San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: And oh, hold on. I gotta start recording. Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission and Recreation Park Commission special joint hearing for Thursday, 07/17/2025. 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. When you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commissions do not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take role for the planning commission. Commission President Tsao?

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Present.

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

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commissioner)]: Here.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: And Commissioner McGarry? Present. We expect Commissioner Williams to be absent today.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: And I'll take roll for the Recreation and Park Commission. Commissioner Anderson? Here. Commissioner Hallasey? Commissioner Clark Herrera?

[Sonia Clark Herrera (Recreation and Park Commissioner)]: Here.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Louie?

[Vanita Louie (Recreation and Park Commissioner)]: Here.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Missoula?

[Commissioner Mazzola (Recreation and Park Commission)]: Here.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Wintraub? Here. And commissioner Zwert? Present. Everyone is present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Commissioners, first, under your special calendar is item one, case number 2025Hyphen005266CWP, the Downtown Park Fund allocation. This is for your consideration to approve, and this is a joint action.

[Phoenix Alfaro (Recreation and Park Department – Capital & Planning)]: Good morning, city planning commissioners and Rec Park commissioners. My name is Phoenix Alfaro, and I'm a planner in Rec Park's Capital and Planning Division. I am here today to request downtown park fund allocations for the Jean Friend Recreation Center, Portsmouth Square, and Embarcadero Plaza in Suburban Park. The Recreation and Park Department is requesting a total allocation of $2,800,000 from the downtown park special fund for three park renovation projects. This includes $1,150,000 for the Gene Friend Recreation Center, dollars 1,150,000 for Portsmouth Square, and $500,000 for Embarcadero Plaza And Suburban Park. Per Planning Code section four one two, the Downtown Park Fund can be used to pay for acquisition and development of public recreation and park facilities for use by the daytime populations of the C3 Zoning District. All three projects are located either within or adjacent to the C3 Zoning District serving the daytime populations of this area. I will now quickly go over project scopes and how the downtown park fund will be applied at each of the three projects we are seeking allocations for. The Jean Friend Recreation Center, located in the South Of Market neighborhood, will be replaced with a new 25,000 square foot center that will include a gymnasium with two full size basketball courts, a modern exercise area, communal and office spaces, and outdoor amenities. The $1,150,000 allocation from the Downtown Park Fund will be used to help cover unanticipated construction costs and keep the project, which is currently under construction, on schedule to open in advance of the new school year in 2026. Portsmouth Square, located in Chinatown, will receive a complete renovation that will include a flexible outdoor event space with an elevated stage, new community clubhouse, shade structure, consolidated playground with adult fitness equipment, and the removal of the existing Kearney Street pedestrian bridge. The $1,150,000 allocation from the Downtown Park Fund will be used to cover construction costs. Lastly, Embarcadero Plaza and portions of Sue Bierman Park, located along at the edge of the Financial District and Northeast Waterfront, will be transformed into a vibrant five acre waterfront park that will include a revitalized multi purpose space for large gatherings, pathways with landscaping and stormwater features, streetscape improvements, and new outdoor amenities. The $500,000 allocation from the Downtown Park Fund will be used to fund planning and design related costs. This concludes my presentation of the Downtown Park Fund allocation request. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Okay. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is the opportunity to address the commission on this item. You need to come forward.

[Aaron (public commenter; skateboarding advocate)]: Greetings, commissioners. My name's Aaron I'm an advocate for skateboarding, small wheeled mobility, recreation, things like that. I help to support on the design of the Sunset Dunes, a skateboarding space. And I've attended many of the budget meetings for Reffa Park, understanding what tends to get spent on which activities. I try to make database arguments to support the inclusion of our activities and spaces. Notably, the city has well over 300 tennis courts and only eight skateboarding facilities. Currently, a discussion of Harry Bridges Plaza and the general EMB area includes the inclusion of skateboarding in sort of the mixed use space with the arts area, the place where people try to sell their wares to make their livings. We see more pickleball parts, courts getting built. And in the case of this presentation, we see two additional indoor basketball courts getting added to a facility that already has an outdoor basketball court. So I'd like to request that all of these projects have earmarked in them space for skateboarding to be delivered in an entry level, an accessible way for all ages to ensure that we are actually supporting the facilities which are the first and second most used by young people in the city. In general, I think that about at least 10% of these funds should be allocated to the creation of these sorts of spaces. And that a percentage of it could be allocated to doing a study of the area in general to support how these facilities can be integrated network wide because we understand that small wheeled mobility is essential to meeting our climate goals, essential to meeting our equity goals, supports low income people, people with disabilities because everything that is good for small wheels is also good for a skateboard. And we should be sure that we are not just hearing from people who want to support skateboarding that looks like leaving the ground and doing tricks and grinding on ledges, but is also incorporating people who just want to use this for mobility or people who are not often identifying themselves as escape orders but would nonetheless use these sorts of facilities where they made available. Thank you.

[Rhoda Schneiderman (public commenter; Vista West resident)]: Good morning. My name's Rhoda Schneiderman, and I live in Vista West, the gateway. And, Sue Bierman Park is kind of one of my backyards. But I wanted to also, voice my support for skateboarding facilities. I'm not an actual participant at my age, however. It's phenomenally entertaining for people who are not skateboarders to watch. I love having them around. And the more facilities we provide for skateboarders, the less I feel somebody coming down a railing to to the right of me as I'm walking down one of the great staircases in San Francisco. So I think it's a worthwhile addition to any changes you make in the proposal. Thank you.

[Tita Bell (Legislative Aide to Supervisor Danny Sauter, District 3)]: Good morning, planning commissioners and rec park commissioners. TTAB, legislative a eight four supervisor, Danny Sauter. I just wanted to provide brief remarks, on behalf of the supervisor in support of this item. Two of these projects are in District 3. We are very, very excited for these projects to move forward, and we hope that you will all support, this item. Thank you so much.

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

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: Do we have any comment from any of our commissioners? Alright. All those in favor of approving this funding?

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: If you yeah. We're doing a joint we're doing a joint hearing, so my my my fellow commissioner would like to say a few words in that deliberation. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Mostly, I just have one, small question about the the past history of use of the funding from this source. If anyone in the room, my staff, knows, are there some examples of previous projects that were funded through the downtown fund?

[Phoenix Alfaro (Recreation and Park Department – Capital & Planning)]: Yes. So in our staff report, we had included that the last time the Recreation and Parks Department came to request money from the downtown park fund was in 2019 for two park properties. I believe it was Terk And Hyde Mini Park and Willy Woo Woo Wooong Park for a total of $1,100,000 Stacy Bradley, Director of Capital Planning, I don't know if you could speak to how it was utilized in the project.

[Stacy Bradley (Director of Capital Planning, Recreation and Park Department)]: Thanks. Thanks. Yeah, I believe we used the Willy Woo Woo Woo hong funds went towards the major renovation that we had that opened a few years ago. Turk Hyde, as well, we renovated the full playground. And we did a few improvements. Union Square was a very minor improvement at that point. And at Victoria Manolo Drives, I was part of improving the community garden and some lighting, and there was a batting cage. Alright.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Stacy Bradley (Director of Capital Planning, Recreation and Park Department)]: Thank you.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: I'm sorry I overlooked, that that was, partially addressed in the staff report. I I'm in full support of this item. I was just curious to learn more a little bit more about that. You know, the three parks that are being funded through this are some of our

[Kathrin Moore (Planning Commission Vice President)]: sort of

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: most loved but also most used parks and very visible. I also was just, near, Jean Friend Rec Center construction re over the weekend and saw how far that project has progressed. And it was really wonderful to see. And so if this funding can help bring that over the finish line, I think that's great. So that's my support.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Planning Commission Vice President)]: Both Jean Friend Recreation Center as well as Portsmouth Square have been, over the years, thoughtfully been discussed between park and rec and planning. The planning commission had a particularly long exposure to Portsmouth Square and its evolution of the many aspects of the square. And it has always been a delight to see it come forward. And now being actually in construction with a definite deadline for it to be functional is even more delightful. So any allocation, any support we can lend to our two exceptional projects is definitely something I would support. The Embarcadero Plaza is a question and an issue many of us have thought about for many years, and we are looking forward for Park and Rec to take the lead to go beyond the the interim step as you are currently doing and help all of us to transform that in a place that we always wanted all along. So, I'm in full support of three, of the three, requested allocations. Thank you.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Yeah. I also strongly support this allocation fund. One is which is has been really close in my heart as well is the Friend, recreation park. It has been that that, that recreation center has been, in construction for more than five years. I believe it started, during the pandemic. And many of the residents, community members have been asking when it will be reopened. It's a very important resource in the community inside of market. And so, it needed to be opened as soon as possible. And I'm hopefully, it will be opened by next year as it will. So I'm full, strong support of this allocation funds. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Thank you, commissioner. I also just wanted to say one thing. Thank you for being here today. My fellow park Rick and Park commissioners here with my fellow commissioners on planning. These allocation of fund is much needed more than ever before now. For me personally, I'm really looking forward to see Portsmouth Square will finally got a much deserved, not just a facelift, but also make it safe for our future generations, not just for Chinese American but for all San Franciscan. So I am in full support of this. Do we have a motion? Yeah. Commissioner Campbell, you like to ask a question?

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commissioner)]: Yeah. I echo the sentiment here in, in terms of my support. But just out of respect for the in public comment, maybe could someone just quickly touch upon how we come up with the program for, different parks, you know, it it just the, the general way that we and maybe it's data driven decisions that indicate sort of what we or inform what we put in in parks, and is there any future plans for any skateboard parks around the city?

[Phil Ginsburg (General Manager, Recreation and Park Department)]: Thank you. Commissioner Phil Ginsberg, general manager of San Francisco Recreation and Parks, thank you. Thank you for the thoughtful question. Stacy can kind of back me up a little bit, but we actually, do quite a bit to balance a variety of recreational uses in our park system. We, do track data. We rely on the parks, recreation, and open, the open space element of the city's general plan. We, the good news is is we have been expanding skating considerably in the last several years. Spaces include a new skate space at Waller in Golden Gate Park. You're probably familiar, we're right outside our front window with a brand new skate place in UN Plaza. And we just put in a new skate element at Sunset Dunes. We're also working on rejuvenating skate elements in Balboa Park. We operate a mobile program called Shred and Butter, which brings mobile skating to kids all over the city. So, we're down, in other words. But we also look at historic uses in specific spaces. Jean Friend, and, Portsmouth, in particular, are two spaces that have been loved to death. And they are filled to the brim with their historic uses. They are really not skate spaces. Although, it is certainly possible we could do a mobile skate program inside in the gym at, Jean Friend as we've done in other spaces. Although it's worth noting that the Jean Friend gyms are about to become our center for, inclusionary athletics. It's where, we are we have, it's gonna be our home for, wheelchair soccer, wheelchair basketball, and all kinds of other exciting exciting sports. In Embarcadero and Sue Bierman, we're in the planning phase and have had lots of conversations with, the skate community about it. At the very least, sort of recognizing and honoring, the skate history in that space even if it wasn't really legal at the time. San Francisco is, perhaps one of the most important, urban skate cities, which is different than a skate park. It's skating on, you know, around the urban form. It's one of the most important places in the country. And we've been working very, very, very closely with a number of stakeholders to celebrate that.

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

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commissioner)]: That's all my comments.

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: Commissioner Sonia Clark Herrera.

[Sonia Clark Herrera (Recreation and Park Commissioner)]: Hello. Hi. I just want to reassure the planning commission that I went to Community Charette recently where the skateboard community was very much heard, And it was really exciting to see. I have young children. Well, they're not young. They're 20 and 25, but they're younger than us. And we have watched them grow up and want safe place safe places to learn how to skate instead of being jumping off of spaces that they're not eligible to to use just yet. We've broken wrists and arms. And so I love the one thing that's been brought up with our guest speaker was interest for beginners kind of paths and creative spaces so you're not scared. There's not just ramps and all this kind of stuff going on. But that that's how we get around this community. We're a community that likes to walk. We have bike lanes. We're a healthy community. And so putting in and thinking about how to incorporate skate elements, I've seen through my year and a half on this commission a big consensus around support. So I think it's great to hear from the people out there, but that community, Charette, really brought out. Right? Stacy, we had a bunch of young people that were there talking about how much they wanted access. And by young, I mean younger than me, so younger than 50. So they were it was just exciting to see the workforce also out there, the people that were supporting the community. So I'm glad that you asked that question and you addressed that. So thank you very kindly, and I do think that Rec and Parks is doing their best work to incorporate them.

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: I have no other comments from Rec and Parks commissioners.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: In that case, I move to approve. Second.

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

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: need a motion and a second from the rec and park commissioners? Alright. Can I have a motion and a second from the rec and park commissioners, please?

[Joe Hallisey (Recreation and Park Commissioner)]: So moved.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Very good. There has been there's a motion that has been seconded for the Planning Commission to approve on that motion. Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye.

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Sowell.

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

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

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: Okay. And now for recreation and park commission on that motion. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Hallasey. Commissioner Louie. Aye. Commissioner Wintraub? Aye. Commissioner Claire Carrera? Aye. Commissioner Missoula? Aye. And Commissioner Zwart? Aye. Okay. It's approved.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. With that, we can move on to the next item. But before we do, commission vice president Moore has a request for recusal, I believe. Yes.

[Kathrin Moore (Planning Commission Vice President)]: Out of abundance of caution, I would like to request that my fellow planning commissioners excuse me from participating in all items under consideration under the next subject matter. I'd like to disclose that I receive an annual retirement payment from Skidmore, Higgs and Mill, is a firm which will be presenting the Sanson Battery Project today. I ask for your support.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: And then commissioner Warren?

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Move to recuse Vice President Moore.

[Lee Lutenski (Director of Development, Office of Economic & Workforce Development)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, Commissioners. On that motion to recuse Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Campbell.

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

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

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Planning Commission Vice President)]: Aye.

[Kathrin Moore (Planning Commission Vice President)]: And commission president Soh? Aye. So moved, commissioners. The motion passes unanimously six to zero. And commissioner Moore, you are hereby recused.

[Phil Ginsburg (General Manager, Recreation and Park Department)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: You have ten days to file the recusal form with ethics.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: And then we have another disclosure Commissioner Braun might like to make.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Yes. The architecture and design firm Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, as just stated, is part of the sponsor's team for the project before the commission for approval. My employer, Strategic Economics, is currently a sub consultant to SOM on two projects for the city of San Jose and is part of a team led by SOM that recently submitted a proposal to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. I am not involved in any of those projects or proposals, and neither I nor my employer has worked on the project before the commission today. So these relationships will not impact my ability to be impartial on this matter. I also did not think to make these disclosures at the April 17 or May 15 hearings at which we previously reviewed aspects or components of this project. However, for the reasons described above, my relationships with SOM and my employer do not impact my ability to be impartial in hearing those matters either.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Okay, commissioners. If there's nothing further, bear with me. I've got a lot of items to read into the record before we hear from staff. Please note that the joint commissions will hold one public hearing for the public to provide testimony on all items listed below. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission will consider certification of the environmental impact report. Then Recreation and Park Commission will act jointly with the Planning Commission to consider raising the cumulative shadow for several parks. And then the Recreation and Park Commission will consider a recommendation to the Planning Commission. And then following that, they will adjourn, and the Planning Commission will remain in session to separately consider action on the remaining entitlements. Item two, case number twenty twenty Four-seven 66 ENV for five thirty Sansa Mixed Use Tower and Fire Station thirteen, certification of the environmental impact report. Please note the public hearing on the draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the draft EIR ended on 04/28/2025. Public comment will be received at this time. However, comments may not be included in the final EIR. Items three a and b for case numbers 2020Four-seven66SHD for five thirty Sansom Mixed Use Tower And Fire Station 13, discussion and possible joint action by the Planning Commission and Recreation and Park Commission to raise the cumulative shadow limit, as well as discussion and possible action by the Recreation and Park Commission to adopt a resolution recommending to the Planning Commission whether or not to the new shadow will have a significant adverse impact. Again, following items two, 3A and 3B, the Recreation and Park Commission will adjourn, and the Planning Commission will remain in session to separately consider the following items, items 4A through G, case number is 2020Four-seven66, ENV SHD, GPA, PCA, MAP, DVA, CUA, and OFA for the property at 530 Sansom Street, mixed Use Tower and Fire Station 13, adoption of findings, adoption of shadow findings, general plan amendments, planning code and zoning map amendments, development agreement, conditional use authorization, and large cap office allocation, respectively. I think that's it. So now we will hear from staff.

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department staff)]: Good morning, commissioners. Rich Sucre from department staff. I'm here to walk you through all of the acronyms that you just heard. I'm joined by Lisa Gibson, our Environmental Review Officer, Sherry George and Joy Navarette from Environmental Planning, Lee Lutinski and Jonathan Cherry from MOWD, Chris Towns and Yael Golen from Rec and Park. Together we'll be presenting on the overall project and related shadow findings. But before we begin, I'd like to introduce legislative aide Tita Bell from District three Supervisor Danny Sauter's office and subsequently to Tita, Lee Lutinski from the mayor's office of economic and workforce development and representatives from the planning from the fire department will also present.

[Tita Bell (Legislative Aide to Supervisor Danny Sauter, District 3)]: Good morning again. Tita Bell, legislative aide to supervisor Danny Sauter of District 3. I'm here to offer remarks, as to the items cosponsored by supervisor Sauter. Supervisor Sauter believes that the proposed project for the 530 Sansa mixed use tower and new Fire Station 13 is the most significant new project in the Northern Financial District in decades. It's an important sign of our downtown recovery. The project sponsor's decision to add more office and hotel space may seem counterintuitive at the moment, but we hope that our city's economy is in a much better place in the three to five years when the project is complete. There are reasons to be optimistic about the future. San Francisco has just had the best office leasing quarter since 2015. And vacancies for new high end office space and are in the single digits, this builds on the success that the adjacent Transamerica Pyramid has had in recruiting new office tenants. Downtown recovery is critical to the vibrancy of the city as a whole, and this project will play a large role in that. But another reason to will deliver clear benefits to San Francisco residents. First, this project will deliver a new state of the art Fire Station 13 to support our fire department as they serve, the Financial District, Embarcadero, Barbary Coast, Telegraph Hill, Jackson Square, and parts of Chinatown. Second, it will generate nearly $15,000,000 in affordable housing contributions to support the creation of 100% affordable senior housing at 772 Pacific Avenue in Chinatown or other developments within District 3. And this is money we will see quickly with an initial 2,000,000 to be paid within six months of entitlement. It bears repeating. This project will directly fund new affordable housing. Finally, as we face real fiscal challenges, Supervisor Sauter wants to highlight the 14,000,000 in annual general fund revenue that this project will contribute. This will directly benefit our neighborhoods, helping to stave off cuts to street cleaning, police, and small business grants. Commissioners, we wanted to offer this perspective as you weigh the items before you today and supervisor hopes to have your support. Thank you.

[Lee Lutenski (Director of Development, Office of Economic & Workforce Development)]: Hello, commissioners. I'm Lee Lutenski. I'm the director of development for our city's office of economic and workforce development. Like you heard from Tita, we are very excited to bring this proposal to you today. This proposal represents a major vote of confidence in the city's future, in our downtown revitalization, and will be a significant economic investment for the city. The city from the outset has had three major goals with respect to this project that we believe will be delivered here. First, the rebuilding of Fire Station 13 with a new station that meets department operational needs and is seismically sound. Second, significant affordable housing funding to support projects in District 3. And again, third, the economic investment that this project represents, we believe will send not only a signal to catalyze future development, but again will be really beneficial for the revitalization of our downtown, and we are very excited to see this proposal. I wanted to keep my remarks brief. You will hear from lots of other staff, but we'll be available for questions. I would now like to introduce from the San Francisco Fire Department, deputy chief Sayumee Brannon and assistant deputy chief Mike Mullen.

[Deputy Chief Sayumi Brennan (San Francisco Fire Department)]: Good morning, President Tsao, President Anderson, and commissioners from Park and Rec and, Planning. My name is Sayumi Brennan, Deputy Chief of Administration for the San Francisco Fire Department. This is Assistant Deputy Chief Mike Mullen, and we are here representing the San Francisco Fire Department in full support of this project. I have a personal connection with Station thirteen. I spent ten of my twenty eight years there and I not only started there, I ended there, as a firefighter. And I lived in the area. I worked in the area, prior to getting into the fire department. And I now currently live in their first alarm area as well. There's a new found excitement in the air in the Financial District, I have to say. I know a lot of the residents. I speak with them every day, and I also know the business owners. And there's a lot of excitement about this building being constructed. They've asked me daily when is it gonna break ground. So and, they're excited for station thirteen. Station thirteen has responded to many of the citizens in that area, many of the businesses, and they are there to support them and, represent them and take care of them in their time of need. So we are in absolute full support. I know, for right now, there are about five members of Station thirteen that have spent twenty plus years of their career there. So, they're in it to win it. They are not going to leave and they're so excited about this new project and the opportunity to serve in just in a beautiful environment that is it's gonna just be amazing. They are the first people that our visitors come to speak to. They always wanna know where we like to eat. So we do experience that. We do partake and, we are the ones that tell them and direct them depending on what they what their style of entertainment is. So, we we love it and, we are, really excited to represent the community in this manner and represent this project as well and participate in anything that they need in full support. If you have any questions, we're we will both be here, after afterwards, after everyone speaks to answer anything for you. Thank you very much.

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: Thank you.

[Sherry George (Environmental Review Coordinator, Planning Department)]: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Sherry George, planning department staff, environmental review coordinator for the four four seven battery five thirty Samsung project, also known as the five thirty Samsung mixed use tower and Fire Station 13 development project. As noted by Rich Sucre, members of the planning department, San Francisco rec and parks department, the project sponsor team, and the office of economic and workforce depart development are here to present today. As noted by commission secretary, the first item before you today will be the motion to certify the final environmental impact report or the EIR for the project. I will now provide a brief overview of the project, the conclusions in the final impact report, and the environmental review process. The 28,830 square foot project site comprised of four parcels is located on the in the Financial District neighborhood and on the blocks bound by Samsung, Washington, Battery, and Merchant Street. The proposed project would demolish the existing buildings on the project site including a three story commercial building at 425 Washington Street, a two story commercial building at 439 445 Washington Street, 530 Sansom Street, and the three story commercial building 447 Battery Street. During construction of the proposed project, fire station thirteen operations would temporarily relocate to nearby off-site existing San Francisco fire department facilities until construction of a replacement fire station is completed. The proposed project would construct a four story replacement fire station. The approximately 31,200 square foot building includes one below grade level for 18 vehicle parking spaces and would be located on the current 447 Battery Street parcel. On the remaining three parcels, the proposed project would construct a separate high rise mixed use building up to 41 stories. The high rise would include approximately twenty twenty seven thousand thirty square feet of retail between third 372580 And 417770 square feet of office, and between one hundred twenty eight thousand ten and one hundred eighty nine thousand one hundred thirty square feet of hotel for for approximately 100 to 200 hotel rooms. Three below grade levels would be provided for approximately 74 vehicle parking spaces and 81 class one bicycle parking spaces, and one passenger loading zone is proposed on Sansom Street. The proposed project would also improve all of Merchant Street between Battery And Sansom Streets into a shared street living alley of privately maintained public open space. The draft EIR was published on 03/11/2025. The public hearing on the draft EIR was held on 04/17/2025 and the public comment period closed on 04/28/2025. The department received comments from 18 individuals, agencies, and organizations in response to the publication of the draft EIR, including questions related to historic architectural resources, air quality, noise, transportation, shadow, and public services. The response to comments document published on 07/02/2025 responds to the issues raised by commenters. These comments did not raise any new environmental issues that had not been addressed in the draft DIR. To briefly summarize project impacts, the project would result in project level significant and unavoidable historic resource impact because even with mitigation, it would demolish the existing 447 Battery Street Building which is a historic resource under CEQA. The project would also result in significant and unavoidable project level and cumulative air quality impact because it would expose sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants during construction and operation. While mitigation measures would reduce the project's impact, it would remain significant and unavoidable. The the six topic areas with significant project impacts that could be mitigated to a less than significant level are also shown on the slide. The EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the project to address the significant and unavoidable impacts related to historic architectural resource and air quality. In addition to the no project alternative, the EIR includes three alternatives, a full preservation 41 story alternative, a full preservation 19 story alternative, and a partial preservation alternative. In conclusion, the draft EIR and the response to comments document constitute the final EIR. Planning department staff recommend that the planning commission adopt the first motion before you today which would certify that the contents of the final EIR are adequate and accurate, and the procedures through which the final EIR was prepared comply with the provisions of CEQA, the CEQA guidelines, and chapter 31 of the administrative code. Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level with respect to historic resources and air quality. Therefore, the commission would also need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations under CEQA should the commissioners choose to approve the project. That concludes my portion of the presentation and I will now turn the presentation over to Rich Sucre who will provide more details concerning the project including its entitlements. Thank you.

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department staff)]: Thank you, Sherry. And hello again, commissioners. Rich Jacrae from department staff. Just wanted to also acknowledge that I'm presenting on behalf of Jonathan Vimmer, who actually did most of the work on this project. He is off getting married or attending his brother's wedding.

[Aaron (public commenter; skateboarding advocate)]: So if

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department staff)]: I'm alright big difference. I know. Big difference. I will focus on the action items before the commissions and then hand it over to Chris who will cover the shadow analysis. Both of us are available to answer questions during your deliberations as are members of the project sponsor team, including technical consultants. As background for some of our more recent commissioners, the impetus for this project began in 2018 when the city put out a request for proposal for replacement over the existing fire station thirteen at 530 Sansom Street. In addition to provisions for fees for the construction of off-site affordable housing several blocks away in Chinatown. The project sponsor then and now and the city are parties to a property exchanges agreement approved in 2020 that pertains to all of the subject sites other than the 447 Battery Street property. Both variants of the previous proposal are no longer feasible due to market conditions and unforeseen design slash operational challenges. In light of these facts as well as the opportunity to acquire 447 Battery, the project sponsor has proposed a different project maintaining key components of the previous iteration while redesigning it to accommodate a standalone fire station site and a taller, more viable mixed use high rise in November 2024. Then district super then district three supervisor introduced a resolution that was unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors in support of the key terms of the current proposal. As you already know, the current proposal would entail demolition of all four existing structures on the project site and site and a redevelopment of two components, a state of the art approximately 55 foot tall city fire station at 447 Battery Street parcel and a 41 story approximately 540 foot 45 foot tall tower at the remainder of the site composed of a lower level restaurant and event space, class a office space, and a five star hotel consisting of approximately a 100 to 200 rooms. The project would also include substantial pedestrian oriented improvements to mark Merchant Street as well as a variety of other public benefits that will be outlined in the subsequent portions of our presentation. Yesterday, the Historic Preservation Commission considered whether to support a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for disapproval of the article 10 landmark conditional rescission aspect of the planning code amendment ordinance. Per staff's recommendation, the HBC did indeed recommend disapproval of that aspect of the, legislation, and a copy of that resolution has been emailed out to the planning commissioners, and a copy is also before you, hard copy. As the HBC resolution states, their recommendation does not impact the planning commission's ability to consider any of the items before you today nor does it nor does it, impact the board of supervisors discretion on items subject to their jurisdiction. Department staff support the overall proposal and legislation enabling it as the project represents a substantial investment in the downtown area and would provide an updated fire station satisfying all of the department's current needs. Planning staff also note that this class a office space and high tier hotel use retain a demonstrated demand, particularly in this pocket of the city that transitions from the Financial District to Jackson Square and North Beach. Staff further believe that the new height fits well within the sloping contours of the skyline and retains sufficient separation particularly above the roughly 300 foot level from the surrounding buildings. Today, the department is requesting both commissions consider the following actions. Firstly, and as previously noted, the planning commission shall consider certification of the final environmental impact report. Then both commissions will consider adoption of a joint resolution raising the absolute cumulative shadow limit, otherwise known as the ACL, on Maritime Plaza, Washington Square, Willi Woo Woo Woo Hwang Park, and to set and stab and and to set or establish an ACL on Sue Bierman Park. Pursuant to the jointly approved planning code section two ninety five implementation memo, which was adopted in 1989 in order to accommodate new shadow cast by the project. For this action, separate votes will be recorded for each commission. After that, the Recreation and Park Commission shall commit consider a recommendation to the Planning Commission that the net new shadow cast by the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the use of the four subject parts. The planning commission will then consider additional entitlement actions under their jurisdiction, and these actions include adoption of CEQA findings per the potentially certified final environmental impact report, adoption of shadow findings pursuant to planning code section two ninety five, recommendation to the board of supervisors on the proposed general plan amendments, recommendation on the proposed planning code text and map amendments, recommendation of the on the proposed development agreement between the sponsor and the city, adoption of findings to approve a conditional use authorization, including various exceptions from the planning code per the pending code subsections established by the corresponding legislation. And lastly, adoption of findings related to allocation of office square footage from the large cap office allocation pool. The department has received one letter in opposition to the project from a nearby resident, which is included in your packets, and three letters in support from UniteHear Local two, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and Advance SF. In summary, the planning department staff recommend approval of all legislative item recommendations, shadow findings, conditional use authorization, and office allocation in order to enable the project for the reasons previously outlined. Staff find that the proposal is both necessary and desirable and is on balance consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the city's general plan and downtown area plan. I'll now hand off the presentation to my colleague Chris Towns who will cover the shadow analysis.

[Chris Towns (Recreation and Park Department – Capital & Planning)]: Thank you, Rich, and good morning, commissioners. My name is Chris towns. I'm a planner with the Recreation and Park Department Capital and Planning Division, and I'll be presenting a portion of the shadow aspect of the five thirty Sansom mixed use Tower and Fire Station 13 project in collaboration with Rich Sucre from the planning department. Rich will cover the second half of the presentation to share project images and summarize the shadow analysis, whereas my portion will provide an overview of the governing shadow policy, an explanation of the shadow requests, and the programmatic layout of the various parks that are shadowed. As Rich mentioned, those include Washington Square, Willy Woo wooong playground, Maritime Plaza, and Sue Berman park, a total of four parks. So for shared policy and code context, prop K, the sunlight ordinance, was aimed at protecting park properties from the negative shadow impacts of development. It was approved by voters in 1984, which subsequently led to the adoption of planning code section two ninety five, which prohibits the city from issuing building permits for structures greater than 40 feet in height that would cast a shadow upon a property under the jurisdiction of Rec and Park. Unless the planning commission, in consultation with the Rec and Park Commission, finds that the shadow would not pose a significant adverse impact upon the use of the park property. In 1989, the commissions jointly adopted what's called the 1989 memo, which established both quantitative as well as qualitative criteria for determinations of significant shadows. A particular aspect of the memo's quantitative guidance as a protective measure was the establishment of what's called absolute cumulative shadow limits for determinations of significant shadows. There were 13 named parks that were applied ACLs, which established a 0% parameter, meaning essentially that any proposed projects that would shadow these parks above zero amount would require joint commission authorization in order to raise those shadow loads. The four parks shadowed by those projects are named parks per the memo, so they're subject to this ACL parameter. In addition to quantitative guidance, the 89 memo also established qualitative criteria for the commission to consider, including time of day, time of year, shadow location, shadow size, shadow duration, and also public good served by the project casting the shadow. This slide cites the formal agenda language before you. I just want to highlight that the request has sort of two separate components. First, it's a joint action by the reg and park and planning commission as to whether or not to raise the absolute limit of the foreshadowed parks to accommodate this project. For Sue Bierman Park specifically, there's also a need to quote, set the absolute cumulative limit since Sue Bierman Park did not exist in its current size and configuration when the 89 memo was adopted. At that time of adoption, the park was less than two was a less than two acre park or a small park per the memo that experienced greater than 20% shadow load due to the raised Embarkadoe Freeway that was present at the time and subsequently removed due to the eighty nine earthquake. The park was later expanded into the current park as it exists today, which is a 4.1 acre park. Secondly, the second portion of your agenda item is if the commission does decide to raise the absolute shadow limit, a recommendation by the rec and park commission to the planning commission as to whether or not the shadows pose a significant adverse impact on the use of the park properties. So now I'll delve into just the overview of the programmatic layout of the shadowed parks. Here's a plan view of Washington Square, which is a 2.2 acre park in the North Beach neighborhood. This is a rectangular shaped park bordered on its four sides by a variety of retail, commercial, hotel, church uses. Programmatically the park features a large central grassy area with a standard mature trees at its center. It's also encircled by a pedestrian pathway with offshoots to the sides and to the corners. There's also a children's playground and public restroom nestled in the northwest corner. Access to the park is taken from its edges and corners via pathways. Park hours are five a. M. To midnight. Willy Playground is a 0.61 acre park in the middle of China Town. The shape of this park is more irregular and informed by its immediately surrounding built environment consisting of four to five storey mixed use buildings. The park is located mid block with its primary frontage along Sacramento Street. Spatially the park is multilevel with the distinct upper and lower level that relates to the lateral sloping topography. Programmatically the park features sports courts and an exercise area on the upper level. There's three separate playground areas at the lower level with a restroom and a clubhouse tucked underneath the sports courts with frontage on Waverly Place Alley as well. Access to the park is taken through a linear walkway and a gate along Sacramento. And park hours are six a. M. To ten p.

[Kathrin Moore (Planning Commission Vice President)]: M.

[Chris Towns (Recreation and Park Department – Capital & Planning)]: Maritime Plaza is a 1.9 acre park located in the Financial District. It's an entire level above the street level, so it's on a podium. The park is composed around the one Maritime Plaza office building at its center. So the park essentially has two equal halves that mirror each other. On the western half there's the SF punchline comedy club that sort of faces the building's office entry with the large grassy expanse between. There's also landscaped seating areas at the corners and sculpture garden rooms along its sides. The eastern half is a mirror of this plan, but instead of a lawn, there's a paved plaza that expands with a fountain at the center. Lastly, for Sue Bierman, it's a 4.1 acre park also located in the Financial District. It's composed of two contiguous city blocks situated between the Embarcadero to the East and Davis Street to the West. Programmatically, the western half includes a densely wooded natural sort of space natural area within with internal walking trails that sort of meander through at the southwest corner. There's interconnected lawn expanses surrounded by mature trees. There's a paved pedestrian pathway that traverses the park and exits to its corners. The eastern half closest to Embarcadero is also largely a grassy expanse encircled by a paved pathway. There's also a children's playground at the Northeast corner. That concludes my portion of the presentation, and I'll pass it to Rich Secre from the planning department. Thank you.

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department staff)]: So again, just as a reminder on the proposed project, this project will be 404 545 feet tall and it will cast shadow, obviously, on the four parts that Chris just described. So just to go through the quantitative and the qualitative aspects of the shadows impact on each park. And I'm just gonna give a quick summary, for all of you since all of this information is within the staff packets. On Washington Square, as you can see through the image over here, there's currently a shadow load of 7.47% of quantitative shadow load on the park. The project would add 0.01% shadow increase for a total of 7.48% of shadow load on the park. The shadow occurs in the fall during the mornings between 8AM and 11AM. For Willy Woo Woo Wooang Playground, the quantitative aspects a lot of queues. There is currently a shadow load of forty eight point o 3% existing shadow load on Willy Woo Woo Wooang. The project would also add 0.01 shadow increase for a total of 40 eight point o 4% of shadow load on the park. Qualitatively, the project shadow occurs in the summer during the early mornings before 8AM. For Maritime Plaza, there is currently a 67.84% existing shadow load on Maritime Plaza. The project would add 2.08% of shadow increase for a total of 69.92% of shadow load on the park. Qualitatively, the project shadow occurs in the spring during the late afternoon after 04:30PM. And finally, for Sue Bierman Park, there is currently a 42.694% existing shadow load on Sue Bierman Park. The project would add 0.004% shadow increase for a total of 42.698 shadow load on the park. Qualitatively, the shadow basically occurs in the spring during the late afternoon after 04:30PM. The subsequent slide here shows the basically the project's full shadow fan over basically the course of a full year and helps to kind of visualize the overall shadow impact by the project. Within a full full year of the shadow fan, the project site is located at the center and the project's annualized shadow fan footprint upon its surroundings is depicted in the various varying colors with darker colors representing more frequent shadow and lighter colors representing less frequent shadow. As you can see, shadows are most frequently immediately around the project site and dissipate as they go further away. In closing, I'd like to highlight that the 1989 memo provides quantitative and qualitative criteria for determining whether a project shadow upon a rec and park property will have a significant adverse impact upon the use of the park. Quantitatively, the 1989 memos guidance established a 0% absolute cumulative limit for the four specific parks shadowed by this project. Therefore, the proposed increase in ACLs to accommodate this project in the amount of 0.01% increase for Washington Square and Willy Woo Woo Hooong Playground, two point o 8% for Maritime Plaza, and 0.004% for Sue Bierman Park requires joint commission action to decide whether to raise the ACLs for these parks to accommodate the new shadow load. Qualitatively, the criteria also include consideration of the time of day of the new shadow time of year, shadow size, shadow duration, shadow location, and public goods served by the project as previously described. This concludes our shadow presentation, and I will now hand it off to Jonathan Cherry from OEWD.

[Jonathan Cherry (Project Manager, Office of Economic & Workforce Development)]: Thank you, Rich. Hello, commissioners. Jonathan Cherry, project manager with Office of Economic and Workforce Development. So over the past year, our office has worked with several city departments, your staffs, the fire department, real estate division, on a development agreement and other transactional documents, that will memorialize the commitments of the developer and the community benefits of this revised project that you are that's before you today. At a high level, we've worked to make sure we're fulfilling the original goals set out by the city in 2018 that Lee mentioned at the at the top of the staff presentation, when it, sought a developer for the 530 Sansom site. Those objectives, as a reminder, were to rebuild Fire Station 13 with a brand new fire station to better activate a key downtown site adjacent to Jackson Square. And third, to generate new funding to build affordable housing in Chinatown in District 3. Before I go through that community benefits package in more detail, just a few technical details I'd like to share. First, what is a development agreement? A development agreement is a contract between the city and the project sponsor, and the benefits and obligations in that contract run with the land to any future owners of the site. This agreement would have an eight year term, which is shorter than most of our DAs, and that's an outside timeline that includes an approximately three year or more construction period. The agreement would vest the property owner's right to build the project according to the controls within the special use district. It also vests the impact fees applicable to the project. The project is subject to future updates of building codes, fire codes, public works code, and certain other codes were not in conflict with the agreement. So in addition to the approvals before the commissions today, the board of supervisors will consider additional transactional documents to make the project possible. That includes an update to the existing property exchange agreement to reflect the current project site. Another component of the project the board will consider is a financial mechanism that will allow the city to recapture some of the new revenue generated by the project to offset the construction costs of the new fire station without any upfront investment from the city of capital dollars. Okay. So this is an exceedingly rare opportunity for the city to leverage private investment to renew a key public safety facility in the neighborhood. Fire Station 13, as you heard, was built in the early nineteen seventies. It does not meet today's operational, seismic, or accessibility standards. Upgrading or replacing the station would cost tens of millions of dollars in a challenging budgetary time, and this project will provide the city with a brand new facility that might otherwise potentially take decades if remind if relying on bond dollars. A key difference of this proposal from the previously approved design is that the sponsor would acquire the adjacent property at 447 Battery Street, allowing the new fire station to be built on a separate stand alone property that the city would own free and clear, which would be a long term benefit to the city compared to the prior project. The project sponsor would be fire station on the new site to meet the fire department specifications. The city would accept the new station at completion. Completion of the new fire station would be required before the new tower on the adjacent site is occupied. The property exchange agreement includes a maximum thirty month timeline for fire station completion once work begins. As many of you likely know, Related has delivered complex projects in San Francisco before with the new city office building at 49 South Van Ness being the most relevant recent example. This project would bring, as you've heard, major new investment to the Northern Financial District and would intensify the use of the site with a mix of day and nighttime uses. Those, as you heard, include class a office, hotel, restaurant, cafe. The project would also contribute to the public realm by converting all of Merchant Street between Sansom And Battery Streets into a more pedestrian friendly environment through widened sidewalks, new surface treatment of the street, new street trees, other traffic calming improvements that you'll see in more detail in the sponsor's presentation that will follow Maya. The board of supervisors' approvals would include a private maintenance obligation for those improvements for the life of the project. One thing I'll mention of relevance to today's joint hearing and the question of qualitative impact on downtown parks, the project will pay approximately $1,000,000 into the downtown park fund to support the acquisition and development of public park facilities. In terms of public art, the project will participate in the 1% for art program. As you saw earlier, the sponsor will also preserve and relocate the existing copper sculpture on Fire Station 13 to the facade of the new station. And through hotel taxes, the project will contribute approximately $600,000 each year to support grants for the arts, the arts commission, and the city's cultural districts. The other key benefit that you've heard is related to affordable housing. The affordable housing payments as part of the development agreement will total nearly $15,000,000 That's approximately three times the payments the city would have received from the previously approved project on the site. Of this amount, over $2,000,000 would be paid to the city within six months of the effectiveness of the project's entitlements and regardless of whether the project is ultimately built. Those dollars would be used by the city to fund the construction of 100% affordable housing, with first priority given to the 100% affordable senior housing project planned at 772 Pacific Avenue in Chinatown, and second priority to the development of 100% affordable projects elsewhere within District 3. I'll mention the project will pay a number of other impact fees according to the currently applicable rates, and that includes around $8,000,000 in transportation sustainability fees. Like all of our development agreements, this one contains a workforce plan, and that plan includes prevailing wage requirements for the construction of both buildings, first source hiring commitments for both construction and operations of the new tower, local hiring requirements for construction of the new fire station, and a local business enterprise plan, including a micro LBE coal. Construction of the project will require a significant amount of private investment, and that investment will create hundreds of jobs both during construction and on an ongoing basis on-site after completion of the project. The economic impact analysis conducted for the project estimates the direct economic impact at around $800,000,000 per year within San Francisco. And looking just at the impact to the city's general fund, we've carefully analyzed that fiscal impact, and the project is estimated to generate almost $14,000,000 each and every year in new city revenue. And that is net of all aspects of this agreement. So thank you for your time, commissioners. I'm gonna stop there. And that concludes the staff presentation. And if it's okay, I will invite up Mark Schwetman from SOM to provide the sponsor presentation.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: And the project sponsor, you'll have ten minutes.

[Mark Schwetman (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill – Project Sponsor)]: Thank you, and good morning, commissioners of both planning and recreation and park. If I could get the screen, please. I'm Mark Schwetman here on behalf of Skidmore Holdings in Maryland related California and excited to be part of a team that has delivered multiple buildings here in San Francisco with the city and around the world, and we look forward to continuing to do so. You've heard about the project site at the northern edge of the financial district, adjacent to the Jackson Square Historic District and the Golden Gateway redevelopment area. And this image shows its relationship to the four parks which you're being asked to act on today. The existing project site is intensely urban, surrounded on four sides by existing tall buildings occupying most of the block north of Battery Street. The existing building at the east end of the site is 447 Battery, shown on the left. There are two vacant office buildings at the center of the site, and then fire station thirteen occupies the west side of the site. The site is bounded on the site by Merchant Street, an interesting alley that visually connects the open space at 1 Maritime Plaza to the Transamerica Redwood Park. You heard about the previously entitled project on the site, which combined hotel, office, amenity uses, retail lobbies, and the fire station. Today's proposal maintains most of those uses with an increased amount of office space, increased height, but very critically, moves the fire station out from underneath the tower to its own parcel conveyed to the city free and clear, as shown in purple on the right. This is made possible by the addition of 447 Battery Street to the project site, which the city would in the future own in its entirety. This mix of uses has been carefully considered at the ground level of the project, in particular, its relationship to the ongoing reinvention and revitalization of the Transamerica Center across Battery Street to the west Sansom Street, I'm sorry. The public realm improvements described earlier are extensive and include a complete rethinking of Merchant Street with enhanced paving, widened sidewalks, new street trees, and special lighting treatment. On the north side, the sidewalk at Washington Street is widened, transforming angled in parking spaces into a double row of street trees, along with additional trees on Sansom Street. The design of Merchant Street really riffs on the design of Mark Twain Alley across the street, which has been improved by the Transamerica project, and is activated by the hotel arrival at the southwest corner of the site. At the northwest corner, a two story space announces the office building, part of a three story podium, which is scaled to respect the street wall of the older buildings which still exist in the area. This three story base is enlivened at all three levels with uses like a restaurant on the 2nd Floor, a ballroom on the 3rd Floor, hotel lobby on the 3rd Floor, and retail at the base. The architecture of the podium of the building is modern and elegant with dramatic proportions, but warm natural materials that reflect the context of Jackson Square to the north. This is all possible because of careful thought, we think, about the circulation on the site, which primarily enters mid block on the South, exits mid block on the North. The fire station has direct access to Battery Street's southbound lanes. But in addition, in emergencies, the fire department can use the bike lane on the eastern part of Battery Street to head northbound to Washington and then west to Chinatown and other neighborhoods.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: All of

[Mark Schwetman (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill – Project Sponsor)]: this has been carefully coordinated with the fire department, as you heard earlier, as well as Public Works. The architecture of the fire station is simple. A three story brick volume with a setback fourth glass level, vertically proportioned windows trimmed in metal, and a strong expression of the base of the building where the fire department engines exit onto battery. An existing piece of art from the current building, titled Untitled, is being relocated to the south side of the building, directly adjacent to the entry approximately 10 feet above the ground. With the base of the building given to the more active and public uses of hotel, amenity, retail, restaurant, and arrival, The top of the building is given to office space. These upper floors of the building gradually step back both on the north and the south to create a slender and distinctive profile on the skyline. But as important as the way this building looks on the skyline is that these steps have been carefully calibrated to reduce the shadow impacts that you heard about on Sue Berman Park. And in particular, the upper steps result in that tiny sliver of blue shadow never reaching the playground at the Northeast corner of the park during the Prop k period. As you heard, this represents four one thousandths of a percent of additional shadow on Sue Berman Park, and none before the evening. You heard about Washington Square, one one hundredth of 1%. We'd like to add to that analysis is that the Southeast corner of Washington Square Park has decades old, mature trees with large canopies. And that if you were sitting in this park, on the spot on the ground where those shadows might be cast, what you could see of 530 Sansom is that little yellow shape on the left, which is in fact, completely behind those trees. This, along with conclusions about wind and other technical subjects, are described in the document before you and deemed to be less than significant. Equally important to these technical matters though is the city forum, and the relationship of this building to its neighbors has been carefully considered. Over 200 feet space to the east, to the West tower of the Golden Gateway, over 500 feet to the west, to the next tower, which is directly aligned with Washington Street. Other towers in the area are oriented differently or set back from the street. And, indeed, as you go higher up to an elevation of 400 feet, we have over 400 feet of space between the building and 1 Maritime Plaza to the East, and over 300 feet of space to the Transamerica Pyramid to the West. The building's seven tier step resulting in a footprint at the top, which is only 60 feet wide, gradually increasing towards the base of the building for larger office and hotel floors. As it is surrounded by tall buildings, this building is difficult to see from some angles, as seen here from the foot of the Ferry Building in orange on the right. As you move further away from the city, its contribution to the skyline form becomes clearer, here from Pier 7, or here from Treasure Island, where the gradual rise and fall of the skyline around its three current pinnacles is evident. From the West, the building occasionally appears from higher vantage points on Russian Hill, but it's most clearly seen from the North, as here from Pioneer Park, where the building's height was carefully considered to fit in this gradually rising pattern from the Golden Gateway to 1 Maritime Plaza, the Embarcadero Center, and finally, the pinnacle of the Transamerica Pyramid, which is approximately 300 feet higher. We believe this is an office building, a mixed use building of unique character, inspired both by the city's past and what we think is a hopeful future, in a part of the city that has not seen a new office building or a new hotel in decades. You will hear from people who say that San Francisco does not need a new office building and does not need a new five star hotel. Those of us who believe in San Francisco, who live here, who work here, who run businesses here, believe that this project is the clearest symbol yet of the city's recovery from the setbacks of the pandemic, and that its public benefits represent a unique path forward in these challenging times. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. With that, that concludes, project presentation. We should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this

[Danielle Kuznic (Owner, San Francisco Wine Society)]: project. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Danielle Kuznic, and I'm the owner of San Francisco Wine Society, a woman owned small business that has been operating at 447 Battery Street since 2011. I've spent twenty years in hospitality here in San Francisco and fourteen years in this very location. I'm here today because I do not believe this project is the way forward. I care deeply about the financial district. I reopened my business in January 2021, long before many businesses returned. What I endured in 2122, I do not wish on any small business owner. I have fought every day to keep my doors open in a neighborhood that has been struggling to come back. Even now, the lack of foot traffic is still felt by many businesses in the neighborhood, yet we endure because we do believe it will come back. The proposed site of the new firehouse, 447 Battery Street, is special. This space my business occupies has high timber trusses, 19 o seven brick, and an enclosed outdoor patio with a bocce court. This space is irreplaceable. The uniquely San Francisco aesthetics and outdoor patio this building provides is the heart of my business. If I lose this space, I lose my livelihood. Moving forward would not just be difficult, it would be impossible to recreate what I built. I was asked by supervisor Sauter to work with Related to find a path forward. I proposed that San Francisco Wine Society be offered a permanent space within the new development as mitigation. Related declined. I was told by Matt White, Related's executive vice president of acquisition and development, that there was no room for me in this new building. While he expressed openness to the idea of relocation, he made clear that they are not offering any guarantees or meaningful commitment, regarding what support would look like. This leaves me, a woman owned small business that has survived when many did not, with no assurances of con of continuity and no path forward. Beyond my story, this project raises serious community concerns. Battery Street connects the heart of the city to the Bay Bridge. This proposal has Station 13 exiting on exiting the station onto Battery Street. During peak commute times, it can take two or three lights to move one block. The traffic during commute times on Battery Street proposes a very real risk to emergency response times if they are if they are to try to cross the traffic to get to the bike lane they are proposing to use. I would also ask that you consider the residents of the Gateway Tower facing Battery Street. Many residents are older, long term tenants on rent control. The threat of years of construction has already prompted some to ask to relocate, but moving means losing the rent control and facing rents they cannot afford. Most importantly, the board of supervisors landmarked 447 Battery Street just three years ago. That designation was initiated by supervisor Peskin in 2020 and approved unanimously in 2022. To reverse that now because it's politically convenient, sets a dangerous precedent that with enough money, a landmark can be bought and erased and the small businesses within it do not matter. Yesterday, the Historic Preservation Commission stood by the original decision and voted unanimously to recommend keeping the landmark designation, add a adding a recommendation that for that funds for future preservation if the building is torn down to the momentum of the due to this momentum of this project. As much as I respect the sentiment, this is just a line item for companies like Related.

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

[Danielle Kuznic (Owner, San Francisco Wine Society)]: I respectfully ask for one more moment. This means a lot to me. It's I'm just asking for sixty more seconds.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: So this is a very out of the ordinary exception for you. I

[Deputy Chief Sayumi Brennan (San Francisco Fire Department)]: we

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: there's a reason why we have these minutes Mhmm. That we hold, so then we will be fair to other people. Maybe perhaps when we go through our deliberations, some of my fellow commissioners might be, be able to ask you back for questions. And

[Danielle Kuznic (Owner, San Francisco Wine Society)]: This is this is

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: That would probably be the most appropriate way to go about it. Okay. Because if we give you one extra minute, we really need to give everyone an extra minute. Next speaker, please.

[Tom Murphy (Gateway Apartments resident)]: Hello, Commissioner Snow and fellow commissioners. My name is Tom Murphy. I'm a third generation San Franciscan and a resident of the Gateway Apartments. I've spent many months trying to find a way to support this project and feel that the city is moving forward with this new development. I hear a number of cherry picked statistics and I can't find a way to support this. I I hear that it comes with 50,000,000 towards affordable housing and that's a fraction of 1% of the housing that we need to meet the 2,031 guidelines of 86,000 units. I hear it'll bring 14 millions a year in revenue to the city. That's a fraction of a percent of the $89,000,000,000 budget that we just approved. I hear that, citywide office vacancy is 35% but this one is only gonna be 7%. What I don't hear is how much revenue is generated from raising office, vacancy across the city compared to this one particular project. I haven't heard what the depreciation of the existing Transamerica Tower and the Jay Hotel is going to cause by losing their sweeping Bayfront views and giving them to this project. I hear that it'll bring $40,000,000 to a state of art fire station. We already have a fire station. I'm sure it needs help, but I haven't heard if it makes response times faster or houses more paramedics or what benefit it is, to me as a resident of the area. What I hear is, a type of project that as a layperson, I need a new car. I go to a dealer and they say, you don't need to buy a car. We're going to give you a five star, four story, brand new fire station. We're going to, give you, but but to get this, you need to put up a wall in front of your two other neighbor's house. You need to erase the Transamerica Building from the Port Of San Francisco photos for all time ahead and you need to bulldoze a historic landmark. I recognize many of the the benefits are, at their face value beneficial, but it comes at the expense of the existing businesses, the existing developers, and the existing residents all to, support more gentrification in the city and a smaller community of people who can afford five star hotels and double a office space. I urge you to vote no on this project and support the rest of the city. Thank you.

[Rhoda Schneiderman (public commenter; Vista West resident)]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Rhoda Schneierman. I live at 550 Battery on the corner of Washington And Battery. So my apartment overlooks this this proposal. I'm going to use two minutes of my time and cede my last minute to Danielle from the YC's side.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: You cannot cede your time to another speaker.

[Rhoda Schneiderman (public commenter; Vista West resident)]: You know, this is a very, very contentious proceedings that it could be, but you can avoid it by by letting me see my last minute. You have I

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: understand, but we that's just not part of our process. As mentioned by one of the chairs, it is strongly likely that a petitioner will request that she clarify some of her statements and Okay.

[Rhoda Schneiderman (public commenter; Vista West resident)]: I respectfully ask to let me finish so that I don't cede my time to you. You have my letter in your packet. Planner Vindmer assured me that it would be distributed to you, so I'm assuming that that one letter is mine. Essentially, the one thing about the shadowing is the opposite effect is going to take place with a wall of windows. In the afternoon when in the morning when the east sun rises, it is going to hit that wall and the glare is going to be blinding to anything in its path, including our building Vista West. Also, the Google or Maritime Building is going to experience it firsthand. Maritime Park is my backyard directly. The necessity of the fact that we don't need any more offices planned right now is essentially going to make vacancies worse because really they're going to be poaching tenants from other buildings. I can guarantee having been in the leasing business in Chicago for many years, many years ago, that's essentially what happens. They're going to offer potentially two, three year initial great rates to get people in, and those spaces are now going to become empty because there's just too much space, and it's going to lead to the further deterioration of the older buildings that are not Class A buildings. So you can count on your rent, vacancies going up in every part of the city. And class A buildings really need to be close to BART because many people are commuting into the city, and this one is further away. Salesforce Tower will be a beneficiary because people can walk to work in five minutes instead of ten or fifteen minutes to a building over on battery. Anyway, it's too big, it's too tall, and pretty much every view that they show from the renderings, none of them show the direct east view, which is going to completely block Transamerica except for the absolute pinnacle, which has no windows. As far as the view from the north, they're showing it from a drone, And they're not showing it from somebody actually living there outside their windows. And from the west, you're

[Deputy Chief Sayumi Brennan (San Francisco Fire Department)]: going

[Rhoda Schneiderman (public commenter; Vista West resident)]: to see up on Masonic, you're going to see the outline. In the afternoon, you'll see the outline of the Transamerica Building, not the actual building's profile. So I just don't think with all the concessions that are made to get this project going that it is worth it. Thank you. Oh, I guess Danielle sat down, and I don't know what her comments were gonna be, but I think it certainly would have been worthwhile for a long time business owner Thank you for your help then. To speak.

[Avi (Chinatown Community Development Center)]: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Avi, and I'm here to speak on behalf of the Chinatown Community Development Center in support of the five thirty Samsung project. As part of the development agreement, as you all have heard, the project will provide critical funding for affordable housing in District 3 where the need is urgent and growing. These funds could directly support a 100% affordable senior housing development in the heart of Chinatown, delivering one seventy five deeply affordable units. This will be the first new construction affordable housing in Chinatown in over two decades since the I Hotel. So so it represents a vital opportunity to meet the needs of low income seniors there who have helped build and sustain the neighborhood. So we hope you'd support this project to ensure that long term Chinatown seniors and residents can age in place with dignity. Thank you.

[Woody LaBounty (San Francisco Heritage)]: Good morning commissioners. My name is Woody Labounty from San Francisco Heritage. We're a nonprofit that's been in business for more than fifty years to preserve and enhance San Francisco's architectural and cultural heritage. So it's not just buildings, it's legacy businesses and cultural districts like Japantown or SoMa Pilipinos. So, I just want to point out something about this development agreement. In the late 60s, the city came up with a landmark program, a landmarking program, and it's article 10 of the planning code. And it talks about why it's important to preserve buildings and why the city does so. But the end of it is it's for the enrichment of human life and its educational and cultural dimensions in order to serve spiritual as well as material needs by fostering knowledge of the living heritage of the past. So I was surprised to hear mister Schwetman say that this new tower somehow pays homage to the past, and I was also surprised that I didn't hear the word landmark until 45 had passed in this hearing. The city has never intentionally demolished a city landmark. The only time it delisted and demolished a landmark was when Saint Paul's Church burned and was gutted. But we have three twenty landmarks out of 212,000 parcels. We have never intentionally demolished a landmark. This sets an amazing precedent. And you may say, well, I don't care about this coffee warehouse. I think there's benefits that are here that are more important than this coffee warehouse. But the point is when you set this precedent, there's a landmark that you do care about that is now in a lot more danger than it was before. I'm talking about things like the rainbow flag. I'm talking about the carnival mural. It's not just buildings. It's not just warehouses. Landmarks talk about our city's past, our diversity, the people. They're very important. And so you may, as a commission, you may do whatever you're going to do here. It seems like there's a lot of momentum behind this. I'm surprised the city dog catcher didn't come out and say how excited they were about this. And I heard a lot about what this project signals. But to me, it signals something very disturbing, which is that our landmarks now are for sale. Or if they come up with the right sort of, you know, need of the time, they can be lost. And we don't want that to happen. So like I said, you're gonna do what you're gonna do as a commission today, and I understand that. But I want to ask you as individual San Franciscans to do something for me, and that is to ask the mayor and ask your supervisor what they're going to do to preserve and keep the special unique places of San Francisco going forward. Because if we can lose landmarks, we can lose anything. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And these matters are now before you, commissioners. I would suggest that you take up items separately and deliberate on those items specifically, and then vote and then move on to the next.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Thank you. So we'll take item two for the adoption to the IRR findings first.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: It's the certification of the environmental impact report.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Right. It's two. That is them only. So two a. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Yes. So item two was the certification of the environmental impact report. So we had our previous hearing on this, and we've had the response to comments document since that time. And, I thought the response to comments document, covered the comments very well. I really appreciate, in particular, the additional project background that was added, to the AIR through that process. There's a good catch in there about the corrected description of the location of the emergency vehicle base, which was very important, and good exploration and explanation of why building relocation for the landmark building is not a viable alternative for consideration. So I agreed with the findings of that. And so I found the responses adequate in addressing all the issues of relevance in the analysis. And I'm actually gonna make a motion to certify the environmental impact report.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Thank you. Yes. I think since part of the AIR is also discussing around the landmark designation, and I know there has been presentation on that, but if whether mister mister Sukri can comment on in terms of the the four forty seven Battery Street article 10, you know, landmark designation. Can you, elaborate in terms of also the, the comments made by the historical preservation commission?

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department staff)]: Sure. Happy to provide some background. Again, Richard Gray, department staff.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: But may I interject, though? Would it be more appropriate to deliver on this item on item under item four d? How is that

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department staff)]: It's probably most relevant under your deliberation on the planning code text amendment.

[Mark Schwetman (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill – Project Sponsor)]: Yeah. It

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department staff)]: is. Just to provide a quick summary for relative to this current item, the environmental impact report did identify impacts to historic resources and a significant adverse impact. And so that's basically what the EIR is doing in the case of the EIR portion of

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: the Okay. I'll wait until the item 40. Did someone second? And I'm re I'm also in support and certification of the EIR.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: If there's no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to certify the EIR on that motion. Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. And Commission President Tsao?

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously five to zero, and will place you on item three a. And this is a joint action.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: We

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: have different views. Our agenda says

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: two b, so is yours this is the raising Just for my for my commissioners, it's two b. K.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Two b. It's another shuttle. Right? It's the shuttle.

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: Yeah. This is about I should

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: have coordinated that number.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Yeah. It's a shadow. Yeah. To yeah. And then the next is Would would you like someone to look any any of your commissioner have comments?

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: I just want to clarify that we rec park commissioners have an agenda that cites two b as an item.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: That's correct.

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: Is this the same as your

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: Three a.

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: Three a. Okay. Thank you.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: So this item for just to help us all fall along, is about raising the cumulative shadow limit on the parks that were identified in the presentation. So, you know, I for me, I'm always trying to be very sensitive to any additional shadow impacts on public parks because those are our gathering spaces and living rooms. So I was paying a lot I was trying to pay very close attention to this. I will say I think that the increases in Washington Square Park and Sue Bierman Park in particular at 0.010.004% increase are extremely modest and did not raise any really significant concerns with me. So I'm pretty comfortable with that. The 2.08% increase on Maritime Plaza annual increase was a little bit more striking. Oh, and I should also mention the other I missed one. So really, Woo Woo, And Long Playground is also a point 01% increase largely before 7AM or 8AM. There's a little difference between the presentation and what was in the report itself. But I am comfortable with that one too. Maritime Plaza, you know, ultimately, that space I mean, just from my perspective, these shadow impacts are largely after 04:30PM. And it's just it's a space that's largely often used by office workers, and it is an important park. I don't wanna diminish that at all. But I personally am comfortable with raising the cumulative shadow limit for that space as well, even though that one at the 2% annual increase has me a little more hesitant.

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: Commissioner Hallasey?

[Joe Hallisey (Recreation and Park Commissioner)]: I've been on this, commission for four and a half years. There have been a number of shadow issues that have come before us. And although I understand the importance of the quantitative aspect, meaning the straight numbers and percentages, As a member of the Recreation and Park Commission, it's always been the qualitative issue that has been number one for me, and that is the recreation activities that are impacted by shadow issues. And I don't mean a walk in the park, having a sandwich on a park bench, something that could be done in another part of the park should a shadow fall on the bench that you want to sit on, or a conversation with a friend in a park. I'm talking about permanent spaces, permanent spaces such as children's play areas, tennis courts, baseball diamonds, tennis courts, basketball courts. Quick review of these four parks that are impacted. Washington Square Playground has a children's play area in the Northwest Corner, the East Side of Columbus Avenue. Very minimal shadow impact with this new project. As Commissioner Braun said, 0.01%. Willie Woo Woo Wooong Playground is made up mostly of sports courts and playgrounds. And there is early morning and late afternoon impact, which has been in place before this project even began, and also very minimal shadow impact there, 0.01%. Now Maritime Plaza has no play area whatsoever. And although this is the largest shadow impact, 2.08%, I think it's very minimal when you look at the overall plaza itself. And finally, Sue Bierman, in the eastern portion of that playground, they have a children's play area. And it's very minimal there as well, 0.004%. I really believe that all of these new shadows are not impactful enough that we should prevent, this project, from going forward.

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: And I would like to dovetail on what my fellow commissioner, Joe Hallisey, said. One of the things that we consider in the qualitative analysis is public good. And I see a new fire station as being some of the highest and best use for the public good. We have an incredible commitment from our firefighting community on this. They don't just do a job. They lean into and live in what they do in the community. And I'm sure any of the concerns that were brought up have been pre vetted on that point. This is a building also that will contribute to commerce. We are one of the greatest cities in the world, in the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world, and we must continue to progress and grow thoughtfully. I see this as a very thoughtful project which conforms to its neighbors. And it will provide significant affordable housing benefits, particularly for seniors. And we do not have enough senior affordable senior housing in San Francisco, something that I think about a lot as my family ages, and as I age, and I would like to stay in the city. And the benefits that will continue on through hotel tax revenues and otherwise will contribute to an economy that we need to supercharge if we're gonna come out of the doldrums that we've been in. So I find favor in raising the shadow limits and setting a new ACL for Sue Bierman on this item. No other comments from the rec and park commissioners?

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: I think overall, in general, I will make a comment about this particular topic. I'll save the rest of my other comments according to other items. I looked at this project, and thank you for these presentations, and I believe that it's the project sponsor and the designer had spent tremendous amount to skillfully cultivate a building that, give a really minimum impact on the quantitative and qualitative shuttle for the adjacent parks. And, I wanted to this is something that is really appreciative, and I wish any other future projects will take this approach to be so sensitive to make sure that we maintain a viable, enjoyable life for, all the recreation and park activities throughout San Francisco. I'm in support of this. And do you may I see a motion from someone? Okay. So moved. Oh, I can't make a motion, so I wonder if anyone can make a motion. Okay. Oh, good. Motion. Second. Great.

[Mark Schwetman (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill – Project Sponsor)]: I I would suggest that

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: the similarly to the first item, the commissions make separate motions even though we're acting jointly.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Oh, I see. So

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: are still two separate bodies.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Move to raise the cumulative shadow limit.

[Chris Towns (Recreation and Park Department – Capital & Planning)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: On that motion to raise the cumulative shadow limit, Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Aye. So

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

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: Commissioners on two b. I will take a motion and a second.

[Joe Hallisey (Recreation and Park Commissioner)]: I move that we raise the cumulative, shadow limit.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: Second. Oh. Sorry. Okay. On that motion, commissioner Louie? Aye. Commissioner Wintraub? Aye. Commissioner Claire Carrera? Aye. Commissioner Mazzola? Aye. Commissioners Wart? Commissioner Hallisey?

[Joe Hallisey (Recreation and Park Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: And commissioner Anderson? Aye. And that passes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. Item three b on the planning commission agenda, is a Recreation and Park Commission action only. I'm assuming it's two c

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: in your for you.

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: Okay. So to clarify, two c is now we decide whether or not there's a significant adverse impact because of these shadows, and we would make a recommendation to the planning commission. Do I have a motion be sure you look at two c. Make sure you understand what you're moving and seconding on. Do I have a motion and a second?

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: And in that motion, please clarify whether it does or does not have a significant adverse impact.

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: Missoula?

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: Yep. I'll make a motion that it does not have a significant adverse impact.

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: On the aforementioned parks.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: On the aforementioned park.

[Sonia Clark Herrera (Recreation and Park Commissioner)]: Yeah.

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: I second. We have a motion and a second.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: Okay. And I'm gonna call the roll. Commissioner Hallisey?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Aye.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Louie? Aye. Commissioner Wintraub? Aye. Clark Herrera, sorry. Commissioner Mazzola?

[Commissioner Mazzola (Recreation and Park Commission)]: Aye.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Zwirt? And commissioner Anderson.

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

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: And that passes. And we're gonna stick around for their this last item, and then we'll move out of the room.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Okay. There is no other item.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: Oh, you're not?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: So Okay. Great. What were you thinking?

[President Anderson (Recreation and Park Commission President)]: The rec and park commission excuse itself.

[Recreation and Park Commission Secretary]: Do the adoption of the shadow findings while we were still here. No. Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Yeah. So thank you, recreation and park commissioners. We'll take a maybe a five minute recess to allow you guys to take a Zoom and resume your regular hearing.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Thank you. SFgovTV, San Francisco government television.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: After this hearing, Lydia, after this hearing, we're and since we're done with this hearing, we'll move everybody back. Okay?

[Deputy Chief Sayumi Brennan (San Francisco Fire Department)]: Do you

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: want me to adjourn the hearing and log everybody back here? Okay. Members of the public, if, we could have your attention, we are resuming this special hearing. Okay. Commissioners, we left off on items sir? We left off on items four a through G. They've already been called in, so I will allow you to continue your deliberations. Let me know if you want to take these items separately or together in one motion, so, whenever you're done.

[Aaron (public commenter; skateboarding advocate)]: It's

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: yeah. Is that okay if we, make a separate motion on the what art what item is that?

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: You mean four d? Four d. Okay. Yeah. Would you would we, it sound like we would like to do a hybrid. Sure. We wanted to make our deliberations on item four a, b, c, e, f, g altogether, and then when we looked at item four d separately.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Fair enough. I mean, you can deliberate all of them together, and we'll just call up the questions separately.

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Oh, okay. So it's okay for me now to ask questions about okay. So, yeah, I in general, overall, the the project is looks good. However, I do some have, you know, concerns around the article 10 landmark. And so I would just like to mister Super to explain about historic preservation commission comments on it. And, again, I also want to you know, I guess there are questions, like, why is this an exception? So first, perhaps, I would like to hear what the historic preservation comments about the four forty seven battery, you know, the infrastructure part of it and yeah.

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department staff)]: Sure. Happy to provide some context. So as we detailed in the staff packet, 447 battery is currently landmark number 229. So it's part of our article 10 landmarking program. It was nominated to our landmarks list in 2022. At yesterday's historic preservation commission hearing, the HPC, whose purview is narrowly on the decision on whether or not to conditionally rescind the landmarking, voted upon that and forward a recommendation onto the board as well as you all that basically stated that they disagree with the conditional rescission of the landmarking. It is the first time that the city I I should say second time that the city will have removed a building from our landmarks list. The public commenter, Woody, correctly stated that we had we've done this one other time when the building burnt down. So but otherwise, the city has never removed a property from the landmarks list. During the HPC yesterday, we did make note that we we don't think that this sets precedent. In this particular case, a development agreement as kind of Jonathan had alluded to is really challenging. It requires a lot of coordination with the city, a lot of work on our part, and in this case, the site obviously benefited vastly from having the inclusion of that building as part of the overall project site. So we do think that there are really unique and special circumstances in this case that it does not necessarily set a precedent for future removal. Obviously, just so you understand the process moving forward, the HBC provides advice on all matters related to the landmarks program and historic resources within the city. The board can ultimately decide what's kind of in and out relative to the landmarking program.

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: So I guess my question is what would wear warrant, an exception to rescind the article 10 landmark? It seems like first is natural or fire disaster. And is there anything else that would rescind

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department staff)]: Correct. In in in this case, it's actually provided us with some we don't the code itself doesn't give us guidance Mhmm. On what's in and what's out. The code basically, as well as the city charter basically just establishes the list, establishes a process by which the city can add and both remove things from that list, but beyond that doesn't give additional insight as to how decision makers undertake that process. For the Historic Preservation Commission, for example, their charge does include the stewardship and protection of historic resources specifically. So they look at that lens at all projects despite other benefits that the site might have. In the case of the planning commission, you don't have that same restriction. You're able to factor in all aspects of the project, all aspects of what may or may be beneficial to the city relative to the grounds, that you can pursue your entitlements.

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: And the historic preservation commission did not make any comments or perhaps recommended for, I guess I mean, what I'm trying to you know, and I respect the historic preservation comments and if they don't see any precedent. But I feel like there needs to be also a guarantee that this will not happen again. And the only thing I can see that, again, is a plan planning code text amendment. That means that we'll add language that, perhaps need to be more, clarified. And but the, but I guess that would come from the Historic Preservation Commission first in order to add that language.

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department staff)]: Correct. Correct. And the board can certainly, obviously, add, additional language as they, you know, look at our landmarks program and things that we would have to consider within that context. I will say it's important to note that in this particular DA, the landmark rescission is conditioned on the project actually happening. So as, you know, mister Cherry had mentioned earlier, the DA kind of outlined some metrics for the sponsor to pursue and obviously the landmarking rescission only happens when the land is finally transferred to the city and the project actually starts. Mhmm. So if they don't start construction, the landmark does not get rescinded. But up until then, we still have a landmark within our landmarks program.

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you, mister Sekorak.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Commissioner Brown? I'm I'm sorry. Public comment is already closed.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Right. Public comment is closed. Unless a commissioner has a question directly to you, public comment is closed. Thank you.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: I have a question that's perhaps best answered by somebody from economic and workforce development. I'm not sure though. And so one of the concerns raised by a commenter was, of course, about you know, the existing business that they have that will their if if this moves forward, that building will no longer be there. Their business will need to relocate. And there are also some other buildings that will be torn down as part of this as well. I'm not sure what their occupancy status is, but there are office buildings that may still have, office uses in them. And so I'm curious, you know, to me, this is this is a product in which the city is very much participating. Right? And and so it seems very reasonable that those concerns need to be taken into consideration and that there needs to be some process or or thought given to, you know, what types of services or or opportunities it might be to support those businesses. I don't think the city should be, you know, through its actions, directly participating in the development of of a project that will be, eliminating small businesses. And so I'm curious if you could speak a little more, Mr. Cherry, about what thought has been given to this, what services might be available. I'm curious to hear what has been discussed or thought through so far.

[Jonathan Cherry (Project Manager, Office of Economic & Workforce Development)]: Yes. Thank you, commissioner. So let's see. Generally first, as you know, we our office has several divisions. It includes our economic development division. It includes also the office of small business. And, one of our core goals is to support, local businesses, small businesses, including downtown, which has been a big focus for us the last few years in retaining existing businesses and attracting new businesses downtown. So this is yes. You're right on with your question. I will say specifically, I don't think there are any existing businesses in the two Washington Street properties that you mentioned. So with respect to the public commenter earlier, our office has been in touch with her. So we've started that conversation. And I think should this project move forward today and should it move forward through the board of supervisors, I think that will be a continuing conversation. I think we do have several programs that may be relevant for you know, either an existing business directly impacted or other, you know, other downtown businesses. Those include, we do have grant and loan programs, related to relocation, related to we have technical assistance programs related to finding new spaces. We have facade improvement and other, like, capital grant programs. I think, you know, it's hard to comment on a specific business today in this meeting, but, you know, it really, you know, we don't know the exact timing of when this project would happen, but I can assure you that as this project moves forward, you know, if it, you know, if it moves forward after today and and even through the detailed design process, we will continue to have those conversations about the resources the city can make available at the right time to impacted businesses. And I don't know if the sponsor wants to add anything to that. Okay.

[Jim Abrams (Counsel to Project Sponsor)]: Hi. I'm Jim Abrams. I'm legal counsel to the project sponsor. So I wanna note that Related has met with miss Kunich multiple times and is committed to working with her going forward. The project site, I think, notably is divided into buildings that Related owns and 447, which Related does not own. So the buildings that Related owns do not have any tenants in them and Related has kept them untenanted for many, many years now. 447 Battery is not a building that they currently own, and that's the building that miss Koonich is building sorry, her business is located in. That building is also free of any other tenants except for the wine society. The the wine society, we acknowledge, is a is an unusual and unique space, and she's been there for quite some time. We also I think it's important to know that, her lease expires in, January 2027. Related is not her landlord and so doesn't have the ability to extend that lease. Doesn't have control over how long she can stay in the building. I think Related has committed to working with her when the project proceeds. And if she's a tenant in the building, when Related takes title to the building, they've committed to her to be working with her on relocation and whatnot. It was mentioned that she had asked for a space in the new project, and it is true that Related has denied the request to put the business in the new project. I think it's also important to note that the the new building has a has a relatively small floor plate. I think it's underscored by the fact that the hotel lobby is not even on the Ground floor of the building. It's on an upper floor of the building. So there's not there's not space to to add another ground floor retailer or something of that nature in the new project. So ultimately, related, again, is committed to working with her, but doesn't have control over the space of the building and doesn't own it.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you very much. I think that the room to maneuver here is a little limited, barring blocking the whole project. But at the same time, you know, I I do wanna be sensitive to this issue. And so all I can say maybe is just I really encourage the city and related to give be very thoughtful about this and do what you can to provide support for the business. And potentially, I don't know. I'm not sure what the project timeline ends up being relevant to as connected to the timeline of the lease expiring. But in any event, I think the city at least should be looking at, you know, how additional support can be provided for the for the business. So besides that, I, you know, I've I've expressed expressed support for this project in the past, and the benefits of it really are quite striking in terms of I think this sort of started as a project that was about providing the modernized fire station and improving our safety infrastructure, and yet the project is also bringing so many more things forward in terms of all the affordable housing payments and contributions, the downtown park fund. It's a has a project as a workforce agreement. And then, you know, I also wanna give the city credit on this as well. You know, city's putting in the land, because it for part of the property, the city is also sort of trying out a new what what I can from what I can tell, kind of a new spin on the, transient occupancy tax, sort of I don't know if refunding is the right word. Actually, that's that's an interesting point because I don't think we've seen this approach before. And in the development agreement, there is the transient occupancy tax sort of, again, maybe not the right word, but refunding to the the project. And could somebody just from, again, probably from OEWD, maybe just speak to that contribution the city's making to help support the project?

[Jonathan Cherry (Project Manager, Office of Economic & Workforce Development)]: Yes. Thanks, commissioner. So a key the reason we're here today is that the prior project that the commission approved, that the city approved in 2021, is not feasible. So, you know, everything before you today is in the interest of finding a solution that brings a project that is feasible, that we have confidence, can move forward, and that also delivers as many community benefits to the city as we can reasonably achieve. A key element of that, as you said, is a financing tool, that is not before you today but will be a separate agreement, that will ultimately go to the board of supervisors. We are still working on the technical details of that, so I can't really But I can share in general terms that we will be able to assist Basically offset, as I mentioned, the some of the construction costs of the fire station by looking at the some a a percentage of the incremental new hotel tax that will come from the project. So I think we mentioned the the estimated $14,000,000 in new fiscal benefit to the city. So most of that comes from property taxes, from gross receipts taxes, sales taxes, all these things. One component of that is the hotel tax from the 11 stories up to 11 stories of hotel guest room floors in this project. And so what we are looking at and we're working on the final details of is a a tool that has been used in a number of other cities in California, including Los Angeles, and that we would use on this project, to be able to invest, future new, hotel tax dollars that would not exist but for this project and rely on the developer to fund the entire upfront cost of the fire station. And if you know, if it is successful, then a percentage of those hotel tax dollars we could or not I shouldn't say that. That we would be able to, provide an incentive payment that we measure based on the hotel tax dollars. So we would never be paying more than a specific percentage of new revenue. So that's sort of I went into more detail than I had intended, but it's a very good question. And we'll be at the board of supervisors to discuss that further.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Absolutely. Thank you for that. I you know, it's it's sort of a ever since it's been redevelopment went away and and tax increment financing from property tax has sort of gone away, this is an interesting, potential new approach. Detail is still being ironed out, as you said, potential new approach to, you know, both get all the benefits that would not exist if not for the project, while at the same time providing, a way the city can kind of support the the project, too. So this project, as I've said before at hearings, this does have my full support. I know that there will be some visual impacts raised for neighboring buildings. However, I think it's a really reasonable level of impact, and private views are not protected, whether it's for this high rise or whether it's for a neighboring house next to another one. So this does have my full support.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Thank you again. Sorry if I comment back to my comment. But

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: I Just one more time.

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you. So I also agree with commissioner Braun. Overall, there are, when you look into this project, the, you know, there are trade offs. Not everything about this project, I would admit, like. But there are bigger benefits when you look into it in a bigger picture. One thing that I hope that OEWD will continue to work on and also as part of this project is that when during the construction and talks also some in the small business community that during construction, small business impact the most. And there are times that those small businesses ended up being closed up. And so, you know, creating programs for that, especially when, during the construction phase of this project, the, I recommend the mayor's office to really reach out to small business in the in a very in the close areas proximity of this, and the assistance needs to be provided to them. Again, you know, here in the city, we boast that small business actually comprise and makes the middle income in the city. So I think we we I mean, the city really needs to provide that kind of support, during the construction and and also guaranteeing that there will be support, especially in this ex existing small business. Again, you know, the when we talk about the you know, I am impressed of the the $50,000,000 affordable housing. I hope that this will be built as soon as possible. For me, the affordable housing needs to be built as soon as possible as well. And so, you know, when we're being pushed for the time line of to approve the projects, the benefits should also be coming in as as this project is also being, you know, asked for the time line in itself. So for me, I'm I'm in support. However, I do have concern about the article 10 landmark. I feel like there still needs to be more protection that this will not happen in terms of the recession, and I would recommend historic preservation to work on the language for the article 10 landmark that prevents the demolition or recension of that, designation.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: So I'm Commissioner Imperial, with that remark, I wonder if you might wanna hear some of those things that I think that Richard Soukray may be able to elaborate a little more about. It is quite common when we need to address a mitigated impact on a historic resources. There are actually a few things that can be done to mitigate that impact. One of them is interpretive signage or interpretive educational boards. And I don't know what this particular project has, but if you don't mind, walk us through this.

[Rich Sucre (Planning Department staff)]: Sure. Sure. Happy to, commissioners. Again, Rich Joucray, department staff. The environmental impact report does include a suite of mitigations specific for the demolition of the historic resource. So we do have a documentation program for the existing building at 447 Battery Street. There's also a salvage plan, since the bricks are a fairly unique feature. It was something that the HPC had highlighted, that maybe there was a potential to reincorporate aspects of the brick in the new building or, or in some other kind of fashion. We also have a a requirement for public interpretation, of the building's existing history as well as a, mitigation measure specific for the sculpture itself. So while those specific, mitigation measures don't reduce the overall impact to a less than significant level, you know, we do think that there's at least a little bit of a needle being moved toward making sure that the history of the site is both honored and incorporated into the any future proposal that that might happen.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: So, I would like to give a shout out to our fire dep deputy chief Brennan and fire deputy chief Mullen. I apologize if I didn't pronounce your name accurately. I really love to see this. I would say it is the state of the art code up to date code, fire stations gonna happen to San Francisco in a location where we much need it. We don't have a whole lot of coverage around that area of our downtown. My assumption is correct, I hope. I wonder if some of you can one of you or two together, it's you have my full respect. You continue to save lives and make sure that we're safe here. It is a very essential location, and this building is one of classified, categorized as essential services building. So, I would like to see if this is a correct assumption. I'm looking at it. I don't know if there's any location that you know, this fire station has gotta happen right here.

[Chris Towns (Recreation and Park Department – Capital & Planning)]: Yes. Yeah. So our fire stations were designed and spaced evenly apart to provide coverage to the entire city. So we couldn't move a fire station a quarter mile, half mile away and have the same coverage.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: It would, do And this probably will be really busy if that if it's you started.

[Deputy Chief Sayumi Brennan (San Francisco Fire Department)]: Yeah. It's generally a very busy

[Kathrin Moore (Planning Commission Vice President)]: station in regards to

[Deputy Chief Sayumi Brennan (San Francisco Fire Department)]: the buildings, especially building alarms. But it Embarcadero into Chinatown, Nob Hill, and then over to almost to South Of Market. So some of those first blocks from Mission To Howard, it also responds to BART, Embarcadero BART. It also responds to the Transbay Tube. If there's any fires in the Transbay Tube, we drill there regularly, at 02:00 in the morning. It's lovely. We'd love to invite you to come and see it. But we do drills at 02:00 in the morning simulating a possible fire or some type of even like a terrorist attack or anything like that. We practice that, and that's the station that responds to that location. The the it previously used to be a division chief and a battalion chief used to be housed in that station, and that is a possibility for its future. So we are inclined to, promote this station being built because of the possible added, people that will be in that station. Yeah.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Thank you so much. This is so important to have that. And, I would assume, this state of the art fire station is gonna have state of the art programming for kids to show up and and try to climb to the back of your fire truck to drive it.

[Deputy Chief Sayumi Brennan (San Francisco Fire Department)]: Well, if we did allow it, but we do allow them to go inside of the, the inside of the apparatus, in the cab, the front area. We do allow them to go in there. We do demonstrate for them. So we do show a firefighter going down a fire pole and a firefighter ascending to the tiller in the back of the truck. We we do show them all that.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: That's awesome. Yes. I look forward to see this building and see your fire stations, open.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commissioner)]: So do we.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Can't wait for the ribbon cutting.

[Deputy Chief Sayumi Brennan (San Francisco Fire Department)]: Yes.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: You know? And any kids program, it's like, have my hearts in it. And thank you for all your services. Thank you very much. Being here here today.

[Deputy Chief Sayumi Brennan (San Francisco Fire Department)]: Thank you.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Thank you. This is one of the one of one of the very rare moment in the skylight of San Francisco, especially in, like, 2025 we're talking about. I really appreciate that this is how we can be proactively invest in our downtown, believe in our city, and San Francisco is rising again. And with all those whatever news out there, people wanted to still talking about San Francisco. No one need any space or any offices. This is a true example to San Francisco and a city that I love and I lived more than half of my life here now. It's investing in our downtown proactively, and let's stop talking about the doom loop. And I really appreciate our OEWD team emphasize, articulate all the benefits that everyone is dire to get some of these funding. First ever, 100% affordable senior housing, so much needed for Chinatown. We never had one. I don't know why In the whole history of Chinatown San Francisco, I am really happy to see that not only it's a long term commitment, there's also an immediate commitment about deploying about $2,000,000 funding once the entitlement is approved. I believe that is unprecedented, and I really appreciate this level of commitment. I know how much the risk is here to bear in the project sponsor side. Really appreciate that. Our EWD team, I would like to kind of borrow your phrase. I think it was from Jonathan. You said that this is a really good example of leveraging a private investment to upgrade a public essential services infrastructure. Love that. I'm looking at maybe other potential place we can do that on some of our SFMTA assets. So, I also really, appreciate that the project sponsor do have a commitment to prevailing wage. And the hotel tax funding, which a lot of you might not be aware of, but, as I'm sitting on the Arts Commission as the ex official, there is the Prop k will have some of these hotel tax funding will be funding our much needed artist single artist and artist community. They have been budget cutted at least overall average. Every one of them cut 10% flat to start with. So that actually, I was I'm just really appreciate this thing, and I hope that it will it will come through. Dollars 8,000,000 of transportation funding, It was it is a very important thing that we have that. What else I can say that is I can just go on and on with all the positivity, class a office, a really nice modern hotel. I hope that you serve really nice coffee there and, that would continue the traditions of, the history of that particular parcel. And we are continue to be innovative. San Francisco, our small businesses, blue bottles, started selling coffee in a farmer's market, and now it turned into a international sensation. So I believe we can, with a innovative building, very engaging merchant alley to activate our entertainment and activities, allow and attract more innovation company or nonprofit, large or big or small, to come back and stay in this hotel or rent some of the office space is continue to enabling San Francisco to innovate and be ahead of everybody. I'm really proud of this. And, my other things that I put I would like to honor some of the one of those questions, that kinda come up. Commissioner Imperial mentioned about, small businesses. And Jonathan Cherry, you mentioned about the office of, small businesses that actually has provided help or started the dialogue. And I kinda wanna just ask if the public comment lady have not left yet, if she I wanted to ask her questions about thank you for patiently waiting. Appreciate you being here. And I know how important it is for you. And I would like to ask you, was there any conversations and communications that is open to you to discuss your concern throughout? This project didn't happen yesterday, but, you know, throughout these years in the past?

[Danielle Kuznic (Owner, San Francisco Wine Society)]: There's been there's been communications, but as Related pointed out again today, their stance is I have two years left on my lease. But as I mentioned yesterday in the HPC hearing, I have been given short leases at this location since 2016 due to looming projects. You know, first, the other 18 story project that was supposed to happen at 447 that was actually essentially killed by the HPC deeming and the board of supervisors unanimously giving that building landmark designation. But I have literally been given short leases since 2016 in case a project happens. And so the right, I do have a two year lease left, but I don't plan on leaving at two years. My lease will go to month to month, and I do plan on staying until the very end if I can. There has been open communications. I met with them this morning, not related, excuse me, the economic development this morning. But I feel like this meeting was it's chicken and an egg, like I said to them. You know, right now, my have to deal with the problem at hand, which is trying to stay in my building and in my location. No one has offered any meaningful resources or any guarantees of, what that looks like. Right? We can't have these conversations. You know, Related is has made it very clear that I have no no home in their new building. They have said that they are open to conversations about relocation, and I asked them, what does that look like? They told me to go out and look for a new space and come back when I you know, if I find something, and they'll discuss it. And I said, are you committed to building to covering the cost of the build out of a new space for me? The cost to build out the space that I currently have was about 800,000 in 2011. So as you can imagine, that cost will be much higher today, you know, not to mention the money that I've put in the last five years of it, you know, post pandemic. And they said, no. They are not committed to guaranteeing that they will cover that cost. And understanding, like, they're not my landlord. I completely understand that. But this building, this the firehouse going into this will take this from me. And so the conversations are very open ended. There is no meaningful commitment whatsoever.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Okay. Thank you. I it's is this something that you, like, your last minute that you wanted to talk about? That you

[Danielle Kuznic (Owner, San Francisco Wine Society)]: My last minute was, like, I I do not share the sentiment that, the fire commissioner said or had said today, about the neighborhood. I've been a part of this neighborhood for fourteen years, and I too have conversations with the neighbors, the other business owners, and the other residents. And and no one is the people that I'm speaking with are not excited about this project. They have concerns about this project. It is gonna be very disruptive for the years of construction. And I understand, like, you have to sometimes these things have to happen to make a move forward. But, you know, there are lots of concerns with this. I don't share the enthusiasm, and the people I speak with do not share that enthusiasm as well. We do have hotels closing. The Four Seasons is back up for sale. And so if we're losing luxury hotels in our neighborhood already, how are we talking about trying to build a new one? Yes, there's a ton of of office spaces that are empty, and I see the appeal of building new class a office spaces, but we really should be focusing on filling the ones that we currently have. You know, the the Historic Preservation Commission, I do stand by think that that that is the biggest piece of this puzzle that is disturbing to me. This building was only deemed historic three years ago. It was voted unanimously by the Board of Supervisors to give it the historic landmark designation. But then now that it's beneficial to the city that they wanna put the firehouse there, now they're attempting to rescind that. And I do think it sets a very, very bad precedent.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Okay. Well, thank you for your comment. And, I really appreciate your presence today.

[Deputy Chief Sayumi Brennan (San Francisco Fire Department)]: Okay. Thank

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

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commissioner)]: I would love to move this along. I echo all of I could go on and on about my reasons for supporting this, but the the biggest one being that I think it really sends a clear message to the commercial real estate industry, to the capital that supports that, to the world, basically, that San Francisco is back. So, hats off to the sponsor and to the city for, for getting so creative and, making this happen. So with that in mind, I would like to make a motion, and I know we have several how do I do that, Jonas? Do I start with four a?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: You can call up any of the any or all of the items together, or you can do them separately.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commissioner)]: Okay. I would like to call them I would like to make a motion to approve all items that we have been discussing.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Are we going to vote separately for

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: I can't believe Earlier when we start the deliberations, we were talking about, separate four d.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commissioner)]: So I'll separate four d and, make a motion to approve all

[Aaron (public commenter; skateboarding advocate)]: other items. Is

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: that amenable to the senator?

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Yes. I second that.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, there is a motion to adopt sequel findings, adopt shadow findings, adopt a recommendation to approve general plan amendments, adopt a recommendation to approve the development agreement, approve the conditional use authorization with conditions, and approve a large cap office allocation with conditions on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner and commission president Soh?

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously five to zero. Is there a motion for item five d for the code amendments?

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commissioner)]: Is that four d? Yes. Four d. I'd like to make a motion another motion to adopt a recommendation for approval of the code text amendments, item four d.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Very good, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt recommendations of approval for the planning code and zoning map amendments on that motion. Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Planning Commissioner)]: Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? No.

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: And commission president so? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes four to one with commissioner Imperial voting against. Commissioners, that concludes your special hearing today.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: I'm assuming you're gonna want a short break

[Danielle Kuznic (Owner, San Francisco Wine Society)]: about the whole

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: Like, little longer short break. Yes. Okay. Yep.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Was that fifteen?

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: It's fifteen.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Planning Commission Secretary)]: Fifteen? Very good. SFGov, we're gonna take a fifteen minute recess between this special hearing and our next regular calendar.

[Lydia So (Planning Commission President)]: A meeting.