank you. And last but not least, I think in a time where the use of the word equity has been challenged as being an important ingredient of how we speak, how we think, how we feel, and how we talk, and what we do, I think this is a major step of courage, to move us into the future. And while we are encountering cuts in budget and this and that and everything, feeling kind of the thrust of what's important to us potentially challenged or diminished, I'm looking at this diagram here which talks about milestones. And there are milestones that we have accomplished, and then as commissioner Brown said, we have a two year progress in evaluation, and we have a five year progress in evaluation. And those are not milestones where there's nothing happening in between, but that is really when we put what we are supporting and approving today into action. So I wish all of us the fortitude, the strength to move forward to the two years and the five years, and hopefully, there is a bright light at the end. Thank you. Commissioner Campbell.

[Georgia Shudish (Member of the public)]: I think Williams is ahead of me.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I just wanna add to what Commissioner Moore said. But I also wanna I do wanna thank Rich. And thank you, Director Hillis, for your leadership and giving the time and space to make this happen. But I also want to thank the community, the wider community that's not here, and folks that came before us that laid down a foundation in San Francisco of racial and social justice. There are many that unspoken heroes, and I can think of a bunch, you know, only because I'm old and I've been here for a while, but in every neighborhood. And we need to remember those people because those folks are basically the foundation on what this plan is built on. Their energies, their leadership showing us the way. And so I just don't want to forget them. Also, do we have to make a motion? Oh, you were

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: going to do? I have commissioner Campbell. Yeah.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Well, I'd like to make a motion then.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: To adopt and approve the racial and social equity plan phase

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: two. If I could just I just want to call out too. Claudia Sierra Flores, who was at HRC, and who's coming back full time to the planning department starting July 1, which is great. I was on the commission when she was very instrumental in getting the MAP 2020 work started and our our initial racial and social racial our our rep work. So it was it was critical, I think, to where where we are all going. And Miriam, who didn't speak today, but runs the community equity division. And one of my first meetings was with Claudia and Miriam and Wade to set up the Community Equity Division, really kind of prioritize the work. But as you all said, like most importantly, we're not held accountable by necessarily this document or looking one year or two years back. Like, we're held accountable monthly at our, Community Equity Advisory Council where William or Del will tell us straight up whether we're doing things right or wrong in A and E, in Majeed, in Masa, and Lara. So, you know, it's that it's that kind of working directly with the community monthly, daily, hourly. It's part of making that part of our work, I think, that really brings these plans to life. Oscar is a great example. He's sitting in the back. But he was here yelling at us when I was on the commission, was on the community equity advisory board yelling at us, and now is a staff member helping to work with us and in the community. So yeah, we've made good changes. But there's still obviously a lot to do and a lot of work to make these plans real and get them implemented. And it's the neighborhood leaders and folks on the ground who are really doing that. So thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt this plan on that motion. Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And commission chair Moore? Aye. So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously six to zero. Commissioners, that'll place us on item 10 for case number 2025Hyphen004439PPS For the property, it's 668 Guerrero Street. This is an informational presentation.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: Oh, no. No. I think it's okay. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Sure. Yeah. You've got five minutes.

[Riyadh Ganem (Architect for 668 Guerrero St.)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name's Riyadh Ganem. I'm the architect for 668 Guerrero. Kind of diminutive project after hearing about a 20 acre railyard and the social equity program that we're all very proud of. But nonetheless, this is a state density bonus project with 12 units. And this is in the RH3 zone. And like most density bonus projects, this one benefits and takes advantage of the extra housing density through an additional height and using a waiver through the state density bonus. It does allow us to have a majority of larger, well, family sized units that are two and three bedrooms. We have, two one bedrooms, and, the rest are two and and three bedroom units ranging from about, 918 square feet average for the twos and 1,300 square feet for the three bedrooms. The existing building is around a 1,400 square foot single story building that's used for car storage, and it's not a historic resource. And we know that height is the sensitive issue in the RH3 zone. We certainly recognize that, yet we are taking advantage of height and an increase in height. We're using the double density bonus to get from the, as of right, zoning of about five units to the 12 units. And as such, we tried to, as the architects, just be sensitive to how we are working with our height. So this is a site plan that starts to explain a little bit about it. The front of the building facing Guerrero does have a gabled roof. And the the point of the gable roof, which I'll go back for a second, is that we have a top floor unit that we, that's adjacent to a stairwell, elevator, penthouse, and access to the roof, which is required. Plus, we have a roof deck, common open space on the rear of the building. And so to disguise those elements, we used the gable roof, and it did a couple of synergetic things for us, which was to create kind of a a more, creative living situation for the top floor unit with the gabled roof that actually can be, you know, part of the architecture inside and also, hide those mechanical and stair penthouse and elevator penthouse. The units lay out in a very kind of rational fashion. They stack for the most part. And I explained the unit mix. Each unit has its own private open space through the use of balconies. And I'll just skip ahead a little bit because I know there's limited time. But I prepared just kind of a section here that just sort of shows how the space is stacked and then how we open up the Top Floor space to create something a little bit more special on the Top Floor and, again, disguise some of those other required elements. A relationship between our building and the neighborhood context. I think there's an opportunity for us to embellish our blind walls, which would still be in progress. This is kind of a view that's significant from Dolores Park, and our building would be the yellow one. It's it's in the background, but we just wanted to give an idea of overall context within the urban fabric a little bit. And I'll just say that the architecture is specifically designed to be kind of simple, and rational, yet we think that that's, that that doesn't compromise good design. In fact, I think in certain cases, it enhances it. We just like to take a few elements and really make them speak for the building. And in this case, it's the symmetry and the gable roof and the materials. You know, it has sort of the vernacular kind of traditional massing, but it has some modern approach to materiality. So I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. And then unless there are immediate questions to the sponsor, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

[Georgia Shudish (Member of the public)]: Hi. Georgia Shutish. It's SB423, and so we're here for the hearing because it's a low or moderate resource area. So that caught my attention. I'll just talk about the aesthetic first. I don't know if you read that little PDF I sent, but I wanted to show the views looking north and south on Guerrero because in the packet, we didn't see views like we saw there. And I think it's just something that needs to be considered. When I first saw this on the SFUMB website, I thought about something Commissioner Richards said about another project, former Commissioner Richards. He said, it's too big. It's too big. That's beyond this hearing, I know, but I think it's something we can't forget. Two other points I want to make. It's referred to as an alteration. So are there demo calcs for this? Sorry. I know I talk about the demo calcs, but it's alteration. It's not a demolition. And there was another version of this project that was withdrawn in 2022 according to the PEM where they were seeking the CUA. They were gonna demolish it then when it was just three or four units at the time. So is this an alteration? And if it is, where are the demo cals? And the other thing that's probably really pertinent is which units are going to be for the affordable housing. Is it just gonna be the one bedroom units, or is it gonna be some of the family housing? That's a big deal. I mean, that that former resolution I gave you from 2007 talks a lot about, even back then, the concern about family housing for for immigrant families, if you read that closely. So those are my questions. Oh, and again, the criteria for demolition in s b four twenty three, they is was there housing on this side at some point? I looked on the Internet, and there was, like, an artist who lived there. It was, like, a live workspace. Does is this the reason this is now being called an alteration so they can get SB 423, which should not be in the priority equity geography neighborhoods? This isn't a priority geography neighborhood, I know, but it's very close to priority equity geography neighborhood. So why is this an alteration? What units are going to be the affordable units? And it is too big, but it doesn't matter anymore. Thank you very much. I think I covered everything, but you can look at my PDF if you want. I sent that. Here comes Bridget.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United San Francisco)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I will echo every question miss Judas asked. Why is this an alteration? Which units are the affordable units? And it's just too tall. Thank you.

[Joseph Smook (Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition)]: I don't think it's too tall.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: I pushed the button. For starters, my understanding is that this building is a commercial building. This is not a residential building. The the introduction to the project explained that we are not here to basically decide on the project, but take comments to have the architect as he moves forward through department review, really add additional considerations to the questions. I believe that the building is an interesting example of densification, and with its kind of whimsical roof, etcetera, I believe actually that it fits in very well. It's a slender building. The the mass of the building is away from the street. It has a relatively narrow facade. And I only have one question, and that is there is a mention oh, I want to first say I'm really happy that this building is not just proposing nine units, but that this building really steps boldly into the discussion of putting affordable units on-site because we could have done this very differently and had only nine units and no affordable. That said, I had a question for the architect, and there's a mention somewhere in the text about an ADU. I tried to identify the ADU in the drawings, but could not find that. Would you be able to, explain that to us?

[Riyadh Ganem (Architect for 668 Guerrero St.)]: Yes. Thanks for the question. The ADU would, be one of the one bedrooms. There's two one bedrooms. Most likely, it's the one on Story 2 facing the rear yard. I my understanding of the there's two ways to go about the adding an ADU in new construction. There's the state program and there's the local program. To be honest, I'm not really an expert on those programs, but we've been working with Bridget Hicks from the onset. I know she's I don't think she's with the department anymore or in a different role. But in any case, she helped us understand the possibility of including an ADU. It actually is how we get to 12 units.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: So this will be a work in progress, and I think it's very interesting. The department works on this all the time. And I think perhaps miss Vardy could weigh in. The location of affordable units is not predetermined at design, but that is something that occurs in somewhat some of the discussion later on. If you wouldn't mind highlighting that also for the public, that would be very helpful.

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: Absolutely. So we actually have a director's bulletin that talks about placement of the on-site affordable units and where they need to be distributed. When it's only one unit, it's a little trickier because there's only one to distribute. But basically, the rules talk about the lower, two thirds of the building. They have to be evenly distributed. There has to be, sort of proportionality in the on-site units to the, type of units. If you had, you know, almost entirely three bedroom units and one studio, you couldn't select that one studio to be the affordable unit, for example. So there's a a director's bulletin that has all of those rules and many others about how we go through sort of placement and the typology selection of which units are allowed to be designated.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: And that actually, in plain English, means you don't just stick it in the basement. I think that is really what is

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: meant to question them. Smallest one and stick it in the basement and needs to be more it's sort of in fitting with what the rest of the building looks like.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. I believe that the submittal in the larger family of s b four twenty three projects we have seen is is adequate, is actually quite good, particularly if we compare that to what we were looking at last week. So I leave it with that. I might have my support, and I believe as it goes to department review, it can only get better. Thank you. Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I think I agree with those comments. And, you know, I was glad to see that this project is coming forward with a good variety of unit types and sizes and having a good number of units as was expressed without being, in my opinion, overwhelming in terms of its massing. And I think the peaked roof also helps with that as well. You know, I would just say I know that department staff will conduct its review of the project, and I think it's worth examining the the information submitted by miss Shurish, and following up on some of those comments and paying close attention to them as part of the staff's review of the project, especially since this really is the commission's only bite at the apple on this. And besides that, I'll just say I would always encourage, not just a garage and a door on the Ground Floor, but, potentially additional housing and no extra curb cut there. But, that's just my personal opinion. But otherwise, yeah, thanks for bringing this forward.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I think it's a great infill project. Obviously, it's s B 423, so you all are gonna proceed here accordingly, but I do agree it's a great densification project. I like the mix of unit sizes. Also would love to see more units and less parking. So, more more people, less cars. I had questions about the affordable unit location. Sounds like that got answered. I guess one question dangling would be when would the public learn about when would they have an opportunity to know which unit ends up becoming the affordable unit in the process?

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: So those units get designated before the building permit will be signed off. So it's still during sort of the permitting stage. It typically trails our approval. So our approval for ministerial will happen first, and it's basically a condition of approval that they didn't then need to work with us on identifying the exact placement. Those will then get recorded against the deed of the property. Once they identify exactly where the the affordable unit will be located, that that plan set gets recorded against the deed. And then once they have that, we're willing to we basically hold that until we release the building permit. So but they can get going working on the building permit in the meantime.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: And then the public could find out about that by just looking

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: We typically upload a copy of those plans that become publicly accessible through PIM.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: PIM. Yep.

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: Or I believe also the assessor's documents that are uploaded. So anyone who's savvy enough to figure out how to query through the assessor's documents could also find there. But it through our property information map, it's linked.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Perfect. Yep.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Great. That's all my comments. Just wishing you good luck with the project. Thanks.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Commission Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. And thank you for the architect for the presentation. This is the better presentation that we've seen from last week too. I agree. I do have a question as it goes through the planning. As, you know, is is there any in the as it goes through the planning in the process, are are there is there more likely changes in the number of units, in that part? Or it's more, like, in terms of the, you know, just the height or what is pretty much what's locally, you know, you know, pretty much based on the codes, you know. We were just looking to that based on the codes. But in terms of the changes of the number of units, is there also I mean, is there a likely part that there will be changes on that?

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: Unlikely, unless as part of our code review, we identify that they completely miscalculated something and, you know, they can't go as tall, they can't go as deep. I mean, again, I don't I don't forecast that in this case, but it would be more part of our review of what that building form can look like and if that had to dramatically change and they needed to change the program. But presuming that they've made all the right sort of zoning presumptions of what they can build out. And I know the architect, this isn't their first rodeo. So that shouldn't change as a result of any of our review unless something like that happened.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for that. And just for me clarification how it goes through the planning. I appreciate for the developer to have I mean, including unaffordable housing, which is, you know, any units building that has 10 units or more. So, thank you.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Commissioner Williams. I just have a question. I I think all the all our comments on on this about the the notification, the public notification. And and how is that how is that process been and and and what is it? Just to remind me.

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: This being agendized is the notification.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: So this is the public notification? This is the public notification. What about, like, on the ground? Is is there any kind of notification to the neighbors?

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: When the building department issues a permit for construction, there are posters that go up on-site. So and I'm I'm not a 100% familiar with all of their notification. I believe adjacent property owners are also usually notified when a when a permit is issued for construction just so neighbors can be aware, you know, construction's gonna happen nearby. But from the planning department's perspective, this is the only notification because this is a ministerial project. So there's no neighborhood notice period like there would be for a normal conditional use hearing or a a section three eleven notification where where we have this sort of hold moment in time where we collect public feedback. That does not exist for ministerial projects. So that's what this hearing is for.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I get that. I just I just you know, I'm sure that residents that live close would like to know what's getting built there too.

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: The I mean, the other thing that I've I've mentioned before is there are two other places where this information can be found for folks who generally wanna stay abreast of what's going on in their neighborhood. We have a tool where people can sign up for alerts so that they don't have to constantly come back and check. They can sign up and they will get alerted anytime an application's filed. So that would include ministerial. We also have a dedicated web page for ministerial projects so people can also go in and check that website and see if there's anything there. So we're kind of doing the the most that we can within the bounds of state law to make that information available.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Right. I I appreciate that, miss Swati. Thank thank you for for that update. I I just but I just wanna, you know, just comment on the notification not being very, let's say, sufficient for neighbors that, you know, live did live on the block, that live close. And so I know it's state it's a state density. It took four twenty three. But I mean, there's some definite the notification is, in my view, there's some lacking notification. And I just, you know, I just want to comment on that. And I know that you guys are the planning department is is is taking steps to to do the most that you can. But in my view, it it's still not sufficient. And I think that's one of the unfortunate drawbacks of the state law. And there's many drawbacks that I don't want to get into it right now. But I can go down the list. But yeah, I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Commissioner McKee?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I would like to thank you for, basically having more than nine units, and qualifying for, an affordable unit in this one. It did bother me last week when the nine, which is blatantly not to qualify, but this has been around for a while. It's an extension of, s b 35. We're now at four twenty three, and I think this is a good example of how it should work. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if that concludes your comments, we can move on to the final item on your agenda today, number 11, case number 2024Hyphen010563CUA for the property at 301 Main Street, Units 26 A And 26 B. This is a conditional use authorization. Sir, we'll hear from staff first, and then you'll have an opportunity to

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: speak. Sorry.

[Vincent Page (SF Planning staff)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Vincent Page, planning department staff. The project before you today is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section three seventeen to merge two dwelling units on the 26th Floor of a 35 story residential tower located at Main 301 Main Street in Rincon Hill. The department has received 15 letters in support of the project and no letters in opposition. Support for the project centers on the fact that it would not that it would result in a dwelling unit large enough to accommodate a live in caretaker for the property owner and that it would have no aesthetic or physical impact on any other units in the building. However, the department is unable to support the project because it would result in the loss of an independent family sized dwelling unit at a time when the city is faced with the housing shortage and housing affordability crisis. The housing element of the general plan identifies a robust supply of housing at all levels of affordability as a vital means of addressing the city's housing shortage and affordability crisis. Approval of the project would result in the loss of a dwelling unit in an amenity rich part of the city, further burdening the city's overall supply of housing. For these reasons, the department finds the project would conflict with the generally stated intent of the general plan and recommends denial. This concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Compared to the great things discussed here today, this is a small project, and we appreciate your attention and time. My name is Ricardo Mora. I'm the project architect. I'm here representing the owners, Diana and Jonathan Yaron, residents of the Infinity Towers for the last eight years. First as renters and now as owner of the two units in question. We are here to request your approval for a project that embodies the city's goals of fostering multi generational living and allowing residents to age in place. This is this is a simple interior model to combine two existing owner occupied units into a single family home, allowing, the long term residents to adapt their space to their, retirement needs and remain in the community they love. The project is a straightforward interior model that involves no structural alterations to the high rise building. Its scope is confined entirely to the building envelope, to the existing building envelope. The property is located in a RC four zoning district where residential use is permitted. This project, which merges two residential units into one, is fully compliant with the district's purpose and regulations and is consistent with planning codes two zero nine one. Importantly, the proposed design is reversible. The partition walls could be easily removed in the future, allowing the property to, easily be reverted to a two unit layout. This project will not result in a net loss, of available housing units because both units are already owned by the same family. This merger simply legalizes the combination of their existing space to create a single unit, a three bedroom in this case. We want to be clear, this project does not remove any affordable or rent controlled housing. They are owner occupied market rate units. We would like to note that the great efforts by the city and the community to address the housing shortage have resulted in thousands of new units coming into the market recently at affordable and market rates. And the proposed project, by combining the two Resentia units, will not significantly alter the the number of units in the market, right? We're talking about two units here. We understand two is more than one. Our point is these two units are for long term residents. They won't remain part of this community, and that has a lot of value. As a pure interior as an interior model, sorry, the project will not adversely impact the health, safety, and general welfare of individuals and residents or working nearby. There'll be no exterior alterations, noise, or inconveniences affecting the neighborhood. This project is indirect, is a direct implementation of general plan policy 32. It is designed specifically to facilitate aging in place, creating a home that can accommodate the owners needs throughout their retirement. By creating a larger three bread three three bedroom units, This project encourages co housing and provides the space needed for extended families and supporting multi generational households, perfectly aligning with goals of policy 34. Rather than rather than leaving a unit vacant or under underutilized, this project enables the full efficient efficient use of the existing housing stock for long term residential use, directly supporting policy 36 by discouraging vacant and speculative turnover. This project has earned significant support from the community as noted. We received, we we had a few more letters. I have with with me a total of 28 letters of support from the neighbors in the building. Again, the owners have lived here for eight years. They they know the community. They are part of the community. Preventing displacement is key to community stability. When residents are forced to move because their homes can no longer meet their life stage needs, the community fabric is broken. This project allows a family to stay rooted, strengthening the building and the neighborhood community rather than fracturing it. As an architect, I understand that is impossible to Let me just finish this paragraph. It's impossible to anticipate everybody's needs when we're designing units. Right? So it's important Sorry,

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: sir.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: That is your time. But the commissioners may call you up for clarifying questions. At this time, 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.

[Diana Yaron (Property owner, 301 Main St.)]: Hello. I'm the owner of the unit.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, ma'am. If you're the owner of the unit, then you're part of the project sponsor team. You're not a member of the public. Okay. So your opportunity to speak was during that five minutes. Okay? Members of the public who are not part of the project sponsor team, if you, would like to submit testimony, now is your opportunity to do so.

[Georgia Shudish (Member of the public)]: You know, I've talked about flats for years, And the cynic in me says, well, gee whiz, they can't they they're come to you honestly, and they wanna merge it. But I sent one last week to to director Hillis and the staff that's now for sale for $5,000,000 in Noe Valley, a pair of flats. I mean, it's very difficult for me to come here and say that, but I will say this. I remember a project on California Street probably about six years ago. And you had you let it merge, but you kept the kitchens. So I don't know if that means anything to anybody, but I'm just thinking about it. But I want to say that I understand how they feel. I understand the staff. But I really am looking forward to a very, very strong policy to prevent flats from being merged and to codify the flat policy and to really, really, really keep them separate. And maybe I'm taking advantage of these people's situation, but it just seems pertinent. Everything's an individual story. And sometimes you have to have the individual story. So that's all I'll say. Thank you.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United San Francisco)]: Bridgette Maly speaking for me. This is a difficult situation. But what I would say is that what I think we need to think about in the big picture, for instance, I would hate for the project that you just heard three years from now for them to merge two two units in that building and end up with fewer units in a building that was a state density bonus. So I I think this is a bigger picture issue. I don't obviously, these folks have their own agenda, but we need to be thinking about if we're gonna merge units and eliminate units. We need to think about what that means in the big picture for all types of housing. Thank you.

[Howard Lee (Member of the public; Infinity resident)]: My name's Howard Lee, and I live in the Infiniti. I've been there since they built it back in ten years ago. I'm really for the rights of the individuals who live in the condominiums because being there, I know the people, I know the families, and there's a need for them to stay put. There's so many regulation that prevents them from doing this, from that, and all that. And I've seen families move out of San Francisco because of that. So I really encouraged the owners' rights of the condominiums to basically do, because they spent a lot of hard earned money, as I did, to put money down so they can purchase the property and live here. I've been here since the age of six, so I've seen the buildings. I've seen before they built the infinity. I've seen how the infinity has prospered and developed into a community. And for us to enable restrictions like this, prevents really good people from moving into the community. So thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you to Vice President Moore. Just wanted to thank the project sponsor, Ricardo Mora. The merging of two units in San Francisco, a I wouldn't say delicate issue, but it's one that's very closely scrutinized only because of the outcomes that have come haven't been always very favorable to the larger community. And so I think that's probably the thrust of how I'm thinking about this. I understand your situation and dilemma. You want these two units to have a caretaker move in.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Excuse me, ma'am, but you're out of order unless he calls you up for questions specifically.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I mean, you know, my heart goes out. I really, you know, I understand the difficulty of having elderly parents and stuff like that. My family, I've had to deal with it. It's very, very difficult. Having said that, as a planning commissioner, we have to look at the overall impacts. And so because of that, I won't be able to support your ask today. But I hope you find another way to do it. I'm not saying that it's I mean, I'm just speaking for myself. So it could you know, who knows how the other commissioners rule? But I just wanted to explain how I'm feeling. Thank you. Commissioner Kemp.

[Georgia Shudish (Member of the public)]: Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I also agree, with the sentiment that this definitely does not move the needle in the right direction when we're talking about merging units. Right? This is we're trying so desperately to to add housing stock. However, I I do think that this is a very unique situation. And I I actually am a little bit torn about this particular case. And I think I think it could be helpful to have the architect come up and just walk us through the modifications that you'd be making to the merger because my observation is the the the two bedroom unit is, it's a unit, but it actually is missing a living room. It looks to to the existing conditions read as if it's not the opt an optimized unit. And then the merger is actually incredibly surgical in that you're just adding

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: Right.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: A door opening to connect the two.

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: That's correct.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: And I don't know

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: if you have those plans handy. We have them in our packet, but it could be maybe helpful.

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: I have in

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: the tablets.

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: So basically, we're adding a door between the two units. The unit had been altered in the past, changing the layouts. So we converted one of the units from two bedrooms to one. And my client bought a unit already like that. The unit next to it still has two bedrooms.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Without a living room, though, it appears.

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: It's actually sorry. I'm tracking the history of it. It's actually the other way around.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: The other way around. They took a one bedroom and made it two.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Exactly.

[Genevieve Kedwalader (Prologis)]: Yeah. That's

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: that was my sense. Yeah.

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: But in practical terms, we're opening a door between the two two units. They'll carry exactly. Yeah. There will still remain two kitchens, the bathrooms accessible bathrooms per codes. That door is the only difference. So that's why I was saying in the future, it could be reversed easily.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: And would so while we would be, if this got the support it needed, we'd be losing a unit in the housing stock. But say at some point in time, whether it was at the sale or when the owners moved out, it could be reverted back to

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: Right.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Two units. Would there be a way for us to guarantee that happens?

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: Yeah. And I ex go ahead.

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: I'm happy to jump in. I mean, we we absolutely I think miss Shudish mentioned one of these projects. We have had several projects that are very similar to this over the years, where there have been two adjacent and a large condo building where they wanna do a connecting door, where the commission in those cases did want to support it, but at a condition of approval that that door needed to basically be closed up upon any future sale. So it kind of allows the family to use it in that way. But in terms of long term housing stock, those two units would be separated up and sold separately at a future moment in time.

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: And I wanna mention, so that each unit has a condo map. Right? We discussed with the zoning administrator to or department. I forget how it's defined. They will allow the two units to be merged without doing a new condo map. Basically, we file a affidavit agreeing to keep the two parcels together while the two units are together. That process will make it also easier once he goes back in the market as two units. It's still two parcels. That will not be changed.

[Sue Hester (Member of the public)]: Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I I think with that in in mind, I I do agree with this idea that, you know, we wanna be able to accommodate

[Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition)]: the growing and changing needs

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: of of people that live here. And I think this is a special circumstance, and I'd be willing to support it with the caveat that there's a, you know, conditional use that we'd have to revert back to the two units upon sale of of the property.

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: I think that's fine.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I have a question for miss Vadhi. So in the instances in which there's been a requirement that the units be unmerged if it sells, do we have any idea if that's worked? Or what's been the outcome from from that?

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: I can't I can't think of a particular instance where it's been brought to our attention that it's been undone. That doesn't mean that hasn't happened. I just can't think of any off the top of my head. I mean, I think it's gotten through our office in terms of having that condition apply and making sure that the the physical alterations get approved are very limited and are limited to just a door, so that a lot of the infrastructure, if you will, in both of those units remains. But I don't at least think we have a a tracker of, necessarily all of those individual parcels in one place where we could run a query of it.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: But this it becomes

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: Yeah. I mean, it'll be on title. Every conditional use gets recorded because all the conditions of approval go on

[Joseph Smook (Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition)]: title as a as a deed restriction.

[Liz Waddy (Director of Current Planning)]: So those all live on So those all live on title. So with any transaction, the future buyer is absolutely made aware of those limitations, you know, as part of title package. So there should be at least full disclosure that they should not be buying one merged unit and that there was this limitation. So there is at least disclosure for transactions in the future.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: In the meantime, I I recognize this isn't particularly likely. But, if the current owner were to rent the unit, again, I recognize it's not the plan from everything I'm hearing, but still, if the current owner were to rent the unit but not be selling it, it would be rented as a single unit in that case. I mean, the the NSR the the well, the title of restriction wouldn't be triggered, so I assume it could still move forward as a single rental, technically. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. So, to the project sponsors. So you mentioned the kitchen's not being removed. The kitchen is being removed in the plans, it looks like. It's being replaced within the, in the two bedroom unit. It's being replaced with a coffee bar in the plans. Was that just a misstatement? Or

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: No. But, again, it's easily reversible. Right? The kitchen plumbing, electrical is all there. It's just the cabinetry. We're changing it. The moment it yeah.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Okay. I mean all

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: right. Just to that I mean, to that point, I think it's probably more important that the title I mean, that there's that condition that it's gotta revert back to two units because, you you know, it's tough to sell a unit without a kitchen. So likely, the kitchen would have to be put back or or something would have to be put back for that. So we've definitely controlled for that in the past. Like, said it's gotta revert back when it's sold, which I think is the strongest provision you can put on there and still allow them to merge it because anybody who's gonna finance this or you know, we're not merging the condo. We're not mapping. We're not merging them. They'll still say stay as mapped condos to individual units, which makes it challenging to work with as a single unit in the future.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I have one last question for the project sponsor team. So one thing I'm a little thrown off about is how does the merger help with everything that you were saying about multi generational living? I mean, these units are right next to each other. If there's a caretaker or there's elderly parents or I'm just not sure what the situation is exactly. But they are independent units and yet also directly accessible to each other just across the hallway. And so, is there could you shed more light on that? Or I don't know if that's gonna be made in the owner's comments, but I'm just trying to figure this out.

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: It's just a matter of how practical that becomes on everyday uses. If the caretaker is in the unit next door, the access is different. If my client needs the caregiver, the caregiver is in the unit next door. He's not with them. As time goes by, that difference may make a big difference in a practical manner. And that's what we're here discussing. Because one thing is they have the caregiver leaving with them or family visiting or family staying. The other thing is they're in the unit next door. Makes sense.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: It it makes sense except, you know, the plan is to put a door in a different place. So instead of two doors, you have one.

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: Right. But their bedroom becomes the center of the unit. So they can have, on the left side, family visiting stays there. Family staying stays there. The caregiver stays on the the right side of the unit. They are on the center. So everything is connected that way.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay.

[Dale Seymour (Community Equity Advisory Council)]: All right.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you for walking me through that. Yeah. I honestly, I'm still not entirely sure what I'm going with this. I was ready to deny, but I'm actually, interested in this the possibility of of approving if we mandate that upon sale, these would become separate units again and if we mandate that the kitchen remain in place? And actually, I'll ask the question. I mean, that that would be critical to me because, you know, to make it a a full unit, the kitchen's got to be there one way or another. So you take it out now. It's gonna have to go back in upon sale or it could stay in place. Does what's what's the purpose of having that lounge as it's labeled in the two bedroom unit? You know, why does the kitchen need to be removed or can the kitchen remain?

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: It's not technically being removed. It's being reduced in size.

[Howard Lee (Member of the public; Infinity resident)]: Well, it

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: shows it shows the removal of the stovetop and the full size refrigerator. I mean, just in terms of the what's shown on the plans. And without the stove Right. So I want to

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: elaborate on on that. Yeah. The big difference between what we are proposing and what if this was a unit, the one we are merging, it would need a fully accessible kitchen. The standards are different compared to what we are proposing. It's more of a kitchenette. If that would have to be would have been a if that would be a requirement to allow this project that we need to remain two kitchens, we could still do it smaller and meet all the codes for a unit to be a legal unit

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: with a

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: kitchen, right, with a range, refrigerator, sink. It would just need to meet chapter 11 a standards, all that. I don't see that as an issue. But we it could be one of the conditions, I I guess.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. I am okay. So I I am heading in the direction of actually approving with a very firm restriction that, upon sale, this is this had to be closed up, reversed as two units, and that the there has to be a legal kitchen remaining in both current what is currently two units. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Commissioner Kemp.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I had one other question I meant to ask, which is for you or the owner. I there was, started to be a description about medical needs, and I was hoping that maybe we could just hear a little bit more about what's going on there.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I'll let Diana talk about that.

[Georgia Shudish (Member of the public)]: Yeah. Hi.

[Diana Yaron (Property owner, 301 Main St.)]: So I have three eye conditions, and the chance that I'm blinding, it's there's a chance that there won't be any miracle happens. We are renting for eight years, and we are first time owners. So we probably will need to someone. We probably need someone who lives with us. So what we want, obviously I will need someone who's available, who can come when I when I when I scream, listen next door. He lives in another building on the unit. He won't hear me. So in order to make this for a caregiver more livable, this is why we are reducing the kitchen because he can't come in our kitchen and cook. He doesn't need a kitchen to cook, so he has more space to live. He has his own bedroom, and he has his own living space,

[Athius Cervantes (Friendship House; City Fellow)]: and still will

[Diana Yaron (Property owner, 301 Main St.)]: be available.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: This is an extremely difficult project because we are looking at a difficult personal circumstance. And I think it puts all of us a little bit tongue tied here into a situation that is exceptional, particularly when we normally look at these types of questions. We have very clear rules of what is really driving our decision making here as a planning commissioner, and that is the city at large, the situation of scarcity of housing. And in this particular case, losing a unit, I think, just falls into the directions that were very strongly propagated by Mayor Lee and have become stronger as we move forward. I do recall that we had other situations in high rise buildings where units were to be merged as well as one on Jones, a very prominent one, and there was one probably on California. But despite the stories behind it, and each of them are important from the human side, we chose to stick with what our responsibilities are. And because in the end, it is not personal story that makes us do things, but what the real needs are. There's one particular building. It was two flats, and I'm not sure if you remember that. It was somewhere near Washington Square where the family actually was a multigenerational family living in two flats. And what we did there is as long as a multigenerational family was occupying the space, we didn't actually merge the units but allowed them to be accessed off the same stair, which is a merger, but it's not a merger. And that is the only thing I remember where we addressed actually a multigenerational family. I I have not heard that parents or multigenerational family is an issue here. It is a physical condition of health of a particular individual, and I would kind of almost trend with observations my fellow commissioners made here that two units next to each other actually fulfill the need of having a caregiver living actually in a rather large unit. Normally, caregivers don't live in a full sized 1,600 square foot unit to provide the service that is needed here. I'm torn on this, And and I'm I'm just gonna at this moment pause and not exactly say what to do because I don't know. Yes.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Vice President Moore, I'm also torn, and I think other commissioners are feeling the same way about this. As commission, you know, the the issue of mergers have been, you know, has been an issue here in the commission, and sometimes we do approve mergers, and we don't know what happened afterwards. And and I I think through Georgia, I'm and will report to us as what happened to those, approvals that happened years ago, that we get an idea of the approvals of merger actually led to more unaffordability. And it doesn't really help the the housing market. And so those I I mean, just wanna you know, for for the project sponsor, that's kinda like the predicate of the why mergers are not allowable in in the city. And also, we have this, policy goal as well. I'm I'm very simp at this point too, also sympathetic to the project sponsor as, you know, I've you know, they did the issue of the of having caregiver on-site and having that, you know, with the help of your parent and you also at the same time there. But we also need to think about I mean, for me, it's like also looking into your need, personal needs, but also looking into the bigger, larger policy goal that perhaps we can, you know, there's a way for the planning department to track if we're approving this merger that we need to track the, you know, how it's gonna what is going to happen after and even, you know, we wanna make sure that the people who come to the commission are saying the truth and giving us the factual and accurate information about the situation and not misleading us because there has been situations that have happened like that. And so part of me wants to approve this, but with conditions in a way that would continue this to be a separate unit. I there is something that commissioner Braun was saying in terms of, like, returning the kitchen. And I saw the the the letter from the the project sponsor that it's also being approved by the HOA and that there is also effort that you're doing to to make it reversible. But I think for us, we need to track that. And we haven't had case that we've actually tracked it.

[Howard Lee (Member of the public; Infinity resident)]: Well, I

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: don't think we've tracked it, but the best way we've done it, you know, if you recall, come in, I won't book. I've been on the commission or as director here sitting at these commission meetings for twelve years. There haven't been many at least that we've actually approved. And I think where we've approved them, commissioner Moore, has mentioned, like, we've put this condition in that they be put back as as so I'd say there's you know, when we put this policy in place, we did not ban mergers. We said it's gonna be conditional use, basically leaving it up to you all for unique circumstances. And I think that's when we've encountered them is unique circumstances like this. And we've put in that provision that they've gotta be be returned when they're sold. And that's as concrete as it can get because it's on the title of the property. So when it's sold, you know, the title company, the bank, whomever, that's a condition on the property. We wouldn't merge the two units. You know, public works wouldn't merge them as condos. So I think, you know, the policy was put in because we were seeing an inordinate number of, like, flats being merged. I don't think it was necessarily for this case where we saw lots of condos being merged, but we get it. It's a loss of a loss of units. I think, ultimately, we don't see many of them. We can give you the data on how many we've actually approved or brought to this commission. It's a handful. So but I think that's the best way to protect it is put that provision in in the conditions of approval that be recorded that it's gotta be put back.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And just to be make sure in the process when, let's say, say, the the coffee bar is being installed, who's doing the inspection in a way that the that the, you know, you know, the the kitchen, whatever, what do you call those things, are actually not going to be demod or, you know,

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: submit plans and and DBI would inspect

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: them. Yeah.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: I mean, I think that's less important, but whatever. It's up to you all. It's when it's it's gotta be put back. Because when you put it when you sell them as single units, there's gotta be a kitchen in there, you know. So I I mean, I think that's ultimately the most important is that's on title that it remains when it's sold a separate it's in essence two separate units. They're using them during the interim when they're owning it as one is the outcome of that.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. See, other people also have come here? Okay. Thank thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: I wanna take another comment here. My my trust lies in the planning department and choose seasoned planners to have examined of what the issues are. And I think their recommendation is important to me because there are many other subtleties to this, the size of the units, the numbers of cumulative bedrooms, etcetera. And since we have a very strong policy which burdens us every day we make decisions here, I believe that the work of what has been presented to me by planning staff and policies that are basically guiding many or most of our decisions is that I cannot support the project. Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I have one last question about an alternative approach to the to how this project could have been accomplished whilst not being so invasive and and separating the units. This might just be a little wacky. Sorry. But the doors to these units are at the end of a hallway. It's like a terminus of the hall. And a door in in front of the two doors to the units would achieve something similar in terms of connect you know, potentially make it possible to connect the units, without actually putting a hole in the wall between them. Was that ever examined? It would have been a less a pretty convenient and easy solution to merge the units.

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: So from a technical standpoint, from a building and safety standpoint, it could work, but we need to carry the fire rating from the hallway to that new door. We discussed that with building and safety, actually, even for the door that connects the two units. Would they allow that door to be built without merging the two units? And from a building and safety standpoint, they had no issue with that. The door would just have to be forty five minutes in this case. But they mentioned but planning needs to approve it because most likely planning is going to see it as a unit merger even if they are not merged

[Howard Lee (Member of the public; Infinity resident)]: Right.

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: Just by having the door. Because that could be another solution. We just do the door and keep the two units as two units. It's very similar to what you mentioned, but from a practical standpoint, for my owner for my clients, it works better. The flow would work better for them than doing it that way. Doing it that way, I I need to really track it because it changes square footages because now you're extending the unit into the corridor, and the corridor is part of the building. I I would need to see how the corridor is built from a fire rating standpoint, and HOA would have to approve it because now the unit is growing into the building area.

[Howard Lee (Member of the public; Infinity resident)]: I'm not

[Ricardo Mora (Project Architect, 301 Main St. merger)]: saying it's not possible. It it it opens other things to consider. Yeah. Yeah.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. You know, clearly, I've been struggling with this one too. And when I step back and I just think about this in terms of the policy priorities that I've been pursuing in my time on the commission, and I think about the number of other housing units. I can't think of a single living situation I've had in the city where it would not have been pretty easy to merge the housing units just by putting a hole in a wall or, more difficult, put a stairwell in somewhere. And so where I'm coming down on this, I I I really appreciate the circumstances behind this. But where I'm landing at this point is actually in supporting the denial of the merger just based on everything I've been working towards and this commission, the way that the perspective I've always brought about the need to preserve our housing supply and housing diversity and to avoid creating incentives for loss of housing units by enabling mergers on a frequent basis. I don't see anyone else who has a light on, so I'm going to make a motion to deny the project.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Acting Chair)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to deny, the requested conditional use authorization on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Sue Hester (Member of the public)]: Nay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And commission chair Moore.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So move commissioners. That motion passes five to one with commissioner Campbell voting against. Okay. Commissioners, that concludes your hearing today. Thank you.