San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 06/26/2025. When we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have 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 queued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can watch how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly. And if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take roll. Commission President So.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commission Vice President Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Here.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And Commissioner Williams? Here. We expect Commissioner McGarry to be absent today. First on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number 2024 hyphen zero 05943 CUA at 61 Through 61 a Colwood Street Conditional Use Authorization is proposed for continuous to 07/10/2025. Item two, case number 2024Hyphen011548DRPHyphen02 at 2867 Green Street. Discretionary review is proposed for continuous to 07/31/2025. Item three, case number 2015Hyphen012491ENV for the San Francisco Gateway Project at 749 Tollan Street and 2000 McKinnon Avenue. Certification of the final environmental impact report in items four a through e for the same property address. Case number is 2015Hyphen012491E and v, PCA, MAP, DVA, CWP, and CUA, for the adoption of findings, code amendments, development agreement, design standards, and conditional use authorization are also proposed for continuous to 07/10/2025. Further commissioners under your consent calendar, items nine a and b for case numbers 2024Hyphen004318SHD and CUA at 350 Amber Drive. Shadow findings and conditional use authorization are proposed for continuance to July 24, and items 11 a and b for case numbers 2024 Hyphen 005966 CUA and VA Art 425 Broadway, the conditional use authorization and variance are proposed for continuance to 07/10/2025. I have no other items proposed for continuance, so so we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commissioners on any of these items proposed for continuance, only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward.

[Anne Kalachita (San Francisco Gray Panthers)]: Anne Kalachita, San Francisco Grey Panthers. Esteemed commissioners and staff, I'm here to ask you to use this continuance of the Gateway Project to seriously reconsider the special use district designation for ProLogistix Gateway. Ask yourself, why is Bayview being made an exception? San Francisco spent years fighting to reign in Amazon and other parcel delivery giants because of significant impacts. Our city leaders passed laws to slow this down, to protect the communities. So why now? Why here? Why are we throwing open the doors to a 2,000,000 square foot delivery hub right in the middle of a neighborhood that's already overburdened?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Ma'am, I'm gonna interrupt you.

[Anne Kalachita (San Francisco Gray Panthers)]: The Prologis Gateway Ma'am,

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I'm gonna interrupt you. Yes. Because we're taking public comment on the matter

[Anne Kalachita (San Francisco Gray Panthers)]: of taking I'm asking to use this time and continuance to consider some of these questions. So this is relevant to your your item number. The the project gateway the project gateway project will directly allow the very uses, parcel delivery, warehouse trucking, and massive parking garages that the city just works so hard to regulate. Well, why are we carving out a special zone that lets Prologis, Amazon, FedEx, and others bypass protections that still apply everywhere else? Why is Bayview always asked to bear the burden? Let's be clear. Prologist says they don't have Amazon locked in, but Prologist bill is building this for Amazon. Amazon is already on the site. So we know how the story goes, and I ask you, who benefits from this deal? It's not the people breathing emissions. It's not the families dealing with asthma. It's not our neighbors stuck with more trucks, more noise, more pollution. Did you know that tire wear from these delivery vans Ma'am,

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I'm gonna

[Anne Kalachita (San Francisco Gray Panthers)]: produce more pollution than tailpipes. I'm done. The continuance gives you time. If you consider this, please use that time wisely. Thank you.

[Judy Kurtz (Thousand Grandmothers for Future Generations)]: Hello. My name is Judy Kurtz. I'm with, Thousand Grandmothers for Future Generations. We also want you to take time to consider why this is being postponed yet again. This is not the first time it's been postponed. People keep coming, and it keeps getting postponed, we assume, at the request of prologis. We want to ask we want you to ask yourselves, is this the future we promised Bayview? Is this really community driven development, or is this just another deal made at our community's expense? We want the city to stand firm. We need you to stand firm. The protections we fought for must mean something, and they must apply here. Thank you.

[Speaker 6.0]: Thank you, commission. When we last met, I gracefully thanked the planning commission for, the continuance. However, this continuance feels like another way to silence the community while you allow millionaire corporate polluters to make their backdoor deals to push this project through. Instead of a continuance, the proposal of the Gateway Project in San Francisco should be strongly rejected. The science doesn't lie. The cumulative impact report states the level of the harm of this project will bring to the community that not only has a historical context of community health issues, but that is already saturated with mobile standing mobile and standing sources of diesel emissions and electronic magnetic fields. With all due respect, this clearly shows that the planning commission has failed to take a closer look at the existing toxic sites that leads Bayview Hunters Point to be an AB six one seven community developing a community emissions reductions plan. As a steering committee member, we are provided with, the toxic sites in our community by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Why would you consider permitting a project that will further pollute a shoreline community that is already saturated with pollution in the midst of sea level rise and climate change? As a resident, I have to say, when our district leaders come into our community, the main thing that they say to us is that they're on their way out. Therefore, any endorsement from our district leaders should be thrown out as they are on their way out.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I'm gonna interrupt you because

[Speaker 6.0]: As it is a voice of the community. As a voice, it is not a it is not a voice.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I'm gonna remind members of the public that we're taking public comment on the matter of continuance, not the project itself.

[Mishua Lee (Bayview Hunters Point Resident)]: Hello. I'm Mishua Lee. I'm a 36 resident of Bayview Hunters Point. I've had cancer. I have asthma. And I have gotten tired of this process. This is not the first continuance. Why do you keep continuing and continuing into the summer when it's harder to mobilize our community. We have families with children in special summer programs that aren't able to get here easily. And this whole process is very frustrating with the continued continuance. And yes, use this time to really look at other possibilities and why the Bayview. What the Bayview needs is housing and why can't this area be used for housing that meets the needs of working people and families. So think about these other options while you have this time. And I want to thank you for really taking the time during this continuance to look at alternatives. Okay. Thank you very much.

[Ana Priya Gupta (Intern, Greenaction for Environmental Health & Justice)]: Good afternoon esteemed commissioners. My name is Ana Priya Gupta and I'm an intern with Green Action for Environmental Health and Justice. I'm here to speak in opposition to the proposed San Francisco Gateway Project. I wanna comment on the matter of repeated continuance. I believe that this is the third continuance since the original hearing date of May 22. While I understand the importance of stakeholder discussions, by repeatedly continuing the hearing, you are effectively obstructing the public comment process and suppressing community voices. These hearings occur during the middle of a weekday in the summer. To attend these hearings, some community members must take time off their jobs, childcare duties, and personal commitments. A bus ride to City Hall from Bayview is one hour, two hours round trip. Those who are immunocompromised or have other health issues face additional barriers when attending these hearings. These continuances have to stop and the public's voices must be heard. I ask when it finally comes to time to issue a decision on the fate of this project, you remember the repeated continuances that interfered with the public's ability to comment. Despite the delays, the public showed up and will continue to show up in opposition to this development. This dedication underscores our commitment to protecting the health and safety of people and the environment. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 9.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners.

[Rochelle Holmes (All Things Bayview)]: I, like Ms. Mi, Anna, Camilla, and some of the others, are really concerned about this continuance because, last time I was here, which was another continuance, you know, I was speaking on, you know, inhalers. You know, this is something I must use every day. Okay? The winds right now are high and they've been high. That right there is posing a problem for me. So I just need you to consider reconsider any consideration you're thinking about to to not do it because it's really affecting me as well as other people. You know, now this is just a regular day, and I'm having to use this. Just imagine what is gonna happen in Bayview when ProLogistix comes. If you let them come, what will happen to our health? I haven't been using a I've been using inhaler now for, like, six years? Seven years. And each year, I notice because I'm getting older, it's getting worse. The air is not getting any better so we really don't need anything that's going to impact the air anymore to make it worse for us you know I was standing out in this just afternoon you know trying to protest and had to stop because I couldn't catch my breath, you know. Thank God I know that I have to keep this with me at all times. I know that. And so I do that. So I'm just going to implore to you while you have this time during this continuous to please, please consider the residents of not just Bay the Bay View, but everyone in the Bay Area. The air we breathe affects everyone. It doesn't just affect one area. It affects all of San Francisco. So I'm asking you to please, please don't consider prologists. Again, my name is Rochelle Holmes.

[Andrea Brust (Deputy City Attorney)]: I'm

[Rochelle Holmes (All Things Bayview)]: with ATB, all things Bayview, and I thank you for your time.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I just want to say thank you to the folks from the Bayview Hunters Point that come out here. You are being heard. So thank you. And I just want to acknowledge you guys. And you're, you know, it's appreciated, all the effort that you're making. So thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

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

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. There's a motion that has been seconded to continue items as proposed on that motion. Commissioner Campbell. Aye.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Jonas, I will also continue item 11 b, the variance case to July 10.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, mister zoning administrator. Commissioners, that'll place us under commission matters for item 12. Or excuse me. That will place us under your consent calendar. All matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item five, case number 2025Hyphen000477CUA3319SacramentoStreet, conditional use authorization. Item six, case number 2025Hyphen003124, CUA at 220 Lombard Street, Number 117, conditional use authorization. Item seven, case number 2025Hyphen001970CUA 572 Chestnut Street, conditional use authorization. Item eight, case number 2024Hyphen005857CUA 214 California Street, Suite Number 208, conditional use authorization, and item 10 for case number 2024, Hyphen 001865CUA at 2400 Noriega Street, conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these consent calendar items be pulled off and heard under the regular calendar today or a future hearing. You need to come up to do so. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Move to approve.

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve items under consent, commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero, placing us under commission matters. Item 12, the land acknowledgement.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: The commission acknowledges that we are on unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as all the 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 13, consideration of adoption draft minutes for the June 5 closed session and regular session, as well as the June 9 excuse me, 06/12/2025 regular session. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. Your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun?

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

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president so.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Item 14, commission comments and questions.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I'd like to take this moment to, say a few words. On behalf of the San Francisco Planning Commission, I'm honored that mayor Lurie has appointed Sarah Dennis Phillips as our new planning director. Many of you know Sarah as a thoughtful, equity focused leader with deep knowledge of our city and rare ability to connect bold policy ideas with on the ground results. She began her public service right here in the planning department's citywide division, went on to serve in the key roles in the office economic and workforce development, and later led major private sector projects like the Mission Rock and the Creamery. Most recently, she returned to public service as the OEWD executive director. And today, we're excited to see her bring some the same energy, experience, and vision back to planning. We're lucky to have her, and I know the commission is looking forward to working with her in our next chapter. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you, president. So, I like I'd like to have a question as to when will be the the starting date for the new planning director. What will be the

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: We'll start. So Monday.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: That's good to know. And I'm assuming, planning director, your last day will be this Friday?

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: Tomorrow. Yes.

[Speaker 18.0]: Wow.

[Susana Rojas (Executive Director, Calle 24 Latino Cultural District)]: I am

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I'd like to take this, still an opportunity to thank you, director Hillis, for leading the the department, throughout through the years. I think we started with the same tenure, 2020. And so, again, I'd like to think that your contribution to the to the planning, especially during your tenure, we had the the the planning department started the community equity division. And and that is something and also in your tenure, duration of social equity resolution was also passed. So that's something that I'm truly grateful that you are director during those times. And I'm also looking forward to the new planning director, Sarah Phillips. And, I'm looking forward to meet with her and work with her as it continues. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commission Lebron?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I just want to say thank you to director Hillis for, your long service to the city, both as applying director in all the roles that you've held before as well as serving on this commission before. You were already director when I joined the commission, and I was always very impressed by how collaborative and responsive and thoughtful you've been. And I think that sort of it feels like that really permeated your entire approach to the role and the way that you really listened to a lot of different voices and stakeholders and processes. And, also, you just are a very positive, good spirited person. So, you I will definitely miss having you as director, and I really appreciate everything that you've done. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Vice President Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I'll join the commission thanking you, not only thanking you for being a really good planning commissioner, but also thanking you for rising to lead the department and understanding both sides of the equation, including your openness to the public, your almost lighthearted way of being, together with being approachable and always being responsive. Thank you for everything, and all the best for your future.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Director Hillis, thank you for, like, everything you've you've you've done, not only as as a commissioner, but as the director of planning. Through your tenure, you've really brought on some groundbreaking things such as the equity division. And, you know, I I when I think about that, I think about you, and I'm grateful as someone who grew up here and someone who has fought for for equity. And so and it's also been when I first got onto the commission, you know, something you said made me made me stuck with me. And you said, Gil, you're my boss now. And I was I kinda took, you know, I I I, you know so it's been nice being your boss, Rich. Yeah. But but anyway, I've learned I've learned by watching you how you how you navigate difficult circumstances. And I really appreciate your even tone and your good attitude that you bring. I think it's well known that you're someone that is approachable, and that goes a long way. I think that you listen. You listen to community, and you listen to all the stakeholders. And I think to your credit, that is a real strength. And so I just wanna say thank you, for being that guy.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move on to department matters. Item 15, directors' announcements.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: Just quickly, one, thank you all for that. But, you know, I wanna congratulate Sarah Dennis Phillips too. She has been great to work with as a partner at OEWD. You know, she's got got tremendous experience stepping into this role. We've already been been meeting, obviously, and talking over the last couple weeks about the transition. And so, you know, I I can't think of someone better qualified to to step in and and take on this role. But I think the planning staff is excited for the for the transition and for her to for her to to take on the role. So looking forward to to her tenure. And thank you all for for everything you've you've done. I I kinda say a lot, like, I don't have great ideas. I get them from the community, from the staff, from you all, you know, and consider myself more of kind of an implementer and moving forward and kind of picking and picking those great ideas and moving them forward. I don't think I could have done this job, you know, me personally, without serving on this commission for seven years. You know, it was where it's kind of where we interact with the community and kind of tackle the big issues. So it was invaluable. I know what a tough job it is at times, if you want to call it a job. I know you don't get paid tremendously for this. But I applaud you all in the service you take. Thanks for being a good boss. I don't think you've ever denied any of my vacation requests. So I appreciate it. And yeah, all the best. Thanks.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, commissioners. Item 16, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals. There was no Historic Preservation Commission hearing yesterday.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Aaron Stark, Manager of Legislative Affairs. Happy pride. Thankfully, this will be a quick, board report since the land use was canceled this week. And then at the full board, the, projecting signs, neighborhood commercial and residential commercial districts sponsored by supervisor Cheryl. This allows two signs on corner businesses in NC districts, passed its second read. And then the, mayor's ordinance, for interim housing in hotels and motels also passed its second read. Unfortunately, I don't have anything prepared for the director's absence or leaving. That's too bad. But I will say thank you for humoring my eccentricities up here. And you'll be missed. Thanks.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Alright. Good afternoon, president and commissioners. Corey Teague, zoning administrator. The Board of Appeals, did not meet last night, but they met last week. And so since your last hearing, they did consider two items that are of interest to the planning commission. First, again, 695 Rhode Island. I spoke about this a few weeks ago. This was a a two family or two unit building proposed in addition. It came to this commission in 2019 as a discretionary review and that was the commission at that time unanimously voted not to take Doctor. That moved forward, took time during the pandemic, finally got issued, but there were then code changes that caused the rear yard requirements to no longer be met. So we've been taking the time to go through that process and get it fully approved. The appellant was the same as the Doctor requester. The only new issue that was raised this time was a a complaint that the property contained an unauthorized dwelling unit. And that was not an issue that was raised previously. We did go through that full review process to determine if there was, in fact, an unauthorized dwelling unit there, and we determined there was not. At the hearing, basically, entire hearing was focused on the factors that go into determining and how the department determines if there is or is not a UDU present on the site. So there was a lot of questions and investigation into that. But ultimately, they did vote unanimously to deny the appeal. They agreed that no unauthorized unit was existing on the site per the standards that we used to make that determination. And then there was an appeal of a building permit for 807 44th Avenue, and the appeal was by the applicant because that permit had been denied. This was another case where there was a single family home with a UDU. They were proposing to legalize the UDU on the Ground Floor, but they were proposing to provide an internal connection between the units. There is a long standing zoning administrator interpretation from 1993 that basically says that type of open internal connection is is a merger. It's tantamount to being one a single unit because it could easily be used that way. They were informed of that and still wanted to appeal that. That that was the issue there. Of note, the property owner proposed this arrangement because of their elderly father who had health needs and needs home health personnel to live in the building. We do have a separate process for that, a reasonable modification process where you can have certain things waived under the code to help provide accommodations for people with disabilities. So they they still have that option to go through that if they qualify for that. And the board found that, especially because we do have a process specifically for this, that it would make much more sense for them to potentially go that process than to essentially grant what we would consider a merger under the code now without planning commission authorization. So they did also vote unanimously to deny that appeal as well. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there are no questions, we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Speaker 21.0]: Good afternoon. Georgia Shutish. I sent you an email on, June 19, and I I want to try to simply portray the issue that I've talked about too much probably. In 2003, the commission determined the project to be a demolition, not an alteration, and it was denied and the staff had recommended approval. And there were no demo calcs as a definition at that time. And then after 2008, projects were reviewed using the section three seventeen demo calcs, and they were approved as alterations by staff even though they had the same scope of work as the project in 2003. So if you looked at those elevations that I sent in the email on this June 19, you know, you saw horizontal and vertical expansion and facade. I'll use the word obliteration because that's what happened. And that was also a pair of flats, the one in 2003. So I hope you'll look at that and and and think about that because my questions that I have are, why was the 2003 major alteration project determined to be a demolition by the commission at that time based on the scope of work? And then why are so many post 2008 section three seventeen major alteration projects not determined to be demolitions. And I think that you can say that the findings of section three seventeen have not been met all these years. And so I will again ask the commission to at least consider using their legislative authority granted under section three seventeen b two d to adjust the calcs to preserve sound housing per the findings. You've never had a hearing on that ever, not even just a discussion, nothing written from the staff about it. I've heard verbal from the staff and I appreciate that. You know? They say, well, just go up to the the the the threshold if you reduce it five to 10%. Well, you can reduce it 20, and it could have been reduced twenty percent two times in the last eighteen years. So I hope you'll look at that email from the nineteenth. It's a very simple comparison, but I think it gets to the point of these projects. I also hope you'll see the email if you hadn't seen it, the one I sent on the seventeenth about your special agenda.

[Speaker 22.0]: And I'll just say

[Speaker 23.0]: that it's very important to deal with

[Speaker 21.0]: this definition of demolition, as you know. And I'll say, have a great Friday, director Hillis. Enjoy yourself. Don't don't have too much partying. Thank you. Thanks for everything.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Oh, I'm

[Speaker 21.0]: sorry. Here's my 150 words for the minutes. Thank you.

[Virginia Barker (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I would like to thank commissioners Moore, Imperial, and Williams for your action of leaving the recent meeting that related to the appointment of the new director. Regardless of her qualifications, I really, really appreciate the wisdom and strength of character that you exhibited to stand up for the integrity of your office, of the commissioner's office, and the integrity of the process of good communication and community involvement. It's because you, as commissioners, are representing the community. So thank you for that. It has not gone unnoted. Really, really, really appreciate that and hope all of you will defend and act in a way that demands an honest process with integrity for all matters that are before you. Thank you.

[Daniel Sherrick (President, Diamond Heights Community Association)]: Good afternoon. Thank you for providing the opportunity for us to speak today. My name is Daniel Sherrick, and I am the president of the Diamond Heights Community Association. And my comments today will be dealing in general, with wireless cellular, facilities in the city. The comments should take about two minutes. We all know and share a common goal and understanding that San Francisco needs and wants to have good cellular coverage. We also know we want it in the safest and best possible ways, without the community impacts and harms caused by such facilities, that may be inappropriately placed near residential homes and parks. For this reason, it is imperative that the planning commission, along with the members of our community, become fully informed on the diverse and significant impacts of placing such facilities so close to residential homes and parks. There are a number of outstanding questions that need to be answered and an array of substantial concerns among residents. For this reason, we are formally requesting that the Planning Commission hold a presentation with Doctor. Kent Chamberlin of the New Hampshire Commission. Doctor. Chamberlain wrote a commission, wrote to the Commission on June 21 about this issue and the New Hampshire Commission is a formal state commission established to study the impacts of cellular facilities on communities. Doctor. Chamberlain presents on the Commission's findings and best practice engineering solutions to policy makers all over the country. His thirty minute presentation to the Planning Commission would be followed by a Q and A to address any points that need further clarification. In conclusion, at this juncture, it's clear that the comprehensive knowledge doctor Chamberlain is able to provide as a no cost public service to our city is much needed. In alignment with the Commission's findings and what Doctor. Chamberlain has already shared with you via his letter, we know that there are many issues that need to be further understood and investigated as we discuss putting further facilities so close to homes and parks. Doctor. Chamberlain can help navigate all of these critical issues. Thank you.

[Fred Randolph (Diamond Heights Resident)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for hearing our public comments. My name is Fred Randolph. I'm a resident of Diamond Heights Village in Diamond Heights, San Francisco. I'm before you to talk about cell phone communications in San Francisco and to request that the planning commission hold a presentation from doctor Kent Chamberlain of the New Hampshire State Commission prior to voting or taking any kind of forward action on approval of this of any matters pertaining to cell phone communication. Doctor. Chamberlain is an unbiased national expert and can guide the planning commission towards safer and better engineering solutions for our community. He can also provide guidance to our policy makers and our community in making well informed decisions regarding the placement of cell towers now and moving forward. The landscape with cell towers and cellular infrastructure has changed in ways that require our further knowledge and attention. For example, these cellular towers are now requiring larger and larger antenna structures. Cell towers are not benign entities. There are a number of serious concerns associated with them, which is why adhering to proper zoning and safe siting is essential. Issues with allowing cell towers near homes and schools are now happening all over the country as the telecommunications industry attempts to expand their wireless markets. This is prompting communities to update their ordinances regarding such cell towers. Because safety and neighborhood aesthetics must be a policymaker's priority, it is important to recognize that the telecommunication industry's business interests may not be coordinated with our community interests and well-being. Understanding the serious repercussions of approving a conditional use authorization for communications towers in such close proximity to families who want to remain in their homes, maintain the investment they made in their homes, and for children who need to play on their playgrounds safely is therefore vital. Doctor. Chamberlain can share this information as well as provide the better solutions that are both doable and available to us. We hope that you desire to become fully informed in all the ways necessary prior to considering wireless facility sightings and thus proceed with doctor Chamberlain's educational presentation prior to the public hearing scheduled for 07/24/2025. Thank you very much.

[Betsy Eddy (Resilient Diamond Heights Coordinator)]: Good afternoon, commissioners and staff. My name is Betsy Eddy, and I'm a former president of the Diamond Heights Community Association and current coordinator of Resilient Diamond Heights that has been working since 2008 to prepare plans and provide resources on how we're going to face and survive whatever emergencies or disasters come our way. But I'm here to, support the request to have doctor Kent Chamberlain provide an information session for you on changes in wireless communication facilities. He would give an unbiased science and engineering presentation that would inform you, as like the previous two speakers, for future issues or with with other antenna issues that come up. Therefore, I'm really earning urging the planning commission to meet with doctor Kent Chamberlain and to participate in his educational presentation as a good practice, as a show to our community that you are committed to being meaning meaningfully in informed and up to date on best practices about the most current cell tower technology. And what are the alternatives to solutions to this technology. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[David Flynn (Public Commenter)]: Hey, guys. It's David Flynn. Thank you, director Hillis, for your service and for coming out to that one restaurant. I went back to Davis actually, and there are a lot of houses, a lot more than I remember. So they are doing a pretty good job. But I just wanted to also add on to what they were saying about cell towers. I had a friend who climbed one of those things, and it was pretty powerful. Like, that stuff, it it can make you go pretty much infertile. So, yeah, five g does cause autism, so do vaccines, and especially the Internet. Like, do you guys, like, see do you guys see, like, Instagram and and that? Like, this this this rots your brain. It's terrible. It's awful. I think it turned a lot of people autistic, and I think we should abolish the Internet. I also wanted to talk about Candlestick Park. I just wanted to say Candlestick Park is a thing. I know the forty niners suck. I know Christian McCaffrey is gonna get injured again, and they're gonna lose. I'm a Raiders fan, but you guys should build something there. It'd be a pretty nice place to put a football stadium. I think there was one there before, but it's now just a bunch of homeless people in RVs. Yeah. I've seen a lot of these construction approval things. I just wanted to say I'm very proud of you guys for considering that housing is an issue here. And thank you, and good luck, director Hillis.

[Susana Rojas (Executive Director, Calle 24 Latino Cultural District)]: Good afternoon, president President Zoh and commissioners. My name is Susana Rojas. I am the executive director of Latino Cultural District. Was created because of the mass displacement caused by the gentrification of our community and the removal of our cultural assets. We understood that having a designated cultural district was not going to give us the protections we needed. We needed, a multi pronged approach that included design guidelines, mural protections, business protection through legacy business status, and a special use district to stabilize our small businesses and our commercial corridor. It provides an even playing field for our small immigrant business that

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: could I'm sorry to interrupt you. Are you speaking to the priority processing Yes. Commercial uses? So this is general public comment for things that are not on today's agenda. When we get to that matter, we'll give you the opportunity to speak to you. I was on a row,

[Susana Rojas (Executive Director, Calle 24 Latino Cultural District)]: but I'll wait. Thank you. I know you were.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I know you were. Sorry to interrupt. Sorry to interrupt. Last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. Commissioners, we can now move on to your regular calendar for item 17, case number 2025Hyphen002733 PCA for the noncomplying and accessory structures planning code amendment.

[Audrey Maloney (Planner, Item 17 presenter)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. We have supervisor En Gardio here to speak on their ordinance before I give the staff presentation.

[Supervisor Joel Engardio (District 4)]: Good afternoon, president Tsao and members of the planning commission and director Hillis. My name is Joel Engadio. I'm the supervisor for the Sunset District. The legislation this legislation was born out of the frustration that District 4 residents feel when they're dealing with lots of headaches when they want to improve or fix a long standing rear yard structure. So on the West Side, many homeowners have backyard garden sheds, decks, and stairways, and these structures have existed for decades without inspections, complaints, or stamped permits. But the moment a homeowner decides to start on a basic improvement project, they're required to navigate our complex building and planning codes. And this can be a daunting experience and one that can cost months of delays, thousands of dollars, and even critical life safety issues. So imagine receiving a notice of violation for a rear yard encroachment that puts a home renovation project on hold or halts the reconstruction of a crucial emergency exit stairway. So it shouldn't have to be this way. And you shouldn't have to have a law degree to know what can and cannot be done with your rear yard. So we need to make the government less confusing and more accessible to regular residents and a simple home improvement project like a storage shed, a deck, or the renovation of a pop out sunroom should not require a public hearing, countless hours of navigating code with building building and planning staff or the prospect of steep fines and penalties. This legislation intends to clarify what people can do with their backyards. And I wanna thank exemplary exemplary planning staff, Audrey Maloney, Aaron Starr, Corey Teague, Liz Waddy, and deputy city attorney Rob Kapla for their thoughtful collaboration with my office on this legislation. We all know that yards are valuable open spaces, and I know that that the staff diligently explored every possible project scenario to ensure that the right controls remain in place to protect these spaces. So thank you, president Tsao and members of the planning commission. I hope to have your support on this item today. Thank you.

[Audrey Maloney (Planner, Item 17 presenter)]: Thank you to supervisor En Gardeo. I do have a PowerPoint presentation, and I have, handouts for the commissioners. And for the public, we have several extra copies there on the table. SFGovTV, if I could please get the laptop. So as supervisor En Gardio mentioned, this ordinance has to do with making, it easier to make rear yard structures that have often been in existence for many people's backyards, a little bit easier to repair, replace, and relocate, especially if it's needed for life safety issues. The first change is to what kind of accessory structures we would allow within the required rear yard. When we say accessory structure, we're typically thinking about things like gardening sheds or play structures. However, we've noticed that since the pandemic, there's been a rise in things like crafting sheds or spaces that people use as their home offices. The code is currently not clear about what these accessory structures can and cannot include, so the ordinance would call out exactly what may or may not be included inside these structures or as part of them. And it would also allow these sheds to be slightly larger, but still no taller than our maximum allowable fence height, which is 10 feet. The next proposed change has to do with how we handle our existing non complying structures in our required rear or side yards. So as a quick reminder, a non complying structure is either a building or a part of a building that was built legally with the proper permits at the time, but it would not meet today's planning code standards. These kinds of structures include things like decks, small additions, fences, the accessory structures I mentioned in the last slide, and retaining walls. Historically, the planning code has aimed to bring these types of structures into compliance over time. The idea is that you can make repairs, but you can't replace or relocate the structure or change it in any way that would make it more non compliant with the planning code. The problem is, in many cases, we have structures that need to be altered just to meet life and safety standards under building code requirements. Because they're not allowed to be replaced, what ends up happening is that people have to try to patch them together using, you know, materials over time, that are trying to stretch the the shed or the structure past its usable lifespan. To address this, the proposed ordinance would take a little bit different approach, and it would allow these non complying structures in required yards to replace in kind and even allow an increase in nonconformity with the planning code if those changes are required by the Department of Building Inspection for life and safety reasons. The third change this ordinance would make is in regard to unpermitted structures in required yards. Unlike non complying structures, unpermitted structures were built without any required approval or permit. Just like non complying structures though, unpermitted structures cannot increase their nonconformity with the planning code. Unlike non complying structures, unpermitted structures are not allowed to make even minor fixes or changes unless the entire structure is being brought up to code. The department has found that these types of long standing but unpermitted rear yard structures are very common across the city. They're usually small additions or backyard sheds, usually built by past building owners, often with the current property owner not even realizing that they are unpermitted. Another problem that we've found with these unpermitted structures is in their enforcement. So as you all know, the department's enforcement program is based on complaints. This means an enforcement action is triggered by a single complaint or report, and that can result in enforcement against one unpermitted structure while a similar unpermitted structure remains nearby. To address this, the ordinance would treat certain older unpermitted structures like non compliant ones. So the ordinance would say that if a residential structure was built in a required yard before the year 2003 in an RH, RM, or RTO district, it could stay and even be repaired or replaced without needing a variance as long as it's not getting bigger or moving closer to property lines unless those things are required to meet the building code. And lastly, the proposed ordinance would require the city to refund applicants who sought a variance after 01/01/2021, that if the variance was for an accessory structure that was too large under current code standards, but would have met the standards proposed in the ordinance, which again is to, the structure can be up to 10 feet tall and no more than a 120 square feet large. The structure also would have had to have existed since at least 01/01/2003. The department is supportive of the ordinance and would like to extend our thanks to supervisor and Gardia's office for their many hours of collaboration on its drafting. As such, we have just a few minor recommended modifications. The first is to ensure that we are clear that accessory structures may not be used as dwelling units. This can be accomplished by stating that full bathrooms and sleeping quarters are not permitted in accessory structures. The second recommended modification is to ensure that we're not getting caught in our own language regarding the placement of structures that are moved around in a required yard. So right now, the ordinance says if a structure needs to be moved in order to comply with the building code, it must be moved further away from property lines, which means that technically a structure can't be moved at the same distance that it currently is from property lines. And so we'd like to ensure that that is clarified. The current word wording also prevents the replacement and construction of fire rated walls along property lines. So we'd like to add language that states that firewalls are exempt from this relocation provision. And lastly, we are recommending that the refund provision from the ordinance be removed. This is because unlike other refund programs that your your commission has normally seen through other pieces of legislation and that we've been initiating lately. The one proposed in this ordinance would issue refunds on application where work was done correctly by staff and was following the law of the day. Approving refunds like this would set a precedent that code changes justify refunds for past applications that may now meet updated rules, but did not meet the code standards at the time of the application. That concludes my presentation. I believe, supervisor Engadio's office is here along with Corey Teague and Liz Waddy who were all instrumental in drafting this ordinance if you have any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. You need to come forward.

[Serena Calhoun (Architect)]: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Serena Calhoun. I'm a local architect. I've been practicing in San Francisco for about twenty four years now. I am in strong support of this legislation. For one thing, the planning code and the building code are in conflict on this matter. Building codes do not require permits for anything built that's a 120 square feet or less, and the planning code currently only has a 100 square feet. So there's a conflict in the code, and this would help clean that up. I think I'm here because I have a client that has a meditation space in their rear yard that was done in a Japanese style with very long roof overhangs, and it's on a hill, and it's a little complicated. Approval of this legislation would really help them, gain planning support to deal with their violation. But I do see these a lot and I absolutely agree with the intent of this code that was cited that this violations of planning can take a year. Attorneys are often involved at expensive costs to property owners, and this would be a nice thing to clean up. I wanna just flag a couple small things. The the legislation as written says a 120 square feet as measured at grade. I wanna be clear that it's either an interior dimension. If you go with an exterior dimension on a hill where there's a retaining wall, there'll be a loss of square footage for the exterior wall structure. So I would encourage thinking a 120 square feet interior in which is consistent with the building code. I would also maybe allow for, some exemptions if there are existing roof eaves that are longer than a foot. And the height structure that they've set is at 10 feet above grade, but on sites that have a slope. And it's it's said to the top of the structure, and the planning code generally says to the midpoint of a pitched roof. So there's a little bit of an inconsistency there with how the planning code would interpret height versus this piece of legislation and then where to measure it from if it's in the rear yard because planning often uses the sidewalk, the front curb as the place that sets the height limit. So So when you're on a slope lot, I think there's gonna be a little confusion in how to interpret this for some of these structures, so I would just encourage a little cleanup. And director Hillis, gonna miss you so much personally, but I think also he's done such a great job of building a relationship with the local AIA, and I'm the cochair of the PPAC committee. And it's been wonderful working with you and seeing under your leadership the massive improvements to permit streamlining and processing and then planning processes. So you'll be missed. Thank you.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Lebron.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I I generally support the intent of this ordinance, and I appreciate supervisor and guardian bringing this forward. I do have a couple of questions and follow-up items about it. And so they're kind of in the details of this, though. So for the 01/01/2003 date for the cutoff date for determining whether a project has non complying status. Is that sort of an arbitrary year and span of time? Is it just because we have the Eagle View aerials for that period and we're trying to make sure we're capturing long standing conditions?

[Audrey Maloney (Planner, Item 17 presenter)]: That's a great question, commissioner Braun. And the answer is yes. The EagleView pictometry software that we have goes back to for some parts of the city, it does go back to images as far as 2002. But we know for the entire city, as of 01/01/2003, we have aerial images that are clear enough of any particular spot in the city that we can know what the existing conditions were of the rear yard at that time. And so that's why there's that kind of seemingly arbitrary date because that's as far as our data goes back to understand the existing conditions on the lot.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for thinking that through. It makes sense. And I do appreciate trying to find some way to identify structures that actually have been in place for a long time, so we're not creating an incentive to, try to sneak in something newer under this, and call it non complying existing non complying. The I I am curious, from the public comment that we just received about how this functions. I mean, do do at this time, do staff have any reaction to these how the requirements of this ordinance might align or misalign with other practices in our planning showed how we determine

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I'm have yeah. Happy to jump in on it. I mean, I think those are all really good recommendations. I think we would wanna just take them back and work with the supervisor's office. Certainly, a big goal of this was to align with the building code.

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

[Speaker 32.0]: So on that

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: first part that Audrey went over of aligning the 120 square feet. So I do think on that section, it's prudent for us to calculate that space in the same way that the building department would calculate the space because that's the whole spirit of that, amendment. So I think that's a really valid point. I also think we can absolutely make sure that the the code language is really clear about, you know, how we're measuring height, if it if it does deviate from how we normally do it for the sake of an accessory structure that we're at explicit about it and thoughtful around it. And similarly with sort of overhang and eve projections and things like that. Those are all very pragmatic helpful suggestions. And I'm I'm sure the supervisor's office, we can sit down and and work through that to make sure that it's super clear for everyone. Again, that's one of the big goals of this is to make sure that the rules are really clear.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for that. And lastly, my only other question is I'm curious to hear the supervisor's reactions to three staff, recommend modifications. So that is, clarifying that detached structures in the yard may not have sleeping quarters, or a full bathroom. And the second was allowing non complying structures to be relocated at the same distance for property lines as the existing and not issuing refunds for those projects back to 2021.

[Supervisor Joel Engardio (District 4)]: Yeah. I support those recommendations. At the bottom line, like like, it was said from the planning staff, people are using these restructures in new and different ways, especially since the pandemic. You know? We heard a meditation space, a writer's workshop, or a she shed, I guess they call them, or whatever it is, or man cave. I don't know. But we just wanna make sure people can live their best life and have what they need, but not go crazy. Right? So totally in line with those recommendations.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Great. And I especially I I do agree with the staff recommendation number three about not setting the precedent with issuing refunds for when we've done things properly under the existing rules and then the rules change. So thank you. Okay. So I mean, I support this legislation with the staff modifications, and I think there might be a little more work to do based on the comments we just received. But, yeah, this has my my full support in order to really avoid creating a situation where people with really long standing situations in their rear yards that are not causing significant harm or distress for those around them to not have to go through really painful and expensive hoops just to keep them in compliance with the building code. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: My first question is to acknowledge Ms. Calhoun asking questions regarding height, particularly when it comes to sheds potentially having pitched roofs. And as miss Waddie said, the questions will be forwarded and considered. Perhaps you have an intermediate answer.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Sure. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Corey Teague, zoning administrator. So what was referenced is that we do kind of have two different ways that we measure the height of structures in the code. As you are aware, for primary structures, if we're measuring how high something is relative to your height district, we if you have a flat roof, you're at you're measuring to the roof level. If you have a pitched roof, you're measuring to the midpoint of that. For, structures that are in the rear yard, the measurement as it is in the code now and has been as you measure from grade because those are accessory structures within the context of the rear yard, not necessarily within the context of what's happening at the front of the street. So it's intended to be responsive to the the yard itself and the grade. As you can imagine, if you had a downsloping lot, if you're measuring from the front, you can have rear yard structures that are multiple stories, etcetera. So that's the way it is now and that's the way it's proposed to stay in in this ordinance. And the way it is now too with these structures is that it's to the top of the structure, not to the midpoint. That's the way it has been. Obviously, whether or not we were there was a proposal to amend that to go to mid slope of a pitched route for these types of structures is something that can be discussed.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: It's an interesting discussion because that particular interpretation limits the usefulness of the structure a little bit more to its original intent for shed, etcetera, etcetera. But I'm not weighing in on it one way or the other. I'm sure it will be discussed further. What is interesting to me, I'm directing my comments to supervisor and guard you. The phenomenon you describe in your district, that is District 4, sounds very, very exceptional to me. I live in a different district where that particular phenomenon would not be happening, and that is where I would start directing my questions to you. In my district, we have earthquake shacks. Are they being considered in your discussion here? Because they fall under very special guardianship and historic preservation guidelines. Do you have earthquake shacks in your district?

[Supervisor Joel Engardio (District 4)]: Not that I'm aware of. We had, like there's a few, like, back in, like, when there's just sand dunes out in the sunset. We have a few structures that still exist. I forget the name they were called, but they're very few and far in between out in the very, very outer, outer sunset. But in nineteen o six, like, most of the sunset was sand dunes. There weren't people living out there at that time. I I don't believe.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: That is I I do not really know as to whether or not they were out there. However, they fall under the particular category of, consideration. And if your legislation is to be speaking citywide, I would think that there need to be some significant attention to that subject matter. So that is just but I appreciate your

[David Flynn (Public Commenter)]: Mhmm.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: In saying that you don't really quite know.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: And can we start with So I was just gonna say to add into that, if there was an earthquake shack, it's absolutely something that we review under CEQA. So I think where this would actually help is on sort of the third component of this ordinance. Those clearly would be on the aerial photos from at least 2003, well well before then. And if we could prove that and they were in a level of disrepair, but we, from a policy perspective, wanted them to be preserved and retained, This would enable folks to be able to do the repair and maintenance work, to upgrade an earthquake shack in place without having to get technically a demolition new new construction, you know, if there was severe water damage or things like that. It gives a little greater latitude to be able to repair those in kind. But we would, for sure, have oversight and scrutiny from a historic preservation, making sure the detail of quality was appropriate.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Thank you for saying that, but I'll just throw out a couple of other thoughts, not necessarily looking for an immediate answer, just kind of layering in that there are other questions some of us might have. I come from a district where many lots are significantly smaller and quite irregular, and I'm wondering how this particular legislation would play itself out in particular in the part of the city where the lots are smaller. They are not the typical 25 by 100, but they are perhaps 23 by 70 or even all the way down to 60. And in those particular situations, should there be shacks or tool sheds, it becomes more complicated to deal with loosening up what can happen with them. The next thing is, in a way, I am wondering, and I'm looking to staff, perhaps yourself, we have looked for accessory structures actually becoming ADUs in the backyard. And in what way do do does this loosening up of the use of tool sheds hinder or promote adding ADUs?

[Supervisor Joel Engardio (District 4)]: Well, I think we don't we're not gonna allow any sleeping quarters in these particular sheds. So we wanna make sure an ADU is an ADU and a shed is a shed. You know, I I I heard from a constituent just last week who said I'm she said I'm six months pregnant and and I or we I need more storage space and when is your legislation going to happen? So I I don't think their family needs an ADU, but they need a shed for some reason. But other families, might have a elderly parent or a child adult child coming back from college, and they might want an ADU so someone can live, you know, in a separate quarters but be close by. So that would be a separate separate issue and, actually, legislation that I'm working on as well, to ensure that people can really do with what do with do what they need with their home, whether it's a shed or an ADU.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: And and maybe just one additional, scenario here that I think is worth noting, for the replacement of unpermitted structures, how this could help for, scenarios. We have seen some scenarios where somebody has, a dwelling unit that's in the rear yard. And oftentimes, if they have to do a significant amount of alterations to it to the point where it would trigger demolition, it wouldn't change that needing to necessarily come before the planning commission for a dwelling unit, demolition rebuild if they wanted to rebuild it in kind. But it would eliminate the need for a variance, which is often sometimes sort of a policy conflict that we're we have to grapple with where we obviously want that unit to be rebuilt. And that oftentimes, that space is the only space on the lot where it makes sense to rebuild it. But technically, it's hard for us to often encourage and proactively ask an applicant to file for a variance because that is a different, you know, there's a different policy threshold than there is for a CU for for seeking a variance. And so this takes away some of those elements where we can think about it more just from a in that case. Again, those are the fewer scenarios where it's a dwelling unit in the rear yard, but it, again, it opens up a a little bit more flexibility in those scenarios than what we currently have today.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: What I was actually trying to drive was was my question is I like us to see to prioritize ADUs over storage sheds. There's just simply under the legislation that I think is innovative and really allows us to densify in outlying residential areas to basically add density rather than creating more accessible living space with storage is. I'll leave that just as a comment. The next thing I would like to ask is, in higher density residential district, which are close in, the mid block open space is a very big issue. And any kind of obstruction, including moving sheds, and some in these situations, there are sheds, moving them around and creating discontinuity in mid block open space is a big public policy issue. Is that anything that applies to your district?

[Supervisor Joel Engardio (District 4)]: Well, can I defer to planning staff on that question?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Thank you. Yep. Yes. Audrey, please.

[Audrey Maloney (Planner, Item 17 presenter)]: Thank you, supervisor Moore. I think what you're asking about, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is, with some of these unpermitted structures that are already in existence, the idea that we would allow them to be moved to a different location in the rear yard. Is that correct?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Yes. That is the point.

[Audrey Maloney (Planner, Item 17 presenter)]: Great. I I think my response would be that these structures already exist, and all we're saying is that they can be placed somewhere else in the yard only if building code says it's a life safety issue for them to exist in the location that they are currently at. And so to me, I would think that, life safety being prioritized for something being relocated would be better for the neighbors, even if it is in a different position that might obstruct mid block open space from a different purview. But again, the structure wouldn't be getting any larger or taller unless building code also requires that. So these are structures that have been in place since at least 2003. And if it's a small backyard, I would presume that relocation, if required by the building code, would not be that significant in and of itself. And it wouldn't be reducing the mid block open space. It would just be placing the structure somewhere else within the mid block open space.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: There would be no public notification. It would just happen. Is that correct?

[Audrey Maloney (Planner, Item 17 presenter)]: There would be a a building permit would need to be filed just as there is with everything else. And so, no. There would be no public notification in the sense that a variance would not be required, but they would still have to file for a building permit.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Okay. That answers my questions. Thank you very

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: much. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I like anything that helps streamline and bring clarity, so I I won't opine too much on this because I'm in full support. I did appreciate the pragmatic suggestions made in public comment and appreciate that we're gonna factor that in. It got me thinking a little bit about how, I know in other circumstances, like design standards and things like that, we allow the, the planning director up to 10%, you know, variability or discretion, I should say. And I'm just thinking, is that something we could apply in these types of changes, knowing that there's different site conditions and maybe buildings have, you know, eaves or something like that. Like, could we allow for that kind of could we build in that kind of flexibility up to 10% so that it empowers us to not have to get overly prescriptive?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Are you referring in terms of the the shed height or dimension, things

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Exactly.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Relating to that component? I mean, it's up to this commission if they wanna make the recommendation, ultimately, the supervisor. So I think that's certainly something you can suggest. I think our our feeling was that the the recommendations that we were proposing introduced a fair amount of flexibility beyond what it currently is. So I think we were comfortable with knowing that, you know, if, for example, if a firewall is needed along the side of a stair, that the stair, you know, doesn't have to be purely an in kind replacement, but could increase in height so that there's a fire protection between two properties. So so allowing for a deviation, but really letting the the life safety code be the driver of that deviation rather than just somebody wanting a little more square footage. So I think that was the approach that we were taking was that this was more to ensure that a lot of these sheds people had an incentive to to upgrade them the right way

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yep.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: And upgrade especially thinking about fires and, you know, urban conditions that we wanted to eliminate the deterrent from people doing it the right way and really give people an encouragement and an easier path to make sure that the fire and life safety issues can be achieved. So that was our primary focus.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Okay. And then I'd make a motion to adopt a recommendation of approval with the modifications. I second it. Mhmm. Thanks.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I actually appreciate the pragmatic goal of this legislation. And I see in terms of, like, how it affects Guardio's district. And I we've seen here in the commission in those. And I act I also appreciate the planning departments looking into it in a more life safety code issue because those can be actually a safe hazard issues. I you know, so I and commissioner Moore also brought up other issues that may be that perhaps in when it comes to supervisor, to the board of supervisors, other issues in other districts as well. And I think those those probably will also need to be looked at. But as of now, especially with the recommendation of the planning department, I agree with the recommendation of planning department. My only and I think also a lot of consideration on this. For me, I also wanna make sure that these alterations will not be taken advantage in a way that it can create more problems like UDU. And I think that's something that we may need to I guess my question is around the implementation of this. And, you know, I understand that this will be on the complaint basis if the alteration happens to be more than what is being actually allowed in this legislation. But it does call for my understanding as well is that it can alter it can alter it can do alteration and the intensity of it, but at the same time, it's only within the 100 feet intensity and 10 feet height. Is that am I correct on that?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: For the new accessory structures, they'd be limited to 10 feet tall and a 120 square feet. And that's the same size exemption where you don't need a building permit under the building code. So our rules then align so an applicant knows they don't basically need to come into the city at all if they meet that size parameter. So 10 feet, 120 square feet.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And it's and and we're also saying that we're it's not gonna be because it's the expansion is not that much that in a way it cannot really be relocated as well to so it does make sense that that it does not extend the 25% rear yard requirement. Is that my understanding

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: in terms? Because So the accessory structures are inherently in the rear yard. That's sort of the point. So they are in the backyard.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Yeah. But again, the the alteration can be within 120 square feet and 10 feet height.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Exactly. Yeah.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So yeah. So I'm in also in full support with consideration of the recommendation with the planning department. I think my the only, you know, my only, I think, thoughts that the supervisor may consider is for other districts as this will may apply, and how it will look like especially in other areas of mid block open space and other historical, I guess, shacks too. But it looks like we, here in the planning department, we will have that process as well. So I'm in full support of what it, its goals. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. I would like to take this moment to thank you, supervisor and guardio, for your leadership to work with the community and our planning department and building department staff in bringing in a much needed clarity to homeowners on how to properly address their accessory structures. Your efforts to create common sense and equitable pathways towards life saving code compliance have not only demystify a complex process, but also empower residents to preserve and improve their homes with confidence, option, and fairness. I'm here to fully support your legislation. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I I just had a a question that it does has there been any, search to see how many of these structures actually exist around the city?

[Audrey Maloney (Planner, Item 17 presenter)]: Thank you for the question, commissioner Williams. I when looking for an example that's in your staff reports on, I believe, page six, I did my own search. And let's just say they are not uncommon in most backyards, especially in your traditional lots, your 25 by 100 square foot lots. But also in denser parts of the city as well. When looking on pictometry images around Russian Hill, you see that a gardening shed or even a large play structure like a children's playground equipment in the required yard is not uncommon. But we don't have an official count, if that's what you're asking.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. Yeah. One of the things that comes to mind in regards to what Commissioner Moore was referring to is, did I read right that there's going to be a wet bar allowed in some plumbing, a half bathroom? Or is that that's an existing structure that has that stuff already in place?

[Audrey Maloney (Planner, Item 17 presenter)]: I think what we're saying is that right now, section 136 c 23, right? So section 136 lists all of these different types of things that are allowed within your required rear yard. And within that, we have this one called an accessory structure.

[Chair, Chinatown Merchants United Association (name not stated)]: Right.

[Audrey Maloney (Planner, Item 17 presenter)]: Right now, we kind of just give the example of something like a gardening shed or children's play equipment. But in in reality, if they can get the proper building permits that they might need to do things like plumbing, that could be allowed as well as long as they're within that currently 100 square foot, eight foot tall parameter. What we're saying is we want to make it really clear that what you can have and what you can't have. And so when we're saying you can have a wet bar or a half bath, it's not that it's not allowed right now. It's that we're trying to be very clear that you can't have a full bathroom. Because once you say you can have a full bathroom, that could start to become habitable living, sleeping quarters.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Right. Yeah. That's what I was getting to. I would just say that that, you know, that that would be a concern, moving forward, you know, just knowing that folks don't always, after all the the inspections are done, you know, tend to, alter things sometimes. And so that that would be something and which would conflict with the ADU, goals of of San Francisco. And so that was just something off the top of my head that I thought about. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt recommendation for approval with staff modifications on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? No. And commission president Soh? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes five to one with commissioner Moore voting against. Commissioners, through the chair, we will be taking up the next four items together. Item eighteen, nineteen, twenty, and twenty one a and b for case numbers twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero four seven three three PCA. Twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero four seven three four PCA. Twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero four seven three seven PCA. Twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero four seven four zero CRV and PCA for fenestration, transparency, and sign requirements generally, sales and service uses in the c three and our c district planning code amendment, temporary use authorization planning code amendment, building planning codes, existing awning sign, and gate amnesty program design standards for gates, railings, and grill work planning code amendment, rescinding the planning commission's community priority processing program, adoption of resolution, and priority processing for certain commercial use planning code amendment. We will hear from staff and then members of the public.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Jonas, Commissioner Moore wanted to have a comment. It's a

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I have a question.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: She has a question. Is it?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: My question is that I would prefer to take item 21 a and b separately. We received a very a kind of a multi community organization letter late last night or late yesterday afternoon. And I would prefer, given that this is a very complex issue, I spent quite a bit of time with miss Ting, who who dedicated quite a bit of time for me to go through these things. I would like to see 21 a and b discussed separately.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I would like to also hear what is the rationale that from the staff about combining, these items. Thank you.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: I would just mention too, you you could take them up separately and discuss them separately. We can present them and then you can you can kind of deliberate about ones that may be easy and others that you may have questions about.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, that certainly would have been

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: we can take up a vote

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: recommendation is to

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Just walk us through your rationale, then

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Yeah. Sure. We just have four ordinances to present. It made sense to do the presentation in one fell swoop, dividing them separately. You will take each ordinance up separately and do a separate vote. Okay. And then there'll be public comment for the suite of ordinances.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: So to summarize it, like, my understanding is, like, it's, because they're kind of all really related. And so it will be you're gonna give a one presentation, and then we'll take each item accordingly.

[Speaker 35.0]: Yes. You you really do have to

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: vote on each item separately because each one has its own ordinance and its own resolution.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: So Yeah.

[Speaker 36.0]: I was gonna I was

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: just gonna suggest after staff presentation and public comment that you take each ordinance separately. So you have a discussion on the first item and then a discussion on the second item with a obviously a vote after each deliberation.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I think that's acceptable to me.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: It seems that it's yeah. Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. Then we are taking up all four together. Mister Star or miss Tang.

[Speaker 37.0]: Sorry. I have

[Speaker 38.0]: Alright. Good afternoon, commissioners.

[Katy Tang (Executive Director, Office of Small Business)]: And I have a presentation up here on the laptop. Sorry. Thank you.

[Oscar Hernandez Gomez (GIS/Product Designer, Planning Department)]: Yes.

[Katy Tang (Executive Director, Office of Small Business)]: Alright. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Really appreciate you hearing this package of legislation. And I know, and as I was mentioned, it's a lot to review. But, there are so many businesses that can't wait for this legislation to take effect, as they have real on the ground positive impacts for them. I also just wanna really quickly thank Liz Waddy and many of the planning staff who have really worked so hard in collaboration on the legislation. The ones before you today, again, are based on real life examples across hundreds of small businesses that we work with. Small businesses face so many challenges to keep their doors open each day. And so many of the challenges are out of our control. For example, rising insurance costs, electricity costs, the amount of rent they pay, the list goes on. So I think it's important, that when we have the opportunity in local government to make changes to benefit small businesses that we do so. We all say we care about and support small businesses, and I really hope that we can show small business owners we mean it, through our actions. On Monday, the Small Business Commission unanimously supported all of the ordinances we will view here today and have indicated that they would like to see more of these changes coming. So we will certainly be back here with more. So with that, I would just like to share the importance behind the four ordinances today through items eighteen and twenty one.

[Diane (Union & Van Ness Resident)]: All right.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: So I'm gonna switch

[Katy Tang (Executive Director, Office of Small Business)]: to this microphone then. So for item 18 with regards to fenestration, transparency and sign requirements, sales and service uses in the C 3 and also our C District, really if you think about it, there are kind of four categories here that we're addressing. With regards to storefront transparency, our proposal is to exempt certain critical uses from storefront transparency requirements. This came about as we were working with, someone who runs a childcare facility in a busy commercial corridor. They, received a complaint, that they were violating the planning code requirements and had their, facade a 100% non transparent, really in thinking about the safety of the children. And so, they were very upset that they received this complaint. And so while we were working on this legislation, thought that along with childcare facilities with regards to other uses such as churches, mortuaries, schools, reproductive health clinics, and those sorts that they should also be exempted from the transparency requirement. With regards to business signs, the proposal is to remove permit requirement for business signs, basically applied on building facades, window signs, and also interior signs. And I'll also let mister Aaron Starr get into some of the amendments that will be proposed and discussed or recommendations. But this really came about from actually hundreds of complaints that were filed against businesses for unpermitted signs. You'll see here in the photos some real life examples. In the middle photo where there's actually vinyl application of these characters on the facade, they have an outstanding complaint. They've come to the permit center multiple times, spent hours there trying to legalize the signage for their business. And same with the photo on the right as well. The neon sign in the window hanging with fish wire as well as any interior signs, those actually do require permits or approval from the city. And so we're trying to make it as easy as possible for businesses, to do what they do best, which is to run their business and not have to worry about dealing with all of these complaints, that then end up costing them a lot of time and money. Next in the same legislation under item 18 has to do with downtown uses. The proposals that principally permit certain non retail sales and service uses on the ground floor, only within the c three districts. So those include office, business services, and trade offices, and for a time limit period until 2030 only as we're trying to encourage more people to come back, to work in person in office, and really spur the activity downtown. What you'll see here are some examples of, at least on the bottom left and the top circle, example of a building over Downtown Montgomery Street where there's been some recent activation of the space where people are working, and there's a cafe as well, and then a proposal also that I believe came before you on the on the bottom photo as well. And this is really good for small businesses when people come back to work in person. They're supporting the surrounding small businesses, the coffee shops, the restaurants. We've heard loud and clear from them that with people more and more so telecommuting that their businesses are also hurting. So I know that when we think about downtown, we tend to think about, you know, the bigger companies and offices, but really there's a huge impact to our smaller businesses there as well. And then lastly on this one, with regards to residential commercial districts, the proposal is to ease the filling of non ground floor vacancies within residential commercial districts. So that would principally permit retail sales and service uses and also non retail sales and service uses at the 2nd Floor and above. And we do have examples here, including the one shown here on Van Ness Avenue where they received a complaint. They'd have to vacate the space otherwise because they wouldn't be permitted. And I think in a time where we're really striving to get these spaces filled whether on the Ground Floor or above, we really just want activity happening. We want economic, generation. And so, I know that there are also, members of supervisor Cheryl's office and also supervisor Dorsey's office here who will, speak to this item later on recommendations. So that's for item 18. Then moving on to item 19, which has to do with the temporary use authorizations. You'll see in the graphic on the right that currently there are about 19 different categories for temporary use authorizations, and they could be for things like, for example, the farmer's market that takes place in the Outer Sunset in an RH 1 district. Temporary use authorizations have been a great way for small businesses as they're just starting out especially to test their concepts and see if it works, and then hopefully graduate and move on to a storefront. One example is Gumbo Social, which had been, selling delicious gumbo, I hope you've tried it, at the Outer Sunset Farmers Market, every Sunday for a while. And then, opened up recently or I should say in the last year or so, their storefront brick and mortar location on 3rd Street in Bayview. So that was really exciting to see how this really helped, again, them get into and build a customer base for their 3rd Street location. So, again, this, TUA kind of is more of a reorganization of the code to make it more abundantly clear, what is a retail pop up, more clearly define the, maximum allowable time, and, really just simplify it so we're no longer having 19 different categories for TUAs, making it easier for, businesses to navigate. With regards to item 20, this has to do with awnings, signs, and gates, especially the ones that are existing. The proposal is to, at least a proposal before the planning commission. There is a companion piece with Department of Building Inspection, but the piece before you would allow businesses with security gates to participate in the amnesty program first and foremost and then also ease the transparency requirements for security gates allowing them to be a 100% solid. So we are currently actually working with about a 100 different businesses that are facing planning code violations right now because they have security gates, done without, you know they've been installed without permits. I see a couple of the photos here, some examples along, Grant Avenue and Mission Street. Many of these businesses have solid gates, and the reason why is because they are repeatedly getting vandalized and broken into and burglarized. So they're spending so much time and money, repairing their broken windows, their broken doors, replacing inventory. It's just a repeated cycle and so many of them don't find that the scissor gates are actually working for some of the challenges that they're dealing with. So we'd really like to ask again, especially with all of these outstanding businesses that are dealing with these complaints, they would otherwise, if this code is not amended, actually have to take down these gates. They have to remove them, and many of them have been up for about, what, fifty, twenty years or so. And then they have to go ahead and reinstall a new gate with, the new requirements, again, spending a lot of time and money on this. And then lastly, for items 21 a and 21 b, which has to do with the priority, permit processing program, you'll see that, over the years, we've, as San Francisco, faced a horrible reputation for having really challenging, permitting processes for small businesses that are really just trying to to open up shop and offer their, their goods and services to people. And so what we want to do, the proposal is to consolidate the two priority permit processing programs that are currently available to businesses. One is through the planning commission, the community business priority processing program, c b three p, and the other one in the planning code. We wanna consolidate those so that there's just one program in the code. So it's very, very clear for applicants where to look, what the eligibility criteria is because the two programs actually have mostly overlapping criteria, but there are a few key differences and that does make it very confusing. And so when a business finds that they don't they're not eligible for priority processing under one program, they'll just hop over to the other one. And so And so it really doesn't make sense to to ask people to have to navigate that. So, again, we want it all very clear in the code. And, really, at the end of the day, it's really just about those businesses that need a conditional use authorization to have that time certainty to know when they can come before all of you. So, to have that guarantee of a hearing within ninety days of an accepted and completed application, That is so critical for small businesses when they're starting out and they're in undergoing lease negotiations, and they need to know and provide some certainty. Okay. When can I get my approval so I can start my business? And also, to be able to generate some revenue as soon as possible because they're paying rent, they're paying utilities, and so forth. So it's really the timing of when these items are scheduled before the planning commission that has that is most valuable. I mean, one of the most common questions we get from small businesses is how long is it gonna take? How much money is it gonna take for me to be able to open and get these approvals from the city? So that concludes our remarks here from the Office of Small Business. I apologize. I realized I forgot to introduce myself. Katie Chang with the Office of Small Business. And now I'm gonna turn it over to Erin Star from the planning department, and I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: Thank you.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs. As director Tang mentioned, these four instances part of the mayor's permit s f effort. I'll be providing an overview of the changes in each ordinance, but before that, representatives from the board file number 250539 was substituted. The only changes are to the building, code, so they don't impact you at all. But I don't wanna get in trouble with the city attorney, so I'm giving you a copy of it. And there's also, the PowerPoint presentation for you as well.

[Madison Tam (Legislative Aide to Supervisor Matt Dorsey, District 6)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I see director Hillis isn't here. So, I'll I'll just say that I'm gonna miss director Hillis, and we really appreciate his work. But if he comes back before the end of my remarks, I'll say that to him himself. So good afternoon, commissioners. Madison Tam, legislative aide for District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey. First, I'd like to thank the mayor's office and planning staff for all of their diligent work on this package of proposals. These changes will provide a tremendous boost to the neighborhoods that supervisor Dorsey represents. And the supervisor has also been working very diligently on policies to help support our downtown recovery and to help reimagine our neighborhoods for the twenty first century. I'd like to express our support for staff recommendation four that you'll hear in a moment to expand the waiver of the active use requirements through 2,030 to historic buildings in the Rincon Hill downtown residential district. This district neighbors the C3 and faces many of the same challenges, but also opportunities. So we really believe that this would be an important change to help bring new investment to those resources. The city attorney's office is preparing amendments to this effect, so we hope to have your support for this and for the entire package. And Director Hillis, I want to thank you for all the work that you've done with our office and for your many years of service on the depart on the commission and for, in the department. Thanks.

[District 2 Legislative Aide (name not stated)]: Good afternoon, commission president So. Thank you so much, director Tang. First and foremost, I also wanna thank director Hillis for his years of service to this commission and to the department and echo the gratitude, on behalf of district two as well. I am also here to speak on item 18, in support of this legislation and the permit SF initiative from the mayor's team. Thank you again, director Hillis. And I wanted to add to the modifications that were in your package to also recommend what director Tang had mentioned about the Van Ness Corridor, specifically adding the changes to section two zero nine point three that govern RC 3 and RC 4 zoned districts. This ordinance, as written in the planning department's memo, supports downtown revitalization, and I can think of no better corridor that needs revitalization than Van Ness as well. And so what the changes are explicitly is to remove the conditional use authorization required in footnote four of 02/2003 to principally permit retail sales and service uses on all floors in addition to adding a footnote that conditionally allows catering and laboratory on Ground Floor uses in RC 3 and RC 4 zoned districts. Again, this is not just but also in response to an existing business on Van Ness who has filled a long standing vacancy, but is in response to the need for the entire quarter of Van Ness's need for revitalization. Thank you so much. I'm here to answer questions, and thank you again to director Hellos.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Okay. So the four proposed ordinances deal with temporary uses, the Syme amnesty program, priority processing, and the unartfully named fenestration transparency and sign requirements generally sales and service uses in C 3 and RC District. I put the fenestration item last in my presentation, which is out of order on your agenda because we are seeking amendments to that ordinance. So first up, temporary use ordinances seeks to rationalize our temporary use controls. It does some reorganization of the section for clarity and ease of use, but it also makes several substantive amendments to make it easier to open temporary uses in the city. It allows pop up retail uses for initial period of one year with the option to extend for up to three years. Previously, pop up retail was limited to sixty days. Eligible uses would be expanded to include, both entertainment uses and arts activity uses, broadening opportunities for culture and creative temporary uses. The ordinance waives transparency rules for pop up retail for the first sixty days of operation to reduce initial permitting burdens and encourage activation of vacant storefronts. It clarifies that temporary political campaign offices are permitted, recognizing a long standing practice in the city that was not covered in the planning code. So no matter what side of the political divide you are on, you are out of compliance with the planning code currently. It enables twenty four hour temporary uses in all non residential zoning districts, and permits interim activities on eligible development sites across the city. Currently, there is just a specific geography where they're allowed, and including sites with pending entitlement applications. Continuing with, temporary uses. It amends the code to allow affordable housing projects to have any parking related use as an interim activity supporting near term site activation and potential revenue, generation prior to construction. Interim activities on construction sites would be permitted until one of the following occurs, either construction begins, entitlement is withdrawn, or the authorization expired. Previously, this was allowed for thirty six months and could be extended for twelve months at a time. And then, finally, it exempts interim activities from planning code section three eleven notification and districts that typically require neighborhood notice, speeding up activations of site and reducing administrative delay. For the sign amnesty program and security gates, the, the sign amnesty program was started during the pandemic to provide some relief to small businesses. This ordinance expands on that program and also amends our security gate controls to provide further relief for small businesses. So it eliminates the planning code design controls for decorative elements such as wrought iron railings and grill works unless the building is a designated historic landmark. It eliminates existing design standards for security gates in the planning code, again, with an exemption for historic properties. This responds to business owners' concerns that current standards are overly restrictive and difficult to navigate, especially in areas where gates are needed for safety. It expands the planning code amnesty program. The program would then include security gates in the list of eligible features, in addition to previously covered signs and awnings. And for the building code, it adds both signs and security gates to the streamlined legislation process. The next ordinance deals with the priority processing program, which is in the planning code. This is intended to expedite the review and the hearing process for the city's vital small and mid sized businesses without compromising public notice or input. The ordinance consolidates and replaces the 2015

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Mister Straub, would you mind speaking a little bit slower and a little bit louder? We the the audience who's watching us on TV does not have any ability to properly hear you.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Sure. I'll do that. I'll talk louder.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Great. That would be wonderful.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: The ordinance consolidates and replaces the twenty fifteen planning commission priority processing program with an updated citywide priority pressing framework. This streamlining reflects the overlapping provisions in both programs and it eliminates duplication. So form of the retail establishments with fewer than 20 locations would be eligible for priority processing. This change acknowledges the importance of small and emerging chains in contributing to local economic vitality. The ordinance extends eligible projects to the Callebenta Cuatro Cultural District and the North Beach neighborhood. These neighborhoods were previously excluded from the planning codes program despite being home to many small businesses that benefit from expedited review. Note that these areas are currently eligible for the CB3B program. So we're just making that consistent with the planning code program. Neighborhood organizations must now would now have to request a continuance at least one day before the hearing schedule. This requirement preserves opportunities for community input while improving scheduling predictability for applicants. And then the consent calendar would no longer be required. But to be these prod I'm sorry, these projects would no longer be required to be put on the consent calendar. So it allows for scheduling flexibility. However, our default would continue to be have to have these on the consent calendar unless direct otherwise by this commission. And finally, it removes the mandate for annual reporting to the board of supervisors. And then finally, the, fenestration, transparency, and sign requirements. Generally, sales and service uses in C 3 and our c districts. This ordinance is intended to make it easier for businesses to comply with storefront transparency requirements and removes permitting barriers for some signs. It formalizes the zoning administrator's existing interpretations on fenestration and visibility for active ground floor uses, improves clarity and consistency in applying transparency standards across projects, exempts uses with unique privacy needs such as childcare facilities, shelters, mortuaries, and reproductive health clinics from fenestration requirements. It removes conditional use requirements for upper floor retail sales and service uses in RC districts, lifts prohibition on non retail sales and services on the upper floors in RC districts, encouraging more flexibility in zoning districts, and temporary allows general office business services and similar non retail uses on the Ground Floor in c three districts for the downtown by removing conditional use requirements until 2030. After which, conditional use requirements would resume. It adds a change of use definition to the planning code and amends replacement use in the planning code to clarify impact fee calculations, expands eligibility for the article four impact fee waiver to projects covering PDR space to residential use, simplifies the process for small businesses by allowing hand painted signs on facades and windows without a separate planning permit, and establishes a formal definition for interior signs. On this one, there are some proposed modifications, that staff is proposing, which we understand are supported by the sponsor, Mayor Lohrey. The first would be to redefine window sign as a sign touching only the inside or outside of a window, and then to eliminate references to interior signs. Redefining a window sign will ensure that interior signs are not considered window signs and will therefore not require a permit, which was the original intent of this legislation. Staff is also proposing to remove the interior sign definition and controls because we do not currently require permits for interior signs, and the proposed legislation inadvertently would change that, adding process and fees where none was before. Next, we are recommending that the area allowed for window signs be based on the total area of all business windows and not just the window that the sign is on. This provides more flexibility for businesses while maintaining transparency. We also want to increase the allowable area for window signs in our districts from a quarter to one third of ground floor window area. Our districts are the only district to have a different standard, and staff is proposing a consistent standard throughout the city for ease of compliance and enforcement. We're also proposing to allow the copy of the sign be changed so long as no other permit is required and no change in sign or illumination occurs. For painted sign for the painted sign exemption, we're proposing this apply to include signs on all doors, windows, and facades. And the final recommendation related to signs, staff is proposing clarifying language be added to section six zero four c, while signs which are business, while these signs which are business signs and identifying signs painted on doors, windows, and buildings do not require a permit, the language isn't clear, so we're seeking to clarify that. We would also like to recommend that painted be changed to applied as the mechanism for how the sign is created, we believe, is irrelevant. Proposed modifications for the transparency section. We would recommend removing references to interior and window signs under section one forty five point one c six c two to be consistent with the proposed modifications under signs that I mentioned. And we also have some other minor clarifying edits to improve implementation, which are considered with consistent with the previous recommendation. For Ground Floor office uses in the C 3 District, we are proposing that the space converted to office be exempt from FAR limits. The intent is to make conversion as easy as possible, and some projects may meet or exceed their current FAR limits. And also, we are proposing that these projects be exempt from the transparency requirements in section one forty five point four through 12/31/2030. Finally, we're proposing to include downtown residential districts in the transparency requirements exemption through 12/31/2030, similar to downtown. And lastly, to permit all uses in certain historic buildings in RHDTR. HDTR. This, provision currently only applies to the Eastern neighborhood mixed use districts, and staff believes it should be also, extended to downtown residential. So your action is So what we're recommending is for the temporary uses, sign amnesty program, and priority processing is a recommendation for approval, while the fenestration, transparency signs, and uses in c three and RC districts is a recommendation for approval with modifications. That concludes my report. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, mister Starr. If that concludes presentations, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on any or all of these Planning Code amendments.

[David Flynn (Public Commenter)]: I just have something to say about number 18. I don't know when the last time you guys went down to the Financial District. For me, it was about, like, a month ago, and I just went to look for a job, really, at around, like, three to 6PM. And, obviously, I couldn't find anything, but, like, I went to the Embarcadero Mall expecting to see, like, a a bunch of businesses open and having people there. It was completely empty. And I think that's kinda sad because, like, what people are supposed to be down there and shopping in the first place? And if you think about it, there's just a bunch of financial people or technology people living in maybe their thirties or forties who probably just go home after work and don't care about any of that. So how hard would it be to put an arcade there or to put a movie theater or something meant for all ages? Like, it just isn't that entertaining down there. So I see why people my age wouldn't really go to the Financial District at all around that time or any time for the most part. I think you guys should follow through with the 18 to 21 and not make it temporary. Like, what's the point of only changing it for five years and then expecting some permanent lasting change to what's going on down there? But I encourage you all to go check out the Financial District at around 05:00. Check out the malls, see how dead they are, see how dead the streets are, and wonder if there's some solution to to change the zoning or whatever, change it to entertainment from commercial. I don't know how it works, but it it really isn't worth your time to go down there unless you just work there.

[Susana Rojas (Executive Director, Calle 24 Latino Cultural District)]: Good afternoon. Take two. Good afternoon, president ZO and commissioners. My name is Susana Rojas, and I am the executive director for Latino Cultural Venti Cuatro Latino Cultural District. Calle Venti Cuatro was created because of the mass displacement caused by the gentrification of our community and the removal of our cultural assets. We understood that having a designated cultural district was not going to be give us the the protections we needed. It needed a multi pronged approach that included design guidelines, mirror protections, business protections through legacy business status, and the special use district to stabilize our small small businesses and our commercial rents. It provides an even playing field for our small immigrant business that cannot afford permit expediters, attorneys, or brokers. Our our CEUs were created to give us a chance to thoroughly wait, work, and integrate the businesses to the corridor to benefit them and the community in a more meaningful manner by meeting four out of six cultural conditions. Our credit today has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the city with six vacancies as of 06/23/2025 out of a 151 businesses in the corridor. That is nearly 4%. The city average is 10% in a good economy. We compare sales tax revenues for the 2019 versus the same quarter in 2023. In that four year period, the mission sales tax revenue was only down one by 1.29 compared to 39% in the rest of the city. And for the city at large, about 12.75%. The mission recovery appears to be outpacing the city at large and other neighborhoods, but we are only asking whether our special use district. The data can be found in the city's available sales tax data dashboard. So we are asking you to respectfully remove from the priority processing program. Allow us to continue our successes and that has that was customized to work within our cultural economy and our immigrant community to keep our corridor stable. Why try to fix something that is not broken? Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Oh, I need to make a statement before moving forward. I recognize one of the public speakers in line is a small business owner for business that I have frequent, but that his comments will not affect my ability to be impartial.

[Francesca Ragaian (Bay Area Council)]: Good afternoon, and thank you to the commissioners. My name is Francesca Ragaian on behalf of the Bay Area Council. I'm here to express the council's strong support for agenda items 18 through 21 b, which is a thoughtful package of ordinances that reflect a practical and much needed reset of how we treat commercial spaces here in San Francisco. The Bay Area Council represents 350 of the region's largest employers and has worked for decades to build more housing across the Bay Area. We are sponsors of AB two four eight eight by assembly member Ting, which has allowed San Francisco to create an enhanced infrastructure infrastructure financing district for funding the conversion of empty office spaces. For far too long, our ground floor requirements and sign regulations have been out of step with what our neighborhoods and small businesses actually need. The changes in this package acknowledge that cities evolve. We should enforce empty storefront should enforce empty storefronts in the name of outdated ideals about retail. Office users like design professionals, trade services, and nonprofits bring activity and economic vitality to our downtown core. Let's make it easier and not harder for them to be there. Second, I want to commend the transparency and trans and signage reforms. Updating fenestration rules, removing unnecessary permit requirements for small interior signs, and eliminating outdated design standards for gates and railings. These are low cost, high impact reforms that will help more business but businesses operate legally and avoid months of unnecessary bureaucracy. We also support extending the awning amnesty program. This policy has met businesses business owners where they are. Thousands of legacy businesses were trapped by past permit permitting mistakes, and we should be thanking them for staying open. Finally, the streamlining of temporary uses and the priority processing updates are critical for getting small community serving businesses open faster. Let's not delay them with processes when they're already racing against rising costs. This package won't fix every storefront vacancy, but it makes the code for more rational, more modern, and more pro downtown recovery. This is the kind of reform that San Francisco needs. Thank you for your time.

[Laurie Thomas (Executive Director, Golden Gate Restaurant Association)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Laurie Thomas, and I'm the executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association in San Francisco. We represent about 800 independent restaurant locations in the city, which is roughly about 22, 23% of our permitted restaurant uses. I'm also a small business owner myself. I've had Rose's Cafe for twenty eight years, not quite legacy. We'll see. And, Terrezzo for coming on nineteen years now. So I speak both with the operator experience and on behalf of our membership. We're so strongly in support of this and so appreciate everything Mary Lurie and Katie Tang and the Small Business Commission and everybody in planning has done to try to make common sense solutions to things that can cause real stress and cost to small businesses. In particularly, I want to point out a few things. One is trying to streamline anything that can get rid of uncertainty for leasing and moving into a space or extending a lease. So anything that can give the lessee, which we normally are as restaurant owners, the ability to predict when they might be able to get in sooner is always better for making sure that you don't overextend yourself financially or need more money. The existing awning legislation is key as is the security legislation. We all know that security and safety continues to be the number one issue of our restaurant members in two years running and making sure that the that the security gates can be fully opaque is super helpful because there is still unfortunately a lot of damage that's done. The signage is also very, very important. So what we want to do is ask you to please support these. We see them as really common sense fixes, and we want to let our members focus on what we try to do, which is serve customers, provide our jobs that we provide to everybody, serve the community, and help make San Francisco what it is. Thanks for your thanks for your consideration.

[Chair, Chinatown Merchants United Association (name not stated)]: Thank you very much, and, president Soe and all the commissioners. And, I represent the Chinatown Merchants United Association. I'm the chairmans of the, the association. Today, coming here is, first of all, I'd like to thank you, our mayor, because he's really listening to us. And we have a meeting with him and talking about our problem on it, mainly about the item 20. Okay. And he appoint the, small business, directed, tank, you know, working on that regarding about the solid gate. It's really important to us. The reason is because it's for safety for the crime issue. We have been experienced, k, and about the crime, you know, easy to break in the windows or, you know, coming in, it's kinda easy. But the solid gate is really helpful to stop about, okay, the crime. And also, in Chinatown or the other area, the solid gate mostly like they have been installed about a decade, about something twenty, thirty years in there. Okay. How come, you know, like, if we're asking them to remove it, they have to put up the money to remove it or we install the new one into it. That is horrible and also waste a lot of times and money on it. So I'm really, you know, encouraged. Okay. Make this the item twentieth, okay, make it pass, and make it our safety is really the first concern. Thank you very much.

[Tom Radulovich (Executive Director, Livable City)]: So before I get started, just to clarify, this I get three minutes on all four? Yes. Okay. Alright. So Tom Madulovich with Livable City. Look, we've done a lot of work over the years to get rid of and streamline outdated requirements in retail. So some of this is right up our alley and we support it. However, we have two strong objections to elements of this legislation. One is the getting rid of the active use requirements in portions of the C3, particularly the staff recommendation about section 145.4. Those requirements exist along Market Street and in the Union Square area. Area. And what they do is they say you have to have an active use on the Ground Floor. It's very broadly written. It includes all retail and sales uses, entertainment, arts uses, etcetera. It does exclude general office. We think that opening up the Union Square area and Market Street to general offices on the Ground Floor is gonna be destructive for two reasons. One is downtown's struggling while a lot of our neighborhood commercial districts are doing great. One reason is it's a monoculture of office uses. So wherever tech office has been able to go in, they have out competed because they can pay higher rents. You've seen non profits leave, you've seen galleries leave, you've seen all these uses. So we have a we had a mon we created a monoculture of office and now we have a lot of empty office space. No shortage of office, right? We don't need they don't need to be on Ground floors in Union Square. So we're hoping that people will make a bet living downtown. We're hoping that people will make a bet opening a small business. We wanna create some certainty, right? If you move into Union Square, you move your small business in Union Square because you think it's a lively retail district, and then suddenly everything around you becomes office and you're the only retail district on the block. Well, that's not gonna work. Right? Like, with retail, you wanna create districts that are continuous. So we think that that's pretty destructive and you should not support that. Keeping those ground floor things the other thing is gonna it's gonna spike rents. If you talk to folks who are trying to move in a small business or you talk to folks, the non profits who are trying to get small businesses to move in, they say that absurd rent demands are the biggest objective. It's not that there's a shortage of space or small businesses that wanna go into spaces. If you allow office, you will spike the rents. Lastly, the solid gates, there's there's kind of a safety theory here like, okay, the world's unsafe so I need to armor myself, I need to turn myself into a fortress, right? So streets are dangerous, I'm gonna buy an SUV. Streets are dangerous, I'm gonna open carry.

[Speaker 18.0]: We're

[Tom Radulovich (Executive Director, Livable City)]: safety doesn't come from turning our buildings into fortresses, it actually comes from creating people oriented streets, Society makes us safe. These solid gates create really intimidating dangerous environments when those gates are shut. And if you want an example, walk down Mid Market Street, has a lot of those gates. The transparency requirements mean that, you know, you can see into those buildings and you're walking by at night, means some light, comes onto our under lit streets, etcetera. So don't lower our standards in the interest of safety because we all become less safe. Thank you.

[Serena Calhoun (Architect)]: Good afternoon again, commissioners. Serena Calhoun, local architect. I'm here in, you know, strong support of all of these ordinances, and I applaud mayor Lurie's leadership in coming into office and working with Katie Tang in small business and working very collaboratively, I've seen with many of the new supervisors, which is a a nice change in the spirit of our local legislation, to craft legislation that is geared towards just cleaning out some of these outdated and extremely cumbersome and difficult programs that have been in place for so long. You know, everyone's talking about the loss of retail. We shop differently now. Things changed a lot, especially during COVID and with being able to get things delivered to your house. So we have to change with that if we're gonna activate our streets again. On a recent trip, I was in Japan at a mall that was so thriving. It was so full every day in the middle of the week, and it's because they had a place where you could, like, play with mini pigs, which was so cute, and Bengal cats, and they had an arcade in there that was a tiny little space where you could, you know, hit a target and get a prize. They had a room that was nothing but claw machines to get prizes. They had one that was candy things, so you put dimes and nickels in to get candy. We have to allow entrepreneurs to bring innovation, and overly restrictive planning definitions of what is or is not retail has really restricted property owners and business owners options to open businesses and be creative in our city. So I applaud the flexibility that's been introduced in some of these pieces. I hope to see it go much further. I am over the moon excited about the reduction in minor street encroachments because that is a significant pain point for me and many of my clients. The security gate thing is real. If you've had your business broken into over and over, glass smashed, graffiti, theft, you know, having these accordion gates has not worked for a lot of businesses, and it's very expensive for them. So I love seeing this action, and I hope to see more of it. And I'm in full support. Thank you so much.

[David Flynn (Public Commenter)]: Good afternoon, commission. My name is Romaine Clarew. I'm here as an individual, local resident of San Francisco, born here in the city, got my degree here in the city, and spend a lot of time working downtown. And I wanna say that I'm in full support of all these initiatives. And I really wanna thank director Waddy for taking the mayor's mandate and the planning staff for putting all the effort into making this a tangible solution for us. And I think that you, the commissioner, should should fully support this. And I'm really excited to see where this is gonna take the city and where this will leave us. So thank you, commission.

[Mary Murphy (Attorney, Gibson Dunn)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Mary Murphy, Gibson Dunn. I'm here to speak in support of items eighteen, nineteen, and 20 today, and to urge you to support the suite of legislative changes that are before you and specifically to support the recommendations from your staff on further refinements that you've heard today. I've been working over the past year with Wilson Mainy on a pro bono project where we've been focusing on revitalizing a portion of the downtown in Union Square and in the Moscone Centers. You should have in your packet a letter of support from Wilson Mainy. And they apologize they weren't able to be here themselves to testify today. And as you know, Wilson Mahaney, in addition to working on Treasure Island, has over the years rehabilitated many of the most important buildings in Downtown San Francisco, such as the San Francisco Ferry Building, 140 New Montgomery, and 1 Powell. To say that the downtown is the backbone of the city's tax base is to vastly understate its importance to the city's fiscal health. In addition to generating a huge percentage of the taxes that are used to fund the city's services, it also provides many good jobs. One of the many things you've heard today that is necessary for ensuring its continued vibrancy is you is making sure that it feels safe and activated on a street level. The proposals before you today will help reuse empty retail

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: spaces by extending the

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: temporary use authorizations and

[Mary Murphy (Attorney, Gibson Dunn)]: eliminating the need for a extending the temporary use authorizations and eliminating the need for a CU for tenant activation of ground floor spaces in downtown office buildings for simply the next five years. I wanna underscore that the proposal is a five year limitation on relieving people of having to get a conditional use authorization while we try to revitalize the downtown. In addition, as you've heard from many people today, the changes proposed today will help small businesses throughout the city and assist the neighborhood commercial districts. We've all read so many stories in the paper about how remarkably difficult the permitting processes are for small businesses in the city. And you've heard about them again today. These stories are usually death by a thousand cuts stories about a small family owned business burning through its modest budget just trying to open up a small shop. The bewildering array of permits, inspections, and approvals on a cumulative basis add up to months of delay and frustration and ever increasing costs. A lot of these issues are not planning code issues. They're actually found instead in the building, the fire, the plumbing code, and other issues, which I know Director Tang's office and others are trying to address right now. But there are some things in the planning code that need to be addressed. And your staff has done an excellent job in identifying those places in the planning code that are barriers for small businesses. A good example, as you've heard today from director Starr, is the is the change of copy requirement on a on a sign under section six zero four. If you're putting in a bakery where there was a shoe repair shop before and you're using the same sign, you're not expanding it, you're not enlarging it, you're not doing anything to it, other than letting the public know that there's a bakery here today, you need a permit for that change of copy, which is a completely nonsensical matter. And in fact, the city has limited authority over content because of the First Amendment. So I would say, like, it's just another example of one of those things that makes it really difficult to do small business openings in the city.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you.

[Mary Murphy (Attorney, Gibson Dunn)]: They file that.

[Anne Kalachita (San Francisco Gray Panthers)]: Can I

[Mary Murphy (Attorney, Gibson Dunn)]: just say one last thing, Jonas? They say the devil's in the details. This is your chance to address those details. And I thought I had twelve minutes, so sorry about that. So and also, thank you so much, director Hillis, for everything you've done. We're gonna miss you and your sense of humor. Thank you.

[Stan Hayes (Telegraph Hill Dwellers)]: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Stan Hayes from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers. And on behalf of Calle Veni Cuatro Cultural District, the North Beach Business Association, the Chinatown Community Development Center, and THD. We want to express our opposition to adding Calle Vanti Quatro in North Beach to the planning code's priority processing program. Calle Vincicuatro and North Beach are celebrated for their unique mix of communities serving businesses at risk of displacement, legacy businesses, murals, festivals, architecture, culture. Because of their special character, historically, they've been exempted from the priority processing program, relying instead on the standard conditional use for authorization process to ensure public notice and review prior to approval. The proposed legislation, however, would for the first time include Calle Evente Cuatro and North Beach in the priority processing program. Further amendments, for example, would no longer require a CUA placement. Sorry about that. The proposed legislation, however, would for the first time include CAI 24 and North Beach in the priority processing program. Further amendments, for example, would no longer require CUA placement on a commission's consent calendar and not even require an abbreviated case report or resolution. We're concerned that streamlining of the CUA approval process on these particularly sensitive districts will short circuit CUA review and approval by the planning commission and impair public notice and notification. Through protections long enjoyed by Calle, Ventica, Patro, and North Beach, including exemption from the priority processing program, these commercial districts exemplify economic recovery, neighborhood vitality, and small business retention. These protections have worked. Please do not undermine their success. Please do not add Calle Evente Cuatro and North Beach to the priority processing program. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 32.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Calle O'Roche, and I serve as a business navigator with GLECHA, a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco dedicated to supporting small businesses across the city. Many business sorry. I'm writing to express our strong support for the proposed legislation aimed at expanding the awning amnesty program. Many business owners have inherited storefronts with signage, gates, and awnings that were installed long ago, often without the proper permits. With fines totaling hundreds, in some cases even thousands, this can be detrimental to many businesses. For years, the cost and complexity of getting those permits has been a major barrier for business owners such as requirements like hiring the licensed contractors, creating the site plans, and going through multiple layers of review that make the process feel out of reach for businesses already operating on tight budgets. The updated program would change that. It offers a real achievable way to comply with city rules without sacrificing time, money, or the ability to focus on running a business. This represents a thoughtful shift in how we support small businesses in San Francisco. By making compliance simpler and more affordable, it shows that the city values the contributions of local entrepreneurs and is committed to create creating a fairer and more supportive regulatory environment. Briefly, I would also like to add that we support the consolidation of the priority processing programs. As director Tang mentioned, many businesses are losing money by paying utilities and rent while waiting to be heard from by the planning commission. Getting more businesses a guaranteed date to be heard will not only provide peace of mind, but also foster the trust between the small business community and planning department. Previously, this has been a huge barrier from filling vacancies, and we see this as a huge opportunity to facilitate more economic growth. I would like to thank you for your continued work and helping removing long standing barriers that have held small businesses back for too long. And I would like to thank you, director Hillis, for all of your support and service to the city. Thank you.

[Crystal (Senior Business Navigator, GLECHA)]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Crystal, and I'm the senior business navigator at GLECHA. I support updating the planning code to eliminate the current gate design standards. Rolled out gates provide far better protection for storefronts, than scissor gates. Unlike scissor gates, which leave windows exposed to vandalism like as acid etching, roll down gates fully cover storefronts and make it easier to clean up by simply repainting. This not only helps small businesses avoid the high the high cost of window replacements every few months, but also save the city thousands of dollars since fewer businesses need to apply for the vandalism repair grants. Thank you all, and thank you director Hillis for all your support.

[Keifer Hu (Director, Self-Help for the Elderly)]: Hi. Good afternoon, commissioner. My name is Keifer Hu. I'm the director of employment training and economic development at South Health for the elderly. We provide technical assistance and hours to the small business in Chinatown and Sunset District. Over the last two year, we have assisted more than 200 small business to go through the awning permit process. And thank you, director Tan, that helping coordinate with all the departments had to symbolize the permit process. As of today, the legalizing the awning is still not resolved yet the solid gates and and sign when when the station is still coming to the small business. So with this new, legislation, we hope that it will help with these some of the stress for the small business. Thank you.

[Calvin Welch (Housing Activist, Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council)]: Calvin Walsh, speaking in opposition to item 18. I'm stunned that no reference has been made in all of the support statements to the residential commercial zones, which my reading of item 18 would now allow the displacement of residential uses on the 2nd Floor. This is a it seems to me an odd and curiously inconsistent position given the last item on the agenda, which earmarks residential commercial districts for increase in residential density. What are we talking about? Do I misunderstand the legislation? The at least the summary is very clear that we will now allow what is not allowed, at least in my residential community, residential commercial street, Hate Street, business uses on the 2nd Floor and 3rd Floor. Those are overwhelmingly residential uses. Not overwhelmingly, totally residential uses on Haight Street. Are we saying that we're now going to compete residential uses with commercial uses on the 2nd Floor. One of the ways in which we have preserved residential uses on the 2nd And 3rd Floor of residential commercial streets is to ban retail uses on the 2nd And 3rd Floor. If this is about reinvigorating downtown, then make it about downtown. If it's about reducing residential opportunities on residential commercial streets by allowing what is not allowed, the use of commercial uses on the 2nd And 3rd Floor, what are we doing with the Lurie family plan, rezoning plan? Is our residential commercial districts where we wanna maximize residential uses or not? Why is RC included in item 18? Thank you.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United San Francisco)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Well, I'll just echo what this gentleman just said and ask the question for you to answer the question. Ask the question and answer the question. Asked and answered. Good afternoon. I'd also like to echo Stan Hayes' comments related to the North Beach area and the Calleventro Cuatro area cultural district with regard to changes to the planning codes priority processing program. These two neighborhoods and cultural districts are celebrated for their unique and longstanding mix of community businesses, and they're at risk of displacement. I think we should be asking ourselves really tough questions about balancing, yes, the need to streamline our permitting processes and balancing the needs of our small businesses. And I think in this case, with this particular legislation, we may be overreaching. The program would no longer require the planning commission to approve a CUA in these areas, and it would limit the public's ability to comment on these uses and changes. And it would abbreviate our ability to understand the impacts to these neighborhood commercial businesses that are many times legacy businesses. So I would ask that you look at this language very carefully and debate whether or not it might be going a little bit too far. Thank you. And please answer this gentleman's question.

[Speaker 21.0]: I'm glad I came back in the room after my snack to hear Calvin Welch, that gentleman back there. I just have a question. If if what he says is true, what does that mean for flats? There are a lot of flats

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: that are We

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: should just we should just answer this question right now. I mean, you can have three minutes, but you you still need a CU to remove a residential use on a 2nd Floor. Wait. Wait. It's just true. If you have a dental office, you can convert it to another retail sales and service. But the same controls that apply today I just don't want this to get out of control. The same controls that apply today, if you have a residential use, three seventeen applies to remove that residential use, and you need a CU. That's a fact. And and the same with miss Malley. You you you those CUs in Calle Evente Quattro and North Beach just remain. It's just we are saying we'll take those up in ninety days or the commission would take them up in ninety days. So I just wanna clarify that.

[Speaker 21.0]: Okay. That's fine. I guess thank you. Thank you, director Hillis. I guess, you know, thinking about it is like, my my point would be why even make somebody come for the CUA? You wanna keep that housing. You don't wanna create the opportunity that they'll seek a CUA. I know that's that's an anti capitalism, but we're we're we're whoever says, oh, we're desperate for housing. We gotta have housing. We got a housing crisis. It seems like anything that sets it up so that the housing could go away seems dangerous and seems contrary to what you're spending five years on and what's gonna be for the next twenty years or whatever. I don't know. Maybe I'm being naive, but that just that's just sort of gets to the heart of the matter of the housing issue. Why create the situation that the housing could go away when we may be entering a really speculative market? But we'll talk about that in item 23. But if this if they still have the CUA, I guess that's a good thing. Anyway, thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. Commissioners, as previously stated, I suggest that you take up each of these matters individually independent of one another so you can have, thoughtful deliberation and a vote again on each item separately.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. We're commenting on the fenestration transparency. Am I correct? Okay. Yeah. I guess, director Hillis, I know you jumped in a little bit. And I think that's that's also my question also around the residential, residential commercial buildings. And, I guess, can you clarify also in terms of the because that's something that brought up to me in terms of, like, which areas it is in the downtown. My understanding, the residential corridors, or residential commercial buildings are around in the Tenderloin area. But if someone can explain to that where it is and also, what, is there still gonna be a CUA? So, yeah.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Yeah. So RC districts, they're different than neighbor commercial districts, so they don't include the Haight Street. RC districts are along Van Ness, and they're in the Tenderloin, so they abut the downtown area. A CU to remove a dwelling unit would still exist, and our policy of no net less policy no net less for housing still exists. So the risk to dwelling units is minimal.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: But, Aaron, will you just explain? Sorry. You you need a CU not just to to convert a use from one retail use to, like, a professional services or something on a second floor. Is that true now?

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: On the I don't believe retail is allowed on the 2nd Floor

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Now. But you would need a CU to establish you would need a CU to establish on the 2nd Floor anymore.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: No. Okay. And, I guess this is my, because it says 2nd Floor and above. It didn't really say anything specific up to, you know, which floor. And so is that mean any flooring, the units above above 2nd Floor?

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Yeah. 2nd Floor and above. So if it's a 19 story building, it includes the nineteenth floor. Yeah.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And so can you give me an example or can you give us an example? How will this apply? You know, that's something that how is this going to apply in terms of permitting permit SF?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: So so right now, in the R C 3 and R C 4 zoning districts, if you have a 2nd Floor, and right now it's, you know, maybe the last use was like a dental office or something along those lines and it's vacant. Right now, under the planning code, if you wanna open a retail store, for example, we had a real world project that wanted to go in and be a retail use on the Ground Floor and the 2nd Floor, they were going to need a CU to operate on the 2nd Floor. We felt like that was bizarre land use policy to mandate a CU for retail on the 2nd Floor. Again, understanding residential has its own protections, so this does nothing to change impacts to residential. This is purely about, are we okay from a public policy perspective to have retail uses above the Ground Floor? And I would say right now, given how hard it is to fill ground floor spaces kind of similarly, there probably aren't too many people who wanna put retail on the 2nd Floor. We don't see this as a, massive demand out there, but I think a big spirit of this legislation was to remove barriers if they exist. We know for sure there were two applicants who are wanting to do this and the CU was their deterrent. And so our feeling is let's get rid of that deterrent because we don't see a policy public policy reason for why retail should not be allowed to extend onto the 2nd Floor. So that's all this does. It's a pretty targeted solution to take away the need for a CU for retail on the 2nd Floor, make it principally permitted. But again, it does not supplant any of the other existing controls that prevent the things that we wanna keep there such as protections around residential. It does nothing to to impact that.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So it's only like in the existing 2nd Floor, let's say there is an office that's turning into a retail and those are that would need to go through the permit SF. In terms of residential to a retail, that will have to go through a CUA in terms of change of use. Precisely. Okay. In term I thank you for that clarification. I also there is a public comment around the which is also I believe it's a number one, the principal permit. Principal permits are in non retail sales and services, including general office and the Ground floor. And I appreciate that comment from the public in terms of, you know, again, the I guess in in a traditional, we've been seeing retail stores along. And can you give me, kind of, like, the rationale of it when also non retail uses or and service uses are in a way or offices at this point are also becoming vacant. So, I mean, is there an is that is there a need for that?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Sure. Happy to chime in. We have seen, and you've seen at this commission, a handful of projects that come in with CUs for Ground Floor office. You may not have paid a whole lot of attention to them because we often put them on the consent calendar, and there's no fuss about them, and you just approve them in one fell swoop. Where we often see them, I would say, is two primary scenarios. Either one, in some very sort of small we've seen a fair number on Stevenson Street, sort of on backsides in the C 3 District. We've seen some in smaller buildings where it makes sense that one office sort of occupies the Ground Floor lobby in the upper floors and it's not maybe well suited for, a robust retail establishment. So we've seen scenarios like that. We've also seen some scenarios where in a larger office building where offices are really trying to think about how to reposition their office space to bring back workers into the office. And what we've seen and I think you've heard through various presentations we've had here is the class a real estate that the highly amenitized buildings are the ones where they're able to bring folks back and where there's a high demand right now and we're not seeing the same vacancy rate. So we are seeing a lot of office companies trying to think about how they can more creatively use those space. Not the entirety of their Ground Floor spaces. I think they've also recognized the need for variety. But maybe there's the idea of wanting to put, you know, an employee gym or other active uses that are technically considered office uses. But to probably the average citizen walking by doesn't look a whole lot different than, you know, an Equinox gym on the Ground Floor. You know, it looks like people working out in there. And so we've seen that market demand right now. Again, I don't think we are anticipating that all of these spaces are going to be sort of swooped up all at once. But our feeling is given the current vacancy rate that the downtown needs a little injection. But we are putting a cap on it of five years because we do feel like when the sort of that tipping point comes back and our vacancy rates decrease, that it is an important planning principle to to keep. So that's why we've really bookended it with a sunset provision of five years to just sort of get us over this hump where we're at a really, really high vacancy rate, which does harm the other existing small businesses that are operating next to boarded up buildings.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And thank you for that. I think I'm try I think I'm understanding that the idea is also to increase the food traffic in area on this and trying to create more flexibility in in the terms of trends of uses. My question, another, is on the planning staff recommendation on RHDTR changes. That is, in a way, permitting all users in certain historical historic buildings in RHDTR. And I believe this is also I'm a I believe this is also in in in application for the Eastern Neighborhood District. Am I correct?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I can maybe give a little clarity unless Madison wants to chime in on this. But in the generally speaking, there's a provision of the planning code for article ten and eleven properties. So for our landmark buildings, our GEMS, that often gives greater land use flexibility. Basically, in exchange for preserving these buildings and and understanding the need for investment in these buildings, they open up additional land uses that are permitted. So that's a very it's a planning principle that exists across many, many zoning districts. Right now, the RHDTR, which is the border neighborhood two C 3, is not included in that code section. And so what this proposal would do would just allow the RHDTR to take advantage of that opportunity. There are there is still a requirement that those projects do have to go to the HPC, and the HPC reviews the proposal to make sure that the changes that are happening are to further and support the, like, rehabilitation of those historic buildings. In reality, there's also only a couple article 10 buildings in all of our HDTR. So this is not gonna be a widespread utilization in the HDTR.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So it still has to go to the HPC, But we're talking about all uses. That's what I'm

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: So it's it the first step is are you a landmark building? So the step one is it only will apply to landmark buildings in that zoning district, and there's only a few of them. So it's gonna be a small number of parcels that could ever take advantage of this. And then, it opens up the ability to use that building, you have any land use be used in that building that can be sought. But that proposal and the architectural changes that accompany those use changes have to be presented to the HPC. And the HPC needs to basically make findings back to the department that allowing this use will help further basically the adaptive reuse or the preservation of that historic building. So there has to be sort of this this nexus effectively between that use going in being necessary to, sort of inject that investment into preserving that building.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you, miss Swati, in the explanation. I think the number two and three is something that stood out for me. And I think one thing and although I I I think I I understand the rationale of it in terms of, like, office use to to convert into to a retail use, But in terms of residential use, that there will still be a CUA. I think that's something that I appreciate. However, the the things that I the the definition of the 2nd Floor and above, that's something that I'm still I don't know how much it's going to apply and, you know, I mean, most likely, I know in this downtown, 2nd Floor and 3rd Floor are in the can be used for office uses. I believe that's but but, yeah, I I think that it's the cap on that. The the one I'm kinda, like, kinda worried about. The 2nd Floor and above.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: That just means any everything other than the Ground Floor is regulated differently than every other floor of the building. That's all that's really saying. So it's saying that retail uses the way this ordinance is drafting, basically says retail is allowed throughout the building. That's maybe an easier way of thinking about it. But again, that does not impact residential uses. This only means if you had vacant commercial suites.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So we're talking about, like, office buildings. Let's say, all 10 office 10 storey office buildings.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Medical uses, you know, that's the likely candidate is probably an office or sort of a small vacant former medical space, especially thinking about the RC 3 And 4 near, you know, the CPMC hospital area. If something was vacant, there's a couple old gymnasiums there. Right? Like, old spaces that could now be used for retail if somebody wanted to use them on the 2nd Floor as retail.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: That's the idea.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you for those are my comments for now. Thanks.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Lebron?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: First of all, thank you, Christian Imperial. You you really kind of dug into many of the exact same questions and issues that I was going to tackle. So you took care of a lot of that for me. Just to pivot off that last point about the unlimited floors for allowing the retail uses. What I'm envisioning when I hear that is that example, like you said, miss Wadi, of I was at the dentist who was on the 11th Floor this week. And that space could also function well as retail if it's Taylor's. We used to have the requirement in the Union Square area that the 2nd and I think even 3rd Floors had to be retail. And we removed that in part because of the retail occupancy challenges. And, you know, to me, this is kind of a continuation of of broadening the uses that are allowed because in a way, we're just doing the opposite by now saying you can also do retail on the upper floors. But we're just kind of I think it's just sort of opening this up. The other thing I I think about with retail and upper floors I don't know if it's technically retail. Don't quote me on how it relates to the land use to the planning code. But, you know, the new people center in Japantown is is an example of, you know, there's there's stores or at least something like stores on the upper levels of that building, and and it kind of functions as a cohesive whole in that case. But that's that's just some observations. I, I want to say thanks to everyone who brought up the concerns about, how the upper floor retail uses could potentially cause displacement of residential units. I'm satisfied with the responses that that's not going to be the case, certainly not something I would ever approve. In general, I'm really happy with this legislation. It's codifying these transparency guidelines. I'm comfortable with the idea of diversifying the allowed uses for the most part. But I think that needs to be balanced against some good planning principles, especially around activation of the Ground Floor and the services, retail uses and services on the Ground Floor. I had a chance to speak with Ms. Whiting and Director Tang earlier this week where I raised a lot of similar concerns about allowing office space, in particular, on the Ground Floor. I think that works against a lot of principles for activation and for creating a vibrant downtown. Especially if it's a place that we want transition over time into being more residential, we're going to need that vibrancy in those uses. I have come around with the responses about there are some cases like on Stephenson Street where it's an office lobby. It's not a great retail location. This happens in the C3 District. And I think I would never support office uses on the Ground Floor, if not for the fact that this has the 2030 expiration. So after that, anyone else trying to come in and do that wouldn't require the conditional use authorization. And I would be reluctant reluctant to approve that for that point forward. But I take the point that we have all this vacancy and there's office vacancy in the upper floors too, but still the flexibility could be really helpful. So I had to think long and hard about the office uses in the Ground Floor, but I'm comfortable supporting it with the 2030 timeline. The other issue I want to tackle is I have a concern about recommendation for staff modification for Commissioner Imperial already addressed the 4B portion of that, which is about allowing principally along all uses in historic landmark buildings. I'm okay with 4B. The other piece that I'm not so comfortable with is broadening the allowable ground floor uses in RHDTR in the same way we're doing for C3. And the reason for this is RHDTR, the bulk of it is residential. It's high rise residential. But the city has done so much work trying to cultivate a residential district there and get activity going and bring in stores and create a livable urban neighborhood. Our HDTR, a lot of it covers Rincon Hill, if I'm not mistaken. And so the one modification that I'm actually not comfortable supporting is for a expanding the allowable uses, ground floor uses that we're saying for c three into our HDTR

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Just to maybe put a point of clarification, that's not actually the proposal to expand them in the same way as the C 3. The proposal is exclusively for article 10 buildings. So it's it should not be as drafted, I believe, unless somebody down on the floor wants to correct me on this. But my understanding is that the proposal is only in the 803.9, and 803.9 is exclusively for historic buildings. And so it would not be broad brush strokes all of RHDTR. That wasn't the recommendation we had been working with, but it's only a small subset being those that are landmark buildings being able to take advantage of that requirement. So just to clarify that.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Well, the ex the state exemption is to exempt our HDTR district from one forty five point four, which I think is

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: So that is just the it it's the companion piece that's necessary to execute the eight zero three point nine. That was the spirit of it was to just say, if you're going through without doing that, you could go through the eight zero three point nine process and still get caught up and need to see you through 1145.4. So this was just sort of like these two code sections kind of have an inner relationship, and that was the intent of it. And certainly, we can go back with our city attorneys to make sure it's drafted in a such a way that it's super clear. But that's the policy intent is that it's for only the subset of buildings in our HDTR that are landmark buildings so that those landmark buildings do not need to see you if they end up doing an office. That's the the spirit. So more than happy to take recommended, you know, if you guys are okay with that, we can certainly take that suggestion back to the city attorneys and make sure that the language in January reflects that.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. I would definitely I would definitely prefer that. I would still like to apply 145.4 to non landmark buildings in the case of the RHDTR district. And so that would be a motion that I could support for supporting legislation. But besides that, everything else, staff modifications and legislation itself, it it does have my support. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Very well. Thoughtful comments, Commissioner Braun. And Commissioner

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Campbell? Thank you. I I'm generally incredibly excited about the city permitting reform happening. And I know this was announced not that long ago. So to see this much accomplished in such a short period of time is exhilarating. I think the more transparent and predictable and streamlined we can be, the better. I think, you know, we it's what I really like about these recommendations is they come they're identifying pain points and and friction that our small businesses are experiencing right now. So, I love how informed these are by real life situations. The storefront transparency feels very common sense to me. The business signs feels very common sense to me. And I really, really love, loosening up the uses, both in C 3 and the RC districts. And I extra appreciate the examples that were cited in the first presentation. I happen to work at 220 Montgomery, and yes, SF is such a fantastic example of how we can rethink Ground Floor spaces. It it's a cafe. It's also a a space for co working. There's enclosed meeting rooms. There's community space. It's used in so many different ways. And so I think when we think about office space on the Ground Floor, it's not your traditional, you know, private offices and workstations anymore. We're working in new ways, and I actually think it's a lot more, activating than than we think about traditionally. So so yeah. I mean and I think, you know, I like that we're not displacing residential when we when we think about the RC commercial, the residential commercial districts. We're just finding new ways to not leave spaces vacant on the 2nd Floor and above. I happen to live in the Castro. A lot of my retailers are on the 2nd Floor along Castro Street, my eye doctor and my, my hair cutter. So, I I think it's a tough model to make it work up there, but I'd rather see retail up there, than empty. So I'm in full support with the with staff recommendations as well. So but open to any tweaks that are being recommended.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Is that a motion?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: That's a motion. Okay. Yes. I'm making a motion. I second it.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Would you please restate, are you addressing eighteen, nineteen, 20, or are you including 21, twenty twenty a, one a and b? I think

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: we're just taking it one item at a time. This

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: is just 18, but if you could clarify the modifications that you're including or not.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I was just going to use staff recommended modifications.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: And and, again, we are open to clarifying on the RHDTR in 01/2004 because, again, that is the the intent that we were working with even if it wasn't drafted perfectly.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Just staff modifications with the extra clarifications. I second it.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: K. Go ahead. Sorry. Through the chair, one clarification. I believe that supervisor Cheryl's office had a amendment to the RC district that would go along with this. Would allow laboratory and catering uses on the Ground Floor with CU. So if you could consider that as well.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Say that again.

[Speaker 21.0]: Is it

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: is it this one that you share with us?

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: They spoke it into the record. So it would allow, catering uses and laboratories on the Ground Floor with conditional use authorization in RC districts.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: With conditional use authorization?

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Yes. With conditional use authorization. Thanks.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. Yeah. I second it. But, commissioner, vice president Morrill have some comments?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I was just going to acknowledge the incredible work that has gone into it, particularly asking, director Taim for the time she spent to really highlight what is extremely complicated. It just really well, I'm not going to use any words. I appreciate that this comes at a time where we do need some refreshing of how we look at problems, systemic problems that are not being resolved other than by looking at it differently. Can't do the same thing over and over again and hope to hope for different results. I do much appreciate the ability to look at this with a limited time frame. So when things should things normalize, then we can reconsider adding a little bit more nuance to it. For example, I mentioned to, I think, Mr. Starr as well as to Ms. Tang, a few years ago, Supervisor Safaie spent a lot of time talking and working with us on gates, transparency, etcetera. And we looked at some very exciting things, particularly how cities like Genoa and Italy deal with similar problems about security, but add a tremendous amount of creativity to the discussion. I hope that after we are really in full force again with every storefront being occupied and every single office space being working again, that we can look again with an attention to detail and with an attention to livability at these things and raise design standards a little bit. I do appreciate Director Wojtolovich's comment on livable cities as he pointed out some very important things about livability. And while we are rushing right now to get things done, in the end, for me, a livable city has certain criteria which I would like to consider again once we are fully back in the saddle. I am in support of of of items eighteen, nineteen, and 20, and in support of particular this vote on item 18.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Item eight item 18.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: It's it's it's appropriate. Thank you, commissioner and vice president Moore. And she's expressing her comments over a few items, but we're voting on item 18, and then we'll go forward to an item 19 and so forth. So we're ready to take the roll call.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Can I ask one quick question? Oh,

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: commissioner Campbell, you're done with your comments or you have one of I meant

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: to ask one other question during my comments around the sunsetting date, Because it's possible this could be a wild success. Does it automatically sunset or is is it open to continued dialogue if

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: As as drafted, it'll sunset. So this is through December December 2030. Like with any legislation, somebody can propose legislation to cut it off sooner or to if we come around, hopefully not knock on wood, but if it comes around to 2030 and things are still having a rough time, it can always be extended. Mhmm. But there will be without further action, it'll end.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commission Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Are we also doing deliberations for item 19?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. After we vote

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: After we vote on 18, we do a deliberation. Okay. Just one. Thank you. I'm right about

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: it. Cool.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. If there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval as amended with staff modifications and the clarifying comments. For item 18, we're voting on item 18. On that motion, commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

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

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye. So

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: moved, commissioners. The motion passes unanimously six to zero. Item 19, commissioners, for your consideration.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: So I would like to just take that moment, in light of the spirit of making some general comments, and also in also in the spirit of efficiently use my time here on our commission time. So I wanted to say this. I am very proud for these items that are coming in front of us. That's item 18 through 21. These planning code amendments reflect a long awaited shift toward a permitting process that is customer centric, faster, more predictable, and more transparent, and unify and unify across departments. This isn't just bureaucratic books books housekeeping. This is a meaningful structural change that will directly support San Francisco's economic recovery and long term vitality. It provides businesses, monolingual immigrant businesses, and communities with greater certainty towards time and investment, two things that are essential if we want people to build here, grow here, and stay here. This effort is about restoring confidence in our systems, in our city, and in what's possible when we modernize outdated processes with common sense and fairness. We're making it clear that San Francisco is not only open for business, but also serious about making it easier to do business. We're ready to make it easier for people to stay here and invest. I want to thank planning staff and our city partners for their work in bringing these amendments forward. This is a step towards a more responsive and equitable city, one where community and commerce can both thrive. And I wanted to bring now to my commissioner Imperials for her comment on items specifically to number 19.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you, president. So for specific, I have a question on the numb on this temporary use authorization. So we've seen, in some areas where the developments where there's entitlements and they haven't been built. And there were also times where they would come back for, let's say, they would, renew their use for the parking. I think that some there has been, so can will how will that affect, let's say so will it be depending on the developer to whether to extend the use of, let's say, a parking and then and then the interim use will be, you know so I I'm trying to identify what how can the when they're coming back for to renew the renew permits, the extension of their I'm specifically thinking about parking. And then there are times that, you know so how would that affect us here, in the planning department and in the commission, when they would seek for renewal of their of that kind of use?

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: So we come back to you to extend their entitlements. So I think they usually end after three years, so they'd have to come back to you. And if they do extend the entitlement, then they could extend the temporary use on the site to activate it. The parking only applies to 100% affordable housing projects. It's a special carve out for that. So, it wouldn't apply to most projects in the city.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: And maybe just add the the parking lot CUs that you guys usually see that are either three year or five year cadences, those are not the same as the type of sort of temporary uses we're talking about here. Those are, those are sort of just regulated differently in the planning code. We basically just say as a matter of course parking lots, especially in the in our core, we wanna make sure we bring those back to commission regularly. But those are not the same as these TUAs or temporary uses. So there's sort of status quo with how those are regulated. The one change, as Erin mentioned on the parking here, is to give a 100% affordable housing developers just a little more latitude, in how they can use their site while they're going through, you know, getting tax credits or things like that. So it was a really niche carve out for affordable housing developers all day.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. And and when we're talking about interim activity, I don't wanna be very prescript prescriptive, but I think my understanding of the how we use the interim activities for pop up retails, and that's one thing that but an interim activity can be something else too in terms of, let's say, I don't know, A shelter use. Is that something that's being defined specifically of how interim activity is going to be used or going to be defined? Or Yeah. I can tell you. I can come

[Katy Tang (Executive Director, Office of Small Business)]: up really quick and answer that. So in the legislation, it's actually very prescriptive. So it's only restricted to private parking garages, public parking garage, private parking lots, public parking lot, vehicle storage garage, and vehicle storage lot. So those are the only uses.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you so much. Those are my questions.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I do wanna just take a beat here to pause and and also say thank you to everyone who's worked so hard on all this legislation. I really appreciate it. There's always things to discuss and points of contention. But this is a great effort to try to simplify processes that probably can and should be simplified and also address some of our current challenges. And I know it was a big lift. So thank you, everyone who was involved. This item 19 has my full support. I especially like that the allowance of multiple temporary uses concurrently makes a lot of sense. And then also just expanding the uses and improving the ease of put putting in place these temporary and interim uses. So I will make a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Seeing no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously six to zero. Item 20.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I mean, support of this legislation. I think we've seen in the planning commission before that we know that some of the awning signs and gate, and gateway, many of them are actually, not up to the codes. And I think we should not penalize small business, especially, small owners, small business that have been struggling. So I think this is a good program. And in terms of the and I understand in terms of the small business issues when it comes to protection of their business in terms of crimes. However, at the same time, you know, I believe that again, I am not expert on this, but I I believe that the crime rate has gone down, in terms of but regardless, my my basis of this decision is more on the, you know, for the small businesses that has been struggling for a while. So I am in full support of this.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And I'd like to make a motion to approve. Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Brown has a comment before.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I have a question. So in my reading of this legislation, it looks like we're removing basically all requirements for these gates except for historic structures. I want to I want to better understand the sort of breadth of that removal of these requirements. So one of the things that we've been besides just the basic idea, you know, we've been very sensitive in the past to the idea of having a fully, non transparent gate. And I understand, you know, there's a little bit of an imperative behind this to maybe have that in place right now. Again, it might might some further thoughts in a second. But those those roll down gates, they come with, you know, often large boxes that contain metal boxes that contain the roll down gate that might protrude from the front of the building. They might need, even the scissor gates, I think, are currently not allowed to encroach on the sidewalk too far from the building facade. There's a lot of even if you have these gates, there are some principles that can help make them still more pedestrian friendly and not have as big an impact on the built environment, such as awnings over those roll down gates or some guidance on this. So I'm just curious, what are what would be the requirements besides just saying yes to any of these gates in a configuration?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Happy to also turn it over to director Tang for any additional. But the the primary provision that was currently in the code was just the basically, the opacity of the gates, sort of the the needing to be, open, kind of the scissor gate opening where you can still reach through. That was really the only provision that was enumerated in the code was that o level of openness. There were no other details in our code about attach attachment methodology or things like that. Those were typically features that would just be, worked together with our staff and applicants, sort of on a case by case basis. And so we're not, we're not those have never been hard coded into the code. Those have always been more sort of design guideline type features. Certainly, we will continue to work with applicants to try to get the best looking set of features installed on front of buildings, whether those are signs or awnings or gates or storefronts. But as it relates to this, the sole change is just allowing for it being a 100% solid. So that's really the only delta that's codified. Everything else is sort of a more of just a a design review practice and and collaboration with applicants. I don't know if, Katie, if you had anything to add, but that's really the the only change in the code. Obviously, there are also some code cleanups where there's two different programs. We're trying to merge different programs around gates and gate amnesty. So those are the other changes. But I would say the moving forward, you know, if this was a new gate being installed, what would their rules be today versus if this legislation passed? That's the primary, change that you're voting on today is that level of, openness.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. That's helpful. And and I also understand, though, you know, some of the techniques for kinda masking these gates can be fairly expensive for the the business owner, like, having some sort of awning or covering some you know, of that box. Historically, as the department but however, I think that's important, actually, in a lot of ways. Historically, as the department kinda pushed applicants to do that kind of treatment to help conceal the mechanisms for the gates?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Absolutely. I mean, I actually think probably our best example is downtown, which that is still a a, you know, article 11 historic district that will not be affected by this. But a perfect example is that's where we see a high volume of people coming in pretty regularly to do both, you know, security treatments as well as just, you know, we get a lot of storefront changes and turnover in our commercial corridors. And so our staff are really well versed with talking with folks around attachment details, how do you hide things under awnings, making sure the awnings, you know, comply with code. Sort of the whole package of there being a new tenant moving in. And so we often will have those conversations and talk with folks about sort of ideal strategy as part of their larger, usually their larger TI package.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Alright. Thank you for that. That makes me much more comfortable with the legislation knowing that there's still other design treatments to address some of those issues. I I've I'm a little wobbly on this one just because I I understand, you know, the not having that transparency is a major detriment to the sort of experience of the street. There are a lot of cities where you have even more of these fully non transparent roll down gates, and it can be pretty disappointing experience at night and feel a little more daunting or threatening. At the same time, however, I'm not I completely understand what I haven't felt them firsthand. However, I I understand the the the challenges small businesses are going through. I I my last place I lived for eight years, we were two residential units in an otherwise eight eight commercial unit building. And And the number of burglaries, the number of times I had to call the police at 4AM from listening to somebody break in downstairs was was astonishing and disappointing. So, I I understand the need for this right now. Hopefully, this will change that will change in the future. But this, this, does have my support.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter. No modifications on this. Okay. Commissioner Campbell.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And, Commissioner President Tsao. Aye. So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously six to zero. Items 21 a and b.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: You wanna take a break? Commissioner, vice president, more request to take a break. Five minutes.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: It's it's everything is so important that stepping out to dismiss important parts of the discussion. Can we just take five minutes, please?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. SFCO, we're gonna take a five minute recess.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: SFgovTV,

[Speaker 18.0]: San Francisco Government Television.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome back to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 06/26/2025. Commissioners, we left off on deliberation on items 21 a and b.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Anyone wanna comment on this item or want a motion? And now we're back on 21 a and 21 b. Or 21 a first,

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: right, Jonas? We

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: can do it all together. We can do

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: it all together.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: The presentation was part of, the original, the first one when Aaron did that, but you are welcome to call for questions, Commissioner Imperial. Commissioner Williams, you want to comment?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you, President Tsao. In regards to this this letter that we received, very concerning. It seems to me that they they pointed out the fact that there are obvious opposition to being included in this. And so it just kind of it makes me think that, you know, how well did you guys vet this particular item with with these neighborhood groups, like, the, you know, the ones that were mentioned. But as it relates to to Calleve De Cuatro again, you know, just for some context, these these, you know, these these cultural districts, they're there because of the trauma and the displacement and everything else that these communities have gone through. So, you know, it's just not like they, they made these these these, cultural districts and stuff like that. The protections that were afforded to them are afforded to them because of that. And so, I think it's for me, it's really important to be mindful of exactly what they feel that they want. And so and and that goes towards also the North Beach area. And any in any other cultural districts, like, you know, I I I don't know. I didn't hear from did you guys talk to the the African American Cultural District along the 3rd Street Corridor? I know we did receive one letter, but, you know, there's there's it it feels to me like this was brought brought up too soon. There could have been some more conversation. And the letter that we received, I think, kind of demonstrated that. And so that's where I stand. I think that there needs to be some more conversation with the folks that are concerned in in these areas. And these these these merchant associations and the the businesses have been there for for decades. We, you know, I think it's it's important to listen to them. They know what they need. And so that would be my comment just just for right now. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I just wanna ask some questions to verify some some details of the proposal legislation. So,

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: helps if I'm in

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: the right eye. So let's see. I I'm curious. As as I understand it, there's currently two forms of priority processing programs, one of which, this is sort of consolidating them, and one is legislated, and one is a planning department program. And so currently, under the planning department's CB3P program, what are the which I believe does apply in these two districts that have raised concerns, Skye Viente Cuatro and North Beach. Is this legislation essentially very similar to what's currently in that program that the pine department has? I mean, where would you draw some distinctions with this legislation from the existing program that we have?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Sure. I'm happy to describe a couple things. So I think the one thing that's maybe making folks a little bit confused on this, on the CB three p program, is that the commission's resolution, which dates back, you know, more than a decade at this point, does not carve out Calle Avente Cuatro or North Beach. So there the commission resolution applies citywide. A few years ago, based on some conversations with during the, you know, MAP 2020 process and all of that, there were requests to have those projects no longer enrolled into CB three p because that program guarantees placement on the consent calendar. And I think that's a really important distinction about the CB three p program is it does a few things. It and first of all, I wanna clarify for everyone. None of what we're talking about today changes the underlying requirements for when people need a CU in the first place. So if a project needs a conditional use, it will still need a conditional use. If for example, you know, in North Beach, formula retail's prohibited, does not change anything about that. This is just about once you need a CU, what's your experience getting to the planning commission? So that's what this is all about. So in the CB3P program right now, you're guaranteed a commission hearing in ninety days. You're guaranteed placement on the consent calendar. And we have adopted with the commission, and you guys have seen this a lot now, we use an abbreviated staff report, typically a two page staff report that we have actually adopted to many types of projects that just don't need as big of a a description to understand what's going on. So that's the c b three p program, and there's an enumerated list of prod of, CU types that are eligible for that. For example, a dual unit merger is not eligible for the CV three P program. We're really talking about ground floor commercial uses that are not merging tenant spaces. You know, things like restaurants is one of the most typical that we see, and small formula retail. So we see this a lot, for example, in Upper Fillmore District, you guys see these. Feels like almost at least once a month. A small formula retailer that's under 20 locations, is, typically allowed in CB three P. There's then the codified version in section three zero three point two, which is a much newer priority processing program. It's pretty much the same universe of projects that are eligible, with maybe some niche difference. But pragmatically, it's the same group of projects. It it officially does carve out Calle Evente Cuatro and, North Beach from being eligible for that. It too guarantees a 90 turnaround to get to commission, but it does not commit to the consent calendar placement. So the consent calendar is a big difference. I would say that's probably one of the, only differences in the two programs. What we are suggesting to you is a, no point in having a commission resolution program and one that's in the code, so it makes sense to only have one. And then we really felt that the commitment to put something on the consent calendar was a little bit of a hollow gesture, because as you all know, anything can be pulled off the consent calendar by anyone on this commission or any member of the public. I also, at a department level, don't like being kind of told that we have to recommend approval, which is pretty much what putting something on the consent calendar is. We wanna be able to assess the application and be able to, you know, call balls and strikes. If we don't think it's an appropriate use, we should be able to recommend disapproval, which we would never put a disapproval typically on the consent calendar. So what we are proposing in this ordinance is to say citywide, small businesses, basically the same types of projects, just basically get a performance expectation from the city. The city is saying, we will get you to your hearing, your sort of your day in court in ninety days. That's the only thing we're committing to is a timing component. So we're not guaranteeing we'll approve. We're not guaranteeing we'll put it on the consent calendar. All we're saying is our staff will work fast. We'll get it to hearing so that you know thumbs up or thumbs down, whether it's approved or disapproved. Which what we've heard from a lot of small businesses, including small businesses in Calle Aventi Cuatro and in The Mission, that it's helpful, especially for folks who need traditional financing, to be able to say to lenders, hey, the government in writing has said that I will, in thirty day in in three months or ninety days know whether or not, I can secure this location or not. So again, this is just a commitment from the department on performance timing. In reality, we don't even probably need anything in the code, but we've heard from small businesses it's helpful to have it in the code. We could just adopt this as our own performance metric of, you know, we're gonna prioritize small business to use getting to hearing in a timely manner. But we would like to include it in the code in response to feedback we've received from small businesses of how lease negotiations and getting financing. So anyhow, I think there was just a little bit of misinformation of what this is actually doing. And really, it's just a commitment of getting to hearing in three months, and this commission can continue those items. You can disapprove those items. It it does not change any of that.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. And under under c b three p, and then this legislation, what what is the current, notification requirement or period and process between the two?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: They're the same. So it's the standard conditional use notification requirement. So that's a newspaper ad as well as a twenty day notice.

[Dan Sider (Director of Executive Programs, Planning Department)]: Okay.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: So none of that will change as part

[Calvin Welch (Housing Activist, Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council)]: of this.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. I find that explanation really helpful. I'm I I do wanna be sensitive to the concerns that have been raised about, you know, it's essentially their concerns about codifying the existing CP three p program, it it kinda sounds like, which does apply here. But I what I take to heart is that this is it is just a process of doing things faster on the city end while still engaging in the same exact process that we have in place right now. And this is one where and thinking is through for the small businesses coming forward. You know, if they have pending lease commitments or they you know, they're they're sinking a lot of money and time into these processes and and stretching things out on the city's end because we just can't manage to get, you know, because we're not saying we can manage to get this done in ninety days. I'm hoping we're doing it anyway, but still, you know, I think that that's a real challenge for small businesses coming through. So, I I do support the legislation as it is, applying citywide.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. Thank you for

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you, director Waddy for the explanation. I think the again, you know, the the concerns around the and North Beach SUD, I think there needs to be a probably a little bit more sensitivity and more time to work with the with this group. And, you know, I think from your my understanding in your explanation is that, I mean, pretty much it's about that committing I mean, what it means is just committing to ninety days. Great. I'm also seeing that the reporting requirement would be removed, and then there's also that a recognized neighborhood groups could let you know, the opposition could at least one could at least continue at one day before the hearing. Can you explain those two? The the recognized neighborhood groups could send a letter of opposition item that could at least one day and then also the reporting requirement would

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: be removed. So maybe just take the

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: second one first. The next item on your agenda is about removing a lot of reporting requirements throughout the city codes. I think candidly, the reporting requirement, I don't think we've been doing the reporting. So I think part of this was just a recognition that, that wasn't something that was happening. I think it wasn't on anyone's radar. In terms of the community groups, I think we wanted to really recognize that, you know, if registered neighborhood groups have concerns with a project, like, the the city should be responsive to that and to give make it really clear. Again, a big part of this legislation more than anything is to be transparent for everyone what the rules are.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department)]: Mhmm.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: So for a small business who's wanting to open a space for them to see and know in the code and so that, our, you know, staff, when we're working with folks, can really walk them through and say, hey, you should talk to community groups. Because if a community group files a letter of opposition, you know, the planning commission will most likely be continuing this item and you won't get that guarantee of ninety days. So it's really trying to, like, enumerate for owners that, like, these are the protocols that are in place. Obviously, again, the the commission can always choose to continue an item. This is not taking away the commission's purview to be able to continue items however they would like. It's trying to just more put in some structure and framework for more so for applicants to understand stand that if a community group puts in a letter of opposition, that it is likely gonna lead to continuance.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you. You know, the I think the you know, from what we've seen or what we've, received in terms of the the letters is that, at least for North Beach, is that why change something when it doesn't you know, when things are not you know, they they they post in their letters that their corridors are actually economically successful, then why do we have to change the the process for them? I think that's what, that's something that, you know, I think is a good argument as well. And, you know, it and again, you know, I for me, the reason why we have the planning commission is that when there are also neighborhood groups are opposition, I think, that continuance at least one day is not enough and I think it needs more notification, it needs more, more time, for them to, perhaps more time to continue it. And I think it's more for for them as well to be able to prepare. And it's not just for the commission. For us, it's like, okay. We can continue at least one day, but it we also give them time to, you know, to to actually come here and also do their, you know, their right for, you know, for public comment. So I think that's those are the things that, you know, that I'd like to, in a way, I would like to exempt these two SUDs as, you know, I mean, if we're talking about the consistency more on the I think we're talking about more on the consistency for the planning department, but we should also take consideration how it works to other neighborhood. So I understand the rationale for why we're doing this. Like, it creates more, yeah, predictability in our department, but it may not be suitable on how the neighborhoods would, you know, take about their time in terms of again, one thing is, like, the public hearing for it. But I understand in terms of, like, putting it's still gonna be in the consent. But but, yeah, I think we need to have more time with community groups to really and for them to also understand it, and how it will affect them. But as of now, I I think we should take consideration how it will affect them more.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner and vice president Moore? The question

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I would like to ask in addition to, what commissioner Imperial just said is the following. We have four seasoned, neighborhood groups, Calle Buentecuato, NoSpeech Business Association, Chinatown Community Development Center, and NoSpeech, and Telegraph Field dwellers, coming together and not understanding the subtleties of what you just explained. And that surprises me because these particular groups really are probably the most experienced ones in neighborhood groups and public comment having been here for decades and supporting or challenging of what we're doing. And it's in that element of uncertainty or perhaps not properly explained legislation that I believe that there should be additional time given to really come out together on this. I think, they have not been they're asking to be excluded. And I think for the protection of Cali Aventa Quattro that we have extended to this particular, group for a long, long time, and really all have helped make it happen, including Northbridge. I believe that is the respect of them not understanding what's implied here and for you to work it out with them. That is what I would suggest. And, again, sometimes it's in the subtleties of words, how words are used or not used. But if I have four powerful groups like that right to me, I honestly cannot just sit here and say, I don't care. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner William?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: No. Sorry. I appreciate everything that's been said. I just want to understand that these business groups that have been here for forever have an issue with this. That's concerning. And for different reasons, obviously, but there needs to be more conversation the way I see it. And so that's where I'm going to leave it. But I would just say I can appreciate what you guys are trying to do here, streamline and make things easier for new business coming in to the city. But we also have to respect our businesses that have been here. We have to respect how they feel about things, the process that works for them. And these two district, the Cultural District and North Beach, they've got a long history of things that work for them. And maybe we should think about that or give them the respect that they've earned. And that's basically what I want to say. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I'm in full support of this, and I'd I'd like to make a motion to move it forward, but also want to make sure we're, you know, sensitive to the dialogue happening here, amongst my fellow commissioners. So I'm I guess I'm wondering, can we make a motion to, to approve this and then continue it for these two other districts or remove them from this? My my fear is that there is a little bit of lack of information here. I think there's some confusion, but I would like to not hold it up for Maybe everybody else.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Maybe if

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I can make a suggestion on this, if there's sort of consensus on on that approach here is to move it forward with the recommendation to exclude those two groups. K. This is again just a recommendation to the board of supervisors. If on that modification, right, the modification to exclude Mhmm. The board of supervisors through a super majority can override that. So if the conversations continue and we get to a place where everyone is actually okay being included in with just, you know, this is a time commitment from the department, then great. I would imagine at that point the board of supervisors would be comfortable. I would anticipate if they had the full support from North Beach and Calle Avente Quattro of of of including them back in. Mhmm. But it gives us the space to to keep things moving forward, give the protections at the end of the day if they don't get there, if they still are opposed to that. And I think that's a a reasonable sort of threading of the needle to just move it forward with those two districts as carved out.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: And then I think there's some other commissioner who wanted to add more comments, and I also have a question. So Go

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: ahead. Because realistically that with the August recess and we're already, is is that likely not to happen until the fall, do we think?

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: In terms of going in

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: front of

[Mary Murphy (Attorney, Gibson Dunn)]: the board of supervisors.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Our goal is that this legislation will go to will get through the board of supervisors before recess. Right. So that's why we would love to keep it moving. And I think if those two groups have expressed that they would like to be carved out, then I think that's appropriate if there's the votes to do that. I would again, I would hope that those two districts are still open to having conversations with us so that we can clarify that this really is just the city committing to how, you know, a timeline for how, you know and that is a big principle of permit SF is is being more transparent with the public about how long permits take. Mhmm. And to me, that's all this is. Is it setting an expectation for Ground Floor CU. It shouldn't take you more than three months to go through the process. But I get that that there is a a rich history here, and there's there's probably some inherent sort of concern or mistrust or misinformation that we need to do a better job reaching out to, and I'm happy to take the time over the next few months to work on that. And hopefully, by the time it gets to the board, maybe it'll all be worked out. But if not, then those two districts are carved out.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Yeah. So then I'll make a motion to approve with the modification of carving out the two districts, North Beach and Callebene.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I also have a question about this particular article that was in our slide that was a Chronicle article by Heather Knight dated back in, like, last year maybe. It's an ice cream shop that he spent two thousand dollars trying to open an ice cream shop. I mean, I'm trying to understand. This is putting in this item 21 a and 21 b. Can can someone from the project team or like, how does this how can we help also small businesses to avoid have close to a quarter million dollar down the down the drain and then still being not able to open a shop. And where is this shop?

[Katy Tang (Executive Director, Office of Small Business)]: Yeah. Actually, I just was putting in I could have put in a 100 more headlines from different media publications.

[Speaker 55.0]: It's really just an example of

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: the reputation we have in San Francisco.

[Katy Tang (Executive Director, Office of Small Business)]: Brings back memory. I just wanna wanted to know. Right. And so, again, the goal around here is we're we're not trying to change underlying zoning, especially not in districts where we know there's extra sensitivity. So there's none of that zoning changing. That is, I think, why the community feels that it is what's happening is working in the community. So we're not changing that. This is, again, really just about the timing. So Okay. I apologize if I confuse you with that that image, but it was just to Alright. Show the extent of our permitting challenge.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Two of the cost for every small business that had to burden. Okay. Understand. Commissioner vice president, you have more comments?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Yes. I do. I believe that the commission itself has a responsibility to take a position on this item and not just deferring it to others to decide. And as I said earlier, I believe that the language is too confusing that four seasoned groups did not get it. And I think I I believe that we have the responsibility to let that process of communication between yourself and the expanded group of people who worked on this project happen before, I think, this commission should take a position. This is not going to work itself out in the board of supervisors who ultimately have the word no matter what. I believe that we ourselves have to take a stand that applies to how we feel about it. And we are not creating ultimately the legislation, but we're creating the path for clarity and proper open interpretation, and that is not existing in this piece at the moment, at least if I take this letter seriously. So I would rather say that we defer to you to take another two or three weeks, bring it back quickly so that it can be settled before the legislative period is over, but not not vote on something that I don't think has a proper

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: path. Just for clarification, though, I think the request from the community groups was to be carved out. And so Yeah. I I think that we're we're comfortable with that recommendation moving forward. It was just all I was trying

[Madison Tam (Legislative Aide to Supervisor Matt Dorsey, District 6)]: to say.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Right. Then we can vote on that. Then we can vote on that, but not leaving it as deserving. Supervisor should decide.

[Dan Sider (Director of Executive Programs, Planning Department)]: That's what

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: that's That wasn't what I was insinuating. I was insinuating this commission take could take a motion to approve the legislation with modifications to carve out those two districts. Okay.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: And then I would make a another motion, although we have one on the floor, to exactly do what you just said.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: That was the motion that's on the floor.

[David Flynn (Public Commenter)]: That was

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: already That is

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: not what I heard. I missed I completely misunderstood you. It's

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: It's okay.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I said it, but

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: that's that's exactly what she said. I

[Speaker 9.0]: get it.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I made a motion to approve with the modification to carve out the two districts at hand.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I thought you were deferring. I I'd

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: asked that question originally, but then we talked through it and I modified my yeah. Yeah.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Thank you. Okay. There's a

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: lot going on.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Evang, you have comments?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. I I can support that motion. I I hope that through further conversation with those with those districts and those organizations, maybe they will ultimately come around to supporting in the end. I don't know. Maybe not. But either way, I can definitely support the motion that's on the table.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Is that a second?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I second. Second. Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Morrison. Wait.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Can you, read again the motion to can you read the motion? Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: The way I understand the motion made by commissioner Campbell is to adopt a recommendation for approval with the modification to remove Calle Bante Cuatro and North Beach from the legislation.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: That would include Commercial District and the SUD. Correct? I would like.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Yeah. No speech generally. Okay.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams, you have further comments?

[Speaker 32.0]: No. I don't. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. There's no further deliberation, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with modification removing Callevente Cuatro and North Beach from the legislation on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president so?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously six to zero. Commissioners, that'll place us on item 22 for case number twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero four eight four three PCA streamlining reporting requirements. These are amendments to the administrative environment, health, labor, and employment, park, planning, police, public works, subdivision, transportation, and building inspection commission codes. Did did we forget

[Dan Sider (Director of Executive Programs, Planning Department)]: one any? We got all of them. Every last one. Commissioners, good afternoon. Dan Sider with the department. It's really nice to be here today with you. I don't seldom rather, I seldom get the opportunity. I am joined here by Andrea Brust, who is the lead attorney for city attorney David Chu, the sponsor of this ordinance. I'm also joined by Oscar Hernandez Gomez, who's our acting data team leader at the department. Today, we are bringing to you an ordinance that would streamline the municipal code, all those codes that Jonas just wrote read out, by deleting and consolidating and amending outdated reporting requirements. This is essentially citywide code cleanup. The goal in sort of general terms is to improve our efficiency so that we can better serve the public. By way of background, between the administrative code and the planning code, there are 52 different reporting requirements that are specific to our department. Some of these are annual requirements. Some are more frequently. Some are less frequently. Some date back fifty years. Many were adopted for very good reason at the time. For example, to monitor the implementation of a new piece of policy or new legislation. But over time, they've accumulated to the point where they are duplicative or obsolete or just not useful any longer. This ordinance would reduce the number of reporting requirements from 52 down to 16. It would delete 36 of them, it would amend three, and it would leave 13 unchanged. There's a breakdown of these in your case packets. It's fairly exhaustive given your very heavy calendar today. I won't take the time to run you through them. I'm certainly happy to respond to questions on on them. What I do wanna make clear though is that the ordinance does not preclude us from preparing any reports, should we need them in the future. We we maintain that that flexibility. It does, however, allow us to shift our very limited staff resources, away from rarely read paper reports and towards maintaining and expanding the online tools that the public, increasingly expects and relies on, things like our property information map or a streamlined housing dashboard or online housing information system. We are suggesting, commissioners, that you recommend approval of this ordinance with one technical modification, which is to delete a particular section of the planning code. This is in your packet. It's section four fifteen point nine d. This section has a duplicative reporting requirement that's already addressed elsewhere in the planning code. We believe the ordinance is a practical, good government measure. It lets us focus on higher impact work and improve our service delivery at a time when resources are very tight and demands on us, on your staff, are very high. What I'd like to do now with your permission is ask Oscar from our data group to come up and show you some of our online reporting tools. We think that these are more adaptable and flexible and useful, really, than scores of paper reports that are typically obsolete the moment that they're printed on paper. When Oscar is done, he and I and Andrea will all be here to respond to your questions. Thank you.

[Oscar Hernandez Gomez (GIS/Product Designer, Planning Department)]: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Oscar Hernandez Gomez. I'm a GIS product designer at the planning department, and I'll be giving a brief overview of our dashboards. In the interest of time, we'll play a screen recording, but everything you see will be is available publicly in the planning department website. So, can we at SFGov, can we go to the computer? Our dashboards supersede analog reports by delivering information in the way that most people consume information today through intuitive, interactive online platforms. The designs are streamlined with buttons to navigate between major topics and key metrics are featured prominently at the top of the page. Information that normally takes hundreds of pages to describe in a static report is effectively unpacked through the interactive maps and tables paired with filters to help tailor information for the for the desired breakdown in subtopics, geographies, and date ranges. We'd like to highlight that none of this would be possible without our department's years long investment in automation of data cleanup and data integration. We've reconciled data that originates from multiple departments and diverse systems to provide a comprehensive and methodologically validated source of truth for each subject matter. The data infrastructure we've built has unlocked our ability to deliver information more accurately and reliably, and we look forward to continuing to build on this work. Thank you.

[Dan Sider (Director of Executive Programs, Planning Department)]: Commissioners, that is staff presentation. Thank you for your time.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

[Speaker 56.0]: Eileen Bogan, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhood, speaking on my own behalf. The staff did not clarify one thing that's very, troubling with the data that the city produces. Sometimes it works on a mobile device, and sometimes it doesn't. It always works on a PC, but if your main device is a mobile one, sometimes it will work sort of, sometimes it won't work at all. So I am asking staff to clarify on what platforms this will work, particularly an Android mobile excuse me Android mobile device. Thank you.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United San Francisco)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Bridget Maley on behalf of Neighborhoods United San Francisco. We really appreciate we've had a number of exchanges and collaborative requests related to the streamlined housing dashboard, and we do really appreciate the attention to detail in addressing some of those issues. For instance, when the dashboard first appeared, it didn't actually list the number of below market rate or affordable or the the the range of different housing units offered in each project. And so we've we've asked for that, and it was it was delivered. We've also made some recommendations over time to add things like what neighborhood the project is in just to make it more easy for the person that's using the dashboard to understand what the project is. I still think there's some additional, items that we're gonna work through and and and request. But, given the fact that we don't get actual notification of these projects most of the time there's no more neighborhood notification this is the tool that the public has to use, the housing streamline dashboard. And so we do appreciate the time and effort that's gone into creating this tool. We understand it's actually not required. So we do appreciate it. And we hope that any of the other requests that we'll make over time will be addressed with the same collaborative approach. Thank you.

[Speaker 36.0]: Hi. My name is Mark Bruno. I'm here actually to speak on '23. But I will say that in going to the two forums this week with Lisa Chen and with Rachel Tanner, each of which each of whom presented separately on the, family zoning plan, We were given things much like what David Chu, our city attorney, would like to do for this dashboard. And as a person who went to school and can read and can look at pictures as well as words, can read words, I find words often much more useful especially for complex projects. And I'll give you an example from these last two forums presented both in North Beach and then in the Marina. So separate separate presentations were made by Rachel Tanner and by Lisa Chan using different materials, most of it visual. But in the case of North Beach for instance, there are many many colored pictures, perhaps you've seen them and you will see them perhaps tonight, that on the actual page and on the next page doesn't explain what pink is, what blue is, what green is. It doesn't tell you. Then when I spoke with Lisa afterwards, the planner, I said why doesn't it say, oh, there's no room on the page for that. Well, if there's no room on the page for that, how is the general public supposed to participate? So I understand David's intention, I think it's a good one, for younger people who like visual things. I'll just use this as an example. Can we have an over shot of overhead, sorry, of this? Does that come out right?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: SFGov, can we go to the overhead?

[Speaker 36.0]: The overhead, please. This is just from what's presented tonight. So here. Otherwise Sorry. Thank you. Yeah. So that's the overhead. It shows you, existing non complying structures. This is the type of thing we received for this incredibly complex important decision making process where we were included on so called included on Monday, and I went separately to the Marina Forum on Tuesday. You can see this is that's the whole thing. So, I mean, I don't think we should pay people. I'm sorry. I I know David doesn't mean it this way, and I know there's much more complicated visual material to be included. I have worked with Google in my capacity in, working with the homeless. I worked at Google for two weeks because they provided us with so I I know how to use computers, but it's sometimes overused and and simplified to hide unintentionally what government is trying to do. And lastly with my thirty eight seconds, I'll tell you something else I suggested to Lisa Chen because it was confusing to us on Monday night. So Lisa pointed out that tenants and homeowners separately are quote overburdened financially with the current costs of their housing and she said in passing this overburdened was on the chart that she showed. Overburdened was the word. She never said is that 30% of your salary, 50% of your salary? She said it at one point, but we missed it. Why? Because again she told us on the visual there was no room to tell us the numbers. Telling people the numbers and using words is important. Thank you.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: You know, one one interesting thing that I I take away from the feedback we heard, which was good feedback on the on the sort of the web tools and presentation of information. But one one helpful thing I heard in a way is what was not said, which was strong advocacy to continue to produce these other this long list of reports that would largely go away or be consolidated or never produced in the first place. So I think that is in its own way a helpful thing to hear, to understand that people aren't actually necessarily using these reports. I do have a question about the online tools that we are creating. You know, I I guess it's just one of my concerns with the online tools is that they're not necessarily archived in the same way that a printed report would still exist in the future or a PDF report would still exist in the future for for back reference. And so what is the approach by the department to ensure that we're retaining records, over the long run? And maybe also approach to ensuring that we we do have some the ability to create kind of a snapshot in time of what is what is happening for what's being tracked online?

[Oscar Hernandez Gomez (GIS/Product Designer, Planning Department)]: I thank you. That's a great question. It's one that we we ask as well. And so if you if you'll notice on many of our dashboards, they have sort of a horizontal timeline. And so usually when we publish reports, the number that gets published that year says is is whatever it is. That number can continuously improve with data quality improvements over time. So that number may become less accurate in the static version. In the visuals that we provide in these dashboards, they are constantly being improved with the data. So you can click on the year that you want and see the latest greatest version of that data.

[Speaker 36.0]: Okay.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you for that. And

[Oscar Hernandez Gomez (GIS/Product Designer, Planning Department)]: you do have the ability, Sally. You do have the ability to export static reports out of them. So this doesn't preclude like the classic paper report, just the way you're accessing it is different.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. I I think my advocacy around this would just be I don't need to, like, make a motion or anything about this, but just to make the point that we we should have robust policies in place to ensure that we are, sort of archiving or keeping over the long term the data and maybe also, you know, again, having some sort of point in time references for some of this. And some of the reports still cover that, but I would I would advocate for that. And then also just to say, you know, I under I I can kinda guess that a lot of the technical issues with making tools that work both online and in phones, especially with if some of those tools are based on ArcGIS, which I use my firm too. And so, yeah, there's always challenges. However, I would also put in a plug for what was referenced for ensuring as many of our online dashboards and tools function across platforms and not just computers. And,

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: yeah, I

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I don't know. Is there is there any progress towards, ensuring that flexibility?

[Oscar Hernandez Gomez (GIS/Product Designer, Planning Department)]: Yes. Actually, so, if you noticed some of the the dashboards that we showed today were built on Power BI, actually. And, that tool actually has a, the ability to reconfigure whatever you design for a desktop. It reconfigures it for mobile. It takes some tweaking, so it's extra time and extra, you know, in terms of, getting it just right, which is why we've initially launched a desktop version, but we are working on getting the, the optimized, mobile version out and and launched. So

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Great. That's good news to hear. Thank you. As far as the intent of the legislation, I am supportive of consolidating or removing a lot of these reports. When I first read the first page of this agenda item, the first thing I thought to myself, well, are they keeping the housing inventory report? And are they keeping the, I would just call it the epic report, interagency plan implementation committee report? Because those are the two that from week to week I carry around in my digital folder of planning commission materials and refer to often. So I do see that those are actually the ones that are being kept. And in one case, a lot of information is being rolled into the housing inventory report. So I'm really excited about that. And again, the housing inventory report, I think, speaks to a lot of questions or topics that people raised in public comment as well because a lot of it is focused on housing production. So that's that's great to see and this this has my support. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Is it a motion?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Let's talk about it first.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I'll wait to see what other commissioners have to say.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner vice president Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Let me start with saying, I think the increased use on data reliance is extremely helpful and and and extremely interesting to broaden of how we more comprehensively look at any problem, be it in planning, and be it in any of the other departments who are being listed to fall under the same purview here. The question I am interested in is, who is generating the data, and are we starting to more and more rely on machine learning tools that is AI in this process?

[Dan Sider (Director of Executive Programs, Planning Department)]: Thank you for the question. I think that in this day and age, it's particularly relevant. The answer is that we, your staff, generate the data based on what's reported by applicants. That gets fed into our system. The tools that we use, and Oscar can elaborate on this, but the tools that we use are not generative AI. They're not artificial intelligence at all. They are tools that help us parse and automate, but they're not artificial intelligence. And Oscar, maybe you can elaborate on that?

[Oscar Hernandez Gomez (GIS/Product Designer, Planning Department)]: I think that pretty much says it. We we do not use generative AI. And, the the tools what we automate are the repetitive tasks. We write scripts. We create algorithms. We do all sorts of, work to help reduce that work and and create, efficiencies. We standardize the data. So we work across divisions and across departments to define to to create definitions around things that, you know, in an analog world are can sometimes be a little fuzzy. Different departments have different definitions for different thing for for the same thing. And so actually, when you throw these things into a machine, it it creates a forcing function to create clarity. Right? Because the machine is only gonna have a certain amount of tolerance. So this process is is a very human to human work. Right? We're not using AI to do that work. The automation is the kind of fruit of that human labor.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I'm very comforted by you saying that, but in the end, who's responsible and who is accountable? As you will more and more start to rely on data and interacting between departments, in the end, who's responsible for the accuracy of the data as they're being transformed, including its translation as it becomes a new language between two departments? The reason why I'm saying that is, for many years, there was a big disconnect between San Francisco planning and San Francisco Building Department, which caused a significant amount of problems, some of them, what brought even in today's practice, together with the inability for two departments which should stand next to each other to properly interact, speak the same language, and create mutually supportive results. And I'm saying, how does what you are trying to do now prevent something like that because we've been moving into a more and more anonymous practice?

[Oscar Hernandez Gomez (GIS/Product Designer, Planning Department)]: That is a fantastic question. It gets to the core of our data governance. Right? So all of our IT and data staff across all of the different departments have been working together to try to create standards. But we do not yet necessarily have a full on data governance charter or call it what what you may it's it's, it's something that it's it's really coming from the work that is happening on the data side from the departments. And we rely on the expertise of our data scientists and data analysts and engineers to come up with the best solutions. But it is a good herculean feat that we have before us to to create that robust data governance.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: This is not a question for you. This is a general statement. I believe that AI is standing at everybody's at every department's and every office's doorstep to take over where we responsibly engage ourselves to create accountable and transparent tools to do whatever we do in our respective, departments. I heard, I think, Commissioner Brown very clearly speak about concerns for his industry, where the report and that particular date becomes less clear because you're getting into a very fast moving flow of data, which could change by day, by hour, and never give you exactly that baseline point from which you wanna develop the next level of policy. And I have the same thing here that when it comes to making things more efficient, more streamlined, that in the end, we may be, without proper guardrails, abandoning the responsibility to create layered human experience generated information and decision making. And I want to hang that out there because this is a huge, huge effort to support, and what makes me a little bit uncomfortable is not not positively thinking about supporting data use and in the way you're describing it. But as we're making overarching recommendations also for other departments, because there are quite a few other departments who are also supposed to fall under the same thing, I am hesitant to do that. And it's partially based on the experience that what you're suggesting has a very steep learning curve. I don't even believe that the capabilities that this city may have are properly used in an item that we will be discussing in our next agenda item. And it's for that reason that I'm just here sharing my questions with you without immediately jumping on saying this is great, and it's great. But I would like to see a little bit more practice time. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you, vice president. Moore, in your comments, I actually also share that concern as well. In this, in this report, it says that the city attorney's office used AI to analyze all of the reports, the 16,000,000 words in municipal code. And one thing that came up, like, was there a human person that was also analyzing that was used by AI? And so that was something to that. I also want to make sure that as we're working toward efficiency and perhaps the AI can be a tool that there needs to have a human oversight on these data.

[Andrea Brust (Deputy City Attorney)]: If I could if I could step commissioner Imperial, if I could just answer that question. Sure. I was one of the humans that was involved in the personal human analysis

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: of

[Andrea Brust (Deputy City Attorney)]: the data that was generated by AI. Oh. So the only thing that was done not by a human in this case was identify reporting requirements that should be looked at further by humans. And then city attorneys in on various teams worked on the various sections of the legislation to determine whether, in fact, it made sense to eliminate those reporting requirements or to merge reporting requirements. And if so, what conforming changes would be required to make sure that there were not references to reporting requirements that we were removing. So I hope that gives you some assurance. I read the same article you did, and it didn't quite describe our process. And here's another one of the humans that was very much involved in the process before I even got to it.

[Andrea Brust (Deputy City Attorney)]: Legitimate question. And I think that there's a lot of tendency to, you know, to say AI produced this AI. This ordinance required immense human analysis, energy interaction. The only thing that was sourced from the publicly available code was lists of reporting requirements that exist in the code, which then allowed not just the planning department, but the other client departments that you see reflected in the legislation with the assistance of our office and analysis of thinking through, okay, is this something that we can change? You can't change it because it's in the charter. You can't so it sourced a universe, but then each item was analyzed by a human and analyzed also. And the policy decisions are fundamentally the department's policy decisions. So each each department that is changing, eliminating, or modifying a recommendation did their own analysis on what what worked for them. And this ordinance is the result of their policy choices, including the planning department's policy choices about how they wanted to think about the consolidation and production of their information.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you so much for that clarification. That's a big clarification that should be in my report. I saw the city attorney, so the AI thing. I I think everyone got excited about the AI that forgot the city attorney's efforts. But, well, I do have questions though in terms of the 36 reports that would be deleted. And one thing that I saw that that piqued my interest are that the again, please clarify me on this. The jobs housing fit will be deleted. Short term report would be deleted. Looks like the housing balance report would be deleted. The TDM report would be deleted. Where would I are they going to be completely deleted, or are they going to somewhere else data?

[Dan Sider (Director of Executive Programs, Planning Department)]: Commission, it's a very relevant question. The answer is the latter. Many of these reports draw on the same fundamental data set. And over the years, putting together the paper reports, while it does require a tremendous amount of staff investment and time, thanks to the work that Oscar and his team have put in, we have a single source of data truth. And it's just a question of how we take those numbers and kind of mix them together for the particular purposes. Right now, each of these 52 reports that are in the code involve a unique recipe, and we print out the paper, and it has this particular formula for the thing that's being asked for. Through the dashboarding, through the online availability of information, we're essentially giving the public and policymakers the ability to make their own reports, to mix and match the data as they see fit, as you see fit. So yes, published written reports that have individual recipes, the city attorney's office is proposing that they go away. But no, that data is still very much available to the public online for their own use and and manipulation.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Got it. Okay. Thank you for that clarification because that when I saw the list and it says delete and there's also those explanation, there are some explanation that they would go to other, but there are others that one is the jobs housing fit that it says kinda like the note that it would it looks like it would completely go away. So that was kind of like my my concern that I kind of want to raise is that, it seems like that the the the paper the paper requirement will be transferred into the online and that those will still be accessible. And I guess the you know, and I saw, like, the the the website, and I have yet to look into the website in terms of the how I would really look into the data itself. So so, yeah, I think that a lot of it is also around the the communication that we would have to, you know, educate public on how to use this data. In just looking into the the website alone, I'm still struggling on how to, you know, look into specific report that I would like to see. So I I so I guess that would be need more of improvement in terms of how to, educate the public, in extracting those data and make it really as user as friendly as possible.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I I don't know if I have a ton to say about this other than my impression is this has been a very thoughtful audit of these reports, especially if I haven't been on the commission that long, but of the three that you are keeping, that was the one that seems to mean the most to people on this commission. I I just trust that, you know, these reports are not getting read much, and it sounds like a lot of them aren't even getting generated because we maybe don't even have the staff available and the resources available to create them. So I think it's we're just being practical here. And the data doesn't go away, so it doesn't mean we can't make future reports. So I'm I'm in full support of this.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I have some concerns about I happen to know that a lot of community based organizations use some of this data. And it's important that it's it remains there and it remains, you know, accessible. And so I I'm not really fully convinced, especially, you know, given how much of this is just going away. You know, I'm concerned about transparency. I'm concerned about data being lost. I'm concerned about the public being able to access this data, which a report is pretty straightforward. They ask for a report and they get it. But this is something totally new, totally different. Not saying it's not efficient, but I have serious concerns about people, normal people, regular folks that work out there and that really look at some of this data. I would push back a little bit on saying that these reports aren't looked at because I happen to know they are. Maybe some of the folks that that we know different people, obviously. But again, I would just like to, like, learn I think the public needs to learn more. But I'd like to understand whatever is being deleted that it's not information that we're gonna need. And and, yeah. And so I I those are those are concerns that I have. And at this point in time, I'm not going to I can't support this because I don't know what the impacts are. I don't know what the impacts are to, again, to the public. I don't know what's being lost, what's not being lost. And I think that's, that's a, you know, that's a real important question. I, I, I actually think that we could have a hearing just on this, or at least a presentation, An in-depth presentation to to see, okay, you guys are deleting this. Why? And how is it gonna be available again? But just to, you know, give us this list and and say trust me, that not that I don't trust you, but I I need more than that. And I think the public deserves more than that. And so, I'd like to request that we have some more, another informational, a public presentation. If you're going to delete all this stuff from the public, you know, from from access to the public, I think we should vet that a little bit more.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Would some staff would like to comment on that just to make sure and clarify? And also in light of, like, community understanding and and just please clarify. Just give us some like, it might be seems like it has just come to us, but I would assume your entire team with the city attorney's office and our technology department have have spent a tremendous amount of time, and I don't we don't know how long you guys have worked on to it. And I I was I was thinking that maybe that might this might be a good time. I have a lot of friends in tech. I used to be at tech, and, I just asked them, can you just help us in this AI? And they're like, sorry, we can't. Just because these things need human, scrutinies and needs legal counsel, and it's, AI right now can only automate a very repetitive basic task. So, I I I just wanna share another perspective. These are not random people on the street. These are, some of my colleagues that were, in the intelligence phase, even twenty years ago before anyone talked about AI. I just wanna to be fair to state that we can all use that word right now, but I think I would like to stay on focus on actually understanding the the intent of it besides the buzzword of technology or, Android platform, which is pretty important. But the true intent here is to really streamlining all the reporting requirements among all the different agencies. Right? So then, as per public request, they want to see more transparency. And I think I I really appreciate someone actually share that in their public comment that this is actually a supportive, effort. So just enlighten us a little bit more, educate us a little more. Thank you.

[Dan Sider (Director of Executive Programs, Planning Department)]: Yeah. Of course. I I, I think there's two first of all, thank you both, commissioners, for your words. I think there's two, at least two separate issues that that I should address. Commissioner Williams, the the I think the good news is that what it sounds like your goals and intent are are shared by the department. We want to increase accessibility. We want to increase transparency. We want to make sure that the data that folks need is out there for their consumption. I think that the I think it was the second gentleman that spoke during public comment had a very salient point, which I interpreted as a reminder that different people consume data in different ways. Someone of generation one, two, or three might absorb data visually best or through words or through tables. Who who knows? Through our dashboards, through our expansion of of what we're doing, we can serve that data up and we can make sure that it's served in a way that's digestible to to different people who have different needs and different desires. So I think I think we're going in the same direction. I think it's completely legitimate to sort of try to tune that. As as miss Malia said earlier, when we rolled out the streamlined housing dashboard, it was not perfect. And, you know, when we do beta tests, when we do initial things, you know, the good part about digital tools is that we can iterate on them. We can make them better over time. We can enhance them. We can add features that respond to the issues at hand. I

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I appreciate. Thank thank you for that. I I just again, I'm I'm concerned with the data that's being deleted and the impacts. I want to make sure that we're not deleting and getting rid of information that the public needs and that that, you know, people do use. And so that's my concern. I I I need to know honestly, I I feel like I need to know more about all of this. And I'm not comfortable right now with what I know right as of now. That's why I'm requesting I would like to request that more, maybe some kind of presentation to the public, not just to us, but to the public, right, to understand better why are you getting rid of all this data, how it's going to be regenerated through your their platforms, and all of

[Dan Sider (Director of Executive Programs, Planning Department)]: that. So in in response to those comments and also president Sohs, and for clarity, we're we're not deleting data. What we are what the city attorney's office is suggesting is that we eliminate ways that we format and disseminate that data. And there's room for disagreement among rational people. Commissioner Soh, President Soh, you raised this question, kind of how we got here. And I think that the history is relevant. Oster and his team for four years, five years have been involved in what I understand to be a very painful, intricate, extensive data cleaning process to vet the data that we have and and true it up, not just with, you know, the actual application forms that might say six units versus seven, but also Commissioner Moore, to your point, with our colleagues' data systems, with DBI, with other agencies. That work has been ongoing. And because the data coming in is still imperfect, it will continue to go on. About six months ago, internally, we began a process to, and maybe this is the case that sort of the great departments think alike, to inventory our own reporting requirements, to understand all of the various things that we were responsible for, how we were performing, and what made sense to to keep, to change, to remove. And then the phone rang, and it was our colleagues at the city attorney's office saying, hey, we're doing this great thing. Do you want to get on board? It was the same thing. Two different departments. We partnered. I think it's interesting that

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I I I I I and I'm I'm sorry. I'm sorry to to to but I just I just need to interject right here. I think it's this planning commission's preview to to, you know, figure out what needs to be done as far as deleting and all this. And that's kind of the point that I'm trying to get to is that it just feels like you're giving us this this sheet and you're saying, okay, we're gonna, you know, we're gonna do all this. And I don't think there's enough context. And and so that's my point. And again, I think we need to, like, I'd like to formally request some kind of hearing on this. And maybe flesh out more the impacts, all the different departments that are involved. This is a big deal. And so it deserves more scrutiny. And so I I just wanna put that out there. And and I don't know if I have I don't know what what action that I have to take. Is it do I may have to make a motion? Or what what needs to happen?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: You would need to make a motion to continue with the request for an informational presentation or something along those lines.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. And then also, we have a few other commissioners that lined up too.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Yeah. No problem. But so I'm I'm gonna make that motion. I wanna make make a no. Has anybody made a motion yet? No? Okay.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: You are you are

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I'd like to make a motion to continue this with a public presentation to the subject matter.

[Speaker 18.0]: Could I ask what you'd like

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: in the presentation that wasn't present today?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just more clarity on on on the reports on on what exactly what what we're deleting, and why, and whatever other commissioners may may want to add to it.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And that public presentation would take place here?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I would second that.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: May I inject to comment, although it's not my turn?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. Well, commissioner Brown has been patiently waiting, but, yes, please, you may.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I would like to bring a couple of the many years where we received a very impressive set of annual housing reports, and I'll be happy to actually turn them over to, commissioner Brown for the future. There was there were there were always highly praised by everybody. They were informative. They were really, really good. They're they're kind of they could attract national attention because they were so good. And I like to just have that out there for all of us who have never received one to see them, and figure out how to feel about it. That's all.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Alright. Okay. Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I'm still feeling satisfied with the information I've received, the ability to review the list, the explanations of what's in these reports, and what's going away, and what's being kept. And the motion that's on the floor, it will since it's a continuance motion, that does get voted on first. But I will also make a motion to approve with modifications as proposed or this might not be right language for legislation. Adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I second that.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Thank you. We're on it.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: And, there's two more commissioners who would like to share more of the comments. And Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I'm sorry. We're yeah. We're still in deliberation. But I I seconded the, Commissioner Williams, you know, motion. And I for me, and thank you for bringing that up, Commissioner Williams, I think it does need some in order for public to understand, first, the website and still have to go through that website. And also at the sec second thing is that, again, there are, in terms of the the things that will be deleted and transferred somewhere, I think some parts of it, and I understand the the, yeah, again, the intent of all of this, and I really understand. And but I am also thinking of how the public is going to consume it. It's kinda like how, you know, in terms of the housing applications. All of the housing applications are online, but people there are some people that are still preferred to do the paper applications because it's more, you know, that's how they can, you know, fill up the application properly. And they're not that as, you know, perhaps different way of reading the they're still not used to the technology, some people may be. So, that's why I'm supporting the the that part is for for us is to be you know, we have to do a due diligence in informing the public in how this data is going to be consumed. And also, you know, different ways that, you know, I know we're trying to be efficient, but there's still importance in a way of having it as paper, I mean, to be readable. And so so I I would like and it's good for the public also to have more I didn't see a lot you know, there is a few people that come here, but I know there are other the community members that rely also on the housing production reports, and they may not know about it yet and how it's going to affect. So for me, the biggest concern are those actually the housing reports. And, you know, so so yeah. So that's why I'm. But if the the continuance didn't go through, I would still ask to have, informational hearing about that. Yeah.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Vice President Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Between those two positions, there is basically an interim, and that bridges the requirements not to go completely digital, but still find a way of a printed version that sits in libraries and is still accessible to the public, which is not versed in data serving and dashboards, etcetera. And I think we need to address that component of the public, which still operates and will continue to operate in traditional ways because not everybody has a computer capacity to get through all the data, connect the white dots to get the results they're interested in. However, there are standard reporting requirements that indeed address the public's needs to know. And out of the many reports that we did in the past, we can figure out those which are most necessary and mostly used, and that would be the in the an in between solution to the two extremes. And I think the the meeting the the informational meeting that, Commissioner Williams, is speaking about would be a first forum to vet what the public really feels they need.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I do just wanna point out, I think it is noteworthy that I'm spending a lot of time looking at that chart you made, but there are some reports here that have never been created. And there's some that we don't even know when it was last created. I mean, there's 20 on here between that are categorized as never and unknown. I think that's pretty powerful. And then there's some that the last one we did was, you know, over fifteen years ago. So, just wanted to point that out from a practical perspective.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, commissioners. There are two motions on the floor. We will take up the matter. The procedural matter first, there is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to July 10 with an informational presentation to be held here that would, I guess, provide more information than we heard today. On that motion, commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Nay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Williams? Yes. Commissioner Braun? No. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president so? No. That motion fails three to three. There is a subsequent motion to adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner me excuse me. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Could could you say that again?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: There is a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: With modifications?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: With staff proposed modifications. It's basically as presented to you today.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. Is it my am I up?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Williams, you're up. You're up to

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: bat. May.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. No. And commission president so? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes four to two with commissioners Williams and Moore voting against. Commissioners, that will place us on item 23 for case number twenty twenty one hyphen zero zero five eight seven eight CWP for the family zoning plan informational presentation.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Jonas, can you remind us what happens in that situation in the past item?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: In what situation?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: And we don't have

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: It was adopted commissioner Kirill noted for the adoption. However

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Sorry. I missed that.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yeah. No. It it passed four to two.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: It passed four to two.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: However, to answer your question, if there was a three three deadlock and not a subsequent motion to continue that was adopted by a majority vote, then, it essentially, moves forward as a de facto disapproval with the vote being recognized as tied three to three.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: It's complicated.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I've missed that you voted yes.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Greetings, Tony. We have to write that down. And even after twenty years, you'll still look at it because it is so complicated.

[Lisa Chen (Principal Planner, Family Zoning Plan)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Lisa Chen with department staff providing an informational presentation on San Francisco's family zoning plan.

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: Can we hold on one moment? We'll stop you in the in the audience. If folks need to move or leave, you'd welcome to do that, but we're gonna get started with the staff presentation. Thank you.

[Speaker 37.0]: Great. Okay.

[Lisa Chen (Principal Planner, Family Zoning Plan)]: Again, Lisa Chen with department staff. I'm also joined by senior planner Esmeralda Harnas. A few of you may remember her from her time on the Southwest quadrant South Southeast Southeast quadrant. She has since then gone and gotten a master's of real estate development at UC Berkeley and has come back and rejoined citywide and has been working on the rezoning effort, leading our financial feasibility study that you'll hear about shortly, as well as, working on our code drafting efforts. So, today, we will be giving an overview of the mayor's legislation that was introduced at the board of supervisors this week. And then we'll hear from Esmeralda, who will give an overview of the financial feasibility analysis. We'll close with a brief discussion of related efforts. At a recent committee event, someone asked me point blank, what are the outcomes that we expect to see with the rezoning, and what is the vision we're really working towards? So since taking the helm in January, Mayor Leary has made it clear that the family zoning plan is about living up to our ideals as an inclusive and welcoming city. It's about creating space to welcome new neighbors. So whether you are a college student, a growing family, a senior looking to downsize, you can find opportunities to make a home and a life in San Francisco. Our restrictive and exclusionary zoning has made it too hard to create these housing opportunities in the majority of our city. In the well resourced neighborhood shown in blue, zoning rules that are nearly fifty years old make it extremely difficult to build apartment buildings, four and six plexes, courtyard apartments, and other housing types that can provide more varied and affordable options to live in. Instead, we've concentrated 90% of new housing outside of these communities. And that's why we're here today. Although the rezoning has been developed in response to state requirements, the truth is that the department and city have been working to address the housing crisis for many years well before this housing element. With this rezoning, we're taking the critical next step to reform outdated and inequitable zoning to create a more level playing field so that we can start to see more diverse and affordable housing types throughout the city. There are, of course, repercussions if we fail to adopt the rezoning. In addition to losing eligibility for infrastructure and affordable housing funds, we could also face fines and lawsuits. Or worse yet, we could lose control over local permitting and be forced to approve any housing project that meets basic safety standards, like this example from Menlo Park, where a developer proposed buildings six times taller than the legal height limit. The family zoning plan ensures that San Francisco can continue to control its own destiny by meeting the following state requirements. First, it identifies adequate and realistic sites to meet our 36,000 unit shortfall. Second, it affirmatively furthers fair housing by creating capacity for homes in high opportunity areas. And finally, the rezoning will include a list of specific sites that meet state and local criteria for affordable housing, and projects that propose low income housing on these sites will be eligible for ministerial approval. We've continued to talk with neighbors and community groups all over the city, particularly in recent weeks as the plan nears adoption. Since the April 10 hearing, we've had over 30 meetings with community groups in a variety of settings. This week alone, our team crisscrossed the city at five different evening events. As always, our goal is to listen, take in the range of feedback we hear, and work with our partners at the mayor's office and board of supervisors to recommend suggestions and changes that can be accommodated without compromising our ability to meet state law. In your case packet and online, we issued a recent update of the proposed zoning map shown here. Materially, it is very similar to the map the mayor released in April, but includes refinements that respond to additional feedback from committee members and direction from the mayor and board. We won't describe the changes in detail, but all of the previous versions of the map are on our interactive website, where you can toggle the layers to see how the proposal has changed at a parcel level. We're also continuing to refine how we show information as we hear more feedback from the community. We know that the rezoning is incredibly complex, and so we're working to make sure that we're portraying the changes precisely. You'll notice that we are now showing two separate height maps, one that depicts the local program heights and another that shows base heights. We're also updating our interactive website over the next few weeks to add more layers of information. Just today, we added a map of the proposed zoning districts so you can see precisely where lots are proposed to be reclassified to other districts. This week, we reached a pivotal milestone with the introduction of the mayor's legislation at the board of supervisors. The draft ordinances are have been processed by the clerk and were just posted online this afternoon. And so we, expect that, you know, you'll have time to read it and, ask us further questions as the process continues. The legislation and ordinances will amend the planning code, the zoning map, the heightened bulk district map, and all will also establish a housing sustainability district to allow for ministerial review of some projects. Here's the draft adoption schedule through the end of the year. We have another informational hearing scheduled on July 17, which will also include initiation of general plan amendments. Following the recess, we anticipate the legislation to be adopted by the commission in September, which is when the ninety day review period ends. And it'll then be considered by the board of supervisors in the fall aiming for adoption by the end of the year in order to meet state law. Notably, the tenant protections ordinance is completing the legal drafting process right now and will be introduced in the coming weeks. However, the intention is that it will still be adopted concurrently with the rezoning. The draft legislation, all 457 pages, that's just the planning code ordinance. It's quite dense, and so we want to provide a high level orientation to the proposed changes. As described at prior hearings, the rezoning is structured to provide parallel options depending on whether you're using a state bonus program or the new housing choice local program that we're creating. The idea is that projects could reach similar heights and densities through either pathway. This diagram describes the base zoning changes, which include a number of provisions meant to create more inclusive and sustainable communities. Structurally, the ordinances will establish both base height and local height program height limits. Most of the commercial streets on the map are proposed for six and eight story mid rise development, meaning that the base heights for many, sites will remain at 40 as today or may see a slight increase. The height areas proposed for high risk development will see larger height increases in their base. These amendments will also establish form based density on most commercial streets and will reclassify some properties under new zoning districts, including a new residential transit oriented commercial or RTOC district, which will be a form based district allowing for commercial uses on some streets. It will also create a new special use district meant to implement the SFMTA joint development policy that the board of supervisors adopted this year. The ordinances also include minimum dwelling unit and office density standards citywide that will bring us into alignment with regional policy set by MTC. This is a requirement to maintain competitive standing for regional infrastructure funds. The policies are applicable only to new construction within a certain radius of high frequency transit, and they're meant to encourage efficient use of land and greater housing production in areas where we have invested in transportation infrastructure. The policy will be further reinforced by new maximum dwelling unit sizes with flexibility for some units in multifamily buildings. Finally, the ordinance will codify the planning commission's policy on residential flats to discourage demolition of this family friendly housing type. Amendments will also include policies meant to encourage sustainable transportation modes. It will adjust to parking maximums lower to comply with MTC's regional policy with more flexibility for very small buildings that are more likely to be occupied by families. It'll also limit curb cuts and driveways in the core sections of commercial streets to limit safety conflicts and encourage alternatives to driving. Finally, it will require that larger buildings produce a loading plan to reduce safety con safety conflicts and limit impacts on transit. Here is the updated menu of local waivers that projects will get if they enter the housing choice program. Again, the program is entirely optional. Our goal is to incentivize projects to enter the program by allowing for flexibility similar to the state density bonus while ensuring they adhere to height limits and other core design principles. In recent weeks, we've solicited feedback from the design, development, and legal industries on how to make the list more competitive with state programs, and we've adjusted several of the items in response. To highlight a couple topics, the inclusionary housing flexibility remains the most important incentive on the list and means that the city will see a greater diversity of affordable housing types while providing for more flexibility for sponsors. We're also using the local program to incentivize uses we'd like to see, for instance, by providing up to 10 feet of additional height for projects providing community serving uses like nonprofit space, childcare, or micro retail. Another item we've recently amended is that we've added a 15% catchall for projects to seek additional relief on other code sections not on this list. I'll now pass it to Esmeralda Hardiness.

[Esmeralda Harnas (Senior Planner, Financial Feasibility Study)]: Thank you, Lisa. Good afternoon, commissioners. Esmeralda Hardenez, planning department staff. So Century Urban, a local real estate advisory firm, conducted two financial feasibility analyses. First, they analyzed more than 400 housing prototypes to understand the potential financial viability of different types of development under different economic conditions and the impact of rezoning on housing feasibility. They also evaluated, the feasibility of value capture, and value capture is an approach that assesses fees or increases to other requirements to offset development impacts or provide additional benefits. Second, Century Urban conducted a separate governmental constraints analysis to see how reducing government imposed development constraints, like entitlement streamlining measures or and lowering impact fees affect feasibility. This analysis utilized the same housing prototypes and market assumptions to understand how specific governmental constraints and market conditions impact housing production, and both reports are summarized in exhibits d and e in the commission's case packet. So let's talk about the results. The results of each prototype are represented as residual land value or RLV. Residual land value represents the maximum land cost that a developer could pay to acquire property and still achieve their target return for the project. The city has traditionally used a residual land value analysis for other policies and rezoning changes because this analysis provides a way to compare financial results across many different development prototypes and policy scenarios. In San Francisco, a typical development project may require a minimum residual land value of approximately $50,000 to $75,000 per unit to be considered financially feasible. And feasibility is determined by comparing the total residual land value of a project or rather the residual land value of all the units in a project and comparing it to the market price of the land. A project is considered feasible if the total RLV is greater than the cost of acquiring the land. In other words, the financial gain for buying a property and making all the investment to build housing on it must yield more value than the cost of the land itself. So to understand RLV, six prototypical sites were chosen that represent common development types within the rezoning ranging in size from 2,500 square feet to 25,000 square feet and ranging in height from four to 24 stories. We modeled varying residential tenures, residential densities, zoning rules, and submarket assumptions. And the analysis also included current city policies, states and city bonus law, and local program scenarios. A separate governmental constraints examined how improvements to our entitlement timelines and fee reductions could affect project outcomes. And while the rezoning does not propose to change fees, this study could inform future policies. The next few slides show some of our key findings from both analyses. The pie charts on this slide provide a graphic representation of the results, with the chart on the left showing the results from the base case or the current conditions, and the one on the right showing the improved case with more favorable economic assumptions. Please note that the base case chart was incorrectly labeled in the case packet, but is correctly shown in this image. Unsurprisingly, the study found that under current conditions, which are shown on the left, most prototypes were negative with a few exceptions, the little salmon slippled portion of the pie. However, under improved conditions, most prototypes show better feasibility, notably the low and mid rise projects, which are common in the rezoning. And 18 of the 98 prototypes surpassed the 75,000 per unit threshold in the high value submarket areas. Please note that the case packet also accidentally referenced 12 instead of 18. The low rise prototypes on the smallest site of 2,500 square feet had positive RLVs across all improved case iterations, though not all values were high enough to be considered feasible. Moreover, the findings from the governmental constraints analysis demonstrated that fees and approval processes are less impactful on feasibility than broader macroeconomic assumptions, such as labor and material costs, interest rates, rental and sales price trends, and other financial measures. However, adjusting fees and requirements is still important, especially for the developments that are marginally feasible. Thank you. Further, although now allowed under state and city bonus law through AB1287, the 100% bonus prototype was infeasible under both the existing and improved conditions. And this is probably because the higher bonus requires more affordable probably because the higher bonus requires more affordable housing and because the prototype is high rise. Overall, all high rise prototypes are less feasible or were less feasible in the analysis since revenues can't support the higher construction costs. Although the results of the analysis generally confirm that economic conditions are challenging for many development types, I think something that we all know, there were some hopeful findings. And the analysis demonstrate the flexibility proposed under the local program can have a meaningful and positive impact on financial feasibility, most notably through the inclusionary housing flexibility, regard reduction, form based density, which can all improve project returns for many developments. And now Lisa will cover the, policy implications of these studies.

[Lisa Chen (Principal Planner, Family Zoning Plan)]: Thanks so much, Esmeralda. Taking a step back, here's what the financial feasibility study means for rezoning. The main headline is that higher fees and requirements are not financially feasible for most development types. We're not proposing to increase any impact fees with the rezoning, but we're also not proposing to lower them. That's already been done with the temporary fee reductions that the commission recommended in 2023. New projects will still contribute to affordable housing, transportation, and other infrastructure. The study also underscores that ongoing revenue sources like taxes and bonds are simply a more reliable and stable source of funding for affordable housing and infrastructure, and we'll need to look at these funding sources in the coming years. We also want to give a caveat that this study looked at prototypical or average development assumptions. And we know that even during times of downturn, we do still see some projects getting built. And that often reflects particular circumstances on a site, like maybe their lower land cost or some other assumption that we don't know about. The study also affirms that the scope of the rezoning,

[Christopher Peterson (President, SF League of Conservation Voters)]: and particularly the

[Lisa Chen (Principal Planner, Family Zoning Plan)]: extensive areas proposed for low and mid rise, development, development, is a good thing because these are the types of development that are likely to become feasible sooner. Finally, the work validates our approach with the local program, showing that the flexibility we're proposing can provide meaningful relief to some developments and increase the chance that housing will actually get built. As we close, we just want to take a moment to remind people of some of the other work that's happening to realize the full vision of the housing element focused on tenant protections, small business support, historic preservation, and housing affordability. We will be able to address some of these needs through the rezoning, but, really, we're gonna need sustained efforts and collaboration across all of these topics. I'm gonna highlight just the tenant protections and our affordable housing work today. For tenant protections, we are working closely with supervisor Chen as well as supervisor Melgar and the city attorney, to complete various, draft legislation that will reinforce our already strong policies against residential demolitions. But we know that we also need continued services, like legal aid and education, particularly for people who are low income, have linguistic or cultural barriers, or other vulnerabilities. The good news is that our current laws do successfully discourage demolitions. Demolitions make up about 4% of no fault evictions. That number drops to two percent to 3% when you add just cause evictions, and they have remained rare even during boom periods. The other ninety six percent of evictions, mostly due to the Ellis Act, owner movements, and capital improvements, are part are partially symptoms of our competitive housing market where there are greater incentives for landlords to evict their tenants. At the next hearing, you'll learn more about our affordable housing sites work, including how we are planning for sites in the rezoned areas as well as citywide that could support 100 affordable housing buildings. But we also want to highlight that getting closer to our affordability goals in the housing element is going to be a multipronged and sustained effort. We will need all hands on deck. In addition to the existing tools, like bond measures and inclusionary housing requirements, we know that we'll need new and innovative approaches as we move forward. We also know that building more housing overall can help stabilize housing costs in the long run, particularly for moderate income households who often aren't served by affordable housing stock. And we have started to see this happen in cities like Boston, Minneapolis, and Sacramento, where housing costs have stabilized or, in some cases, started to decrease following rezoning changes. So with that, we really just want to thank everyone, for your continued leadership. Thank you to to the commission. Thank you to the city attorney in particular for, all those many pages of code, that were introduced this this week. We wanna thank, people for continuing to invite us to their events and for speaking with us and sending us emails, and of course, our partners at the mayor's office and the board. And finally, we, of course, want to wish, director Hillis well and and thank you for your leadership on this project as well. Thanks.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. If that concludes staff's presentation, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this informational matter. Commission chair? Commissioner President, would you want two minutes or three?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Well, this topic has been, presented to us. So, by the procedure, they will have two minutes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. So each member of the public will get two minutes.

[Speaker 22.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Orit Ross. I have been a resident of the Jordan Park neighborhood for the past twenty five years with my family. Jordan Park is not a well known name as a neighborhood in the city because it's only five by two blocks. However, it's a very unique historic build neighborhood.

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: And when we

[Speaker 22.0]: are trying to imagine what a 14 story tall building or even eight would do to our neighborhood, we don't need to speculate. Just look at the contrast between The Castro and Japantown. The Castro, with its five story heights limit approximately I may be off on some strive as a vibrant community, residents and tourists alike stroll its welcoming street drawn by independently owned shops, colorful storefront, and a culture that feels rooted and alive. That human scale design isn't just aesthetic. It builds connection, pride, and long term investment from the people who live there. In by contrast, Japantown is marked by towering 14 story building that dominate the skyline. Despite its rich cultural heritage, it seems less it sees less food traffic and long standing community members have long voiced concern of their towering scale has eroded the limit the intimate charm. The architecture no longer reflect the community spirit. It looms over it. Jordan Park and Presidio Heights shared that's much more in common with the Castro than with Japantown. Those are generational neighborhoods where children walk to school, teens gather after classes at Roosevelt Middle School, and resident take care of nurturing their front garden.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, ma'am. That is your time.

[Speaker 22.0]: That's it.

[Speaker 38.0]: Hello. I'm Sheeraz. I was born right in Jordan Park. Literally, the hospital's an eight minute walk from my house where I was born. And I was surrounded by houses that all don't they don't look the same. They're all unique and have charm, and have a nice yard in front. And you can tell how much effort our neighbors put into keeping things nice and beautiful. And this place really means a lot to me. I take the bus everywhere. I've seen a lot of the city. And I'm telling you, there's no place like this part of town. It has a vibe, and it really feels like home. When I was little, my parents used to bring me along when they voted. Sometimes at a coffee shop, sometimes at a church, and now it's a middle school. They always said, this is what being a part of a city means. And that stuck with me, and now I can vote, and now I show up as well. I'm not against new neighbors. I know we need more housing. But an eight story building, a 14 story building, right next to our two story homes really feels off. Like, it just doesn't really fit. Maybe I'm maybe I sound idealistic, but I still believe in our city government. I want to believe that you're listening, not just following state level policies without looking at the people and the faces that are affected. Please don't let big buildings erase the character of small neighborhoods like ours. Please let us grow up with care. Thank you.

[Speaker 37.0]: Good evening, commissioners, and greetings to some of the planning staff who spent a lot of time talking to me personally. I'm Daniella Kirschenbaum. I'm I'm from Pacific Heights. And right now, with this proposal speeding along, I really would like to be soothed by terms like gentle density, family zoning. But honestly, I'm puzzled by some of the predictions that not much is actually going to be built, and I don't need to worry. My own mystery of the moment is why a department full of expert planners would be so eager to promote this plan? Why is the builder's remedy teed up for every neighborhood in San Francisco? Why would trained professionals deliver us, as well as yourselves, manacled and with a bow, to Sacramento for ministerial approvals on this blanket of upzoning over which you would have no control? Courtney Damkroger of Neighborhoods United San Francisco had to leave. She says that she's supportive of upzoning in a targeted manner to stimulate affordable housing. But she, too, is opposed to this current plan. This proposal overzones more than half of our city. And because SB three thirty forbids any reduction of upzoning once approved, San Francisco cannot go back if this proposal is adopted. Once upzoned, always upzoned. It's true that we have to meet the SB three thirty mandate, but we don't have to do it as proposed. San Francisco can adopt a plan that doesn't overzone. We can monitor the effects and make adjustments over time. Our city government has long been viewed as unlike others with an independent perspective, even nonconformist. There is no reason to change that independence now. Is that two minutes?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: That's or two minutes.

[Speaker 37.0]: Alright. Well, thank you very much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I'll remind members of the public who are commenting. There's a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left.

[Speaker 36.0]: Okay. Okay, thank you. My name is Mark Bruno. As I mentioned before, I live in North Beach. I've lived there for over thirty five years. I work both as a volunteer and I've been employed by Saint Vincent de Paul Society, as one of the largest, the largest homeless shelter in the city, MSC South. One aim of upzoning, we've been told tonight as well, opportunity, diversity, affordability. The plan therefore should do nothing, nothing to decrease the affordable units we already have that many of us in the in the cities, in the neighborhoods, and in non profits have so diligently worked for over so many years. For this reason, I propose the family zoning plan include the following language, no permits issued as a result of this act shall diminish the habitability or remove from the marketplace or demolish any rent controlled unit in the city and county of San Francisco. Period. End of story. This does not take away rights from property owners and I apologize when earlier this week Rachel misunderstood the question at the forum. It would not change the law for property owners in any way, in any respect. I'm merely saying that why have a plan that includes colored charts on top of existing rent controlled units suggesting to builders all over the world to come to that unit, knock it down, displace people, and supposedly build more affordable housing. Why diminish current affordable housing only to build more? This is nonsensical unless the real intent is to move tenants from more established neighborhoods to less expensive ones. This is not imaginary. This was once done in San Francisco, in the Western Addition, with devastating results to the black community and to our city at large. Family zoning should do nothing to hurt existing tenants, especially as proponents espouse it as a boon to affordability. That is the point of my amendment. Thank you.

[Speaker 35.0]: Good evening. I'll keep this very quick. My name is Ernest Mariota. I live at 13 Wood Street, San Francisco. And, I'm here just to have one request for you, but I've lived I was born and raised on that block, so I've lived there for seventy five years. And so I've seen a lot of a lot happen. But it's been a very quiet block, and suddenly, all of this is going on. My grandfather established his business on that block, which is American Trazo Company, which is still in business over a hundred years. It's still family owned and my cousins and all of us still live in the same area. So we have a lot of history there. But I'm just my request is if we could cut down the height of the buildings on Geary at 2750 there where Sage Brook, which is a retirement home, exists and bring it down from one forty to 85 if possible. It's gonna cast a huge shadow over really, which is what a very small, you know, single story homes in that neighborhood. So that's about all I have to say. Thank you.

[Speaker 18.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Meg Fitzgerald, and I'm here on behalf of the residents at Emerson And Wood Streets. You've just heard from one of them. Emerson And Wood Street is a historic development. It was built as a result of the terrazzo factory. Ernie's grandfather, other neighbors of mine grandfather, same grandfather, came here, built that factory. And then all of those homes were built. At one time, they were all occupied by the factory workers. And you can see the evidence of that if you look at our lots. The yards on Wood Street are larger than Emerson because that used to be the pathway they took to get to the factory. The the reason that we're here today is because we feel that we should get the same relief on Geary Street between Emerson and Wood that the city staff has granted to other blocks on Geary West of Masonic leading up to Arguello. There's already jagged heights going from 140 to 85 and back up to 140 at Arguello. As Ernie mentioned, there's the Sage Brook site, which is senior housing the city should be seeking to protect and not demolish. The building has a historic facade, which its own architect of the owner that owns the site that met with us and the neighbors in 2020 said that there are very strict requirements to protect that and that the structure of the building reinforced could not support a significant addition. So the city should not be including this site in its rezoning because it's not realistic to help meet the overall housing goal that the city has established. So we would like that brought back down to 85 feet, which was in prior iterations of the city's map. We appreciate the step down to 65 feet as it approaches the residence. And we would ask for the same at 2750 Geary because that site will also shadow the senior facility in its courtyard and our homes. And we haven't objected to the two forty feet on the East Side Of Emerson, to the two forty feet South of Geary. We have a hill to the north of us. And just giving us this reprieve at 85 feet, which is precedented, West Of Masonic would give just some sunlight to our historic homes and our families and the seniors at Sage Brook. So we would very much like for you to please consider just going back down to 85 feet, and we thank the staff for reducing

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: that is your time.

[Speaker 18.0]: Thank you.

[Virginia Barker (Public Commenter)]: Good evening, Virginia Barker. I am very concerned, as was mister Bruno, about the destruction, demolition of rent controlled housing. In your packet, there's a report that says that the city wants to maintain and strengthen its resolve to preserve existing multifamily and rent controlled housing. And this proposal maintains San Francisco's rules, severely limiting the demolition of existing multifamily and or rent controlled housing. Well, that sounds good. However, I've only heard from the planning staff, from planning commission, very, very vague to the point of almost obfuscation statements about how that's actually going to be accomplished. I've heard rent control buildings will be protected at the beginning of a hearing to stave off comments, perhaps. The planning department doesn't want to approve demolishing rent control buildings, but you could, you might, you probably will when their lawyers tell you that they've checked all the boxes. If demolition of a rent control building is applied for, it would be the commission's discretionary approval, and the developer would have to answer lots of questions. Well, what are those questions exactly? What are the criteria that you're going to use? I feel that the the communication from the planning department has been extremely vague to the point of obfuscation. Now it's been moved to commissioner Chan's apartment. It's being tenant protections are being developed behind closed doors without public approval. And I would like to request that you outline with crystal clear clarity what are the protections against demolition for rent control buildings. Because you may know what a CU does, but we don't trust that a CU is going to solve that problem.

[Christopher Peterson (President, SF League of Conservation Voters)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Christopher Peterson. I'm the president of the San Francisco League of Conservation Voters. The league strongly supports the San Francisco family zoning plan. From an environmental and climate perspective, San Francisco is one of the very best locations in the Western United States for providing more multifamily housing. Because of San Francisco's density, its walkability, its extensive transit service and bike network, its proximity to employment, education, and commercial centers, and its mild climate, San Franciscans on average use less energy, have lower greenhouse gas emissions, consume less water, and take up less land than other Californians or Americans. Increasing the supply of multifamily housing in San Francisco would therefore provide a host of environmental benefits. Restricting housing supply in San Francisco, by contrast, pushes people to live in more automobile dependent areas, areas with more extreme climates and with much greater exposure to wildfire hazards. The family zoning plan, by allowing more multifamily housing, especially along major transit corridors and close to commercial districts, is a crucial step for San Francisco to achieve its and the state's climate and environmental goals. As you evaluate refinements to the family zoning plan and related legislation, the league urges you to focus on the environmental and climate benefits of maximizing the supply of multifamily housing in San Francisco, especially along transit corridors and close to commercial districts and employment centers? Thank you.

[Paula March Romanovsky (Jordan Park Resident)]: Hello. I'm Paula March Romanovsky, and I have lived at Lorraine Court on Lorraine Court for forty five years. And I'm an active member of the Francisco Heights Neighborhood Association. And on behalf of that association, I ask you to share our concern regarding the impact of 12 to 14 story buildings on the Jordan Park, Francisco Heights area. Over these forty five years, neighbors have worked very hard to develop a sense of community that ensures our neighborhood remains vibrant, safe, clean, and child friendly. We can point to many examples of working with the planning commission and developers to accomplish this goal. A few examples include an ongoing relationship with the University of San Francisco regarding their expansion plans and the Institute on Aging's willingness to right size their project on Geary to accommodate concerns about height limits. So thank you for considering the impact this makes on neighborhoods.

[Speaker 62.0]: Hi. I'm In Godso, and I've lived in Jordan Park now for close to sixteen years. My husband and I bought our house there, a huge investment for us at the time, because we wanted to raise our two children and multiple dogs in a great community like that. We fell in love with Jordan Park from the get go for so many reasons, including the community feeling and the large lots with real backyards and trees. We also liked that there were strict codes on what you could and couldn't build in and around Jordan Park and similar neighborhoods. We are dismayed by recent proposals to change these building codes, including allowing for towers as tall as 14 stories and even allowing for up leveling or upzoning within Jordan Park itself. These changes will no doubt destroy what is truly a gem of a neighborhood. More importantly, I don't think upzoning in and around a neighborhood like Jordan Park will even work. Certainly, units right there, I don't think they're really addressing the problem of affordable. We don't have an overall housing unit crisis. We have an affordable unit housing crisis. There are already tens of thousands. I think it's something like 70,000 units in the pipeline in San Francisco. Why not focus there first before forcing this upzoning? If builders who are fully permitted are just sitting on their properties, there should be repercussions. For example, my two kids were born at CPMC Hospital on California. That property has been sitting vacant for six years. I understand there is a plan for nearly 500 new units there, and yet it still stalled, a real eyesore. Another place we used to frequent as a family was Lucky Penny Diner on Geary, not far from our house. That location has sat vacant collecting graffiti for over ten years now. The developer intends, in his own words, to build luxury apartments there, but now wants to up zone so that he can build more luxury apartments there. These are not affordable units that he's looking to build. Before destroying unique neighborhoods like Jordan Park, let's think about it more.

[Stan Hayes (Telegraph Hill Dwellers)]: So good afternoon again. I'm still Stan Hayes from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers. For years, planning has worked on the housing element, a housing element environmental impact report, and multiple versions of an upzoning plan. And in all this time, most of District 3 was not included. Now now at the eleventh hour, upzoning has come to Fisherman's Wharf, the Northern Waterfronts, and most of North Beach and Telegraph Hill. For more than sixty years, most of these areas have been zoned at 40 feet. Now they're being upzoned to as tall as 85 feet. And that's without upzoning's density decontrol, which when layered on with the state density bonus, will supercharge buildings to be much taller. Much much taller. A building like this has already been proposed at 955 Sansom at the foot of Telegraph Hill and in a historic district. Nearly 300 feet high, over three times its height limit, taller even than Telegraph Hill. Need the overhead if I caught

[Speaker 36.0]: it, please.

[Stan Hayes (Telegraph Hill Dwellers)]: Here we go. Thank you. Here's a similar upzoning example. The latest plan proposes to spot Zone 1111 Sansom just a block and a half away in the same historic district. If a building as tall as 955 Sansom were built, this is what it would look like. Here's another upzoning example on the Northern Waterfront. This is what 100 North Point would look like with a building as tall as is considered for approval on 955 Sansom. A new wall on the waterfront? Are these the buildings that we want, or are they unintended consequences? This is housing affordable to the rich, not most San Franciscans. Please remove the height increases in density decontrol in North Beach, Telegraph Hill, and the Northern Waterfront. These areas are working. Why risk destroying their history? Vibrancy and culture.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: That is your time.

[Stan Hayes (Telegraph Hill Dwellers)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 63.0]: Good afternoon. My name's Margaret Groney, and I'm a resident of Jordan Park. I've been a resident of Jordan Park for fifty five years. I was raised in that house. My kid is raised in that house. I am only the third family to be there, and that house is a 115 years old. Jordan Park was created after the earthquake for families and has successfully created really strong community. I think you're seeing a lot of people here talking from Jordan Park because we are especially impacted by the upzoning of the Geary Corridor. The Geary Corridor is a vital thing to my life and to the lives of my neighbors. We took the 36 bus here. I go around the corner and have, and I can get takeout and have meals in family owned businesses and small businesses. Those businesses could lose their lease, but they could also lose the character that it has now. There's a lot of character in this neighborhood, and people are passionate about it. I'm passionate about it. And I'm hoping you'll consider that. You know, I saw the sign the picture here of Geary, and it says 40 feet. And where I live, it's proposed next to be go up to 85 feet. We would be happy to have more people in our neighborhood. I feel like 65 feet still is such a height limitation, but perhaps it doesn't make it feel like we are walled in and walled away from everybody else. We wanna be integrated, We wanna invite more people, and we wanna retain the character of our neighborhood. I would also just point out that just down a couple blocks on the edge of Jordan Park is, a 140 foot structure overseeing Arguello. Sorry. Roosevelt Middle School on Arguello. It oversees their backyard. The shade, those kids will not have any sunlight. So that should be noted as well. Thank you.

[Calvin Welch (Housing Activist, Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council)]: Still Calvin Mulch, Hade Ashbury Neighborhood Council Housing and Land Use Board Member. In reading from the handout that you provided, the obligations of San Francisco is to maintain a housing element certification, is to realistically is to demonstrate a realistic capacity to meet arena shortfall of 36,200 units. The handout that I'm giving you is from the staff report that shows that 79% of that unmet RHNA goal is low and moderate income housing. Nothing in this plan, nothing in any plan from the Department of City Planning in San Francisco has ever claimed nor come close to producing 79% affordable housing. This plan is deficient on its face by its own numbers. And let me finally conclude, director Hillis, the n c the residential district commercial district of Van Ness is covered by this plan. It is the most dense portion of this plan that you folks voted in item 18 to allow housing to be removed from everything but the 1st Floor by a conditional use permit. How does that meet the state obligation of a realistic commitment when the highest density proposed in your plan you have now agreed can be removed by a conditional use permit. Thank you.

[Speaker 64.0]: My name is Jean Tepper. I've lived at three different addresses in the Geary Corridor. I currently live right at the corner of Geary and Arguello, and I love to look out my window and see Roosevelt Middle School, that lovely building. I don't have a lot of answers. I I haven't studied this. I haven't been to any of the meetings, but I I have a couple of my big question is, won't this plan create a windfall for property owners who are in the areas that are gonna be upzoned so they can charge more to sell their buildings to developers, and the develop the developers will have to pay more to build their, buildings and, also create more demolitions than you've predicted? That's my question. Thank you very much.

[Lucas Wang (Resident, Hub neighborhood)]: Hello. My name is Lucas Wang. I moved to the city back in 2021, and I currently live in the Hub neighborhood. I'm here speaking for my friends that also moved here in 2021 to work in the city. We are young, we do not own cars, and we primarily live in SoMa in areas like The Hub, Mission Rock, and Rincon Hill. And we are still here despite many of our friends moving to more affordable cities like Austin and Chicago because we love San Francisco. And we'd also love to join our neighbors here on the Western side of the city. Me and my friends, we spend most of our time in the outer sunset. We're on Irving Street right around 21st where you guys have increased the height limits for the buildings, and we're really excited about that. And of course, all along Irving as well. And we encourage you to please keep those higher building height limits along these transit corridors. We do not own cars. We have to work in downtown. For us to do that, we have to live along these transit corridors, and we're very grateful and excited for more of these developments to come up in the outer sunset in Richmond. Thank you.

[Ira Kaplan (North Beach Resident)]: Hi. My name is Ira Kaplan. I live in North Beach. This is all over the place. San Francisco's current status quo zoning code is broken, and it's not broken in a benign way. It's our status quo zoning code is responsible for our crisis level housing shortage, which has led to our current ongoing homelessness, displacement, and affordability crises. That's the result of policy choices choices made by this body and the board of supervisors that have inflicted real harms on San Franciscans for going on fifty years now. So I'm glad the state is stepping in and forcing you to revisit those harmful choices, but it kind of seems like you're not really taking this process seriously. What we've just heard is that San Francisco is going to accommodate 50,000 new homes with a pipeline that we all know as vaporware. If we get anywhere close to that from the pipeline, I'll eat my crocs. And then it's gonna meet the rest with a local program that's designed to duplicate the state density bonus, which raises two questions. One, are we really adding any capacity at all? And two, why does planning hate the state density bonus so much? And forcing people who can't afford a single family house to live on polluted, dirty, noisy arterials like Lombard or Geary or Van Ness doesn't affirmatively further fair housing. In fact, it's textbook environmental injustice. And the idea that someone who's comfortably housed having to see a new tall building causes harm on par with queer kids coming to San Francisco to escape bad home situations only to find out that we have nothing more to offer them than a tent at the Safeway by Ocean Beach is offensive. But that's a value judgment that's embodied in our current status quo zoning code. So again, I'm glad the state is stepping in and forcing you to revisit these harms. I just wish you were doing more. Thanks.

[Jonathan Booneman (Northern Neighbors)]: Good evening. My name is Jonathan Booneman. I live in District 2, and I'm a member of Northern Neighbors, a neighborhood group focused on housing and transportation. Spending five hours at a public meeting on a beautiful afternoon isn't everyone's idea of fun, and the people who can do that often aren't representative of the broader public. But when you create spaces where people can learn about zoning in a more enjoyable way, they'll show up and they'll care. Last night, Northern Neighbors hosted a housing cocktail party in Presidio Heights. 70 people came, not just for drinks, but to hear directly from city officials and housing experts. Many of them are just starting to think about starting families, and they were enthusiastic about the family zoning plan. They see how it can help them stay in San Francisco and raise their kids in the dense, walkable neighborhoods they already love. Please move this plan forward. It's thoughtful, it's needed, and it has growing support from people who want to build their futures here. Thank you.

[Speaker 68.0]: Good evening. My name is Taylor Walker. I live on Jordan Avenue. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you to, the members of the planning department for working on this. I know that, it's hard work. I understand that there's, a state mandate, which is, if you will, forcing the city's hand on this. I think that, what is alarming and what I've heard other people voice tonight and before this meeting is what seems to be an extreme response in some regards. And by that, what I mean is that along some of these corridors, people are looking at incredibly tall, high buildings. And so people are immediately jumping back and freaking out. And so there's just a lot of anxiety and worry about this. And so my question to you and to the people that work in the department is, is there a way to, if you will, moderate the verticality along some of these corridors? It just seems that some of these neighborhoods and the adjacent neighborhoods like mine, which is a historic neighborhood, are kind of taking it in the teeth. And I would also echo what somebody said a moment ago, which is I'm not exactly sure that people want to live in high rises along Geary Avenue. It is noisy. It is polluted. It may not be the best place for people. But again, I recognize that there's work that needs to be done and that compromise is needed. So I am not a NIMBY. I am just asking for a thoughtful look at the massing and the studies and what it is going to do to the neighborhood and to all the neighborhoods around the city. Thank you for your consideration. Have a good evening.

[Speaker 69.0]: Hi, commissioners and, staff. Thank you so much for having us today. Annie from Spur. I am a rent controlled renter in the Sunset District living in one of those out of character 10 story old buildings that is wonderful. And I just really want to open with that and share that so much of what makes my building a key part of that community is that we bring a ton more customers to the neighborhood small businesses in the Sunset. We bring a lot more transit riders to support muni service in the neighborhood. We also have an elevator in our building, which means a lot of seniors from other parts of the West Side and other parts of the sunset who might wanna downsize and if they develop mobility issues, move into a smaller place that's better suited for them than a single family home can do that and maintain their same community and informal social safety net of being in their same neighborhood. So all of these things, when we talk about the up zoning plan, I think that the main thing that I wanna communicate is we're talking a lot about the height and the number of feet that come with those new buildings. But I also wanna remind folks that public transit thrives with more riders. Neighborhood small businesses thrive with more neighbors. Schools thrive with more kids. And there's a lot of value that we get from our community from having a lot of these different types of building. There's affordability. There's all of these other things that come with population density. And I really appreciate the work that the department and the staff and the commission have done to date and would love to actually see the map further expanded further into the West Side. Thank you.

[Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition)]: Hi. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition as their community organizer. And I first want to talk about my experience in San Francisco. I had lived in San Francisco as soon as I turned 18, had stayed here for ten years, and then because I couldn't afford to live here anymore, had to move to Oakland, where I love Oakland and the community and the neighborhoods that I was able to connect with, but I do have a dream of returning. I had looked for several years to try to find housing in the sunset on the West Side and was just not able to. Eventually, I moved into a single family home where I had to split rooms. I'm sure that's not unfamiliar to a lot of people living in living rooms with tapestries separating rooms. And the one consistent thing that I keep hearing when I come to these hearings is that people love living on the West Side. And I think that is something that a lot of people share and that we're asking for more room and more spaces to be able to have other types of families live there and younger people and older relatives who don't want to age out of the city, More complexity in in our housing choices means that more people can find something that works for them, and families are struggling to stay in the city. Runters are stretching every dollar, and it's it's tough out here. And I would love to be able to move back to San Francisco when it is right. I really hope to be able to enjoy the city and make my roots here and be able to live here for a lot of years to come. Thank you.

[Speaker 23.0]: Good eve good evening. Margaret Dietz. I basically have a question for the planning committee that's never been answered. What is the plan? What is the end zoning plan? The population of the city is 800,000, 809,000, I believe. And this plan would increase the population by how much? If you I thought if it all gets built, I heard a figure of 20,000 or 200,000, I believe. So have you figured out how much water that many people will use in a drought? I mean, in a drought, would you have enough water to sustain that population? What is the capacity population of the city? What is the optimal population of the city? If it becomes too dense, does it become crime ridden, unlivable? I mean, in water, there's only one parameter. Right now, the Muni buses like the 38 Geary that we're all talking about here, it's it's crowded. It's very crowded, and Muni is talking about decreasing services. So I think you need to think about the ultimate number of people that are sustainable.

[Diane (Union & Van Ness Resident)]: Hi. My name is Diane. And for decades, our 40 foot Edwardian building on Union between Polk And Van Ness has been our home. It's been home to our extended family pets and our tenants' extended families and pets, for generations. A bit of it's sometimes a bit of a money pit, but we try to contribute to SF as an amazing place to live for people for generations. My neighborhood demonstrates the features that the mayor describes. It's there already. Families with a broad range of income, background, and lifestyles, roomy, family friendly flats, ideal existing generational homes, small scale, sunny restaurants with stores, with outside seating, great pedestrian vistas, such as from the cable car at Swensen's looking to the Presidium, quirky alleys, backyards, and architecture. Ironically, the family plan disproportionately destroys this neighborhood, the entire atmosphere, and substitutes a dystopia, where only three, for example, of my small, the small buildings that surround my house will remain. The rest of them are upzoned to 140 foot monoliths. I feel like every day I'm I'm not even sure if which color is mine, or maybe now my house will be the up zone. And then we have the elitist van this wall, which shelters the, wealthier private homes. It's not what's meant, but we can work on it and make it work. It's just, it would be a tragedy to destroy neighborhoods that work. Thank you.

[Speaker 55.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Kelly Grothe. I'm here on the behalf of the Council of Community Housing Organizations. Our coalition is comprised of 19 community housing developers and tenant advocates, And we have some concerns about the proposed family zoning and how it will help create more affordable housing. According to Planning's presentation, we still need 36,000 units, 57% of which must be affordable. That means that we just need to build 20,000 affordable units in just a few years. We want to see an actual plan for how we're going to build those affordable units. And as we saw in today's presentation, the economic outlook is our biggest barrier to building any housing market rate, inclusionary, affordable. In our last RHNA cycle, San Francisco built 150% of its goal of market rate housing and only 49% of its affordable housing goal. We need a housing strategy that's not just about zoning, but about housing justice, protections for tenants and small businesses, and more public investment in affordable housing. Thank you.

[Speaker 9.0]: Good afternoon, or almost good evening, commissioners. Thank you for being here and listening to us. My name's Carolyn Kennedy. I live in D8, and I chair the Dolores Heights Improvement Club, which opposes this proposal. We all here today agree that San Francisco needs more affordable housing for our low income and moderate income residents, especially for families. However, the response from our city has been that this program will expand housing choices. And this year, Mayor Lohrey introduced it as his family zoning plan. Sounds good, right? Well, the financial feasibility analysis cited today in staff presentation shows that under current market conditions, no projects will create a positive residual land value. So in the near term for profit developers, as far as I can see, won't be building in San Francisco. And I've also heard this, as you have too, anecdotally, from realtors and builders. So until costs decrease to the improved market conditions, what will happen? Well, in my area, the millionaires and billionaires who are unconstrained in how much they spend on housing will continue buying land, properties, and build large multimillion dollar homes. What will change here under this plan? The projects will be two or three unit buildings to obtain the heights and other benefits provided. So let's call this the millionaires' zoning plan. When economic conditions achieve the improved market conditions, then the 2,500 square foot lots in the highest submarkets become profitable. What kind of housing will be built there? Well, chart shows it'll be eight forty four square feet. That's a two bedroom apartment. And the rent will be $4,600 This is not affordable family housing. Maybe we should rebrand this as single folks zoning program or homes for double income, no kids. Joking aside, other alternatives exist and have been suggested by NUSF and REP and the Housing Coalition. This is not going to achieve our needs for family housing and affordable housing. It will satisfy Sacramento, however. We can do better. Thank you.

[Speaker 21.0]: Good evening. Georgia Shutish. I've been waiting for this feasibility study since November, so it was so great to read it. But I have to say that what struck me was the thing about the 2,500 square foot lots. Those are the most feasible under the improved conditions, which could happen next year once Trump fires Jerome Powell. So what's how are you gonna counter that? And I I have to insist that you must make the the definition of demolition stronger. I totally disagree with what was said at the LUT. It's not strict. It needs to be stronger. It needs to be done what you can do, what the commission can do. And I also think that when you do the codify the flat policy, you need a comprehensive definition. So for both those things, comprehensive definition for demolition and a very comprehensive definition to define flats with the details about what makes a flat a flat, not just floor through doors, etcetera. And I've sent you tons of that. 2,500 square feet is the predominant lot size in San Francisco. And I think they'll be very subject to speculation. And I really do worry about that with the priority equity geography neighborhoods. I know it's not in the rezoning. But if you follow the thread of that feasibility study, those neighborhoods are gonna be vulnerable. And going back to another study from 2021, those neighborhoods under s b nine, there was worry about people cashing out. So there's all kinds of stuff going on. I wrote about it in the thing. Here's copies for everybody. And, oh, and the other thing was s b four twenty three. How is that gonna work with if the lots of the of the 2,500 square foot lots are the most feasible, and you've got S B 423, and the staff has said that sometimes they do the second unit and it's not really there. There's all kinds of stuff to think about. There's my paper. Thanks a lot. Have a good evening.

[Speaker 56.0]: SF GovTV. I'll be using the overhead. Great. Thank you. Eileen Bogan, CSFN, speaking on my own behalf. Strongly oppose opposing the tunnel vision of this plan. On the overhead is an official map of San Francisco from 1868 with a notation of the outside lands. Right there. Hard to see. Anyway, this was a derogatory term as developers didn't want to build in the sunset as they believe that no one wanted to live there. Fast forward to June 16, and there's whiplash to a completely different narrative. In the land use and transportation committee packet, the zoning map shows Terravelle going from a base, 40 foot base to an 85 foot base. Okay. Teraville. This would be one twenty five feet with the local density bonus program and 150 feet with the state density bonus program. The width of Teraville is not enough to balance off these greater heights without creating a tunnel effect. The family zoning plan could also be seen as bait and switch over the department's previous plan. Adding a 15% buffer on top of an inflated RHNA numbers from HED creates the perception that this is an unserious plan based on a broken ideology. Transit oriented development was devised for new community, communities, jury rigged for infill, and was developed pre pandemic and does not take into account remote work and new mobility options such as Uber and Lyft. This plan is detached from reality. Thank you.

[Speaker 71.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Robert Fruckman. I live in District 5. I'd like to express my thanks to the planning staff for commissioning the feasibility report from Century Urban. As you've heard, most of the prototypes studied would not be feasible to build. And I think that's very dire news. I think it's worth adding the context that in 2022, the same consultants analyzed the fourplex bill that was later passed. And as the Chronicle reported a couple months ago, there have been no fourplexes that resulted from that bill because none of the fourplexes were feasible to build. I think many of them were $600,000 in the hole or more. And we're seeing a lot of that in the new feasibility study. So I think this new report should be a wake up call. I'd also ask you to consider that in the last year, four out of five net new units were built in structures containing 20 plus units, 20 plus apartment buildings. And in this report, there were 69 prototypes that included 20 units or more. And of those 69, only seven were feasible to build. They had an LRV of more than $75,000 So that means the rezoning would barely affect San Francisco's largest source of new housing units. I think it's seriously time to consider reducing fees on developments. Even the staff presentation mentioned not doing that, I think it's worthwhile doing. Page 26 of the staff report talks about how little impact fees have on Citi's budget, but they have a huge impact on developments. Even the housing element mentioned a project at 120 Seneca Street that paid nearly $30,000 in just administrative fees. So I think the rezoning really needs a lot more work to be realistic.

[Speaker 35.0]: Thank you.

[Bridget Maley (Neighborhoods United San Francisco)]: Hi. Good afternoon, commissioners. Bridget Maley on behalf of Neighborhoods United San Francisco. Once we up zone, we can't go back. So we need to get this right. As Quentin Mecky of ChuChu said last week at the land use hearing, the sky is not going to fall if we need longer than January 2026 to achieve a thoughtful rezoning effort. We ask that before you blanket up zone and density decontrol our neighborhoods, that the planning commission and our elected leaders do the following. Push back on the state's manufactured, unfunded mandates and challenge the RHNA targets that are already, that are outdated and inflated. Demand that the state recognize the already legislated four and six plex upzoning that was approved by the board in October 2022. Work with developers to build the pipeline and seriously consider saying no to developers when they come back for their reentitlement extensions and free up those project sites for actual buildable projects. Redouble efforts to gain housing downtown by encouraging conversion of office to housing. Phase upzoning and conduct major transit corridor housing studies. Start with the major corridors before we blanket upzone our low scale historic neighborhoods. Advocate for a delay in the January 2026 up zoning implementation deadline to allow for a realistic community centered plan to be created. Remove density decontrol from the plan, as it will encourage lot accumulation and oversized developments in our neighborhoods. And I'll end with two questions that I'm hopeful staff can answer today. The map that we are looking at now that Mayor Loree has presented is drastically different than that was than the map that was published in the housing element EIR. What is the additional environmental review that will be conducted, and when will that be done? Second, where does the notification to partial to parcel owners, that are being upzoned fit into the timeline? Thank you.

[Speaker 72.0]: Good afternoon, commissioner. It's Jane Natoli, the San Francisco organizing director for EMB Action. I had to get ready to go to the symphony before I gave public comment since I was going to be down here. And it's been going on for a while. So I'll be brief. On behalf of our 1,300 members here in San Francisco, we're in support of the upzoning. You heard from some of them. Definitely, we think there's areas that could be improved. But this is a great, great starting place. When we look at our housing shortage, we have so much work to do. And when we think about the debt of that, it's going to require some bold thinking. We had the opportunity to not be in this position if we had done things differently for the past fifty years. We haven't. And that's why we're in the position we are today. When we think about the Bay Area and when we think about San Francisco at the center of it, we have an obligation to provide more homes. We look at a lot of what's happening in the world, in The United States. If we want to be a safe welcoming place that starts with having the homes for people to live here we're just about to go into pride this weekend. We've been celebrating it all month. I would love for more young queer people to be able to afford to live in the city that cannot because we don't build the homes for them. Thank you, and I look forward to speaking on this again when it comes up for approval.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: So funny.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: This is Sue Hester. I wanted to point out you've had a really difficult agenda today. As was pointed out earlier, you gave two minutes, three minutes to speak on five items at the beginning of the calendar. There are PCAs sponsored by mostly the mayor. And this is the mayor's new legislation. It came in on Tuesday. This is discouraging to say the least. I want to support what Calvin Welch said. There's a lot of affordable housing that needs to be built. We are way, way, way behind on building affordable housing for our arena requirements. But you can make a lot more money building housing, good luxury housing for people that want to live in San Francisco because they come here to to make their fortune. We need housing for people who work here, people who support the retail industry, people who build the housing needs housing as well. Ironically, they don't, they can't, the people that built housing can't afford to buy housing in San Francisco or to live here. I will plead for you basically post document as soon as possible because getting documents from the department posted on our website, a lot of people don't have the ability to print out documents and you should give them to them. Thank you very

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: much. Okay. Final last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Brehon?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thanks for everyone who stuck it out through what has been a very long hearing today and for sharing all your comments. And it just speaks to how important this issue is for for so many people in the city. You know, I've always been I think anyone who's been at these hearings along the way, it'll be no surprise. I've always been broadly supportive of the direction of the rezoning effort. But not just the rezoning effort, the accompanying other policy efforts and package of legislation that would come forward with this to ensure that we are focusing also on small business protections and affordable housing and preventing tenant displacement. And so, you know, I think this is all this is one piece today of of all those things that are happening with this. You know, I also wanna say, kudos to staff's efforts to to be thoughtful in fulfilling the commitments that this commission and the board made a while back when we adopted the housing element and now we are in the details and that's a good thing to work this through. But thanks to staff for engaging with the communities. It sounds like there has been a lot of outreach recently, which is great, and trying to be thoughtful about taking in information and making adjustments. I do wanna just also note before I get into my questions that, for those who wanna hear more about the tenant protections and protections on housing, you can render your own opinion and judgment on it. It was the it was the February 27 hearing where we heard that, and so the materials are online as well as the hearing video. And it also addressed housing demolition protections as well. So now I have a couple of questions here. A lot of the focus today during comment has been about the changes to the map. A lot of the focus has understandably been about the heights. You know, this is the thing that people might see and feel as as, development unfolds. I'm curious, just to learn a little bit more about what has been the process so far of of hearing input from the community. As I was saying, you know, it's I I appreciate staff's efforts at this, but what has been that process? Where where have there been some adjustments? I can see a few on the map, but I don't know if there's kind of an overview that you can provide.

[Lisa Chen (Principal Planner, Family Zoning Plan)]: Sure. Thank you, commissioner. So, yeah, as as we kind of mentioned, we really try to be balanced and just hear from all perspectives. And in in addition to meetings, we get many emails. There there's many ways that people can reach us. We also get requests that are filtered through the supervisors offices as well because they also receive many emails as I'm sure all of you do, as well. And so, you know, we gather them. We put them on a list. And we discuss them. You know, we are moving into a new stage of this project. And that's been made very clear this week with the introduction of the legislation because we are moving towards adoption to meet state laws, the state deadlines. And so, you know, it is, in some ways, it's making that shift also just in terms of who's the decision maker, right, because you all are going to make recommendations. But we have already been talking with the supervisors' offices and the mayor's offices, and they are also getting all these emails as well. And so, you know, it is this kind of, dance where we work with them. We provide technical expertise. We provide our recommendations. We try to accommodate, the changes they request as well. So it's really kind of a mix. I would say it's been very collaborative collaborative working with the board and with the the mayor's office. And then just to your question about specific changes, we didn't list them kind of street by street, but we did kind of give some overall, guidelines. So, you know, we talked about some streets where we were kind of sculpting the heights a little bit more. So Lombard is an example of that where we kind of maintained higher heights on one side and then tapered them down. Geary is another example of that. So some of it is kind of corridor wide changes. But then there also were some parcel level changes. So for example, we got a lot of feedback around 300 Lake Street, which is the old St. Anne site. It's a very large site, a very unique opportunity site for housing. And so we got feedback about how we can sculpt the height kind of more deliberately on the site itself. And so it's kind of a mix of some bigger changes and then kind of some more spot changes as well. We also got feedback from the community about technical errors that we've made. So for example, we accidentally showed height on parts of the Glen Park Greenway. So we took that off. So there's over 92,000 parcels that are part of the rezoning. And so we're working through these months to find and catch those errors as well.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for that. And I can see how it's played out in some areas that have been raised in the past. I know that the area around Geary and Arguello has been raised today and maybe Geary and Masonic or just west of there. I can see that there are adjustments being made, and I appreciate that. I know that there are a lot of people who are still not happy with it. But, you know, I'm seeing how the heights are being reduced in some cases and off of Geary, you know, the parcels that are not directly on Geary. And and, so I can see the the the the sort of moving the needle here and there that's that's happening. And and and I think it's, like, it's great to see and also great to have the involvement now of also the supervisors who have their own sort of perspective on some of this. There were two questions raised during the hearing that I'm actually curious to learn a little bit more about. So one was the, assurance that the environmental impact report completed for the housing element, the site's inventory, is still applicable in this for the adjustments that are being made. Is is there anyone who could speak to that a little bit?

[Joshua Switzky (Citywide Planning Director)]: Commissioner. Joshua Switsky with staff. Yes. We're relying on the housing element, EAR. The Environmental Planning Division is preparing an addendum just to produce the additional analysis to show that the proposal as it's coming forward is consistent with the findings of the of the report.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: So Okay. Thank you. I apologize.

[Joshua Switzky (Citywide Planning Director)]: That will be published prior to your action in September.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I should I should certainly hope so. So then the other was, speaking of timing, the notification legislation that passed for properties that are adjacent to areas with zoning changes, now that's passed and we kind of know our timeline for legislation moving. So

[Lisa Chen (Principal Planner, Family Zoning Plan)]: Sure. So those as as as in that ordinance, as it requires, it's pegged to the adoption hearing at this commission. And so, I believe it's a thirty day, notification that was specified in the legislation. Because it's, it has a large scale with so many properties affected, that basically means we're preparing the the, notification now. It'll take several weeks for the postcards to go out. So we were waiting to get the board file number to today, really. And so we're ready to finalize that, and it'll be sent out soon. But it is gonna take a few weeks for it to actually get mailed to everyone. But, it'll definitely be before the thirty day mark before that hearing.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Great. Thank you. I was supportive of that. And yeah, I look forward to that going out and more people becoming aware. And then the last I have two questions more about height and design to speaking to some of the the comments and concerns raised about it. One question is in the local program. I'm just kind of trying to orient myself to where the the objective design standards sort of sit within all of this because we the easy thing is to just create a mask and that's like a block in a SketchUp model. But I know that we do have some objective design standards and and they include step backs and taller building heights. We've reviewed this. But I'm a little unsure exactly how they relate to projects that might come forward under the local program. I mean, is it just those would apply?

[Lisa Chen (Principal Planner, Family Zoning Plan)]: Yeah. So I will say that we worked very collaboratively with our design review staff who were collect creating the design standards at the same time that we were, you know, developing the rezoning. And they were, you know, at our open houses and such, really developing ideas with these corridors in mind, actually. So, you'll notice when you get the ordinance that, part of the legislation is also just codifying references to design standards to make sure that they're reinforced. And, you know, there are sections, for example, in our bulk, section, you know, you'll see some of the same standards repeated in the code as in the standards document themselves. So through the local program, for the most part, the objective design standards are kept intact. But there are a few areas where we are allowing for even a little bit more flexibility. And that was also created intentionally with the design review staff as they were creating the objective design standards. We didn't actually know which was going to be adopted first. And so we always knew that there was gonna be the design standards and then some menu that would allow flexibility on some of those standards. Because I'll also note that the design standards also create the base for those state density bonus projects. Right? So that's why we have that two tier system.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Okay.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Yeah. And I I think maybe when this moves forward to us again, it would be helpful to have, a little more context about that. At least that's I would appreciate that. The other question I had is we've discussed in the past the status of the renderings. I know this has been a little bit of a back and forth because renderings are if the objective design standards are in flux and the local program's in flux, and the renderings themselves are very expensive to produce, you know, I understand the challenges. But, I didn't see new renderings in this packet. I'm curious, what the status is on those, or are we yeah. Where where is this at?

[Lisa Chen (Principal Planner, Family Zoning Plan)]: I mostly didn't include, renderings today because there was just so much content to cover with the feasibility study and the new map and the ordinances. But we have continued to work with our consultant, AECOM, and have been scoping a few new renderings. We don't have an unlimited budget, but we do want to do a few targeted ones, especially in some of the districts that we really haven't shown in prior renderings. So yeah, hopefully more to come soon.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. And yeah, hopefully the input that we're hearing about areas of concern can also sort of inform some of the selection of those locations. And that would be helpful. So those are my questions. Just speaking broadly about this, you know, I'm glad that we're seeing the feasibility analysis results come forward. I I do a lot of this very similar work in my day job. It's a threat of what I do as a urban economics consultant for cities. I just did a presentation last week in Palo Alto for the downtown housing plan that in many ways was a similar approach and the methodology and approach. It was all very robust for the work that was done here. And this has been a continuation of a long process of the department taking these feasibility considerations into consideration. I would say the results are in line with the recent work that I've done, and I'm not I'm not at all surprised by the results. Most communities I'm working in in Bay Area are facing some of the same challenges with financial feasibility of their project types, and it is often the lower density projects that are currently, financially feasible. So that all made sense to me under current conditions. I think the one thing I wanna kinda say about this is, first of all, I think that the fact that some product types are challenged at one point in time, others are challenged at a different point in time under varying conditions, It just speaks to me about the need for diversity of opportunities for housing. So there's opportunities for different projects to move forward under different conditions. That's a little for market rate. The other point I want to make is that when there are financial feasibility challenges, these can also impact affordable housing, which also I mean, just from the perspective of those developers also need to make an efficient product. And so when construction costs are extremely high, when access to their own, depending on their their capital stack or financing is extremely challenging, They too want to create an efficient product even though they have a different approach and policy objectives and set of funding sources. The other thing I want to note in here is these development prototype feasibility analyses are inherently they just have to take a generic approach to things. And so there's always other cases where developers are able to move forward and build their projects or might have different challenges and opportunities. This comes up in a lot of communities where I work where people see a lot of projects coming forward. Some some are just positioning themselves for when the market improves. Some of them are actually buildable under conditions that otherwise say they aren't. And it's because everyone has their own sort of objectives and unique conditions for the financing of their projects and their site ownership costs and things like that. So I don't want it to be a totally negative story as far as the feasibility analysis goes. Conditions change over time. And there's a lot of different you can't capture all the individual circumstances. But ultimately, I think that in terms of some of the levers we can pull as a city, even though they're relatively small compared to the big macroeconomic conditions, as has been noted here, They do help in those edge cases, those marginal cases. And so I also take some I think that's an important takeaway for me. So besides that, I don't want to just totally hog the mic here. I will just say some other takes on this. I just want to reemphasize that to me, the local program is hugely protective of our ability to control outcomes and have our own policy objectives and priorities reflected in what happens at these sites. This is the only pathway, in many cases, to access the density decontrol options. And in some cases, maybe it access additional height. And so this provides a lot of clarity and certainty, while also, of course, there's always the pathway open of state density bonus. But at least this way with the local program, we're achieving more of what we want to see. And then lastly, the big missing piece of this when you talk about financial feasibility, a lot of it is about the market rate housing delivery. And I don't want to lose sight at all of the affordable housing sites and strategy work that will be coming up to us as well, and I'm looking forward to that, because I think that is that's always our biggest lift and and trying to ensure that we we're creating this capacity, but we also need the resources to then use that capacity to produce affordable housing in these sites, especially at a time when market rate housing isn't generating those financial resources or inclusionary units. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you for your comments. Commissioner Vice President Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Thank you, Commissioner Brown. That was a deep dive. I appreciate that. I don't want to spend much time restating that I regret that we have not been able to engage additional tools to get more buy into what we're doing. And I've repeatedly talked about ArcGIS, ARC Urban Urban and digital twins, by which all of us could have created consensus what is where and how and why. I want to leave that aside. I want to direct a question, perhaps a last major question, to our parting director, that is Director Hillis. Could you please restate your understanding about Mr. Welch's concern about that we threw under the bus Van Ness becoming indeed fully residential, high rise residential when we are allowing commercial users on the 2nd Floor or above. He seemed to question the interpretation. Well, I

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: think he was questioning that we would allow for the conversion of residential use on upper floors in existing buildings to retail or office or medical services. And that's just not the case. The CU that exists today to remove residential units would continue. So and we're not changing any of the you know, we may increase heights on Van Ness for for residential projects, but we're not changing any of the rules about medical office or or other uses that may be allowed on Van Ness in new buildings. So, you know, again again, I think he was more concerned about conversion of residential buildings to other uses.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: And that is not the case.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: That still requires a CU under three seventeen. You don't approve those CUs. I mean, it's this whole issue of demolition of existing rent controlled buildings. You know, I think Lisa's chart showing how many we've actually authorized, those rules remain the same. Like, you have control over the demolition of rent controlled buildings. You will continue to have that control as we move on rezoning or no rezoning. Somebody who demos a rent controlled building has to come to this commission to get authorization to do it. You've authorized some in the past, like the Conservatory of Music. But it's generally where tenants are being accommodated and relocated, offering a right of return. It's still your call on whether that happens or not. And, you know, frankly, we don't bring a lot of those to you because we know they're not going to get approved. And I don't think sponsors bring them to us because they know they're not going to get approved. So this whole issue of demolition of rent controlled units, I think the city has done a good job generally around you've all led on that, that we don't want to see that. And we'll continue to reinforce those rules.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I'll call you over that. And it is part of probably quite good that that must have been a misunderstanding on his part. And again, the watchful overview of that remains with this commission to continue current trends. Thank you. A question to mister Schwitzky and follow-up to one of the comments commissioner Brown made. Have the added heights that we have been basically looking at in the most recent months been reflected in the design standards as we know them? Because they're now basically a little bit older.

[Joshua Switzky (Citywide Planning Director)]: Yes, commissioner. The short answer is yes. The the design standards that you all adopted in November, were looking ahead to the scale of development across the city, both in the rezoning area and outside the rezoning area. The design standards address buildings of modest scale of four or five, six stories, and they also address tower situations. The design standards have bulk standards and tower spacing controls and tower sculpting controls, and those scale with the the size of the building. So we're totally comfortable that the the design standards that you've already adopted already address the range of building scales that this plan considers.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: To my recollection, though, we have never ever differentiated as buildings get taller, given the widths of streets that they're occurring on, that buildings that are too tall on the south side of the street create major impacts on the quality of residential units on the north side of the street. We have never addressed that in any guideline form. Is that correct?

[Joshua Switzky (Citywide Planning Director)]: I'm not exactly sure of the situation you're talking about. We both look at the urban design outcomes both in terms of the heights that we're setting and where certain heights are appropriate and sculpting those in different circumstances. And then there's the design standards, which apply to the individual project within the rules of the the height limits that we set. I mean, we do have step the design standards have various requirements for podiums to step down to adjacent parcels depending on the circumstance of the adjacency when they're next to a lower scale residential district. There are some step down requirements. And of course, we have requirements and other requirements. We'll continue to see refinements to the design standards in in the coming months and and years that we're our architectural staff continues to work on improvements and and additional standards for different circumstances that that the current controls may not, approach yet. But we're we're very comfortable that the the standards as they exist today are are very robust for the implementation of this plan.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I I will probably direct those questions to design staff itself because since we, in San Francisco, don't have a lot of experience with tall residential buildings across from others, I think there are consideration for livability and sunlight in living spaces, much expressed in the way China originally placed residential buildings of higher density more in cornrows in order to avoid shadow in living space. But I will direct my questions to you.

[Joshua Switzky (Citywide Planning Director)]: Yes. I mean, we've learned a lot over the last twenty plus years of of we've rezoned a lot of areas of the city on the Eastern side of the city for taller buildings and have evolved very comprehensive sets of design standards. So we've we've learned all the lessons and taken the best of of those and and included them in the, in the design standards document that you all adopted in November. And so

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: of course I acknowledge that you, in particular, have done that. Wingcon Hill reflects, indeed, the type of three-dimensional planning that really considered that very thoughtfully. I think in this particular case, we don't quite have the time, no real easy attention to detail to have really fully addressed that, but I will reserve my questions for another group. I want to briefly talk about prototypes and financial feasibilities. That was actually a very sobering moment to realize that the majority of things we typically think about are not really financially feasible. So the question that arises from there is, are we looking at alternatives to materials and methods of how we build? Perhaps you can answer that. I would look towards you. You made a very eloquent presentation. Ultimately, when you're up against the wall and you still have to do something, we may have to look at alternatives to materials and methods. And that means something very specific, something including potentially prefabricated housing, mass production of repetitive building types, etcetera, etcetera.

[Esmeralda Harnas (Senior Planner, Financial Feasibility Study)]: Yes. Thank you for the question, commissioner Moore. I obviously I I feel that's a question maybe best suited for another agency, for the Department of Building Inspection, but I think the point that you're highlighting, which is important, is that hard costs, which are often the larger lion's share of overall development costs, is generally what people should be focusing on. And reducing those hard costs, which could include looking at other materials, be it prefab or other materials that just overall reduce the cost could sort of increase feasibility. That being said, I do not personally know if other materials are being considered in San Francisco, but I would hope so.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: I'm sure we're introducing also the acknowledgment that with certain tariffs potentially still being shown at the horizon, that we may have to really reconsider of how we build and what we build and when. Wood is obviously in question, so is steel and probably a few other things. The only the only open window I see is to, for example, for the lower mid rise buildings, to look at the challenges that were brought up a few months ago of looking at single stair access where we need the support from the fire department to do so. And there are other variations on that theme, but we need to kind of start to be practical and look at a very comprehensive set of constraints and at opportunities we have not yet explored. And that will be my comments.

[Joshua Switzky (Citywide Planning Director)]: Yes. Commissioner, I was just going to add, you just mentioned single stair. I mean, certainly, that would be potentially a fairly transformative change to the economics and efficiency of of many buildings of the scale that we're talking about here. And that's something that could be reflected in a pro form a. We didn't do that analysis here because that's not the current building code. And should that become realistic, we'd be happy to to to provide more analysis in

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: the future. Becomes as realistic as acknowledging that the presentation needs literally no alternatives. However, in the lower range of density, the six story plus alternatives are the most desirable ones to look at the first wave of intensification because that indeed is buildable and achievable. So I'm going to just leave that with that challenge. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you for the presentation. Lisa, I just wanted to I I saw your presentation the other night in in the North Beach. It was I want to say you you held your own. It was it was a tough crowd. And, you know, could tell you've been doing this for a while. And and and so, but I just wanted to say, that I was impressed by, you know, by everything that you that you said that night. The the financial, financial feasibility, was there a study done on a 100% affordable housing feasibility?

[Lisa Chen (Principal Planner, Family Zoning Plan)]: The study, financial feasibility study didn't look at that because those traditionally are not thought of in the same way as a market rate or as a mixed income development. Right? Because they are relying on all sorts of sources of outside funding. Right? So they're not necessarily feasible in the same way. I mean, they still need to bring in enough revenues and raise enough funds to justify the cost of building the housing and think about the long term tenancy of it. Or if they're for sale, you know, think about, you know, what those prices are going to be. But, you know, it's just a completely different type of analysis.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I I I understand that. But don't we have to build, a lot of affordable housing? I think it I think it prudent to understand what those costs are going to be just as you guys, you know, emphasize the market rate, feasibility study. You put a lot of emphasis on that. But we're, like, totally, in the dark, let's say, about a huge portion of the housing that we need to build. And that's concerning to me. So I kind of want to know, if it's still possible to do a feasibility study on the affordable side, before you comment, I'm sure that nonprofit affordable housing developers do these kind of studies all the time. The other thing I I wanna mention is the, you know, affordable housing on city owned property. There was there was a there was actually my supervisor put out a District eleven supervisor put out a statement around Mayor Lohrey rolled out his housing plan. And one of the interesting things is one of the parcels that he was referring to was actually a city parcel on Ocean that was built out as 100% affordable housing. And so I think it's very integral to what we're talking about. And I want some follow-up on that. I want to kind of understand what you guys' thinking is on that. And is it necessary to have that study alongside feasibility study alongside the market rate? Commissioner,

[Joshua Switzky (Citywide Planning Director)]: to add to what Lisa said, sort of by definition, 100% affordable housing is not feasible. It relies on public subsidy. So while there are economics involved with can we bring in enough money to and how much money subsidy do we need, at the end of the day they require public subsidy. So it's not a feasibility analysis in the same sense that we do financial feasibility analysis. At some level, the government is subsidizing very deeply the construction of all of these units. We look forward to bringing to you at the next hearing with our colleagues the affordable housing site strategy. We've been doing a lot of work working with the mayor's office of housing to look at some of the economics of of affordable housing development, both the trends over time, how much it has cost to produce those units, what the land costs have been, what the construction costs have been. And so we look forward to sharing that with you as well as the kind of sites that are available and that will be available over time. And you're right, it is a more complex strategy to find opportunities to deliver them. Public sites are certainly a great example. The zoning will certainly offer some more opportunities even on publicly owned sites. The public sites are at the city's disposal, and at the end of the day, it's about how much money does you know, can the city and other government sources provide to to to produce those units. So, it's not that we necessarily have a dearth of sites for affordable housing or that it's a necessarily feasibility question. It's how much you know, what is our what are our funding sources and how robust are our funding sources over time Mhmm. To deliver those.

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: I'll add to mister Swoossey's answer that we also did complete. I think in early twenty twenty three, the affordable housing leadership council completed a study with serious recommendations on how to raise that money, knowing that, again, with the biggest thing that makes affordable housing feasible is to have the resources. So that is a foundational piece, and then adding to that the site strategy. So how do we have the money? How do we have the sites? And that's how we can meet our our obligations. I just forwarded you that that

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: report if you want to go ahead. Thank you. Thank you, Rachel. Miss Tanner. And so that's my next question, is about the affordable housing piece and funding. Could you talk about what strategies so far that you guys have, what you're trying to develop? Is that part of the conversation? Or what's going on on the affordable side?

[Joshua Switzky (Citywide Planning Director)]: At the next hearing in July, we'll have a more robust presentation of the affordable housing site strategy, which is a parallel effort that we've been working on with MOCD to both analyze the existing pipeline of affordable housing and all of the sites, look at some of the economic trends and some of the economic questions around the cost of delivery and, you know, the relative cost of land versus construction and holding costs and a lot of the temporary activations, a lot of the costs and drivers of producing that affordable housing.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: What about funding? Is there any conversations around funding? Because I

[Joshua Switzky (Citywide Planning Director)]: That was what what Rachel was mentioning, the mayors.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Because I mean, I I I know there's conversations going on, but I think the public would be you know, I would like to know what those conversations are and, you know, how serious they are, what what, you know, what kind of, you know, push is gonna be required to to achieve some of that funding because we're talking about a lot of money. And so

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: Yeah. We can we can certainly make sure we elaborate on that during the hearing as, Josh was saying. And, you know, especially, we'll have a clear picture both of the state budget at that point. Obviously, federal budget is not a very reliable source, for for more additional funding, as well as there are some regional efforts that we can talk about to raise more money for affordable housing.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Mhmm. Has there been a now I know this is this is kinda getting into the past. But, you know, in in 2020, the voters approved prop I, which I I was a part of that effort. Door knocking and doing all the work you have to do. A lot of the folks that were volunteering their time believe in affordable housing. That that effort was passed. Right? The the voters passed Prop I. And from what I understand, that that effort produced in four years something like $500,000,000 Now I know the previous administration, the way that it was set up, that that those funds went into the general fund. And so but, you know, it's it's it's, it's kinda it's how can I say this? It's discouraging as someone who, you know, was out there doing the footwork and and and and then delivering and, you know, prop I. And and to come to find out that a lot of that that money really hasn't gone to its intended purpose. And then we're here, you know, a few you know, five years later, and we're looking for money, and we're looking for, you know, funding to to achieve our our housing element and our affordable housing goals. And so I just wanna kinda connect the two only because it seems appropriate. And, you know, hopefully, those conversations will continue. And I haven't heard anything new on that front, but hopefully some good ideas and hopefully some ideas on funding will will come because it's very much needed.

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: Certainly, we can conclude that discussion, when we come back. And I think part of Prop I, we can look into I think part of it is around the, the fund can bring in a lot of money. But then in times like now, where there's not a lot of transactions, there's not a lot of transfer tax, then it kinda goes down. And so just making sure it goes to uses that aren't relying on it every year to be there so that you don't end up with a a gap for that program. But we can certainly talk a little bit more about that. I think that's a great point.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: And just just to add to that, I think the report will say too, like, we have this over reliance for affordable housing on one time sources, a bond, the impact fees on office development. So things that aren't reliable every every year. And so when when the economy is not in great shape or there's not a lot of building, like what happens now, there's not a lot of resources for affordable housing. So I think one of the recommendations of that report is find a ongoing reliable source Yeah. To fund that. So in there were there were suggestions in that, you know, to to on how to do that. Tax increment was a source Mhmm. In the past, but I think there has to be that broader based, reliable funding for

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I agree, Director Hillis. I agree wholeheartedly. And this isn't a new topic that has come up. But thank you for bringing it up. People have been talking about a continuous stream of funding that is needed. Hopefully, those conversations will continue, but thank you for bringing that up.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Yes, I'm looking I'm also looking forward for that. I I believe that's going to be on July 17, the affordable housing strategy. Yes, I'm looking forward to that in terms of, you know, potential sources that we can tap in into affordable housing. One thing that I want to make comments on is, again, on the financial feasibility. Thank you for doing this. It gives the public and also me too in terms of what type of developments it can be built. It's really interesting when I read this, and I didn't know that the that to make it feasible, it's between 50,000 to 75,000 per unit. And it seems like can you expand can you elaborate in terms of, like, how why is it feasible between 50,000 to 75,000 per unit?

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: Yeah. And thank miss Martinez, when you come back, maybe you can share just a little bit about what residual land value is and kind of what is it measuring?

[Esmeralda Harnas (Senior Planner, Financial Feasibility Study)]: Sure. Yeah. Yeah. So total residual land value, I think, is maybe the the more important sort of metric that needs to be considered. And that's the individual residual land value times all of the units that one could theoretically build. And one has to ensure that that is more profitable than the existing value of the land or the structure. But to to clarify, the 50 to $75,000 per unit is just a general minimum. It could be more depending on the market area or the overall project. But often residual land value is what one is willing to pay after you account for the cost of acquiring the land, the cost of developing the building, the cost of whether it's rental units or sale price units, and then subtracting the sales costs or, you know, the the hard cost to develop it. So it's it's what's remaining and more importantly, the discounting the profit margin. So whether that's, you know, the equity investors or the lenders that are expecting, their return. So it's the resulting value after accounting for everything.

[Lisa Chen (Principal Planner, Family Zoning Plan)]: It's essentially just kinda saying,

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: you know, if someone's looking at a property and saying, well, should I buy this property and build some housing? And then we kind of, you know, ran these prototypes to say, well, what would happen? And says, well, if I buy this land and I do all these improvements, at the end of the day, I'm gonna spend more money than I'm gonna earn. So maybe I shouldn't shouldn't do this prototype. And so the ones that are more feasible, it's where it's like, okay, it would make sense to buy it and turn it into housing because the residual land value, either on a per unit or as I was saying on a on a kind of the whole project basis, is enough for someone to say it's worth it's worth pursuing this project.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I you know, so it's good to understand that this is we're talking about the conservative value of the residual land value. And, yeah, it it what that was interesting to me because from my per or from my understanding that for affordable housing units around three hundred to three fifty k per unit is the usually I believe that was kinda like the calculation that in order to, you know, like, what does one affordable housing unit cost? And but, yeah, this is something that I don't know if this 50 to and I don't know if that's something gonna come up during the affordable housing strategy. That'll be very interesting for us to actually learn about it. Yeah.

[Esmeralda Harnas (Senior Planner, Financial Feasibility Study)]: Just to briefly clarify, so the the 50 to 75 k per unit is generally reflective of how much it how land costs in San Francisco. Like, that's generally so that's why it's, like, deemed feasible because there is enough profit or, you know, residual land value to support all of the development costs and acquire that land at that price point. Because that's more or less, in in layman's terms, that's reflective of the price of land in San Francisco.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. Can I clarify,

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: commissioner Parry, was your question just to bring some more information about the cost of building affordable housing in San Francisco when we come back?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah, if there is that. But I'm understanding that I think that was kind of being touched on by commissioner Williams in terms of affordable housing feasibility, but it was also I understand it also depends on the funding as well. And in a way, we're gonna talk about the funding.

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: What's the most important? But we will also talk about as as, mister Switzy was saying, we have some we've also looked back at Moe's work to say, like, what's happened in the past? How much did things cost? And, you know, how much were we buying land for? And just trying to understand our own trends. And so we have that information that we can we can bring back

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: for you. Yeah. But yeah. Okay. That's good to understand that this is kind of, like, based on the value land value, and this is kind of, like, the conservative value that's being used for this. One thing that is actually very interesting for me to learn about the financial feasibility is that that the analysis that the fees and government constraints are actually less impactful. What's impactful is the cost of the labor material cost, interest rates, rent, and sales price. And again, you know, there's a lot that has hap especially last year, come here in the planning commission in terms of waiving the impact fees. And it shows that it doesn't actually show much impact in terms of financial feasibility of the development. What's actually more impactful on financial feasibility is the the hard cost. So I just want to highlight that, that for me, I will still, advocate to continue these impact fees, although they're, I I cannot although I understand that the ongoing revenues is still the most reliable source of, for affordable housing and for other kinds of revenues for our city. But I I don't think we should shrink ourselves in waiving the impact fees that's or developmental impact fees that's still needed for our city, because it also funded other, infrastructures. One thing that I I would have a question in terms of the timelines, so the infrastructure planning, is that something the infrastructure planning and the racial social equity analysis, is that coming when exactly?

[Lisa Chen (Principal Planner, Family Zoning Plan)]: So the the next hearing, July 17, commissioner, that'll be covering a couple topics. So it'll be the affordable housing sites analysis and strategy and also a discussion on infrastructure planning. It's not necessarily a plan per se, but it's, you know, a discussion of our conversations with, other agencies that we've been working on through the rezoning. So that's coming at that hearing, on July 17. Yeah. And then the racial and social equity analysis, that will likely be coming as part of the adoption package, kind of similar to how we include that as part of the case packet when you're taking action for all legislation. It'll also include the, the racial and social equity analysis.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So that will be around September?

[Lisa Chen (Principal Planner, Family Zoning Plan)]: In September. Yeah. So that'll be an a port a report that's an appendix to that package.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. And I have questions because, in terms of public comments there, you know, again, the the definition of I mean, the demolition, I think that's something that and, I'm wondering, because, and I don't know, miss Tanner, if you could share on this conversation that's been happening on the tenant protections and small business protections. Because those also, as I'm I'm aware, those conversations have come up in those. So can you share about Yeah. About, yeah, the demolition portion. Yeah.

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: Yeah. For those those two topics. So I think and correct me redirect me if I go off of what you're wanting me to focus on. I think there's two aspects to it. So one is the demolition of existing residential buildings is obviously a concern. And so there's there's a couple pieces there that we're addressing. So one is, actually strengthening. So this body, you all have the authority to, discretion to grant or not grant, an authorization for someone to demolish existing multifamily or rent controlled housing. And so we continue that practice of, somebody wants to do that, needing to request a CU, to come here to make that request. And we are strengthening your CU findings, making them objective, so that they're less susceptible to being challenged under any state law or that they can be integrated with any state law that someone might be using, as they're coming here so that you can make the findings, either way to approve or to not approve the projects. We are also, overall in our local program prohibiting the local program from being used on rent controlled, properties. And so again, we're not facilitating that demolition through our local program. Again, someone could still request that. And you've heard even this past year a couple, you

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: know, different, situations where folks wanted to demolish, I

[Speaker 6.0]: think, a five unit building, a two unit building.

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: And so, where folks wanted to demolish, I think, a five unit building, a two unit building. And so you're familiar with those circumstances. I think even maybe a month ago or two, you had had had a couple cases. One, I think you approved, and one, I think you denied. And so, you know, you you see that you use that discretion. So we continue that process. And I should add, many state programs also do not allow their are not able to be used on rent controlled housing. So they're they're also kind of just not eligible, if it's a rent controlled parcel. And then in in addition, we are working to have a local s b three thirty essentially implementing ordinance. That ordinance did kind of instruct because, you know, we can sometimes forget, you know, we have an attachment in the packet of all the tenant protections we have here. There are many, many, many jurisdictions in California that have zero of those. Right? The tenants have no protections. And so that part of what s b three thirty did was say, well, if if, you know, housing is being demolished, those folks have a right to be relocated and return. And so it's a new unit that are built, and you have to replace all the units you're just you're knocking down. You gotta replace them in the new project. So we're creating our own implementing ordinance of how would we do that and how will we work with those projects. I think the one thing I would say in addition is, you know, we have also rezoned significant parts of the city. So there's an exhibit in the packet that shows kind of the rezoning along with all of our other area plans and development agreements and things. And I think in those areas, we've certainly seen differing effects in different neighborhoods over different times. And, of course, different people feel differently about those outcomes. But I think one thing we did not see was a lot of demolition of rent controlled housing in any of those areas, and that's, again, because the protections we have in place. So we'll continue to have those protections. They have served us well. We hope they continue to serve us well, and we will certainly, you know, employ the city attorney's office if for some reason they stop serving us well to come up with some new ways, to preserve that housing. I don't know if that addressed that question or

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: anything about that. I think you you covered that, you know, than what I was asking, actually. But but you you definitely got the I I got the gist of it. I think, you know, again, you know, as public, we're still going to have more hearings about it, and we keep we're going to have a keep, going to have, you know, receiving this kind of comments around demolition. And I know that these protections are gonna be a package of a legislation that I'm not sure whether how that can be presented here or, because that's gonna go through a legislation. I'm tenant and small business, they're gonna are they gonna come to the

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: line of the business? How's this all gonna, like, come together, right, in the end? How are these things gonna meet up? So myself, Melina Melina Ferrera, and then also city attorney, we're working very closely with Charlize Nammas, supervisor Chen's office. And so we are anticipating that, I guess, almost this month, July. So by the July, that'll be introduced. So that can be then forwarded to you all, and you should be able to hear that in September. We might not do at the same hearing date. I know one of the, comments we've received from community members is to make sure that the tenant protection legislation has its own date just so it doesn't get kind of caught into the public comment. That might be about other rezoning topics, and so it might be the hearing after, for example, that we take up the rezoning that we can look at that. And similarly, we'll have some, trailing companion legislation about small business. And hopefully, similarly, that could all happen in the month of September. So we're basically able to look at all those packages, forward that to the board, and then the board could either schedule them out differently or take them all up at once. You know, they can we can work with their offices on how they schedule those items. But they kind of we'll meet up in September. That's the idea.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: K. Thank you so much. And those are my questions. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Well, thank you. Thank you, commissioners and staff and members of the public. Today's disinformation hearing marks a very important step in reimagining how our city can better serve our families, not just today, but for the generations to come. I really appreciate, in particular today, you have include the financial feasibility findings. This proposal is about more than zoning. It's about creating a San Francisco where families can grow, thrive, and afford to stay. I think I want to just quickly personally highlight the three key benefits that I think is this plan is great for. It really modernized an outdated zoning rules to allow for more housing options. So then, like, duplex, trueplex, and family size units in neighborhoods traditionally limited to single family homes, That flexibility creates room for multigenerational households, growing families, and diverse living needs. Second, it supports affordability, not only about increasing housing supply, but by encouraging more gentle density in lower cost, low impact ways. That's especially crucial if we want younger generations to see a future here, not somewhere else. And third, it promotes a neighborhood stability by giving families real options to stay in the communities they love, close to schools, community members who care deeply about neighborhoods and want to preserve what makes them special. These concerns are real and deserve to be part of this conversation. We will continue to have those discussions with you with transparency, with mutual respect, and with the commitment to finding common ground. Because mo because, ultimately, we all shall share the same goal, to build San Francisco where families of all kinds can belong and build a future. Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Just a few quick follow ups on things that I heard from the discussion among the commissioners today. I want to echo Vice President Moore's take on it. It'll be interesting to see what sort of alternative approaches can come forward to actually get housing built, maybe bring down costs for some product types, whether that ends up being modular or mass timber was having a moment there. And I would be curious to see where that ends up landing relative to concrete and steel type one construction prices in the future. But I do think single stair, buildings could be a a game changer for a lot of these, bringing down cost for a lot of different housing product types. And, one thing I wanna acknowledge about the the local program design, in terms of thinking carefully about how to support, housing production and feasibility is that I've heard time and time again from staff, you know, a lot of that was modeled on the most often requested, concessions and waivers by state density bonus projects. So this helps both make that project the local program appealing to developers versus state density bonus. You know, they have an alternative where we're getting more of our local, policy interests achieved. And then also, you know, it's also a way to to provide those benefits that developers are seeking to make their projects actually feasible. On the question about the residual land value approach, I think just wanna put out there something that wasn't said, which is, you know, the number one benefit to me of using that approach to a financial feasibility analysis is the ability to have comparison across housing product types in a very clean way

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Mhmm.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Where, you know, there's other approaches where you could look on at, like, the return on investment or something like that, but they all have different thresholds. Whereas this is this is, you know, you have a wide range of product types, different kinds of housing, and yet you have, like, the same basis for comparison of the outcomes. I think it's the relative comparison that's really important at a time like this when a lot doesn't actually, pencil. And then, last thing, there's been multiple comments about the desire to have information about what's going on with the 100% affordable housing and I wanna echo that. Like, I'm working on studies in other communities right now where we are looking at what is the local funding gap for affordable housing units and what is, you know, the overall construction cost per unit and how does that compare against the resources that are available to fund those units. And I know that we actually my the company I work for actually did some of this work for the planning department back in 2018 or '19. That's very stale now, but I imagine MOHCD has, a lot of this data better closer at hand than a lot of other smaller cities do. So, I would love to see, kind of where things stand right now as well echoing some of those comments. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner, seeing no further requests to speak for this matter, if you would indulge me one moment. I've On a couple of procedural matters, I've been advised by the city attorney's office that we were a miss in adhering to the Brown Act related to our closed session. Well, we didn't do it under commission matters. So through the chair, if we could reopen commission matters.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yes, please. Reopen the commission matters.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. I'm just trying to find the direct here it is. So, pursuant to California go government code section fifty four nine five seven point one a five, we are required to disclose our vote on appointment of public employee in closed session. And at last week's closed session, the planning commission took an action to move forward, Sarah Dennis Phillips as a candidate for planning director to the mayor by a vote of four two zero. Thank you, commissioners. Additionally, through the chair, if we could open the continuance calendar.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: With the legal counsel advice?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yes. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I did.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I'm I'm I'm not sure if it's since the member of the public are not all here, so I I think we can I'm gonna share with every one of us here. It's nothing really out of the ordinary. What I have received is a phone call from supervisor Walton that he he said this. He's wanted us to consider a continuance of the Gateway project further out to a suitable date in September. He believed that he needs additional time to meet with the sponsor and stakeholders.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And some of the stakeholders we we heard actually were frustrated with the July 10 continuance date given that it's during summer months, September 11. Basically, essentially provides more time and falls outside of the summer months. Yeah.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: But I'm a little bit hesitant to bring it back up to reopen up the session unless we all decided it is appropriate because with the legal advice, since the member of the public presented here today about that item, it's not here, and we might be subject for a potential complaint.

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: So Well, if I might I think you might need to reopen the discussion just to have the discussion, I think, possibly. And then if the discussion could be to maintain the date or to change it, that could be the conclusion.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Right. Yeah. To have the discussion, Rachel's absolutely correct. We need to reopen the continuance calendar for you to consider the continuance request.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: To to the next next meeting.

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: Well, just to see September 11. Your first action, I think, that the secretary's action is just to reopen the continuance calendar if you want to as the chair. And then once that's reopened to have the discussion that you just started with the commissioners and whether or not they would wanna consider a a further date.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Alright. I'll just reopen it.

[Andrea Brust (Deputy City Attorney)]: Yes. And then you have two choices. One is that you could all vote to continue it to a different date than the one you chose before. The other is you could leave it where it is on the calendar now, and then you could, at that hearing, continue it a second time. So those are the two options. Yeah.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. So let's reopen it.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: When did you continue it to, Jonas?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: The current continuance date. Well, let's reopen the continuance calendar.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Reopen to

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: yeah. Less than ever.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Continue. Thank

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: you. Through the chair, we are reopening the continuance calendar. So that, essentially, we've received a request from the supervisor's office to push out the continuance to September 11. The current continuance date that you voted on earlier today was to July 10. So this is a request to go from essentially July 10 to September 11.

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: And again, as the city attorney, like, you'll hear it you'll either hear it July 10 to continue it again and have kind of a similar hearing

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

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: Or you can continue it right now.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: The only difference is is, like, those public actions.

[Joshua Switzky (Citywide Planning Director)]: Well, I

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: think you heard from the members of the public that they're extremely frustrated with the con Yes. Those are the constant continuances. Yep. So, I mean, it would save them the problem the, you know, the the the effort of coming down again on July 10.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: That's why I, risk to open it up and also with respect to the community and the public. But also legally, we are taking a caution here. Right? Like, because the public, it's the member of the public. It's not currently present here in this chamber. And not all of them. Okay. You're here. Okay.

[Speaker 21.0]: I was just curious because I mean, hi. Good evening. Just wonder, will the will the people that were here, all those women who are so concerned with it, will they have a chance to weigh in? Maybe September 11 doesn't work for them. And if you do that, they don't have a chance. I don't know. That's just a question.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, I think that we can reach out to what they want to do. Members of the public who have expressed interest. And then if they come back with us and say, hey, September 11 is a difficult date, then then we can continue it again on September 11.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Braun,

[Rich Hillis (Planning Director)]: you have

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: just to check with the city attorney. I mean, to me, it it sounds like this is basically I mean, this is still a public hearing. People can tune in and and watch this. And this is, essentially us as if we had taken that public comment and then deliberated on a future date beyond the one that we had continued to earlier. Right? There's no issue here.

[Andrea Brust (Deputy City Attorney)]: Legal prohibition on you doing this.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I mean, I think there would be a real issue if we had continued it to September 11 and then took it up again and continued it to July 10. I think that Yeah. I think that would be a real problem.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: That is

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: But in this situation, you're continuing it out two months further. Right.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Okay. I I I do support the further continuance for the same reason that secretary Oden just articulated that, you know, I don't want so so many people have come here time after time just to have it continued, and I would rather it not show up on that July calendar if it's just not gonna happen again. So I'm in favor of extending to the eleventh, September 11.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Great. Thank you. And Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I just wanted to double check. The folks that were here, they seem to be part of a a few neighborhood groups. Do do we have their con contact information, and and do we know how to get a hold of those folks from the Bayview?

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: If we don't, I'm sure

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: the supervisor's office probably has their information

[Stan Hayes (Telegraph Hill Dwellers)]: Okay.

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: That we might be able to relay the the the date new date.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Mhmm. Okay. We also issue email blasts associated with, the agenda. And for example, for this week, we sent out a separate email blast specific to the Tollens Gateway project

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Advising members of the public that it was gonna be continued.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. Yeah. I'm I'm I'm in favor of continuing to September. Was it September 11?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: September 11. Yes.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Oh. Yep.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yeah. Ominous date. Yes. Yeah.

[Rachel Tanner (Deputy Director, Current Planning)]: Or the sixteenth, I guess, if you don't like that date. But

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: Excuse me. Oh,

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner, Vice President Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: The group identified itself, I think, as the Gray Panthers, if I overhoot that. It is a little I I I wish they would be here because it just surprises us as much as as anybody else, and we do not really know the reasons except it gets kind of the can get get gets kicked down the alley. And it would be helpful even for us to know we prepare each time, and then we get all of a sudden a note that's being continued again. And this is a very large package, and I myself feel a little bit of the strain of having to regear when I'm already 60%, so refamiliarizing myself, looking at my emails. It's a it's a it's a major effort for us as well. So perhaps supervisor Wharton could provide us with a little bit more background about the why is on house, and also hear that we are indeed the recipients of the dissatisfaction of the community. So I would like to be a little bit more balanced in the way of how I respond to another continuance. That's all I wanna say.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. In general, I'm supportive of the continuous to September 11. But, again, it's, just to make sure again, I think the the message to the supervisor Walton's office in terms of, I understand it's gathering the committee stakeholders, and it should also include those women that have come here before too. Mhmm. So there needs to be extra effort in communicating with them. Yes. And I hope it's September 11, the final date. So yeah.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Lori, well, thank you for all your thoughts.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, we would we would need to act, commissioners. We would need to I'm 21 of those. Two motions, please. The first would be to rescind Resend. Our previous action to continue to July 10, and then a second motion to continue to September 11. And this would be for items three and four a through e.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to rescind the prior continuance for items three and four a through e.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to rescind your vote to continue to July 10, commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Is there a subsequent motion?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Motion to Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to continue items three and four a through e to September 11.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: May I

[Kathrin Moore (Commission Vice President)]: may I ask that there is at least an advisory or request for to supervisor Walton to to help to interface with the community, including slightly better reporting to us because it has effects on us, and I would like to recommend that we are being considered in this case as well.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I agree.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Indeed. On that motion, commissioners, to continue items three four a through e to September 11, commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh. Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero and concludes your hearing today. Thank you very much.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Meeting adjourned.