San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 09/25/2025. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any dis disruption or outbursts of any kind. I'm gonna ask those folks standing at the door. You're causing a fire, safety hazard. If you could move away from the door, find better yet, find a seat. I do see a few seats still available. Thank you. At this time, I'd like to take roll. Commission President So?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Present.

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

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Braun?

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Here.

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

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? And commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, commissioners. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance. There were none. However, now under your consent calendar, commissioners, item four, excuse me, case number 2025Hyphen001905CUA at 440 Potrero Avenue. A conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to 11/06/2025. There was simply a noticing issues. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, if you'd like to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance, please come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. Your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Move to continue items as proposed.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue item

[Speaker 8.0]: four to November 6, commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

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

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Placing us under your consent calendar, all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event met in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item one, case number 2024Hyphen004755, CUA at 534 Page Street, conditional use authorization. Item two, case number 2025Hyphen005018CUA at 2007, Franklin Street conditional use authorization. And item three, case number 2025Hyphen003995CUA at 4249 Mission Street, conditional use authorization. Item four was just continued to November 6. So members of the public, you need to come forward and request that any of these items be taken off of consent to be heard today under the regular calendar. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Move to approve items one, two, and three on consent calendar.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve, items one through three on consent, commissioner Campbell

[Speaker 8.0]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry, commissioner Williams Aye. Commissioner Braun Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Commissioner

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Moore. Aye. And Commission President Tsao. Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commission matters. Item five, land acknowledgment.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Item six, consideration of adoption draft minutes for 09/11/2025. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Braun.

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

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner Campbell.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commission President Tsao. Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Item seven, commission comments and questions.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you, President. So I have a question. This week, we received the streamlining task force report and their recommendations on different commissions. First, I would just like to and also for the public to know. The hearing will be on October 1. At what time will it be?

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I believe it's a 01:00 start.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: And which room it will be?

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I can look it up. It appears they meet in Room 408.

[Speaker 12.0]: 408.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So just down the hall.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you. So if for public it doesn't know, the streamlining task force are tasked with recommendations about the different bodies in the city hall, whether to keep them, combine them, or eliminate them. But I do have one question about the about on the participation on October 1. Are commissioners like me as well are are okay to participate or provide comment during that hearing?

[Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: Yeah. You you for for that body, you consist as members of the public. So please feel free to join, give your opinions either as a commissioner or as a resident.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you so much. That's my question.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. If there's no other commission comments, we can move on to department matters. Item eight, director's announcements.

[Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: Not a lot of updates this week, commissioners. Glad to see you again. A brief update that and I know this was a topic requested last week, commissioner Williams particularly. The department is still working on its analysis of SB 79. It's proving complex. So appreciate your patience, but just know we are working diligently on that and hope to get it to you soon. Probably the only other item of note just to keep you apprised of things in the world, this morning was San Francisco Business Times Structures event, which they have every year. A number of us were able to be present. I think what was of interest, there was a panel of developers and brokers talking about what they saw the state of the economy moving forward. And I think there were two items that I think jumped out to us as planners listening to it and looking at the things that come before this body. One, an interest in mid rise housing, not unlike that, proposed on, quarters under the family zoning plan as being likely the model that will move forward earliest as residential construction becomes more feasible. I think we heard from some high rise developers that talked about, the challenges that portend just with the high rise superstructure that happens and how they foresee that happening for a while before, before we're gonna see projects like that work, quote, unquote. The other interesting thing related to office vacancy, I I think we continue to hear that, you know, office vacancy downtown and throughout the city is above 30%. But as they were talking about what was actually functionally leasable among that, it actually is a much lower number of about 15% was what one of the brokers told us. So I think that'll be interesting to see as we play out. And I I mean, there's no doubt about it. I just, rode a a Baywheels bike through Market Street through all of downtown right now, and it's still relatively empty. Even on a Wednesday, it doesn't feel like there's a whole lot of people on the street at lunchtime. But they are seeing, at least in the numbers term, continued progress and more progress than the 30% vacancy number would belie. So that's my report back. Thanks so much.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. If there are no questions for the director, we can move on to item nine, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission. Although, is there a report from the Board of Appeals?

[Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator]: Hi. Good afternoon, President Tsao and commissioners Corey Teague, zoning administrator. The board of appeals did meet last night. They haven't had many items as of late that have been of interest to the commission. There was one item last night. It was not an item that came before the planning commission, but it's a fairly prominent site. And so I thought it would be of interest to the commission, which is there was an appeal of a variance that was issued for the site at 1000 Broadway, which is Cross Street Taylor, above the Broadway Tunnel. This is located within the Russian Hill Vallejo Crest Historic District. It's a large 5,400 square foot corner site with very steep slope and also a large coastal redwood at the corner that's protected by a conservation easement. So it's a fairly challenging site to develop. It actually was a variance was issued and it was kind of set up for development back in 2014 and that never occurred. This was kind of a newer version of that project, which would be one combined podium below grade of multiple levels and then essentially three separate buildings for a total of five units on the site, which is essentially the the maximum it could be developed at within that arrangement. There have been a good amount of opposition for the variance at the variance hearing. And I should note that there because it is in a preservation or in a historic district, there had been a a negative declaration done for this and mitigation measures were adopted to help reduce any impacts from a preservation perspective. So it was subject to that. And one of the adjacent neighbors appealed that variance. However, there was practically no opposition at the board of appeals hearing last night. And there was very good conversation about the project sponsor and the department did a good job of laying out kind of the need for the variance and why the variance was granted. And ultimately, the planning or the board of appeals did vote unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the variance. And I just wanna make you aware of that project because it is a fairly prominent site there in that district. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Commissioners, if there are no questions, we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, the opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. And when the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. I'm gonna ask those members of the public standing in front of the doorway to move. You're causing a fire hazard. So if you could find a seat or move to the other side of the room, you can stay. And unless we get start getting more people, I'll have to ask people to go to an overflow room. Yes, sir.

[Speaker 15.0]: All right. Good afternoon, commissioners, planning department. I'm here again on SB 79. Thank you for all the work you're doing on it. Just a request to make sure that when we get whatever report it is, that we agendize it. And I would request maybe an informational hearing or something just so people are very clear about what it does and how it interacts with all of the work we're doing locally in San Francisco with the family upzoning. Thank you very much. And thank you for all your work on this.

[Speaker 16.0]: Good afternoon. Georgia Shutish. The email sent on, September 21 focused on three projects. The catalyst for the email was the 228 Vicksburg project, which just came on the market with very expensive units, which is worrisome for the proposed densification under the local program. This was a demolition of a single family home and a UDU, and the commission approved two. Two bedroom units is either rent controlled or at 80% AMI, and this neither has happened. The other project at 403 28th Street was a horizontal and vertical expansion with a completely new facade and interior demolition that was approved as an alteration with absurd demo calcs. I sent the before and after photos yesterday. Projects with this scope, like the one on twenty eighth of work, are invariably demolitions, no different than Vicksburg, which is one reason the demo counts should have been adjusted to avoid the loss of housing. The first email shows the original kitchens from the web ad, which said there were two units. Both were perfectly livable and were covered by rent control. The project sponsor omitted mission of the second unit from the application. The UDU could have been discovered from the web ad. The project needed a CUA to legalize a demolition. The commission added a very small second unit behind the two the new two car garage. And I don't know if this unit's being rented or not. The third project is twenty eight thirty day, two flats and a UDU with tenant buyouts, which this commission approved at the beginning of the year, but commissioner Williams was absent. This project is a demolition, yet was able to avoid the requirements under s b three thirty that it should have complied with as can be seen in the emails from the public records request. I am skeptical if any of the day units will be on the market as rent control units once the project gets the CFC. The outcome of the Vicksburg project personifies the very real concerns people have about the effectiveness of the rezoning in solving the affordable housing crisis and meeting the goals of housing for moderate income families, let alone low income families. So what is the link between Vicksburg, 28th, And Day Street projects? All three are demolitions. All three had UDUs. All three don't solve the housing crisis. Here is what should happen. The demo counts should be adjusted so demolition will be truly rare. The confusion over the definition confusion over the definition of demolition needs to be resolved. UDUs and residential flats need better protection and preservation with commission oversight under the rezoning legislation and under the TPO, tenant protection ordinance. And here's my 150 words for the minutes, which distilled what I just said. Thanks a lot. Have a great day.

[Speaker 17.0]: Hey there.

[Speaker 18.0]: My name's Romelan, and thank you for being here today, and thanks for letting us be here. I just wanted to reiterate my colleague's, interest and concern about having SB 79, calendarized. So we think that, we we request that SB 79 be agendized as a separate item in the next planning commission meeting, and I'll just go through some of the the points and and why we feel this way. San Francisco planning department has spent the last few years updating its housing element to be compliant with the regional housing needs allocation and other regulations set forth by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and this has been done without any consideration of the forecasted impacts from SB 79. On 09/18/2025, the planning commission was told that s b 79 is now stable enough to be analyzed, though planning director Dennis Phillips said that the staff did not currently have capacity to do so. In advance of the final vote of mayor's family zoning legislation, it is critical that the board of supervisors has a detailed analysis of ASB 70 nine's significant impact on San Francisco, our rent controlled housing stock, our priority equity geographies, and our ability to meet our affordable housing mandates. So we asked for a report that includes an in-depth analysis of how SB 79 impacts RHNA, including what additional capacity SB 79 imposes on the city and at what cost, how it interacts with our current zoning and the mayor's family zoning plan, and other affiliated proposed legislation as supervisor Chen's tenant protection ordinance, and to release the map showing how SB 79 would currently impact the city's neighborhoods, including if the plan the family zoning plan, as currently written, is adopted. So we request that that be put on the agenda. Thank you very

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: much.

[Speaker 19.0]: Commissioners, my name is Francisco de Costa, and I've been an advocate for over fifty years. This commission and the last three commissions before them have failed San Francisco. Today you heard someone say that, you know, she rode in the financial district, and things seem to be, you know, pretty okay. It's not so. Over 40,000,000 square feet of commercial space are vacant. We have over 60,000 units the landlords have vacant. The commission has not once done a needs assessment, as the gentleman who came here first spoke. You all need to have an orientation as to how to maintain standards. The standards that this planning commission had at one time has gone to the hogs, and the developers and the filthy rich are favored. The poor and good San Franciscans, middle class are treated with disdain. Our elders are dying on the street. Our children, our infants, our youth, those with compromised health are slowly dying because y'all don't give a damn. Y'all do not know about Hunters Point, where depleted uranium was tested. Y'all want to build warehouses and buildings. Nobody should live there. Nobody should live there. Some of y'all know that because we came here before, but every time we came here and fought for right, y'all did wrong by favoring Lennar and other corporations like Lennar. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 20.0]: My name is Steve Zeltzer. I'm with the United Front Committee for a Labor Party. I think that this these initiatives, these of this commission of the mayor, Luri, of the developers is to destroy and Manhattanize San Francisco. It's not about the working class, the people of San Francisco. And that's what the voters said in rejecting the supervisor who want to develop this park. You do not represent the people of San Francisco. You represent the developers, as does the mayor. This prologist development that you're planning is to build a major warehouse that will pollute Hunters Point Bayview, that will contaminate the community. This racist project is hurting the community and the people of Hunters Point Bayview. After they've been hurt with a radioactive shipyard, you're gonna add this on there.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Sir, I'm sorry to interrupt.

[Speaker 20.0]: So who is behind this? Who is behind this? You know, who's behind it It's the mayor and the developer, the owner of logistics. That's what's behind it.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Sir, if you're speaking to fifteen, you'll need to wait until that item gets called.

[Speaker 20.0]: The well, the other the other issue I wanna talk about is gentrification because that's who this commission represents. The bills passed by the legislature by Scott Wiener are aimed at gentrifying San Francisco, at driving working class people out of San Francisco, of bulldozing rent controlled units. It's reactionary, it's racist, it's anti working class. We need working class housing. This projects and the projects you're developing aren't about working class housing. They're about millionaires buying more condos. That's what this is about. We, the people of San Francisco, have to stop this, and politically that means an alternative to the mayor and and the appointed representatives who really represent the developers and the speculators. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. I'm gonna remind members of the public that the commission doesn't tolerate any disruption or outburst. Please, if you wanna show support, wiggle your fingers, your hands, your ears, or your toes, but if you could do so silently, please. Last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. And those folks standing in front of the doorway, you're causing a fire hazard. You're gonna have to move or find a seat, please. Okay. Commissioners, that'll place us under your regular calendar for item 10, case number twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero five eight excuse me, five nine eight nine PCA and MAP consolidating the North Beach Special Use And Neighborhood Commercial Districts and expanding allowable uses and use size limits in certain zoning districts. These are planning code and zoning map amendments.

[Veronica Flores, Planning Department Staff]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Veronica Flores, planning department staff. This next ordinance, an item in front of you is focused on small business efforts within neighborhood commercial districts in District 3. We do have supervisor Sauter here to introduce the item, so I will let him introduce the ordinance first, and I will return with staff presentation after.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for your time and consideration of our item. We are really excited about this item of legislation because it will make it easier for small businesses to open and grow in District 3 and will help fill empty storefronts across our neighborhoods. I first want to thank, all of the folks who have worked with us closely to make this possible. Veronica Flores from the planning department, of course. Michelle Andrews from my team. The office of small business as well. Commissioners, with your support, San Francisco has made real progress across our city in simplifying rules and removing barriers for small businesses. But many of these changes have never made their way to my district. As a result, it has become easier, more fair, and more predictable to open or grow a small business in every part of San Francisco except District 3. So our legislation, District 3 thrives, seeks to change that. We've crafted this legislation in a way that keeps all of our neighborhood commercial districts intact so they can respect the character of each neighborhood, retains popular protections against chain stores and formula retail, and makes this process more transparent to the public through notices and objective standards rather than a system that too often leads to one off special legislation done without community input. A few highlights of our legislation. It makes North Beach small businesses eligible for the city's priority permitting processing program because we believe that North Beach small business owners should have the same predictable timeline for permits as every other neighborhood in our district. It removes many bans for uses including flex a ban on flexible retail on North Beach and Pacific Avenue, which as you know is the idea of having two businesses under one roof. That's not allowed in much of our district currently. Removes bans on small storefront mergers in North Beach and Polk Street. Removes bans on arts activities on Nob Hill. Currently, you're not allowed to open a dance studio, ceramic studio on Nob Hill. We're hoping to change that. It removes bans on walk up facilities in North Beach, something like the delightful experience of getting a slice of pizza at Golden Boy is no longer allowed because of this ban. It removes bans on small first Floor health services in North Beach, Polk Street, and Pacific Avenue. We believe if a small health service like a neighborhood dentist wants to open in these quarters, it should have a pathway to do that. It allows limited restaurants, which of course are small restaurants like cafes and bakeries, to have greater flexibility by opening in spaces that were not food used prior. Finally, it consolidates the North Beach Special Use District and the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District into just one set of rules, the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District. We believe things are complex already, and if someone's looking to open a small business, they should have one set of rules to look at and not have to go back and forth between many different controls. Our legislation does not change formula retail rules in any neighborhood. It does not change existing protection protections against ghost kitchens in North Beach. It does not remove any notifications. In fact, this legislation allows more public input and notices. It does not change any rules around conversions of second floor residential spaces into retail spaces, and it does not impact or change anything related to the family zoning plan. This legislation has been shaped by many discussions with small business owners in the past year, but also going back to nearly a decade ago when I was the president of my neighborhood association and worked with my neighbors to propose a number of planning code changes to modify some small business rules in our district. Some of these, we were able to work with former supervisor Peskin to turn into legislation for more flexibility of use, which has been a big part of the reason for North Beach's resurgence. So our legislation continues this and tries to fill some of the stubborn empty storefronts and address planning hurdles across District 3. We have been having productive conversations about this legislation with stakeholders for many months. The legislation was introduced in June. It was publicly heard at the Small Business Commission in July where it passed unanimously, and we've been meeting with neighborhood groups and stakeholders since then. We've been working hard the last few weeks to develop amendments in response to specific concerns that were brought up. A few groups asked for a continuance last week, which we supported to have more time for these discussions. Since then, we have met with one organization and have been able to share a number of amendments, which we think address many of their concerns. You should have in front of you a list of the amendments which we have been considering. A number already in your packet, and then there are a few additional here. I welcome your thoughts and feedback on these, and these amendments again respond to some of the community concerns. For some that are not in your packet, I wanna just quickly read through those and and share our thinking and and the concerns they react to. In the North Beach NCD, in the intro language, we are adding additional language about legacy businesses, historic character, smaller storefront mergers, and neighborhoods serving smaller health services. When it comes to storefront mergers, we heard concerns about these storefront mergers growing too large. So we've we've decided in this amendment to have a conditional use permit up to 3,000 square feet and then do a not permitted above 3,000 square feet. So we're really encouraging small storefront mergers only. And again, through a conditional use permit process, that process is done with public notice. It's done with opportunities for community feedback. On the concerns we heard about health services on 1st Floor, we agree we wanna make sure that these are neighborhood serving small footprint health services, things like a dentist, a chiropractor. We don't want hospitals in the middle of our neighborhood commercial quarters. So we've made an amendment that these are conditionally permitted up to 3,000 square feet. Again, retaining public comment notices and then not permitted above 3,000 square feet. As we move to Jackson Square, we heard concerns from a few homeowners about proliferation of bars potentially. So we are including a conditional use process for bars of any square footage in Jackson Square. And then as we move to Pacific Avenue, the stretch between Nob Hill and Russian Hill and Pacific Avenue, we revert to not permitted on all floors for a bar. That was something that from those even from those that support our legislation, there just wasn't a lot of interest in that particular use. So those are a number of the amendments, that we're we're making today. I wanna emphasize that we're really proud to have earned support from many small business organizations throughout, our discussions, including North Beach Neighbors, Jackson Square Merchants Association, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, Nob Hill Association, the Discover Polk Community Benefit District, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and Russian Hill Neighbors. What has been most encouraging to me throughout this entire process is all of the small business owners who have reached out to us and have said that their business wants to open or grow in District 3, something I hope we all agree that we want to welcome and encourage. But these small business owners are literally not allowed to do that unless our legislation passes. Several of them are here to express their support, but many others, of course, couldn't make it here in the middle of the day. We've passed out a packet of about 50 different, submissions of comments from residents and business owners, expressing their support for this legislation. We have heard from almost a dozen current and prospective small business owners, including a small grocery store, a bakery, a cafe, a gelato shop, and a yoga studio that would directly benefit from this. Many are looking to fill storefronts that have been empty in District 3 for four or five or six or seven, all the way up to nine years vacancy. And that is the reality of what this legislation will do and who it will help. I know there's been a, ask from a continuance from a few organizations, and I respect that, but I urge you commissioners to move this legislation forward today. We have proposed the amendments here, in response to some of the concerns. We have many small business owners who are actively waiting for this legislation to pass so they can open up and support our communities. And we know that this legislation will go a long way to helping improve our neighborhoods, making our planning codes more fair and straightforward. I will be here, of course, for any questions, and look forward to conversations and public comment. I do wanna note I have a 01:30 meeting and the first meeting of our downtown financing district, so I'll have to leave at that time, but here otherwise for any questions. And again, thank you for your time on this matter.

[Veronica Flores, Planning Department Staff]: Thank you, supervisor Sauter. I just want to reiterate that this proposed ordinance really builds on past efforts to support small businesses and reduce commercial vacancies. And this ordinance would extend those same tools to District 3. The goal here is to help fill empty storefronts and better support new or existing businesses to open or expand within these districts. The supervisor actually outlined the the various amendments within this package, but I do want to elaborate on one of the amendments, and that is related to consolidating the North Beach Special Use District and neighborhood commercial districts. So just as a reminder, special use districts are an overlay, an additional set of rules or restrictions on top of the base zoning. And in which this case, that is the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District. The special use district and neighborhood commercial district have almost identical boundaries. So when we have a named neighborhood commercial district, which is, in this case, again, the North Beach NCD, that is the tool through which we should be putting all of the controls for this area. So under this proposal, while the North Beach SUD would be eliminated, there is still the named NCD of the North Beach NCD in place. I also want to emphasize that many of the SUD controls are already replicated within the neighborhood commercial district. That will remain the same. Additionally, a number of provisions from the SUD will be moved to the NCD, so many of those protections are still in place. The end result is one single set of rules for North Beach, really making it easier for the public and applicants to understand what is allowed. As seen in the staff report and as the supervisor mentioned today, there are a number of anticipated amendments, many of which did come out of continued conversations with the supervisor, so we appreciate the collaboration here. The amendments listed in the staff report were either technical in nature or generally made controls more permissive within these district three NCDs. In terms of the additional amendments described, just moments ago, the department has done a preliminary review of them and is generally supportive. These changes are still more permissive than what today's controls are, so we support being able to provide more flexibility and remove some of the barriers for these small businesses. There is one instance where the new amendment would revert to the status quo rather than making more things permissive. And while this is not ideal for streamlining efforts, we understand the intent to balance the community feedback and the neighborhood needs today. So overall, the department remains in full support of the amend anticipated amendments both outlined in your staff report and described described moments ago. The department supports the overall goals of this ordinance. Again, it better supports small businesses seeking to open or expand within these districts. It reduces process and streamlines review and makes the planning code easier and more transparent for the public. This ordinance aligns the district NCDs with most other NCDs citywide. And through the consolidation of the North Beach SUD and NCD, it also reduces the need for any future legislative fixes to accommodate individual projects within them. With that said, we are full in support of the anticipated amendments and recommend you adopt a recommendation of approval with the amendments today. This concludes the staff presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Three. Okay. Go ahead, sir.

[Speaker 23.0]: Hello. My name is Bob Cosma. I've been a resident in San Francisco for thirty years and a resident of District 3 for the past ten years. On my way here, I walked past at least 12 empty storefronts. I think the policy that Supervisor Souder is supporting is the kind of policy that can support the launch and development of our next generation of iconic small businesses, the kind of businesses that make San Francisco a unique and vibrant city. I wholeheartedly support the policy, and I hope you do as well. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Next speaker.

[Speaker 24.0]: Hi, commissioners. I just wanna share, a little bit about my business, Better and Crumble, and how this legislation will really help us at this stage in our growth. When we opened our bakery a couple years ago, ever since then, we've been flooded with people coming from all over the country and the world to come visit us. And we are just bursting at the seams in our spot in North Beach, but we love the neighborhood so much. And at this point in our expansion, staying local and staying within the district is gonna be so important in order to just uphold the integrity of my vision for this next project and, hold on to that, attention for quality that I care so much about. And we just love North Beach so much. That being said, it's been really challenging to find a place that we'll be able to open up. We have our heart really set on a spot that is just at an incredible location that will just be such an amazing kind of European style spot to come grab a pastry, a coffee, and a slice of cake in North Beach fashion. However, we are not going to be permitted to open up there unless this legislation passes. And I just want to share that as somebody who has funded my business from the ground up, we really don't have the extravagant means to kind of sit on this spot or waste any time. We really need to move on it and make it happen. And so I'm really hoping this will help us do so. And finally, I just wanted to share that over the years, from, you know, starting in the back of bars, hustling my way up to where I am right now, I've really watched a lot of improvements take place in terms of both communicating with the city and making the rules more streamlined for someone like me to understand. I'm really hoping that this legislation will be kind of the next, tenant to that improvement that I've seen over the years. So, yeah, thank you so much.

[Speaker 25.0]: Hello. My name is Barry Shiller. I have deep roots in San Francisco. As a child, I lived in the Tenderloin. My father was an officer at San Quentin I'm sorry, at Alcatraz. And

[Speaker 26.0]: as

[Speaker 25.0]: a young married person, moved to the city. Our first child was born here. I went and worked at Mary Ellen Naval Shipyard in the day and went to San Francisco State to get an MBA at night. As a retired person, I moved back into District 3. I live near Sansom and Lombard, and my wife and I, we love being here. We love the uniqueness of the city, aside from all the natural beauty. We love the fact that we don't have big chain stores in our area. However, it's also really disheartening to see all the empty storefronts. It's really disheartening. And I think there has to be a balance between trying to preserve all the things that are good and unique to San Francisco, but at the same time take the steps that are reasonable to start to fill in these storefronts and to make San Francisco continue to be a vibrant city. So I think that the legislation that, Supervisor Sauter has proposed does this. You know, we're in an age where everyone's polarized to either this or that. And I think it's it's really important that we look at things, clearly and in the details to find out that this legislation actually makes really good sense. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 27.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Ted Bartlett, and I'm a business owner on Nob Hill in District 3. I'm here in full support of supervisor Sauter's District 3 thrives legislation. As a San Francisco native and real estate agent serving San Francisco for the past twenty seven years, I'm certain that this legislation is not only warranted but badly needed. As our city looks to rebound, it is imperative that well intentioned but now out of date planning code restrictions are removed to allow for allow for new and growing small businesses to thrive in San Francisco. By allowing a greater number of businesses to come into our neighborhood commercial districts, empty storefronts will be filled, successful small businesses will be able to expand, and new businesses will open without almost requiring a graduate degree in city planning and incredible patience to navigate this process. These changes will encourage a more vibrant street scene for shoppers, residents, and our millions of welcome visitors. Our downtown is the economic heart of our city. Our neighborhood commercial districts are the soul of our city. By allowing small businesses a direct and transparent path into the spectacular D 3 neighborhood, we will start to hear about San Francisco boom loop rather than the negative news cycles that have dominated the national and sometimes local press over the past few years. I urge you to support this legislation. Thank you.

[Speaker 28.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Bill Perry. I'm a North Beach resident and a businessman. I'm here also to enthusiastically support the approval and progression of this d three thrives bill. Two things I just wanted to highlight. The first one is that I'm thrilled to see this bill because this is exactly what supervisor Sauter said in his platform he was gonna do if he got elected. And he garnered an enormous amount of support in D 3 because of the platform that he was running on. It was very clearly laid out over and over, and he won the election. And I think that it's critical that we actually then support and enable the enactment of the things that he was voted in to do. And I think that's a critical point. I actually think district three has already spoken. I think that district three has made it very clear that this is the type of thing overall by electing him they wanna get done. The second thing that I'd like to highlight is walking through the neighborhood as I do, like everybody at North Beach does all the time. I'm struck by two things. First, how much the neighborhood is bouncing back and how much it is growing. But I'm also struck by how many spaces are still empty and how many of them have been empty for three or four or five years. And I've gotten to know owners of small businesses and talk to them about what it's like being a business person myself, asking them what's it like to have a storefront here. And I hear the stories, and I'm startled. And I hear the rules, and I hear the the double layers of bureaucracy and the Byzantine nature of some of these things and the things they tell me that this makes no sense. Where did this come from? Why was this put here? And I think that a lot of these rules are looking to be amended in this very wisely and in a very balanced way, and that that thrills me. And so I'm actually really excited to see these places get filled and see the the movement forward on that. And I I want to urge you to pass this and approve this. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Amy Cleary, and I'm here on behalf of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. As you heard earlier, we are in support of this sensible legislation that will help restaurants, but also other small businesses not only open, but survive and hopefully thrive.

[Speaker 16.0]: We ask for your support. Thank you.

[Speaker 29.0]: Hi, commissioners. My name is David Harrison. I'm here on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, also to lend our support for this legislation. I would say the number one concern that we hear when we do outreach with our small business members is, around, lack of clarity around, restrictions, reason why the city is saying no to new ideas, to filling the ground floor, to vibrancy. There's been so much positive work in in many respects thanks to the staff at planning, in many respects thanks to supervisors, like supervisor Sauter. A lot of progress, and I think this legislation builds on that progress. So we're happy to support today, and thank you for your consideration.

[Speaker 30.0]: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Kumar. I'm a resident of District 3, and I lead the volunteer cleanup for Lower Polk neighborhood. I'm asking today for y'all to approve the District 3 thrives plan, performed by, supervisor Sauter. District 3 is kind of in a state of recovery from COVID, but we will not fully recover, without our small businesses. And

[Andrew Smith, Property Owner]: because of

[Speaker 30.0]: this legislation to help them help us is vital. In my opinion, District 3 is the jewel of the city. I think probably most of this room agrees. But the businesses and the buildings that we love, they were built in times when we didn't have the kind of restrictions that we're trying to remove today. And all of the neighborhood character in the world does not make up for vacant storefronts. I saw recent data showing that Polk Street was one of the few places in San Francisco which has pre pandemic levels of foot traffic. And I think, you know, we gotta strike while the iron is hot. You've heard the perspective of business owners in District 3 today. My perspective is someone who cleans up my neighborhood. And one thing that I always notice is the vacant storefronts, they have trash in, you know, behind the shutters. They have trash, out in front because there's nobody there to really have the responsibility of cleaning up. Yeah, make San Francisco beautiful, and I urge you all to support this ordinance. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 32.0]: Hello. Hi, commissioners. My name is Nick Farris. I serve as president of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers. On behalf of our 600 member organization, we are asking you to not recommend this amendment, as there is still much more work that needs to be done. I believe this can be good, but there are many unintended consequences, and it's frankly not a fully baked proposal. Good legislation takes time. We see two core problems with this proposal. First, the process. The legislation is being rushed through in terms of community engagement. It's missing data to support the changes and we haven't even seen the most recent legislation as proposed. The Telegraph Hill Dwellers along with the North Beach Business Association, Jackson Square Historic District Association, Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association were not included before the legislation was drafted. The hearing was set then continued to collect feedback, but the office went silent until we reached out. When we finally did just days ago, we learned the hearing was already scheduled for today. That's not how good, successful, collaborative, and transparent legislation gets made. Second, the legislation itself. It's eliminating very much of the code that kept North Beach vibrant through COVID. This is not a data driven approach. The legislation is very well intentioned, but we're solving a problem that doesn't exist in North Beach specifically. As far as I can best tell, this is benefiting a small subset of businesses in the neighborhood and that is a good thing and we've heard from some of these today. We also heard from the supervisor that North Beach is the hardest place to open a business in San Francisco and yet North Beach has a very healthy 5% vacancy rate. For context, a healthy percentage is between 510%. So I ask where is the problem in North Beach at 5% vacancy? Let's use data to back this legislation and support. That is our request. We also haven't seen the actual draft text, just bullet points. Without details, it's impossible to assess unintended consequences. Already, this proposal to allow more limited restaurants, threatens the balance of shops and culture that make North Beach unique. The legislation forgets why we have this current legislation in the very first place. We don't want to become a neighborhood of only restaurants and bars. Once a storefront becomes a restaurant, it almost never reverts back. That's why the current controls matter. In conclusion, North Beach is thriving. Don't trade long term neighborhood health for the benefit of a few select businesses. Let's use real data and true collaboration to get this right. I believe we can do it together, and it would be supported by a no recommendation here. Thank you.

[Speaker 33.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I just wanna introduce myself. My name is Mahal Montes, and I'm a North Beach resident in District 3. I'm also an organizer for socioeconomic equity. And I'm a little bit about myself. I'm the daughter of a single mother who is a small business owner. And I urge you to reject this wholesale repeal of the SUD. North Beach's story is much more than a vacancy rate. It's about the type of businesses and the people whose livelihoods depend on them. It's living in one of the last fashions of live music in the city and, quite honestly, the country. It's the independent locally owned places that are what make North Beach irreplaceable. The neighborhood feels alive just walking down it. And as a young voter invested in San Francisco's future, I want to see this character preserved and not erased. When we lose these spaces to chains and generic development, we lose something that can never be replaced. So eliminating the SUD kick starts the erosion of protections for existing small businesses, legacy businesses, and the residents who live above those stores who are and should be completely protected from demolition. So commissioners, I ask you to please preserve what makes North Beach truly unique. Our community deserves protections that preserve what makes the neighborhood special. Thank you for working with me and other members of the community.

[Andrew Smith, Property Owner]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Andrew Smith. I'm a property owner and manage property manager in the Polk Neighborhood Commercial District. In 2004, I built a mixed use building at Polk in California in the Polk NCD. We came in front of this planning commission to obtain permission to build 40 new rental apartments with several medium sized commercial stores underneath it against significant opposite opposition. From the last for the last twenty years, we've owned and managed this building, our family and and I. During this time, we've seen the planning code change many times in regards to what businesses the government thinks is good or bad for the residents and visitors to our neighborhood. My family and I have lived in this neighborhood for more than twenty five years. We also vote in this district. We constructed our building in accordance with the conditional uses at the time. They allowed us up to 9,900 9 so 9,950 square feet of retail divided into medium sized units. Our units are in the two to 3,000 square foot size range. They've typically been leased to local, locally owned small businesses. Some of them retail, some service related. We're not talking about huge big box operations here. Our building is made of concrete and steel. It's almost impossible to reconfigure the commercial units each time the planning code changes. I count seven times that the use size restrictions in Palk and CD have been modified by legislation since we built our building. It's really hard to keep up. Our stores are in and out of compliance all the time at the whim of the local politicians. Most of these rules have been imposed without any data in response to the one of the previous speakers. No data is usually provided here when people want to change the use size subscriptions. Under the current planning code, every new tenant in one of our units has to get a CU authorization. It's around 2,500 square feet, used to be compliant, not anymore. It's a real buzzkill when a realtor has to tell people, sorry, you gotta go to the planning commission. Months of delay, lots of expense, hire some expensive consultants, you might or might not get your permission. A former tenant in one of our spaces left because he was so successful during COVID. He sold a lot of stuff. He wanted to open he wanted to expand his space. He looked at the planning code restrictions. No way. I'm moving to SOMA. Our unit's been vacant since that. We can't reconfigure it to be smaller than 2,500 square feet because the building layout doesn't allow that. Mixed use buildings are really hard to reconfigure. We would question why you're restricting so much the small health care operations. We have frontage on Polk Street and California Street. It seems like your restrictions in note three of table seven twenty three are kind of targeting our building. Not sure why you wouldn't want to have neighborhood serving small health care operations. Why do those people also have to come with a conditional use hearing? That's expensive. We had one small physical therapy start up. They could never have afforded to do a conditional use at the time. It wasn't needed at the time. Was that time?

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Thank

[Andrew Smith, Property Owner]: you very much. It's a real the conceit process is a real burden on small landlords and small operations. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Next speaker. Come on

[Speaker 34.0]: up.

[Teresa Flandrich, North Beach Tenants Committee]: Get situated, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. Teresa Flandrich, North Beach tenants committee. I was I've actually written asking for support of a continuance. I asked for that also because you can't make up for months of non communication about this legislation in just a week. It has seemed that what I've seen thus far are special interests were at the table in terms of discussing this. We as residents and as many small businesses in North Beach were shut out. So we do ask for data. We need to know what exists, what is needed. Again, it's a population of 37,000 per square mile just in North Beach. We have also the largest population of seniors. We are primarily carless. So navigating the hills, again, North Beach is flatter and going up the hills, is a little bit more steep. So to have easy access to neighborhood serving businesses, which has been the lifeblood of our community. So these small businesses that have served us and served us well, we need to keep the existing controls in place to keep a balance on what we as residents need and what what tourists and visitors also would like to see. Our needs are really important. It's how we survive. Again, the NCD went into place in 1987 as a community response to the speculation to the corporations coming in, buying up buildings, giving 300% rent increases to so many of our small businesses, and they were gone, as well as displacement. So my neighbors around the corner from me, eight Italian families along with their, you know, second and and third generation families in the buildings were evicted. So these were corporations that came in and did this then. That's why the NCD first went into place. And again, the SUD much later in 2012, there was another wave of speculation. So protecting our small businesses and our housing was so important. The spaces allow for many different varieties of businesses to be there, as well as a limit on the number of restaurants so that we're not flooded by restaurants just as we had been flooded by banks back in in 1986. I lived through this. I am anxious about another wave of speculation that is already starting up, and these protections, these controls need to remain in place. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So are

[Lance Carnes, North Beach Resident]: you ready? Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Lance Carnes. I'm a resident of North Beach District 3, and, I've known Danny Sauter since he moved into the neighborhood ten or so years ago.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Could

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: you speak a little louder, please?

[Lance Carnes, North Beach Resident]: Oh, sure. Sorry.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Thank you.

[Lance Carnes, North Beach Resident]: So I've known Danny Sauter since he moved into the neighborhood 10 ago. One thing he mentioned in his opening in his comments was that he's been in communication for several months with stakeholders. I'm a stakeholder. I've been I've lived in my neighborhood for thirty years, and I haven't heard one thing about this. I asked some of my friends who are about to speak to you, actually, also from my neck of the woods, and they haven't heard anything, Danny, about this or very little. So I would like to ask for a continuation of this matter to at least a month from now so we have time to get into this this proposed legislation and see if it works for North Beach. So let's see. Yeah. So that's that's basically it. The I I also received a note from one of the members of the board of Telegraph Hill Daughters, which represents, you know, a large percentage of of the district. And she asked for a continuance and was told that they couldn't do that. But she said that two days notice is not enough to look over the legislation and the and the and the and the and the part of the neighborhood concerned. So she also asked for a continuance. Okay. Well, thank you so much and please continue this matter.

[Rhoda Schneiderman, District 3 Resident]: Good afternoon. My name is Rhoda Schneiderman, and I am a resident of District 3. I live at 550 Battery, and my apartment faces Battery. I'm going to limit my comments to Jackson Square even though I think there is some crossover into the other communities that are affected. Jackson Square is a gem. It is one of the few bright spots in San Francisco that has actually made national attention. It is a unique combination of residential, retail, and just the right amount of restaurants and bars.

[Sue Hester]: The

[Rhoda Schneiderman, District 3 Resident]: walkways are probably among the narrowest in the city. I walk through Jackson. It's my backyard. I walk through there. I drink coffee. I I buy croissants. I shop. I walk through there to North Beach to Chinatown whenever I possibly can, and that's often. It's a successful neighborhood which makes it a target for many who would like to get in on the action, and that's really the bottom line here. I see very few vacant spaces. This is not a blighted area that needs a shot in the arm. It is a delicate balance that has been maintained by the residents and the business owners and should not be subject to decreasing regulations, especially noted in the proposal, specifically bars and restaurants. In addition to the increase in crime, garbage, noise from late night partiers, and large groups trying to get down very narrow sidewalks, Wait. Isn't that enough for you to either table this and remove Jackson Square District from this proposal or figure out a way to not have these mitigating factors that are going to completely destroy the fabric of the community. In closing, while I do speak for myself, many of my neighbors were very unhappy by the lack of notice and transparency of this proposal. They would have liked to to attend or written a letter if the time had been afforded them or the opportunity had been afforded them. So I encourage you to table this, and in lieu of tabling it, please vote no.

[Lawrence Lee]: Good afternoon, president Suh and commissioners. My name is Lawrence Lee. I'm a San Francisco native. Spent my whole youth in District 1, and I've spent over twenty years in District 8. And District 3 is, one of my favorites because of not just Chinatown, but North Beach as well. And I'm going to appeal to you on two reasons why I support supervisor Sowder's legislation. One is one is for your heart and one is for your head. And I'll start with something I've worked on as part of a group a couple years ago. I was fortunate to be a member of the civil grand jury where we did a report on small businesses, and we interviewed many, many small businesses. We interviewed supervisors. We've interviewed a whole bunch of people. We worked thirty hours a week volunteer time. This group was all across different ideologies, all across ages across the city. And we found that the main concern of small businesses is the number of ways that it's so hard to get things going. It's not a question of just time. It's also money. It's also just understanding things. And so we appreciate some things that are happening in terms of making first year free continuing, but this sort of legislation is is deeded, for so many businesses that have expressed so much pain to us overall. I can't get into any specifics. A second thing that I wanna talk about is, I do a lot of business in other cities. And what's really important as I see other cities grow and thrive is understanding that they are encouraging businesses to continue to grow. And, this is something that we have to see ourselves being better in one year, in five years. And I think that this legislation is a start, and we should continue to think about this type of legislation across the city. Thank you.

[Teddy Kramer, Small Business Owner]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Teddy Kramer and I'm a small business owner here in San Francisco. I'm the former small business chair for the Russian Hill Neighbors and in 2020, I co founded North Beach Delivers with my neighbors as well as supervisor Sauder. We help generate over $250,000 in revenue for over 50 unique businesses across North Beach, Chinatown, and Russian Hill. I have the unique experience of listening to the challenges that small businesses face, especially in District 3. My own personal experience of trying to open up a business in District 3 in North Beach was frustrating to say the least and that's really, really talking about it lightly. It was terrible and it was personal. I'm one of many who have tried to bring their businesses to District 3 in the last twenty years, but we have been thwarted by arcane and punitive zoning, anti competitive behavior, and unequal treatment under the law. This ordinance is the beginning and the start to fixing that. I've heard many of you in the past talk about the importance of equality and opportunity in our planning and zoning. This ordinance aims to create both. Every single business owner in San Francisco deserves the right to open their code compliant business regardless of how long they've lived here without the need of an expensive land use attorney or the need to make special visits to city hall for individual consideration. San Francisco is the city that knows how, but for some reason in the last two decades, we've become a city of no, especially when it comes to small business and especially when it comes to District 3. There's nothing controversial about this legislation. It's common sense. Why does North Beach need two commercial districts? It serves no other purpose than to obstruct, to confuse, and prevent commercial progress. Every single eating and drinking establishment in Nob Hill requires conditional use. Is that the good use of the planning department and commission's time? Of course not. In fact, I respectfully believe mister Sauter, Supervisor Sauter has not gone far enough. Right? As this legislation will only permit rest limited restaurants in Nob Hill. We should take it further. Why should a simple coffee shop or bakery have to go through neighborhood approval to open in Jackson Square? Again, more bureaucracy, costly hearings, and obstruction under the guise of community protection and historic preservation. You've heard comment today and read letters about the maintenance of culture and small business character and a data driven approach to this legislation. These are all just synonyms for xenophobia, exclusion, anti growth, and ultimately anti competitive behavior. All you have to do is look around the rest of San Francisco and see how small business operates. The world has not melted. The sky has not fallen. Allowing businesses to open without restrictive zoning is good for business and good for the city. For the sake of fairness, for the sake of creating opportunities for all small business owners, and for the sake of San Francisco moving forward and being a place where we say yes to small business, I urge you to support this common sense legislation. Thank you very much.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Kari Wellstone, and I am here on behalf of Quincy Co to express our support for District 3 thrives, particularly in Jackson Square. We have been in Jackson Square since 2009 and since seen our neighborhood grow. We believe this legislation will help our neighborhood

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: to, pause public comment for a moment because given the supervisor's schedule, there may be questions from the commissioners directly to the supervisor before he leaves.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Thanks so much for for being here. I know that you have to depart soon. So I just had one brief question, I think, which was the expansion of places in which health services uses would be allowed. I'm just kind of curious what the thinking is behind that use in particular.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Yeah. So on on health services, they're not permitted on Polk Street and in the North Beach NCD currently. And we explored taking that away and allowing them as a conditional use for any size. And in conversations, actually, both with people who support this legislation and those who have concerns, there wasn't when it came to health services, I think there was universal agreement that we don't want large hospital like settings. There's, you know, for example, there's a very particular example in North Beach where we have Luke's Local, which is a wonderful grocery store now, but there was an attempt for a large radiation center to go in there before. And so that's kind of fresh in everyone's mind. So, respecting that and really our intention this entire time to be neighborhood serving health care services, we've, in this amendment, put in a conditional use process for small and then not allowing larger health care services. We looked with planning staff to if there was any way to designate, you know, a hospital versus, again, I keep using the example of a dent dentist, and there really wasn't. So we're doing it by size. I would also mention something that was spoken about, from someone who doesn't support this, which is fine. But I think I want to use your example of District 3 having the most seniors of any district in San Francisco, and actually that being why we need to make these neighborhoods serving health services more accessible. This came to us from someone else on the Small Business Commission, actually, talking about her mom and talking about for her to be able to have access to things in her neighborhood rather than always going to downtown for hospital visits, for medical visits. And also, a lot of those medical offices being on the 2nd Floor and that being difficult for people with mobility challenges. So all in all, I think we found a good balance with this amendment. Again, small neighborhood serving medical uses only.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Thank you. Just one other question. When in your opening remarks, you mentioned that there have been some past changes to the planning code and it sounds like to the SEDs and NCDs that you've worked on before. And I'm just kind of curious if you could share a few examples of what types of changes have happened in the past and how you see those as being beneficial and this building on it.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Yeah, thank you. Absolutely. Happy to talk more about that. I think the one that our organization, North Beach Neighbors at the time, really supported and then was able to have adopted by former supervisor Peskin that has made a big impact is and I might get the exact dates wrong, but at the time, there was a if if a restaurant went out of use, that space basically had a shot clock of eighteen months at the time that it had to be a restaurant again, or else it would not be able to be a restaurant again ever. And I believe we were able to get that expanded to thirty six months. And so that's one specific example that does make it more flexible, specifically on restaurants, and that's something that I think has helped in the North Beach area in particular.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: All right. Thank you. Those are all my questions.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Thank you, Supervisor Sauter, for your comments. I'm just curious. We've gotten a lot of letters from different folks in your neighborhood around concerns. And so I'm wondering what the rush is given all the concerns around the legislation. And why aren't you open to having some more discussion? I was just wondering.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Yeah. Absolutely. I'd be happy to talk about that and a little bit more just about communication and this entire process. As we noted, we introduced this legislation in June, and so it has been a number of months now. We had to file an extension actually last week to to allow this to be continued because it is going on for so long. We were a number of the organizations that are requesting a two month continuance now. They requested last week for a continuance, which we did grant them to give more time. There has been a lot of communication on this. It has been you know, there were thousands of mailers sent out to areas impacted by the planning department on this. This has been on people's radars. And again, I think in in I wanna also just associate that comment with what this legislation itself does, which is, I think, make this process more transparent. We've seen in recent years, for example, that many of the things that are not permitted in the planning code currently, they actually can happen if special legislation is written. We use the example where currently storefront mergers are not allowed on Polk Street, and so special legislation had to be written last year for Bob's Donuts to expand next door, which is fine. I think we all love Bob's Donuts, but the process is not fine when we're doing one off legislation. And so in that example, we've suggested that that can be in conditional use, which brings that process into the light. The conditional use, as you know, because you're part of it, it it has hearings, and it has notices that are sent out. And again, I think that's a much more transparent process to do that with the public rather than having legislation written in the darker night. And so I think, again, the process, we've tried to be as transparent as possible, and then this legislation as well.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Mhmm. You brought a conditional use. And I know because some of some of the legislation, as I've read it, actually takes away or or gives gives permission without a conditional use. Can you talk to me about that?

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: We tried to do that where currently there are uses that require conditional use, and where we found through conversations that there was just very little disagreement that these should be principally permitted. Again, things like limited restaurants. When we talk about limited restaurants, we're talking about small footprint cafes and bakeries, we are not talking about four, five, six, seven thousand square feet restaurants which cater to tourists. So we tried to look at things like that, and make those principally permitted in many cases. We tried to look at something like flexible use retail, which again is, we are, I think one of I think we have two or three two of the three NCDs in the entire city that continue to not allow that, and we're moving that to principally permitted. Of course, the uses themselves have to be allowed, but again, I use the example of a coffee shop and a bookstore being allowed together. We think that's pretty straightforward and should be principally permitted. So we try to be judicious around principally permitted. Some things, again, you know, hearing concerns in Jackson Square, for example, around bars, we're moving that our amendments back to conditional use, or storefront mergers. At one point in North Beach, we allowed small ones principally permitted. We're moving that back to conditional use. So I think we've found a good balance

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: on that. Thank you. Thank you for that. I'll be honest. As it relates to the North Beach corridor, I've been down there quite frequently. That's one of my favorite parts of town. And it seems like it's thriving. And I don't see a lot of vacancies, especially as it relates to North Beach. And, you know, it it kind of and and I understand what your, you know, what your legislation is getting at. But I think many people in this city, really value what's there in North Beach as it is now. And, because of the, the protections that are in North Beach now, actually has the result is what we have in North Beach. And so, you know, one of the concerns I have as being someone who's lived here all his life and have many, many memories of going and walking down North Beach and with family and friends and everyone else that comes to San Francisco is one of the first places we bring them to. I'm very concerned that with this legislation, there will be some protections that might jeopardize that, what we have now currently in North Beach. And so, you know, and I think others have that same concern. And and I I would be, you know, I I think and I think that, it would be advantageous to the you know, to everyone concerned. Because this North Beach, you know, it's not just about the residents of North Beach. This is this is someone at all San Fran somewhere that all San Francisco residents really embrace. And I and I think, you know, because of of that, I I think more consideration and more discussion, you know, would be appropriate. And I I just I just wanna put that out there.

[Speaker 42.0]: Mhmm.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: And, you know, hopefully, this commission would feel the same way. I think there's more there's room for more discussion, and there's more things that need to be addressed. And so I I I just wanna, you know, state that. One of the other concerns I have is is about the 2nd Floor, the 2nd Floor business. Could you could you Yeah. Because I I I know and and I'm the reason I'm I'm mentioning that is because as you walk down through the neighborhood, there's a lot of residences on the 2nd Floor along the corridor, And I'm concerned about tenants being displaced. And so could you kind of run us through Yeah, absolutely. Your thinking behind that?

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: There is nothing in this legislation that would impact tenants. There was at one point when we were looking at flexible retail, as you know, on a lot of these controls, you have to make a decision of 1st Floor and 2nd Floor and the different controls there. And at one point in this legislation for flexible retail, we had that as, I think it was conditional on the 2nd Floor, right, because you have to come up with something. We checked multiple times with the planning department to confirm that you cannot take it from residential to retail, in something like this. There's no threat to it. We continue to hear concerns even after confirming that multiple times, and so we just took it out in the amendments that you have. It just takes it out from the 2nd Floor, that flexible use on both North Beach and CD And Pacific Avenue. So there's no changes to 2nd Floor, with these amendments in anything. And I would, you know, thank you for your earlier comment, and I we share that love for North Beach. As someone who lives in North Beach, raising a family in North Beach, has started two small businesses in North Beach, been the president of our neighborhood association in North Beach, I am thinking critically about this legislation, and any concern that I hear, I think about it deeply. And the amendments that we've put forward, I think, address any of those concerns. I will also say we have to balance concerns and skepticism with reality, and the reality is we have a cafe that wants to open on Lombard Street in North Beach in a space that's been empty for eight years. We have a bakery that you heard from earlier that wants to open in a space in Telegraph Hill that's been empty for four years. We have a gelato shop that wants to open on Columbus Avenue in a space that's been empty for nine years. Those things would not be possible without our legislation. So we have to balance that, and as I've committed to a few of the community groups that have concerns, I'm willing to continue to work on this in the future. We do have, again, I think, a lot of urgency around this. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you so much. I mean

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Hold on a second. I'm not done.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: I know, but we have five minutes.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Oh, okay.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: And the other commissioner would like to ask questions. I apologize. But you might want to I would like, to, if you don't mind, to wrap up a little quicker because I think it will be nice to

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: That's okay. I want I'd like to give everyone Let

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: them finish.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I'd like

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: to give

[Andrew Smith, Property Owner]: everyone Well, if you were

[Lydia So, Commission President]: finished, she'll let you finish.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I'm finished. I'm finished. That's okay.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Commissioner oh, vice president Moore, would you like to ask him

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I had a few questions for you, supervisor, but we are running out of time. I'll follow-up with you independently, but I strongly urge you to continue the item. I think the respectful request I have followed your personal communication with neighborhood groups strong, strongly pointed to many questions that are unanswered. I'm very interested to better understand your additional amendments summarized on the sheet you handed out today. And I think for the successful future of all, I personally would appreciate if you would continue this item. Thank you. That's all.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you for your time, come

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Supervisor. Thank you. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Commissioners, with that, we should reopen public comment. Next speaker.

[Speaker 43.0]: Afternoon.

[Speaker 44.0]: I want to speak on a

[Speaker 43.0]: couple of things. One is corruption. But let me take a back step on this particular piece of legislation, which I don't know if I could support or not support because we haven't seen it. I'm pleased that the supervisor talked to folks and made amendments. I haven't seen those amendments. I know he didn't talk to every all the organized groups. I don't think I don't think we're ready. I don't think the city is ready for this. And I don't think North Beach is ready for this piece of legislation. I wanna echo other folks. My goodness, it's a successful neighborhood. Come down on a Saturday night. There's no lack of humanity. It ain't broke, so let's not fix it. Additionally so changing the topic real quick, talk a little bit about corruption. As we do the upzoning, as we do this business thrives, as we make a lot of changes, we are a right target for corruption. Offshore entities with ill gotten gains are going to be the folks that buy these buildings, develop them, and become landlords. They're not local. They don't care about the city. We care about the city. We might disagree. But we care about the city. We have no knowledge of the ultimate beneficiary for these developers. Supervisor Sauter, you may or may not know this. There's the son of a Russian oligarch who's developing a building set on Sampson Street. It's not illegal, but I found this out because I Google searched his name. We better think this through a little bit, guys. If we start six ten story buildings not knowing who the developers are,

[John Dacey, Planning Staff]: what could go

[Speaker 43.0]: wrong? Oh, nothing. Right? Thank you for your time, respectfully. Thank you. Super supervisor's line.

[Speaker 15.0]: Hello, planning commissioners. Again, my name is Peter Stevens. I live in North Beach, and I would like to quote the mayor. This is happening to us, not with us. So respectfully respectfully, I ask for a continuance as well. We do need to face reality. North Beach around 5% vacancy. Jackson Square around 2%. That's the reality. What are we doing here? Thank you.

[Speaker 18.0]: Hey there. Romelyn Schmaltz, long term business owner and resident of North Beach. Thank you so much for listening to all the presentations and our considerations today. We do really hope that you will grant us a continuance because despite what what supervisor has said, there is not actually a sense that that that businesses have had a chance to review this, that neighborhood associations have had a chance to review this. Now there are amendments, and and I think a continuance would be a very easy thing to do and important for for for goodwill and for faith in the new situation in District 3. So what is that situation? I mean, North Beach is thriving. Everybody who has come from here has said so. And I'm there every day. I live and breathe it. I love it like nobody's business. I even owned a gallery once that's that was called I love North Beach. I have I have tattooed on my arm Coit Tower, you know, I've I've been there forever, and I ain't going nowhere either. So, I feel like we're being sold or, well, force fed would be a better word, like these cures by a doctor with no experience for diseases we don't have based on symptoms expressed by a handful of hopeful North Beach business owners, future North Beach business owners. And while that's all well and good, we're not sick. We're doing great. In fact, we are the bellwethers of success coming out of the pandemic. I'm so proud of my neighborhood. I love it, and I go around every day accidentally doing due diligence just by being myself. You know, I work with bars and restaurants, cafes, bookstores. Oh my god. I you know, so and most of them haven't heard about this, which is pretty alarming. We love our Special Use District because we're a special district, and we don't wanna see it conflated, combined, or subsumed by the NCD. So our Special Youth District ain't broke. And not only is it working for us, it's working for everybody in San Francisco. So we've spent about forty years carefully, you know, crafting that. We have a 5% vacancy rate, which everybody keeps mentioning, you know, and that is incredibly low. And that is because what we do works. Our forty years of getting us right got us right. So, you know, it's it's so beautiful to be able to represent and and and speak for a neighborhood that is thriving rather than suffering. And I don't want to see it undermined or it will undermine by a doctor who still needs to do some homework. So thank you very, very much.

[Speaker 46.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Donald DeBain. I'm a resident of the city, have lived in the District 3 for twenty six years adjacent to Jackson Square. I'm a city employee, but I'm here on my own personal behalf and I'm on taking time off to be here from my city job. I don't know much about this legislation, but I've listened to a lot of speakers this afternoon, and it appears that there may well be some benefits to this legislation. But what concerns me most of all is the process. As Commissioner Williams stated, I don't understand what the rush is. I'm familiar with the efforts that five of these neighborhood associations have made to work with supervisor Sowder's office. And I've seen the email correspondence between them. And it does not look to me like there's been a good faith effort by supervisor Sowder to be working or listening to these five neighborhood organizations. And I would encourage him to do so. It would seem to me that, as I said, there may well be some substantial benefits to his legislation. But it has not, from what I can tell, been vetted adequately with the community and especially with the residents of the district. As I said, I've been living in this just adjacent to the North Beach and Jackson Square area in District 3 for twenty six years. I've never seen Jackson Square do as well as it is doing today, and North Beach as well. They're both very vibrant communities. The reason I moved to that area of town is because they're such, wonderful parts of our our city. I don't understand what the rush is to fix a problem that may not exist. And I would encourage, that this matter be continued so that these other neighborhood associations can be properly heard and work with supervisor Sowder to come up with a better final product. Thank you.

[Speaker 47.0]: Good afternoon, President Tsao and members of the planning commission. My name is Matt Stegman from the Jackson Square Historic District Association. You'll hear common themes from all the groups that are here opposing this legislation. Lack of due process, lack of communication, lack of community input, and a complete lack of data that should be the cornerstone of policy affecting San Francisco neighborhoods. I have to say we were all kind of stunned to hear how supervisor Souda represented the communication. I walk Jackson Square. I've been there fifteen years as a community steward and volunteer. I know the boutique owners. One of my close friends owns 12 businesses throughout the city, including bars and restaurants in Jackson Square. I know the HOA presidents.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: None of

[Speaker 47.0]: us had heard about this legislation. I actually walked the district after proactively reaching out to supervisor Souder earlier this year, I walked him through the district to talk about Jackson Square. And at the end of that walk, we shook hands and said, I hope we can count on working together collaboratively with you and having good communication as we have with the prior three supervisors. And a few weeks later, he introduced this legislation with no communication to any of us. So I don't know about these mailers he's talking about. I don't know anything about who even knows about this legislation in Jackson Square. As it relates to the Jackson Square Historic District, we're requesting that the land use controls for the Jackson Square Special Use District not be deleted or amended as they relate to the current cap on the high number of existing bar and restaurant liquor licenses in Jackson Square. The legislation proposes allowing an oversaturation of liquor licenses with a conditional use permit, which we know from experience, conditional use permits are often a rubber stamp approval. Does everyone here understand how small the city's first historic district is? It's two blocks by two blocks. The JSHDA works to preserve and enhance this tiny thriving district's unique historical character. It attracts multiple tour groups. It's a great mixed use neighborhood. The current controls enacted with the support of diverse community stakeholders and unanimously endorsed by the city small business commission were unanimously approved by the board of supervisors in 2018, and they were designed to preserve a balanced mix of commercial uses and a sustainable residential community. We have thriving boutiques, gallery spaces, private residences, 17 bars and restaurants already in a two block by two block area, and we've all worked hard to build that that zoning and those controls, which has been covered by multiple media outlets as a success story for San Francisco. I know I'm out of time, but I'll just wrap it up and say, please don't obliterate our current balance and success. Supervisor Souter's legislation is uninformed, secretive, and misguided. The city has real problems to work on in other neighborhoods, and creating a new one that doesn't currently exist in Jackson Square Historic District should not be his focus. Planning and zoning should be driven by balanced community input and especially by data. This proposed legislation lacks both, at least as it relates to tiny Jackson Square. Thank you.

[Speaker 48.0]: Hi. My name is Ira Kaplan. I live in North Beach. I am building a life with my wife in North Beach. I love North Beach, and I'd like to see more of it. I'd like to see it thrive even more than it already is. And I think this legislation does a good job of enabling more small businesses to open, enabling businesses that started in North Beach to grow. And I think from a good governance perspective, this is just obvious common sense. Right? Like, you shouldn't need a handshake deal with Aaron Peskin to open or run a business in North Beach or in D Three. And, this legislation would, help to fix that corrupt status quo that's existed for a long time. So, thank you. Please support it.

[Speaker 49.0]: Hello.

[Speaker 50.0]: I'm wearing these because I had eye surgery, so it's not I'm not on drugs or anything like that. My name well, sometimes I am anyway. My name is Liam Hennessy, a native San Franciscan retired school teacher from SF Unified and a resident of North Beach. And I'm concerned about lack of transparency from our supervisor. When he spoke about that all these groups knew what was going on, so on and so forth, no. We a lot of us did not know. It's almost as if we go back to the zoning, which I was here for that meeting, that we were not on the map, then we're on the map, none of us knew. There was no communication. We've tried to have meetings, community meetings with our supervisor in 2010 or he just comes for a moment and has to leave. So I really would like you to table this for a while until there's better communication to all of his contingent constituencies. And before I end, I would like to thank super not supervisor, commissioner Williams and Moore and Imperial because I had to leave during the upzoning, and I watch until 10:00 at night. And I really appreciate your statements, what you read, what you said. It was really wonderful that the three of you continued on and gave thoughtful, comments about the up zoning. So with that being said, I'm Liam Hennessy and I really would like this to be tabled and thought and more, talk about it before you vote on. Thank you.

[Speaker 51.0]: Hey. Good afternoon, commissioners. Whit Turner from Housing Action Coalition. I'm here in support of Supervisor Sauter's ordinance. I think consolidating and streamlining these rules is an important step forward. It makes land use clear. It expands opportunities for new housing above active ground floors, and it provides more space for restaurants and small businesses that we love. I'm a North Beach resident. I'm really excited about this. I want it to be more vibrant than it already is. I want more small businesses to thrive. This proposal strikes the right balance between protecting neighborhood character and ensuring our communities can grow and adapt and serve future generations such as myself. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 52.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Thad Carhartt. I'm here as a resident of North Beach, Chestnut Street. I have my office on Water Street in North Beach. I request that the planning commission should require review of this action under the California Environmental Quality Act to analyze the project's impacts and to consider mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce these impacts. The staff report states that the action is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it did not have does not have and will not have direct environmental impacts. I respectfully submit that this is incorrect. The action is a project because it is an essential step that may lead to environmental impacts. I object to the city's decision to exempt the project, which is what happens when it's determined not to be a project, from environmental review under CEQA. The real question is, how could this not be a project under the time tested definitions of CEQA jurisprudence? It proposes to change the entire aspect of a cohesive neighborhood by altering permissible uses, heights, and volumes for a wide variety of business and private residents. The fundamental question of environmental protection for citizens are called into question air quality, water quality, traffic density, sidewalk crowding, sight lines, nighttime light pollution, noise pollution, access to the bay shoreline, and a host of other considerations. In short, we what we are used to calling the quality of life in the neighborhood. Why would you consider not giving these matters a full environmental review in accordance with the enabling legislation of CEQA? And when I say that, I'm mindful that environmental review has gotten a bad name recently among many. And it's been thrown under the bus because it's regarded as blocking progress and keeping abundance from being spread into whole communities. That need not be the case if an environmental review is purposeful, clear, and swift. It can be and it should be. I respectfully ask you to continue this so that that issue among others, data driven, can be addressed. Thank you for your time.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Last call for public comment.

[Speaker 19.0]: All over. Yes. Like a walk in freezer.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is not before you, commissioners. Oh, I'm sorry. There is a member, reasonable accommodation requester.

[Sue Hester]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Sue Hester. I've been watching this discussion online and pulling up on my computer the history of legislation, which is two five zero six eight two. It was introduced on Tuesday, June 17. It was sent to people, for comments June 25, one week later, right before the July 4. And, basically, I'm supporting a request for continuance because there hasn't been an outreach to even involve people who've been speaking. The planning commission took a break as did the board of supervisors basically at the July, and they came back after Labor Day. You came back after Labor Day. The people that enter in this neighborhood deserve some time to really meet with themselves and meet with each other, including the supervisor. And basically saying, please continue this case so it can be well thought out. I deal with a lot of have dealt with a lot of veterans over a long time. And this is major changes being forced on people and forced on this commission. And you're not getting it. You don't have the time to get informed decisions from the neighborhoods. Thank you. Bye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. With that, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Well, first, I would like to thank you, everybody, today to take your time to give your public comments, and particularly thank you, our department staff, creating this report and also supervisor Danny Sauder's presence. I do have, follow-up questions. I see that supervisor Sauder's office have a legislative aide, Michelle, if you like to come forward. Thank you. Hi. I hear a lot of people had comment about public outreach and community engagement. I'd like you to give us a little bit more of your experiences of how much community outreach and engagement you had been taken.

[Speaker 53.0]: Yeah. Definitely happy to. I will speak to the community outreach that I know was made because I was a part of it. But I know that the supervisor has also had many, many individual conversations with constituents and business owners and groups. When we introduced the legislation back in June, we reached out to a wide variety of neighborhood groups and merchant groups in every neighborhood that was affected by this legislation. And we set up meetings over the next few weeks. We met with them throughout July. And then we waited to get feedback from them. Some of the feedback came back in August when we were on recess, and we started working on it right away. And some of the feedback came back as early as I think it was about nine days before the hearing was originally supposed to happen, eight or nine days. And with all of that feedback, as soon as we got it, we immediately started working on amendments to address them. And we told the groups that we were working on amendments and we would be in contact as they developed. And as I'm sure you all know, working on amendments is a complicated process. So that's why that's why we were happy to do the continuance last week to make sure we got the amendments right. And again, the supervisor let the groups that were asking for a continuance know, that we were going to grant the continuance and that we would love to meet with them this week. And the supervisor offered to completely re rearrange his schedule as needed to meet with these groups, and that meeting did not happen with most of the groups. We met with the leadership of one of the groups. Besides that, I do wanna highlight, I know that there are a few groups asking for a continuance thinking that the outreach hasn't been enough. There are also several groups that you heard from today that support the legislation and, that show that we did do outreach to a wide variety of groups. Beyond that, we know that not everyone in D 3 is a part of a neighborhood group or a merchant group, and so we really try to reach as many D 3 constituents in as many ways as possible. The supervisor regularly over the last few weeks especially, but even as early as when it was introduced, he would include information about this in his newsletter, in his emails to all of his constituents. We explained what the legislation does, ways to engage, ways to give feedback. And he also regularly posted on all of his social medias about the legislation. And we were really happy with the reach that we were able to get to d three constituents through that. And I do also want to say that we have been open to meeting with everyone. If someone reaches out to the office, a random constituent who wants to meet with us about it, we're always happy to have a conversation. But, yeah, so we we have been open to having conversations with everyone.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Mhmm. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Excuse me, sir. You you are out of order.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Well, we one thing I'd like to share that is that one of I mean, I I did not know that there's a civil grand jury report, and I actually read it through. When we have civil jury report, it's it is a really neutral party to really investigating what our city could done better. And that report, 78 pages long, listed out Prop h, and also how other things that we can do better to really help our small businesses to thrive in the city. And that was conducted the report was fully completed, for 2023. I really encourage everyone to take a look at that. And there is an abbreviated version, by the way, if you don't want to spend hours to read 78 pages long. But, there is a reason why entity like that conduct an investigation on our city to help us make a much better informed decisions. And I also receive a lot of emails and also comments about supportive of this, or opposing of this. But I wanted to share some of these. I thought it was really interesting. We we often heard today people are talking about, formula retail is going to take over. We'll be okay the way it is. But, the scale of things here, to me, doesn't appear to be formula retail or large businesses gonna come into North Beach. It it was saying something like, a a coffee shop wanted to move into a former bookstore. They cannot do that in North Beach. This person had a pet store, wanted to move into a former paint store. They cannot do that. And then there is a children's clothing shop that wanted to move to a former cafe location. They cannot do that either. A Pilates studios could not move into a space that wasn't and marked it for specifically Pilates use. So I think, colleague, today we're looking at something that isn't really about really big, big, big, national formula retail versus our beloved businesses from our beloved historic district. And I think we're trying to really help here is to enable all businesses in San Francisco who can have a much more transparency to to to know better how if they can actually afford to open a business in any part of our city and in a district that is so much loved by everyone in our city. So and I personally would support this, I I personally would support this, but I would like to hear my colleague what their comments are. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: There

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: was a public comment earlier that said District 3 is, like, the best district in the city. And I I do think it has some of the best commercial pockets. North Beach, Polk Street, Jackson Square come to mind. I actually lived in North Beach for a few years with my family when I first moved to San Francisco and agree it is quite magical. And I don't think anyone here there's a lot of love in this room around our neighborhoods, and I don't think we wanna lose what's special, about any of them. I also think it's really important we allow them to grow and thrive and evolve. And, and District 3 has had a a lot of restrictive zoning over the course of time. And so for me, I'm actually in quite I'm quite in support of of the the changes here, and I find them to be relatively modest. And I'm not hearing anything that threatens those neighborhoods or their character. I see them as changes that support small businesses. And, I mean, we're talking about expanding uses, increasing size limits, and really reducing the limitations that have been on a lot of these neighborhoods. So I think that translates to things are gonna be less complex. They're gonna be more predictable. And I think just in general, across the city, we want to do this more. We wanna be more like that. We wanna be more of that city of, of yes. So I'm in full support, curious as well. I loved the bread and crumble example. I don't know if she's still here, but I it was a great example to me of of how these changes are gonna really help our our small businesses. And I know a lot of people that come across the Bay to to eat a bread and crumble, so I wish that I wish her luck. So I would make a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval with the supervisor's amendments. And also open to hearing if there's anything that my fellow commissioners would like to amend.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Second.

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

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you. Well, I think all of us here, including me and also in the public, share that we recognize that North Beach is a very thriving, vibrant neighborhood. And, actually, when I do have family members who come to visit, the first stop for me is to take them to North Beach. One funny story, I have a cousin that came and went to North Beach and looking for a beach. Where is the beach? I told her, it's in the North. Anyway, that's why it's called North Beach. Anyway but, you know, it it is a very it's a jewel. It's one of the jewels of of our city. And, you know, looking into these amendments, and I also understand the history of why SUD and NCD is also regulated in this area as well. But we also see the success of this regulation in the neighborhood. For me, every time that there is amendments, and I think in the past, you know, every time there is changes in a neighborhood, I always look into the findings. What is the basis for the changes in these in these entities, in these neighborhoods? And we need to always have that tradition. And I think it's a good governance or a good way of creating legislation to create findings or to have findings that is based on facts, that is based on what is actually really happening in the neighborhood. I understand that the supervisor has its constituents going to their offices. Respond to what to what to each of the constituents have to say as well. But in this in this term of, like, when we look into the complaints and the requests, we should also back it up with data. And I think there are that's why there are times here in the commission, I would ask the staff as to what is the basis for this. One thing that I throughout the time that I'm a commission here, there were some changes in terms of the laundromats. And D 3 was one of the actually districts where the laundromats uses are also evaporating, and therefore, there was a legislation. And there was also a study done by the planning around this as well, and I think there are some updates about the laundromat uses. And I'm also curious as to what are the actually the trends on the Lanterman uses. The reason that I'm bringing this up because supervisor Sauter actually put up a you know, has this or it's not him, but there is an article where I believe it's a shop that used to be a laundromat. Or there is a business that wants that is being proposed, but used to be a laundromat service. And so I I mean, these are the things that for me in my objective point of view is like, okay, where are we now in the laundromat studies? And when we're talking about the vacancy rate, what are the uses that has high increase of the vacancy on that? I mean, these are studies that I would like to see in these findings in my packet in order to understand what's actually an issue in the in the area. He also brought up the health services. And perhaps that's also something that we also need to look into in the d three. So this is where I, you know, there's there is this kinda like we're at the crossroads, I I would say, where there are issues that needs to be right, needs to be risen, and we also need to create a study on those things. So I don't know if someone from the staff, from supervisor's office can also explain to me what is the basis for increasing the 2,000 square square foot limit to 3,000. What's this what kind of survey or, you know, what's the basis for that?

[Speaker 53.0]: I will speak to our thinking, and then I'm gonna ask planning staff to confirm. I believe that that puts us more in line with some citywide limits, And we also know that 2,000 is pretty small, so we just wanna give a little bit more flexibility to businesses. We found throughout the process that the city doesn't do a great job of tracking the square footage of storefronts. And so, unfortunately, we don't have city data on how many storefronts might be in between those two, but the goal with that is to give a little bit more flexibility and a little bit more room for growing businesses.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah. I mean, I'm just remembering through with the conversation that we had in family zoning plan that when it comes to small businesses, and that's why there's also some provisions in the correct me if I'm wrong, in the family zoning plan about the small businesses use size where it's that there is a study. Perhaps someone needs to remind me on this, but or correct me on this. But the 3,000 square foot or, you know, it also when it comes to rent, that is something that is unaffordable for small businesses.

[Speaker 53.0]: I'm gonna look to planning staff to speak more on the family zoning plan as a whole.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: I I

[Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: can tackle that for a moment. I I don't I'll get back to you on the limits including the family zoning plan. But I think one of the things that I mean, space is charged by a square foot. So I think what we generally find is the nature of the business dictates the size that will be appropriate for that business. Some businesses can quit fit quite well in a thousand square feet, 2,000 square feet, and it it works that way. And and often, food services can can go quite small. But other types of businesses and some of the ones I think we talked about today, particularly in terms of neighborhood services, require a larger so I think affordability is just based on the nature of the business and what the size they require.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah. Yeah. And and, you know, I think that's also like, when we're looking to this use size limits, 3,000 square feet, like, what type of uses? And it looks like it may serve the health service uses on this. But, again, I think for the public trust and for for a good governance, we need to we need to be ready with data when we're, when we're changing something. It's I just feel like that's that should be the cornerstone of good governance in creating legislation is to back it up with good data. So, I I I'm not sure who is the which association or neighbor association that is doing a survey. I don't know if anyone in the public would like to talk about that, the survey that it's being it seems like that's also the reason for continuance is that the survey is not finished yet or it's still in the works. Okay. Can you come up and talk to me about the survey that's being conducted?

[Speaker 15.0]: Peter Stevens, vice president of Telegraph Hill Dwellers. We are currently updating a survey that we've been doing since the nineteen eighties or so that, surveys every vacant unit and every business, takes pictures, their uses, everything like that. We're finishing it up, maybe a couple more weeks, but we are currently working on updating a whole survey of North Beach. Yes.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: And when it's when will it be done? Or or how is this communicated as well with the supervisor's office?

[Speaker 15.0]: Yeah. So we have been emailing the supervisors. We are one of the groups that did request to speak to the supervisor and we're not able to this week. So we are, of course, requesting continuance. And one of the reasons is we wanna present that survey to them.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah. Okay. And if you don't mind me asking, what does the survey what's the con content of the survey? Why are the questions in there?

[Speaker 15.0]: So I do not have that information. I'm currently not working on it. I apologize. But my understanding is it should be done in the next few weeks. We're wrapping it up.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you so much. Yes. So yes, I think for me, I, you know, there are I mean, there are very specific things here that I also did not feel comfortable in putting amendments or recommendations because I don't have the data yet. A lot of it is per context in a way. But so for me, I would, I mean, I would like to see that survey. I would I would like this to be more actual in continuance and for the commission to really look into the to the data and to the survey that's being implemented and also or being conducted in order for us to really weigh in in in all of these amendments in these four districts or four NCDs. So those are my you know, I cannot support this legislation as it is, and I I'm concerned that there's too many amendments, to tell the truth. And I I spoke this to the supervisor himself that there are too many amendments in these, in these areas. So I would vote to continue for this.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: K. Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Thank you, Commissioner Imperial, for your very thoughtful comments on data. I think that's kind of what's missing from the conversation here. It feels like there is a few vacancies here and there. But, you know, I just wanna point out that last two weeks ago two weeks ago, we had a ten hour hearing, and there was a lot of concern and actually fear from the public, around the family zoning plan. And we still we still don't know how the family zoning plan is gonna affect this area of North Beach. We don't know what the impacts are gonna be. And, you know, this this legislation kind of it it adds a layer of uncertainty and fear. I I you know, I that's what I read into these letters, into the comments of some of the business owners along these corridors. And, you know, I I would just I just wanna say that, you know, having extra conversation, having time, to work some of these things out, alleviate some of that fear. Even though everyone doesn't get their way, it's better than being forced on you. And I think that's the feeling that a lot of people have with the family zoning plan because it's come down from the state. And it's and it's been forced on us as San Franciscans. And there is a lot of uncertainty and fear. This legislation, well, it's not quite the same, but it feels like there is a disconnect. There's several community organizations and business organizations that feel like they had no, there was no contact to them. They didn't have a chance to engage in conversation with the supervisor. And I think, you know, in the end, that was probably one of the most important things that a supervisor can do is actually have these conversations with the constituents even though they might not be. It's better to have the conversations than not to have the conversations. And I think that's my point. And, you know, again, just because we have the votes here to pass something does not mean it's good for this neighborhood. And I'll say that again because I see nothing wrong, especially with North Beach. I see nothing wrong with North Beach. There's there's no vacancy. I I I I I don't know, you know, what what the supervisor is getting at. There's other places, I'm sure, that his legislation would would address. But be honest with you, I have a real hard time as someone, you know, that goes there a lot to really understand what this legislation is actually doing. And so

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Alright, folks. I'm gonna ask that you guys refrain from clapping and cheering and speaking out of order, please.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I I I just wanna, you know, end by saying that, obviously, I'm I'm not gonna be in support of this. I would be in support of a continuance. I think that our voices are being shut down all over the place, and it's this isn't doesn't feel right to me as somebody that is a San Franciscan and someone that believes in in in a open process. I'll just leave it there.

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

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: For for those of you who do not exactly know which district we live in, I'm a d three resident for the last fifty two years and have enjoyed the benefit, the surviving community that No Speech offers for us in the adjoining neighborhoods to No Speech for this entire time. And success always attracts competition. Success needs to be protected in a way that I believe No Speech and the legislation that we are currently considering has done throughout its time. Nothing is constant but change, and I do believe that Supervisor Sodder, as a new supervisor, who has lived a certain amount of lengths of time in No Speech, has the ability and the need to re examine what is. However, I do not believe that the speed by which it's done and the lack of broader communication is really ultimately working well for him. Reason is, I very carefully looked at a large exchange spearheaded under the signature of mister Ferris, president of, Telegraph Hill Dwellers and mister Sauder over the last three or four days. And that communication is basically lost in translation.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: There's there's

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: a speed or the lack by communication back and forth never really met the point of a dewing waste shows to me that emails are indeed only a potential sign of the communication and the conversations that never were head face to face. And I do believe that the five neighborhood organizations which were behind this communication, Telegraph Hill, No Speech Business Association, Jackson Square Historic District, NorSpeech Tenants Committee, and Pacific Avenue Neighbourhood Association are the largest, most well known neighborhood organizations in District 3 who have carried a heavy load of protective and support legislation and community engagement throughout the last twenty years. And I believe that those people need to be at the table, and I'm not saying that questions couldn't be answered or differences couldn't be worked out, but nothing was no effort was made to have these people come together, and that is where my problem lies. And I do believe personally that at the beginning of this hearing, five amendments were made under consideration that I'm supposed to accept. I personally cannot do that. They are not written down. They have not been discussed. There is no legal language to it, by which I can just say that sounds good. That is personally, unfortunately, not enough. What I strongly support is a continuation, and and I said that to the supervisor leaving the room, I think he can only win, opening up a broader con communication and having broader feedback in order to create consensus. Consensus is never a unanimous vote, but consensus is having the larger constituency in support of what you do. I

[Teddy Kramer, Small Business Owner]: I

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: do not see, based on everything I've heard and read, that we are at that point at this very moment, and I support the continuance. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Well, I think my my second on the motion to support this, it's kinda clear where I stand. I but I do have a couple of questions before I share a few thoughts. And these are more questions for staff, and they're going to kind of get into the weeds a little bit, but not too much. The first thing I just want to confirm is that the formula retail controls are not changing with this. Is that correct?

[Veronica Flores, Planning Department Staff]: Correct. The formula retail is not being touched in this legislation.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you. My other question is so, you know, obviously, this this legislation moves towards being closer to having consistency across, with several of the other neighborhood commercial districts and the controls. However, this, the elimination of the SUD for North Beach, for example, this doesn't change the ability to still have some customized changes to the NCD in the future. Is that correct? Or Correct.

[Veronica Flores, Planning Department Staff]: Understanding. So the North Beach NCD, that's still the zoning district for the area. Future amendments can still be made within the North Beach NCD, and that's really, again, the the most effective tool, since we have this named NCD, to be able to make those specific controls for this region.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Thank you for that. And I think it's I you know, I I'm supportive of the idea of trying to to create greater because this is across the NCDs, but also recognize that there is a balance to be struck there and that there, you know, at times do need to be some customized controls for the different NCDs. That's why we have different NCDs. And so, you know, I just wanted to make sure that by, you know, having more lines on the NCD, we're not sort of losing some of that local responsiveness in the name of of sort of streamlining the process and clarifying the process for applicants. So it's helpful to hear, you know, there can still be changes. The there were two issues raised by staff that were a little tangential to the legislation itself, but issues for potential follow-up or or reconsideration in the future. And they were both about use definitions. And I'm just sort of curious to to hear a little more and maybe other commissioners might have, you know, I know for me, it'll be educational. So the flexible retail definition, it was stated that there's only been two applications that come in under the flexible retail definition. And I guess I would just say, you know, what are I would be supportive of trying to figure out how to make that definition function more effectively, especially given that that's sort of an emerging business model in which multiple small businesses are able to thrive by being able to share space or resources without having just a single type of retail tenant in the space. Is there what's sort of the next steps on trying to look at that definition? And are there any preliminary thoughts on what some of the challenges have been?

[Speaker 54.0]: I see

[Veronica Flores, Planning Department Staff]: the supervisor has rejoined us. But regarding flexible retail, just to provide a little more background, there are a handful of very specific uses, like arts activities, an example, limited restaurant as an example, where the business can come forward with one application and be able to have these different uses in the same space. If the specific zoning is strict, it does require a conditional use for I'll use arts activities in this example. The applicant would still need to go through that conditional use authorization process first. And then afterwards, they would have the ability to freely move between these different uses without having to come back for a new permit each time. I I don't think this process is really well known, and we're trying to publicize it more. I also want to clarify that right now you are able to have multiple uses at the property, but you do have to go through those separate applications. So that's one aspect that flexible retail is trying to respond to. But this is something that we realize not many businesses are taking advantage of it. Part of it might be just not knowing or being aware of the opportunity. And then also, there are questions of how can we make it more effective. I do want to see if director Waddie has anything to add to this, but those were the big, you know, high level comments for flexible retail and next steps.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Yeah. I would just say

[Speaker 55.0]: on flexible retail, I think we all thought it was, great in spirit and just in execution. The reality is in a lot of the districts, I think people wanna take advantage of it. It may not all of those uses may not be principally permitted. So it's not like you can just seek it and be able to use all of those uses. So I think people just experience that they would need to go through the same process as if they chose any one singular use. And couple that with the fact that you're already allowed to have multiple uses. If, you know, if there are two things that are principally permitted, you can seek those two things as principally permitted uses at the same time. So there's not a constraint to doing it right now. So I think we've just struggled with finding the right use case where somebody would choose to do that rather than just identifying, you know, a couple of the principally permitted uses that they seek to have sort of co located the same space.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you for that explanation. And, you know, it's, like I said, tangential to to the legislation before us today, but I would be curious to kind of if we look at that a little bit more in the future and how to, reassess on the flexible formula or the flexible retail, definition. And I'm not gonna dive into arts activities, but I also saw that there's there's the possible interest or need for sort of better defining arts activities uses in the future. Again, separate from this legislation and I would support that too. So just to, you know, broadly speaking when it comes to the legislation itself now, you know, I I think that, like I said, you know, having some customization of local controls for NCD is an important thing and a helpful thing to have, but at the same time, broadly speaking, you know, clearer alignment with other controls throughout the city makes a lot of sense to me for businesses. And also simplifying and clarifying processes for for our local businesses, and we are talking local businesses because of the form of retail controls, you know, that that is a a helpful, aspect for these businesses too, to open up. You know, I I think that this legislation makes some modest adjustments that enable flexibility and make it possible for more business owners to expand and to have the ability to just make a run at it, to not be dissuaded by processes that create great constraints on businesses or require huge amounts of investment just to sit on a space and hope that you can be approved. And I also see that the alternative path here for some of these businesses could have been basically spot zoning one off legislation for some of the spaces or to target an individual business. And I would favor an approach that kind of creates a more level and fair playing field for the businesses and the community and new business owners. When I looked at this legislation and when I looked at all the comments and the great detailed comments and feedback we've got, there's a lot of passion in the room and and all the emails we've been getting, I was struck by the room for compromise on a lot of issues because, you know, some of this comes down to me to matters of degree. I know that people disagree with me on that sometimes, but, changes from 2,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet for certain uses. Is there a precise right number in there? That's very difficult to say, and I appreciate comments about data as part of that discussion. But even so, you know, there's room for compromise and and some adjustments in this. And I'm seeing I think the supervisor's, amendments to this really reflect that and reflect kind of taking into consideration some of the comments with the changes in North Beach for storefront mergers and for health services. And so I think that this and then also Jackson Square and Pacific Avenue with the the greater limits on bars. You know, I see that that process is happening. So that's why I'm generally supportive of the legislation with the amendments. I think that, to me, it seems like there's still some room for working on this and some tweaks in matters of degree. We don't, you know, we we don't pass legislation. We state a a a position on it. And so I just hope that conversation can continue and that, you know, this isn't this also isn't the last word. Like I said, for an NCD that's still in place, these controls can still be tweaked if it's discovered that there is a problem with them. So thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, Commissioner Braun. Commissioner Vice President Amor, you have a question and then I have a question to supervisors.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I I don't I don't have a question. I have a comment. And Okay. The supervisor actually thank you for coming back. You missed a number of important exchanges here. But what I'm coming away with is that the numbers of unanswered questions still outweighs clarity and and agreed upon understanding both of what's the real extent of the legislation is. There are more questions than answers. And particularly with the newly introduced amendments in draft form that you handed out today, I will be asking for a continuance, and that could be like a two week timeframe, but I'm making a motion for continuance.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Second.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, and I've been hearing a lot of comments or questions among my colleagues and also some general publics in regards to communications from our supervisors to the local interest groups. And in the last week or so or two, I wonder if now we have our supervisors back to our room. Supervisor, would you like to share with us on the record of what was the efforts like from your office?

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Yes. Thank you, president. So the the question again, please.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: The question was that, what was your communications with the parties and the groups that basically said that they are not aware of this or they have not heard from you? And some of my fellow commissioners also shares, some concern about that sentiment. So I wonder if you don't mind sharing with us on the record of what was your communication efforts and how was the response and reactions from them?

[Speaker 56.0]: Sure.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Sure. Absolutely. So I'll go very quickly just back to the beginning and then more recently. As I stated earlier take

[Lydia So, Commission President]: your time.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Thank you. As I stated earlier, when we introduced this legislation in June, between our contacts and the planning department's community organization list, we sent out notices basically saying, hey. We're doing this, and, you know, we want your feedback on this. We wanna share more about what this is, get your take on it. And, you know, from that process, what it looked like with many organizations was one or two meetings and and that's where, you know, a lot of the support again, just very quickly from North Beach Neighbors, Jackson Square Merchants Association, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, Chamber of Commerce, Nob Hill Association, Discover Polk CBD, Chinese Chamber of Commerce, and Russian Hill Neighbors. That's where that came from. We did see pretty early on, significant concerns from, most notably, probably two or three organizations, from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers and from the North Beach Business Association, from some homeowners in Jackson Square. And so we spent more time with them trying to work on this legislation, hearing their concerns. You know, and I think most recently, having a conversation with the leadership of Telegraph Hill Dwellers, the request was for a continuance last week. We my colleague, Michelle Andrews, of course, was here last week asking for that continuance. A few days before that continuance, we let Telegraph Hill Dwellers and a few of the other organizations know about that continuance. We didn't hear back from them, but we asked for scheduling. Our anticipation was to schedule a meeting you know, end of last week, early this week to go through amendments. I understand that's quick. I understand it's a lot for volunteer organizations to schedule, and so we were not able to schedule everyone together. But I made very clear, I'd be happy to clear my schedule. I ended up having a conversation with the presidents of Telegraph Field Dwellers late at night on Tuesday, and then Wednesday morning, we met with the president of North Beach Business Association and shortly after sent out the full amendments. And so that's a quick summary of things.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, supervisor. It sounds like you did really clear all your schedule and have actually attempt to talk to them, and some of them did talk to you. Okay. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner, vice president Moore, you have further comments? No. No. And commissioner Imperial?

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I have

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: a question to the supervisor, supervisor Sauter. I I think in the emails correspondence and, and I also earlier, while you were not here, I asked about the the survey that it looks like it's the Telegraph Hill Dwellers that is conducting it. Are you are you waiting for are you going to wait for the survey to finish, you know, and also put that in consideration in amendments for this legislation?

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: You know, we I think it was probably maybe maybe six or eight weeks ago when we met with Telegraph Field Weathers, they mentioned the idea of doing this survey. The survey has been, you know, done sporadically through the years in North Beach, and it's been a volunteer effort. I participated in the most recent one in 2017, 2018, and I think, you know, doing an updated version of it is fantastic. It was you know, that was an idea a couple months ago. We didn't learn until a few days ago that there actually is a survey being conducted, and it's just very unclear to us when that will be completed. So I don't think, you know, I don't think we want to to wait for that. I think that would delay things a few more months. So but but of course, when it's completed, we're happy to look at it. It's important, and we're happy to, you know, come back with any follow ups or anything else, any other insights that this provides. But I think between the experiences of small business owners, between what we hear, between so many of the folks who are small business owners that spoke in support of this today. I think we have a really good grasp, and, of course, from your commissioners and from your department and all their work on this through the years, many of these things are things that they've looked at in the past, things you've passed for the rest of the city. So I think we feel confident.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: So you're so that's my concern, actually. It's not earlier, I spoke about having the data on the on the amendments and or, you know, in terms of amendments, some changes in all of these NCDs. And, you know, even I am I mean, I think I I've told this to you before that I'm concerned about with so many amendments, even it's coming at the last minute to us. But it's also not based on, you know, and the data that for me, that would give me some objective analysis on this on these changes because at at the end of the day, what we've mentioned here is that there is a low vacancy rate in the new in the North Beach and also in the Jackson Jackson Square. So what so my you know, I I highly encourage I mean, it's your district, but still, to really listen to the to the associations and also to look into the surveys. The service, I believe, has been happening in the last ten years. And so, I mean, this is something that is neighborhood driven and voluntary driven that that deserves some respect to be heard. So that's, you know, I mean, as a commissioner, it's good to look it's good to create legislation that is based on data and with neighborhood backup as well. I'm not saying that the other associations that support this are not, you know, are not are not support, you know, are not neighbors as well, but it needs to be put in it at this point now where there is good data. And, you know, there are things that perhaps there are things in here that I may support as a commissioner, but again, I don't feel comfortable in that when there is no data. And when we're talking about use size limits, that's also one thing that also sprang up to me. So anyway, so that's my my opinion. And, you know, I I I just highly encourage to listen to the neighborhoods that is actually going forward with you on this. So thank you.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Thank you, commissioner. I will say that, you know, the the amendments proposed are, again, out of conversations with those that expressed concerns on this. The vast majority of organizations that we spoke to on this are in support of this. You know, this is being driven by a few organizations, which is fine, and we've, you know, really made these amendments to listen to those concerns. As someone that was involved in the last time that this survey happened in the neighborhood, I will say what happened after that survey is the the three groups that worked on it kinda went in separate directions. Right? In the five recommendations that my organization at the time brought forward to the then supervisor, one or one and a half of them was adopted. Right? So to to have a survey doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to, point you, that doesn't turn into legislation that is actually, backed by data. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, supervisor. Commissioner Williams, do you have further comment?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I do. Thank you. Thank you, president.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: you. I just kinda I wanna push back a little bit on on, you know, this idea that all areas are the same and that we need to legislate like a city wide idea. I come from a neighborhood that has been ravaged by gentrification, the Mission District. And because of the protections and the the creation of a cultural district, do we even have Latinos still in the mission? And so I I need to just say that, you know, clearly that each neighborhood is onto itself, has its own characteristics and it And the SUDs that are in place are protections that have come from from consequences of not having protections. They just didn't come out of anywhere. And I've heard a lot of talk about future businesses. What about the businesses that are there? What about the businesses that have been investing in San Francisco, that have been here? We need to look out for them as well. As a matter of fact, those are the businesses that are actually supporting the city now. And so, I I just just wanna, you know, push back a little bit on this notion that, one one thing fits all. It it's just not it's just not true. And we need to understand that each district has its own problems and considerations. And we need If we wanna be a a city that looks out for our our our folks, then we need to take all that into consideration. And so I I just wanted to leave, leave that as a thought. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with amendments. However, there was a subsequent motion made to continue two weeks to October 9.

[Speaker 49.0]: That's correct.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: That has been seconded. And then as a procedural matter, we'll be taking up that motion first. So on the motion to continue to October 9, commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Nay.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Nay. Commissioner Williams? Yes. Commissioner Braun? No. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Tsao? No. That motion fails three to four with commissioners Campbell, McGarry, Braun, and Tsao voting against. We will now take up the motion to adopt a recommendation for approval with amendments On that motion, commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Nay.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Commissioner Moore? No. And commission president so?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes four to three with commissioners Williams, Imperial, and Moore voting against. Commissioners, that will now place us on item 11 for case number twenty twenty five. Actually, why don't we let these folks leave? And those persons standing or blocking the doorway, you need to find a seat, please, and it looks like a bunch have just been vacated.

[Andrew Smith, Property Owner]: Excuse me.

[Speaker 22.0]: You have to come in.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: For those folks that wanna stay in the room, please find a seat. Okay, commissioners. Item 11, case number 2025Hyphen005861PPSFor222CapStreet. This is an informational presentation.

[Speaker 57.0]: Good afternoon. My name is Steve Perry with Perry Architects. Excuse me. I'm here to present the program and a brief description of the exterior design of our project. So the project is located in the Mission. It's a in line project on an in line site. It's on Cap Street close to the corner Of 17th Street. It's approximately 85 feet. It has eight stories, 70 residential units with a mix of studios ones and two bedrooms. The project's located or the project here in the center image is a surface parking lot. And so we're taking a much underused property and creating housing with this. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of residential and commercial projects. The Ground Floor is we have a residential lobby, utilities, parking, and bike parking. The upper floors are configured in an h shape, which creates a small courtyard allowing for light and air. And for the exterior design, as I mentioned, the neighborhood has a mixture of commercial and residential projects. The residential projects are basically traditional residential lots in San Francisco with 25 foot widths. So with this, we've broken down the project into three bays, which works with the context of residential projects. And then we've introduced a deep grooved metal panel for the exterior cladding and that works with the frames that go around each bay. And then we have projected windows for all the windows that are similar to the projected frame and allows for small Juliet balconies. And then at the rear elevation, we have a very similar facade pattern to the front. And then on the Ground Floor, we also have metal panel with a slight shift in color, and then an asymmetrical design allowing for a base of the of the Ground Floor and the compositional design. And then this shows, as we turn the corner and look to the north, we're able to add fenestration to these elevations also and provide corner windows for the project. Excuse me. And this is just a more detailed conversation about the materials with the deep groove panels up on the upper left, and the projected windows you can see on the bottom in the center. And then a very simple strategy for the sidewalk with street trees, and very simple strategy for the rear yard, allowing for c three stormwater retainage. So it's a very simple presentation, but I'm happy to answer any questions on design.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. If that concludes your presentation, we should open a public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners. Again, this is an informational item.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: The who are not familiar with these types of projects, this is an SB four twenty three project where the commission really makes observations. We do not have any ability to critique the project or make requests to its adequacy or anything else. So the questions I would suggest to the architect and suggestions that can only be is that this project would well be, would would be better understood if in your ongoing work you would reflect on the context in which this project occurs.

[Speaker 58.0]: Okay. That

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: is somewhat an understanding of the three-dimensional surroundings, the type of fuses next to it, and in the general vicinity, just to give people a better understanding about the decisions you are making, taking this project forward. The the drawings for the s p four twenty three project in comparison to others that we have seen here are very simple. They are kind of fairly blocking diagrams. I think there's a minimum need to understand units, type of units, units layout. This is just a suggestion, that is nothing I can ask to explain at the moment. Unit plans, I talked about, and generally I think I raise this question each time. I am not quite sure why s b four twenty three projects are even coming to the to the commission. I think they the type of work we normally do do is thoughtful and reflective on the neighborhoods in which they occur, and none of that is allowed here to be discussed. The architectural descriptions are barely adequate given the fact what else is missing, and I'm not as much criticizing what you are doing, but I'm deploring that the commission has to spend time with SB four twenty three projects. Thank Thank you very much.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Lebron?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I think that my one comment on the project design, you know, I I can see that this is a it's a state density bonus project as well and and that you've already begun to identify some of the concessions and waivers that are anticipated in order to build this project. And so, again, you know, not a lot of control over that. The planning department will review it to make sure those are appropriate. However, I would just say, not coming from architecture and design background, even to me, it looks like, you know, there there might be ways there might be a need to sort of adjust the project in ways that could sort of reflect the tightly packed context of the surrounding buildings of this lot. There are windows on buildings basically on at least two sides, that face towards where this project will be built. This project would end up with windows that are facing directly, you know, just a few feet away from those walls. And while, you know, perhaps that would be allowed, perhaps it wouldn't, after it undergoes review, my point is simply that, you know, I think that for folks who end up living here or are trying to decide if they wanna pay rent for a building to live in this building, some sensitivity to the experience of living in living in these units that are facing existing buildings might be might be a helpful consideration. That's it. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Michelle and Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you. This is not a design question, but more like observation question. I think we've asked this before in terms of the information that's being put to us around the affordable affordable housing units. It's not it's not here in our the in the blueprint. Usually, there would be some description of how many units are going to be affordable. Yes? Yeah. Yes. Can you

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: I'm I'm happy to answer that question. Mark Loper, Ruben, Junior, and Rose on behalf of the project sponsor. The project has 70 units, 11. We we think 11 will be affordable. That's 15.7%. We'll obviously confirm with staff.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: Thank you.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: And just to yeah. I I just wanna bring that up just to be consistent with other projects that we see when there are inclusionary units, you know, included that I think it should be traditional as well to include those, information. And just to, you know, with vice president Moore, with, you know, with all due respect, I would, you know, disagree with that. And I think s before '23 should still come to the planning commission just in case any of the member of the public would like to, provide feedback, comments on the design, and how it might impact that. I think that that still will play a valuable this body will still play a valuable role in that outlet and where the planning staff can actually still work on that. So, so, yeah. So that's only my comments. So thank you.

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

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Just just a couple of comments. I just want to remind everyone that this is in a priority equity geography, the Mission District, that has, as I mentioned before, if you were here in the chamber, experienced a lot of gentrification, which means the the the removal of poor people. And doesn't this isn't, you know, a a reflection of your project in particular, but I just want to comment that this SB four twenty three and other state bills, don't take any consideration for the existing conditions of, in in the neighborhoods. And, as well intentioned as you gentlemen might be, the fact of the matter is this type of project, in my opinion, is not conducive to creating affordability. And what's missing in our city right now is affordability. And these are mostly market rates. There is 11 units that thank goodness that there'll be 11 families able to live here, but low income families. But that's my only comment. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. I don't have any more further comments, but I thought that I agree with Commissioner Imperial that it is though our staff report table shows what is your project dwelling units mix of affordable units versus market rate. But it will be super helpful for the architect's drawing set to actually delineate that. So for consistency, same as all the other projects that are going through the SB four thirty four twenty three program, they have been also showing that is more of a transparency than anything else. I do believe that you will comply to that. I live in the Mission, so I'm really looking forward to seeing more more things that are in the Mission that help to help us feel safe on the street and more people living there, more vibrancy. And I believe that, hopefully, when you design a building, you put light and some kind of safety measurements on the on the street level. So then you will, be one of the good players on Cap Street. So okay? Alright. Thank you for coming to us today. And I do see that my two other fellow commissioners like to give further comments and start with commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Well, I just wanted to say something positive because I think this is a really great little infill project. I think it's exactly what S B 423 was designed to do. So I wish you a lot of luck with this. I appreciate that we've got some affordability mixed in. It's a nice blend of unit sizes. It'd be nice if there are a couple bigger ones, but I get it. But, yeah, I wish you luck. Maybe one small design comment would just be being mindful of potential bird nesting there on those little, outcrops there, those little protrusions. Right? Just but other than that, I wish you luck. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Kim Shonow McGarry.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: Again, on a positive note, S P 423 is a continuation of S P 35, so it's been around a long time. 11 new affordable units is 11 new affordable units. It is a great, infill product, project in an area that basically needs those 11 new, affordable units. So eleven, eleven, 11, we need to go we need multiple. We need to keep going. And I am torn. I I believe commissioner Moore is right. Four twenty three comes ahead comes in front of us, and basically we do, we we can comment on it, but we can't, stop or alter or, halt. But it's nice to know they're going on, and that 11 units, we found out today, there's 11 more affordable units, and that is a positive, positive thought. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay, commissioners. If there is nothing further on this matter, we can move on to item 12 for case number 2025Hyphen003879CUA at 2201 Alameda Street, conditional use authorization.

[Heather Samuels, Planning Staff]: Hello, commissioners. Heather Samuels, planning staff. The item before you is an application for conditional use authorization to establish an electric vehicle charging location use, doing business as Iona. This is being proposed on an existing vacant lot located within the Excelsior Outer Mission Street neighborhood commercial district and a 40 x heightened bulk district. The subject lot is 10,000 square feet and has been vacant for more than thirty years. The project would activate this lot and feature 16 charging stations for general public use, comprised of 12 standard and four ADA stations, an elevated lit canopy accompanying electrical infrastructure, including a transformer, an ornamental fencing, and landscaping. To date, the project has received two, comments in opposition, one comment in support. Additionally, we have had correspondents expressing concern over the entrance location and public safety and conduct. The sponsor has hosted two community meetings, one on August 12 and one on September 19. The department recommends that the commission approve the project on the basis that the proposed EV charging site will fill and activate a vacant lot to propose a service to the public, thereby enhancing the economic viability of the surrounding neighborhood commercial district. On balance, the project adheres to the policies of the general plan and is in general compliance with all applicable requirements of the planning code. This concludes my presentation. I'll now hand it off to the project representatives for their short presentation. After, we'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

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

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: Can I get the computer screen, please? Good afternoon, commissioners. John Kevlin here on behalf of the project sponsor Iona. We're very excited to present to you this project that will construct a new public EV charging facility at at 2201 Alameda Boulevard. I think this might be the first time a public charging facility has come before the commission. So, this is one of Iona's first sites in the city. It's a long vacant corner parcel located along two corridors. Iona is a joint venture made up of a number of traditional car makers that now make EVs in order to create an alternative public charger network, but will be open and available to all EVs. You can see that Iona provides clean, comfortable, public charging sites that are easy to use for EV owners. The sites do not have attendants. They have security cameras running twenty four seven, and helpline phone numbers posted throughout the site. The charges are high speed and the average charge time for a vehicle is fifteen to twenty five minutes. The set includes eight chargers providing capacity to charge up to 16 cars at a time. Storm water retention areas and utility areas are provided at the exteriors of the site. And here's just a view, with the the canopies, as well. This is just an image of the chargers. Again, nice looking and clean. These are class three high speed chargers. The project is subject to the planning code screening and greening requirements. A high quality iron fence will be installed and a five foot deep permeable surface will line the frontages of the site. This will enhance both the security and the aesthetics of this site from its existing condition today. Now we've had some really positive conversations with the the community, in particular Outer Mission Merchants and Residents Association, as well as the New Mission Terrace Improvement Association. We've committed to continue to working with these groups, moving forward, in particular developing good neighbor policy signage, as well as designing the screening and landscaping with these groups. One issue that's been raised, is the location of the, vehicle driveway to the site. The commission received an email from Joelle Kennelly with the Merchants and Residents Association this morning at requesting a right hand turn only sign coming out onto Geneva. We're more than happy to accommodate that. Also happy to include that as a condition of approval if the commission sees fit. To the degree there is any questions, I've I've got an analysis of why we put it on Geneva versus Alemany. I'm gonna just leave it at that for now because we have the support with the right hand turn lane. But please ask me questions during your time if you do have questions because I have an image that I can walk through that decision. So in closing, Iona is enthusiastic to open this public EV charging station in San Francisco. Governor Newsom did issue an executive order in June reaffirming the state's commitment to zero emission vehicles and building the infrastructure to support them. The San Francisco environment department also has support for electric the electric vehicle transition as a key priority. So with that, we respectfully request that the commission approve this project, and we're here if you have any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you. With that, we should open up public comment. Commissioners, we received a request for translation services, so I'll ask for those persons who need translation services to please come forward first. Ken, if you could speak into the microphone.

[Sue Hester]: Okay.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Family childcare provider.

[Public commenters (Translated)]: I live in on I live on Geneva. I'm also a family care provider. So every day we have a dozen family coming in and out of

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: my area.

[Public commenters (Translated)]: So I'm concerned about traffic safety around my area. So with the addition of the charging station, it would definitely increase traffic around my block. Mhmm.

[Speaker 63.0]: So

[Public commenters (Translated)]: So there's a high school and middle school around here, so, you know, the the student come with the on the traffic intersection. So car incoming in in and out is a, you know, concern for her. So Geneva is a pretty heavily traffic area. Yeah. So the charging station there will increase traffic injection for the resident. So the close proximity to a resident, it will it will cause noise concern for

[Sue Hester]: you.

[Public commenters (Translated)]: I'm concerned about, homeless people coming in and out of the facility.

[Sue Hester]: Mhmm. Okay. Welcome. Thank you.

[Speaker 64.0]: That's it.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Any other public commenters in need of translation services?

[Public commenters (Translated)]: So I moved to Geneva and been living there for two years. So I have seen a couple car accident over there for every

[Raymond Zau, Project Sponsor (2051 Quesada Ave.)]: month. Police station report 911 dispatch report. Critical injury.

[Public commenters (Translated)]: So from Ingusai police station report and 911 police report, it shows serious injury in in those accident. It's a traffic hotspot, especially during the morning and afternoon. Yeah.

[Raymond Zau, Project Sponsor (2051 Quesada Ave.)]: Shall we? We block intersection.

[Public commenters (Translated)]: Okay. Because a lot of car are blocking the intersections. Yeah. So if if the EV charging station over there, it will increase the traffic congestion.

[Raymond Zau, Project Sponsor (2051 Quesada Ave.)]: Childcare.

[Public commenters (Translated)]: Yeah. Like, the last comment there and there is a there is a high school, middle school, elementary, and a couple family care unit. Also, a lot of senior coming in now. Okay. I I'm not sure how the project sponsor is gonna prevent those, hassle. Thank you. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Let's open up to, any other public comment.

[Speaker 56.0]: Hi, commissioners. I'm Tim Holti. I own 820 Geneva. It's the house that's gonna be right next to the EV station they're proposing. The first concern is child safety and if you put a if you put an access point for this station on Geneva, it's gonna be high traffic and it's gonna be higher yet. And you got kids that are getting dropped off and picked up along this street, along Geneva between mine and my next door neighbors. So my next door neighbor is the one that's taking care of the kids, and that's an issue. We would hope since it's being called 2201 Allemaney Street that entry and exit would be on Allemaney. That way we'd have improved parking and drop off and less safety hazards. If it's possible, it would be great. If if the station's gonna be put in, if it has to be, we're hoping for a retaining wall between our house and the station, of course, for privacy reasons. The other issue is the storm drain, which is a minor thing, but not to us. In the back of our house, on the side that faces the EV station, there is a fence, a wooden fence with graffiti on it that is blocking our storm drain. We'd like that to be moved a little so we can get storm drainage because it's been the water's been piling up back there. Thank you for your time.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Last call for public comment.

[David Hooper, New Mission Terrace Improvement Association]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is David Hooper, and I serve as the president of the New Mission Terrace Improvement Association. I'd like to thank Joel Keneally of the Outer Merchant Outer Mission Merchants and Residents Association for facilitating the conversations with mister Kevlin. The concerns that I want to bring to your attention have to do primarily with the access on Geneva as opposed to on Alameiny. The lot is a 100 by a 100 square suite. It needs to be activated in some form, But Geneva Avenue is different from Alameda. In fact, you would have to remove three parking spaces on Geneva, but you wouldn't have to do that presently on Alameda. Geneva Avenue has three major bus lines. It's a two way street. It has very heavy, heavy traffic. Alameda has its own conditions of heavy traffic, but it isn't quite the same. It's not as the rush hour doesn't affect it as much as it does on Geneva. Someone exiting the lot on Geneva would have to take a right turn. If they could take a left turn, they would be going across a double yellow line into the left hand turn lane on Geneva that goes left south on Allemyne. It's complicated. But if you do take a right turn on Geneva, you have to go to Mission Street before you can turn right. Heavy, heavy pedestrian traffic. And you can't take a left turn going east on Geneva at Mission. Past that, the streets are also very complicated. I suggest that if you Geneva does give them access. The point of access is that you could come from either direction on Alameda making a turn or from eastbound Geneva. Nice. But when you leave the site, you enter into a traffic baelstrom. So my suggestion is that mister Kevin revisit the idea and explain why 16 charging eight charging machines, 16 charging stations rotated in one direction on a 100 by a 100 square feet wouldn't be able to use Allemani. Harder to get into, much easier to leave. So thank you, and I hope the lot is activated. It's been decades. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I'm gonna ask those people standing to please find a seat by blocking the doorway. You're causing a fire hazard. Last call for public comment on this item. Okay. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Campbell? I'd love to have

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: mister Kevlin come back up, so we could talk a little bit more about traffic. I'm we're not traffic engineers. We're gonna rely on the report, that you can maybe share with us to enlighten us on.

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: Thank you, commissioner. Yeah. Clearly, it's something to to be discussed. If I could get the computer, again, please. Okay. So here's an overhead of the site, the the site's at the the bottom the bottom corner. And we've got two frontages. On the left is Alemany and on the right is Geneva. And so in looking at first at Alemany and why that was not chosen, several, factors. First, the entrance would be located at the entrance of the intersection, meaning where we would expect cars to be queuing up. And so, certainly more conflicts entering an intersection than rather in Geneva, it's it's the exit of the intersection, not where cars would queue, not where we would see those conflicts. The Alimeni frontage is a right excuse me, red zone right now, and that's because the entire frontage is a right hand only turn lane. Right? So again, conflicts with the the current operation as it is. And then finally, Allemani has a center line divider on between going both directions. So people unless you're on Alameini, you know, coming towards the site, you're gonna have to take an extra drive around and kind of do a u-turn or however you would do it to get back to the site. So a number of reasons why Alameini didn't make sense to us. Again, on on Geneva, we're located at the exit of the intersection. There is and then the the key is is that the site's access is there today. And so we're actually taking a 35 foot curb cut, we're shrinking it down to 25, and just shifting it closer to the center of the site, and so we won't even lose any on street, parking. Right? So least amount of impacts to the existing, situation, in in the neighborhood. So that those are the reasons why we why just Geneva, we feel, is the is the better location. There's always also this issue of, and I think, mister Holt is this is his home right here. There are some improvements that have are encroaching on to the property. It looks like there's been some access back there. We're not really exactly sure what what the history is of that, but part of the idea of of the the in addition to the Geneva Street side, Geneva app side being the better location, if we had to flip it around, we'd need to occupy this area and we're concerned about what type of conflicts we'd have there, with mister Hulte and his property. We wanna be as least impactful, on him as possible being being the neighbor. This he had brought up the idea of a retaining wall. I I know that's something that we can work with them on. So those thank you for the opportunity. Those were the considerations that go into account for the selection of Geneva versus Allemani.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: So this is oops. My mic's on

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: now. Okay.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: And this was a traffic study that was done or this was just no. No. Just a kind of analysis we did based on conditions. Okay. So the other question I had was around the fencing. I had assumed the fence like, two fence or not two fence? Like, I had assumed that the fence was a request from neighbors to maybe shield visually what's happening there, but then we also are seeing some concern around fencing in terms of safety and it catching debris. And can you expand on that a little bit for us?

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: Absolutely. Yeah. So one, it is a planning code requirement. So because this is a vehicle use area, we do have to do a fence. And it's not just any fence. It's not chain link. This has to be a high quality iron fence. And so what we've gotten there is kind of a placeholder right now. That's kind of the standard iron fence black line. This has been a a big part of the conversation we've had with the the neighborhood groups and the the community members that have been coming to the hearing sorry, our meetings. They're very they they just worked on a project nearby that really beautified another site and the fencing around it. So they already have some momentum in the neighborhood, so they really want to be involved with the design of this fence and that's something that we really, you know, want to work with them on. Right? So, not the the concerns about, I I guess what I would say is I would characterize the conversations with the community groups that we've had is that they're all supportive of the fencing and that it's gonna be an improvement. Okay. And because we have the permeable space too, we have some ability for actual landscaping too, not just the fence.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Right. And it's required by code.

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: Yeah. Absolutely.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: I should have known.

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: That helps. Yeah. That's

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: good. My there was other comment from some letters we received around signage and a request for, you know, numbers to call in the case of an emergency and sort of rules and regulations around the space. Can you expand on that, sponsor's willingness to do something like that?

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: Absolutely. Yeah. And that's something we've already committed to the to the community groups about. If you saw on the earlier image, you can see on the right side there, below the computer screen, there's a a phone number for a helpline. That's like their standard sticker. So we showed that, and obviously, there was a a desire to expand beyond that. And and beyond just having a helpline, also kind of reminders of what people how how to be respectful while they're on the site and not bothering the neighbors. So that's something that we are going to work with the community on to develop those good neighbor policies so that we can create custom signage for this site, so that folks that are charging here, are, are reminded of of those rules.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Perfect. Yeah. Thank you. Well, I'm I'm in full support of this. I'm I'm sure a charging station was never anybody's dream. But, you know, the only thing worse than a station of any sort in my mind is an empty lot. So I think it's great that we're activating it and delighted to hear that we're working through some of these issues that, that the community has. And I guess my only very persnickety comment would just be that the everything is so symmetrical in design in in the plan, and it would just be so lovely to align the canopies because they're, like, off. And that's just the the designer in me that that's that's a little annoying, but not a requirement. I I would make a motion to approve with conditions. And knowing that you're working out all these other issues in terms of and then the in terms of traffic, I wanna just make sure that that's we do the safest thing, and that causes the least amount of congestion. Those are all my comments. Thanks.

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

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Yes. I I I'll echo those comments that, you know, maybe not the the first use I would have wanted for the site, but I yeah. I've seen this for a long

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: time, this this property and how it's been vacant. So, you know, I run down Cayuga a lot

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: and and the how it's been vacant to you know, I run down Cayuga a lot on the slow street there, and this is quite close to that. I I appreciate the answers to commissioner Campbell's questions that were shared. I just have a couple of more sort of along similar lines, likely for mister Koefflin, I assume. But, I am curious about I I say the hour the allowable hours of operation are I I believe it was until 2AM, just sort of standard planning code. But, do you have a sense of what the anticipated actual hours of operation would be for this or what's typical?

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: I think it will likely be open 6AM to 2AM. And the reason is is that it's it's simply there there's no attendant, and so it's a site that can just be made available to the public for charging at various times. In talking with most of their sites are open twenty four seven. Right? Obviously, we have these restrictions here. It's not like there's a ton of charging going on between 2AM and 6AM anyway. So most of the the charging activity is anticipated to happen during the day.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: That actually leads me to my second question. You answered my question about whether it's attended or not. And then my next question after that is, when the site is closed at night, will it be gated off? Because especially with the fencing, I could anticipate this being a little challenging to see in. Or if it's not gonna be gated, what's the sort of approach to security for the site when it's technically closed?

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: Yeah. When it's not operational, that'll be a gate.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. That's that's good good to hear. That could be a real a real concern.

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: And and that would not to interrupt, commissioner, but that was a concern both of Iona and of the neighborhood. Kind of a primary concern is how do we make sure the site doesn't start being occupied by folks that or cars that are not EV chargers, right,

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: that are

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: using it for EV charging. Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Yeah. Okay. Okay.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: And then I think let's see. Lastly, on the turns, okay. So your your explanation about why the Geneva site was selected, you know, it made sense to me. And then I'm hearing that the project sponsor is willing to put in a sign in a requirement. They can only make right turns out of the site. Is that right? Absolutely. Yes. Okay. And then for the entry into the site, I don't know how far things have gotten. This might be something that has to be assessed later at permitting. But for people entering the site, are they able to turn left if they're heading what direction would it be? If they're heading eastbound on on Geneva, are they able to turn left into the site as well, crossing the WL line?

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: Presume I mean, you know, there's no there's no median there. If there's a left hand turn lane, that it's going into the intersection.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: In that

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: meeting. You could take a left out of the the left hand turn, lane.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Okay.

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: As as appropriate. Yeah.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Yeah. So I think that that there's probably a subsequent step in this to look at the turn movements and what would or would not be allowed. And that's sort of beyond the commission for our entitlements approval. But, yeah, I would just echo concerns about sort of what those those turn motions might be. And if it's it's gonna be a right turn, solely out of this out into Geneva, I think that that community concern made a lot of sense. I'm glad to hear that there would be a restriction to make right turns only on the site. And so I guess so those are all my my questions. Thank you. You know, I I do support this. I I think one of the challenges with the transition to electric vehicles has long been the challenge of people who don't have any way to charge at their own home or property. And saying this as a renter who's never had a car or a garage in the city, however, if I think about what it'd be like to try to have electric car, if I was so inclined, it would just be impossible to charge it unless more facilities like this, as well as the other ones are scattered around the city, like grocery stores, were in place. So this is, again, not my favorite use, but but it is an important, step towards a lot of our, environmental goals. And so I guess my one question would be to Commissioner Campbell. I I didn't immediately second the motion because I'm wondering if you might include a requirement, that the sponsor has raised that there be signage for right turns only out of the site and that that be the, you know, the only allowable turn motion out of the site.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: I'd like to add that to my motion.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. With that, I'll second the motion.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Commission Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: All good stuff. Signage, helpline, site maintenance, two 6AM to 2AM. I'm sure cameras everywhere to make sure that are monitored to make sure that basically, nothing nefarious is happening outside those hours. I assume grading has to be done here, and with that, your neighbor next door, Tim Holty, basically, there's a storm drain issue on the property, your shared property, and is there a commitment to actually help out with that?

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: Yeah. Thank you, commissioner. As you can imagine, a national company trying to open dozens and dozens of these around the country We're the the focus right now has just been, can we get the use approved? Right? They they have control of the site, but they don't own it yet. Right? So the the answer to your question is absolutely as I've said, there's already some structures along that portion of the property seemingly encroaching. So there's still still some issues to resolve there. But no question, Iona doesn't want a storm drain problem adjacent to its property either. So what I'm saying is on behalf of Iona, absolutely the conversation to continue with, mister Hulte at 820 Geneva.

[Speaker 47.0]: That's great.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Yeah.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams? Yeah.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: My commissioners did a great job covering all the concerns. So I appreciate that this is I I live in this neighborhood. But I wanted to Where where did mister Kevlin go? Oh, there he goes. I I I wanted I wanted to to thank mister Kevlin for, you know, working with the community. And I think, you know, it's it's, refreshing and it's and and so I I just wanted to personally thank you, for that. This is an interesting use for this particular piece of land. It wasn't something that I thought would ever go in here, and I think a lot of people that live in the neighborhood are gonna be surprised about I don't see any real opposition to this, and I think that it is needed. I happen to own an EV myself. And so, I I, I'm all in support of this. And again, thank you for to my commissioners for paying attention, to the details of this, traffic safety and, and, the other concerns that the community, presented. So I, I appreciate that. Thank you. Mhmm.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. There's a lot of comments my fellow commissioner have been questioned and all that. I do wanted to ask something specific to safety. So, John, do you mind to come up here again? I'd always have to ask you to come back here. There are public comments today, especially the one that needs a language translation. They're repeatedly emphasizing their children's and their schools nearby. And, yes, I I do notice that there are park, there are gas stations within literally the three blocks. So, is there any, traffic calming mechanism that your client plan to provide to make sure that people who walk when there's gonna be not just cars, but there's gonna be also pedestrians and whatever all the other people would choose to roll in bikes or scooters and something. Like, how I mean, it's really clear for me how you try to work with the constraint that you have with some interesting easement that is in your client's lot. And so you had answered pretty eloquently about why the entrances had to be in certain street. But I wanted to know, I've seen I have not seen any other elements in your plan that actually suggest to me that if there's any traffic calming or any more, like, pedestrian safety, kinda more like that approach that's less of a proactive approach, but it's more, like, preventive. Yeah.

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: Absolutely. And what I'll say, to you, commissioner, is that we're gonna need to work with the SFMTA because we're moving the curb cut anyway. And I think SFMTA, more than probably anyone in this room and certainly more than myself and Iona, understand what appears to be pretty complicated traffic, situations in in around this block. And so I think, we don't have any affirmative, preventative measures to propose right now, not because we don't wanna do it, only because we don't know what would be appropriate at this location. And so working with, SFMTA, both through the the curb, cut process and the and the the change of the color curb, we can work with them to try to incorporate anything that would be appropriate on-site, to help, benefit that. And if to the degree the commission has any ideas themselves, we would certainly, entertain them as well. But I think that that makes a lot of sense.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Thank you. I mean, if you don't mind, commissioner Campbell, I would like to, maybe add a comment to the motion. It's, like, strongly recommend the sponsor to work with SFMTA to provide above and beyond traffic calming, measurements, like blinking lights and crosswalk, highlighting people really trying to really you do need to slow down your traffic,

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: stuff like that.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Yeah. I'm comfortable with adding that to my motion. Yeah.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Thank you. And Sure.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: And I That's the second there. I agree. Yeah.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: I think can you don't unless you like to go back and

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: forth Yeah.

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: I'm I'm getting my steps

[Public commenters (Translated)]: into there.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Just stay here, because Yeah. Commissioner and vice president will talk to you soon. I mean, I've I've done quite a bit of experience. I try to charge my card on my row, you know, and sometimes safety is a real issues even for the customer themselves. Most of these sites have no attendance, and some of them they don't really need to because they leverage a shopping mall or a grocery store that they, in of itself, already have attendance to it. And when looking at your operating hours, it's pretty long and extensive, and I'm really familiar with that neighborhood too. It's kinda continued to, I I don't know what to say about I just felt like sometimes you might want to like, I would like to to hear from you about what beyond the the the the the big signs that this is the number you can call us, that is more like a when something happened, then there's something that you can call. Is there any proactive measurement that you can your client is preventing any crime from happening? In in other words, like, what what can I feel safe to use this to charge my car? Or how can we not overburdening SFPD? Right? So please.

[John Kevlin, Reuben, Junius & Rose (Project Sponsor Representative)]: Sure. So one, as you can imagine, it's in Iona's direct interest to ensure that you are comfortable coming to the site and feel safe in order so that you will come and charge your car there. Right? So Iona operates stations throughout the country. They've got best practices that they've developed at all of these locations. So I I just wanna emphasize one, the very the the priority point for Iona is that they want their customers to feel safe on the site. Right? So their the interests are aligned here. Right? So we have the, the helpline. We've got, you know, community, developed, good neighbor policy signage that we're gonna work on. We've also again, another great result of this community outreach that Iona was willing to do. We've already been in touch with the police captain for this beat, and, we're already coordinating in terms of how do we work with them to make sure, that, we have as efficient a process involved in terms of, getting, SFPD involved if there is an issue. I I don't wanna it was a conversation between me and the police captain. He had not expressed major concerns about security on the site. In fact, his concerns was mostly about traffic as well. So what I would say is it's an eye on his interest to make sure the site is safe too. We're gonna keep coordinating with the SFPD, to make sure. And and, of course, we have the twenty four hour security cameras, so we do have monitoring, of this site.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner vice president Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: This is a pretty obvious comment. Since electrical vehicles are hardly audible, particularly exiting from a site that is otherwise unoccupied by buildings, some audio notification would be helpful, particularly people expressed concerns about a high school and students be nearby when they chat with each other and just walk. That interface, I think, is an issue that is particularly complicated when, the cars are approaching being very quiet. That's the only thing I would say. Yeah. Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, I just want to confirm that the maker of the motion and the seconder were amenable to both friendly amendments. Yes. Great. Then there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions as amended to include, a right turn only sign and encouraging the sponsor to work with SFMTA to install traffic calming measures. On that motion, Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Hi.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Was that right?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: I think we got it right.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: That's correct. Yeah. I mean, the sponsor's committed to working on the Good Neighbor percentage as well. But I'm comfortable with them continuing to just do that. Great.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Yeah. Commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Tsao? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. And we'll place this on items 13 a and b for case numbers 2024Hyphen004318, SHD and CUA for the property at 350 Amber Drive. This is a request to adopt shadow findings and conditional use authorization. Yeah.

[John Dacey, Planning Staff]: Good afternoon, commissioners. John Dacey for planning department staff. The item before you today is a request for conditional use authorization and adoption of shadow findings for the installation of a new AT and T macro wireless telecommunication facility on the property located at 350 Amber Drive. 350 Amber Drive is currently developed with multiple buildings that serve the San Francisco Police Academy. The project site is located within a p zoning district and an OS height and bulk district in a Diamond Heights neighborhood. The project site is adjacent to two recreation and park properties, Clint Canyon Park and the George Christopher Playground. The project proposed the installation of a new unmanned macro wireless telecommunications services facility on approximately a 104 foot tall monopole located at the rear parking lot of San Francisco Police Academy. The installation includes 12 panel antennas, nine remote radio units, three tower mounted DC nine surge suppressors, one GPS unit mounted on a proposed outdoor equipment cabinet, one walk up cabinet, and one thirty kilowatt DC generator with a 190 gallon diesel fuel tank on a concrete pad. The ancillary equipment will be surrounded by an eight foot chain link fence. The project requires conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections, two hundred and eleven point two and three zero three to allow the establishment of a macro wireless telecommunications services facility within the P zoning district. The project also requires that the commission adopt shadow findings pursuant to planning code section two ninety five, determining that shadow impacts on RPD properties will not be significant or adverse. Under section two ninety five, a building permit application for a project exceeding a height of 40 feet cannot be approved if there is a shadow impact on a property under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department unless the planning commission, upon recommendation from the Recreation and Park Commission, make a determination that the shadow impact would not be significant or adverse. A shadow study was prepared by a qualified consultant, FastCast, that analyzed the potential shadow impacts of the proposed project on George Christopher Playground and Glen Canyon Park. The study determined that the proposed project would result in, new shadows falling on George Christopher Playground, increasing the shadow load by point zero two, two hundredths of a percent above current levels, resulting in total annual shading increasing from 6.59% to 6.61. The proposed project would result in new shadows on Glen Glen Canyon Park, increasing shadow load by 81 hundredths 100 thousandths of a percent, resulting in an increase in total annual shading from 13.276% to 13.277. On 06/09/2025, the Recreation and Parking Commission, in consultation with the general manager of the Recreation and Parks department, conducted a newly donated, public hearing and recommended through resolution number 2,506 dash zero zero two that the planning commission find that the net new shadow cast by the project would not be adverse to the use of George Christopher Playground or Glen Canyon Park. The sponsor hosted one meeting with the community on 04/20/2023. The department has received 13 letters in support and 42 letters in opposition to the project. The correspondence expressed support for increased cellular coverage to improve emergency response times for residents and visitors. The letters in opposition to the project expressed concerns with the project's proximity to parks and residential properties, the aesthetics of the structure, potential negative impacts on nearby property values, and possible fire and safety risks. The department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. The project will enhance the ability of the city to protect both life and protect from the effects of a fire or natural disaster by providing communication services. The department also finds this project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. Based on the site's zoning and land use, the proposed wireless facilities at a location preference one site publicly used structures according to, our adopted wireless telecommunication siting guidelines, making it a desirable location. Therefore, the department supports the proposed project and recommends approval with conditions. This concludes my presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions. I will now turn over to the product sponsor team to present. Thank you.

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

[Camille Blackstone, AT&T Director of External Affairs]: Okay. I'll be quick. Good afternoon, president Tsao and members of the commission. Camille Blackstone here from AT and T. I'm the director of external affairs. And I'm here today to respectfully ask for your support and to address any questions you may have regarding this project. Joining me today, we have several key members of our team. Eric Lentz, who's been the project manager, who can answer any questions about the application, the process, or the design. Vikram Singh, who's one of our network engineers who can answer questions about the network. And Bill Hammett who's a third party telecommunications and safety and compliance engineer who is available to answer any questions in, those subjects. This project is to address a huge coverage gap we have in that area. I don't know if you've ever driven up market to Portola and lost calls but I do it almost every day. And over the years we've explored several options in this neighborhood to address this gap. Unfortunately, none of them materialized, so we were thrilled when the San Francisco Police Department offered up their parking lot to go ahead and design our site. Also the fact that it's a preference one location. As part of the planning department's requirements, we did hold the outreach meeting and we had about 10 participants online and in person. During the meeting, we did hear a lot of feedback and we did try to address their concerns to the best of our ability. This site is critical to addressing a long standing gap in coverage in areas such as Diamond Heights, Glen Canyon, Mira Loma, Glen Park, George Christopher Playground, Upper Market. We receive complaints all the time from, public safety officers, merchants, parents, residents, elected officials, and commuters about the lack of reliable service in this area. So with your approval, we hope to build this site and meet the growing demand for service there. AT and T is committed to providing reliable and consistent coverage for all our customers including those on FirstNet which is the national first responder network. The project is an important step towards filling that obligation. So we appreciate your time and consideration, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have for the team. Thank you very much. And here's Eric Lentz, our project manager.

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: Thank you. We just got a couple minutes left here. So I just wanna run through real quick the the need for the site just to kind of orient I guess I could get a few more seconds back. Okay. Like as Cammy mentioned, this is a long this project has been going on for for quite a while to try to find a suitable location to close this gap here. I wanted to show you real quick the issue that we're having, the reason why we're here. The the map you see up there is our coverage objective map. This is in your staff report as well. As you can see, the the green and that yellow is an existing microsite nearby. That's something you'd see on top of a a pool, like a like a utility pool. And the yellow is what was considered reliable outdoor coverage. You see it's very spotty. That big gap you see in the middle, that's Glenn that's Glenn Park. Mira Loma is sort of across the across the way. So you see the gap that is that is where the issue is here. This with this site on air, this is how that gap closes. So Glen Park Canyon, Mira Loma, and several neighborhoods around around the Diamond Heights neighborhood will will have sufficient service including FirstNet for first responders. This is the existing sites around, and the two closest sites to this are are micros they're small cells. They're on poles. And the towards the West, there's a the closest macro facility is on Portola. I just wanted to show you real quick, we did look at some alternative sites that we look at by going through the city's WTS guidelines for the preferences one through seven, one being the best, seven being the least preferred. We did find there are quite a bit of preference one locations in this zone in this area. What I have here in orange or it's everything that's that would be considered a preference one. The one on the top is a subject location. The other one, there's three churches, and then there's there's Glen Park itself, which would also be a a preference one. We did reach out for many years to different property owners. Some churches just were not interested. Some of the locations just didn't provide the viable location to cover this gap. Although they they're we all know Diamond Heights, it's very hilly. There's a lot of topography. There are some locations that seemingly could be nearby, but they are not going to close this gap. The one in the red there, that's the Safeway area, which is a preference four. So preference one location, if we were to go somewhere else, I I may be here explaining why we're not going to the police station if we're on an apartment building or something nearby. And so this is sort of I plotted them on the map here. You can see there's a group of locations that are around Safeway. There is another church across Glen Park that could would have also worked. The property owner was not interested. So I just wanna kinda give you a brief rundown of why we're here. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. You need to come forward. Line up on the screen side of the room.

[Catherine Dodd]: Catherine Dodd, point of information, is this on 13 a or 13 a and b? 13 a and b. So will the will the organized opposition have an opportunity to respond? They were told they had ten minutes to respond to

[Teddy Kramer, Small Business Owner]: the presentation.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I apologize. It was continuous. So, yes. Organized opposition, you have ten minutes, but no more than three as an individual. And you must have at least three speakers present.

[Fred Randolph]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I know I have a mask on for various reasons. If you can't hear me, please let me know. My name is Fred Randolph, a seventeen year resident of Diamond Heights, San Francisco, and I'm speaking to you about the memorandum you have received in opposition to the application of AT and T for conditional use authorization to erect a 104 foot 10 plus story monopine cell tower at 350 Amber Drive, San Francisco. The memorandum was submitted to the planning department on the September 17 on behalf of multiple homeowners whose homes are situated adjacent to or in close proximity to the site for the proposed tower. This memorandum definitively refutes the items in AT and T's plan as described in the executive summary. This project includes 12 new antennas, nine remote radio units, and the equipment required to run this behemoth. The tower would literally tower over nearby homes, which are at most four stories, and over trees, the tallest of which are 80 to 90 feet tall. The only camouflage would be paint. Nothing will hide this eyesore. It will loom over nearby homes, sticking out like a sore thumb and will forever change the unique character of this community. The proposed tower will not be compatible nor harmonious with the community, resulting in a severe negative aesthetic impact, together with a substantial decrease in property values. We are not against cell towers, just the irresponsible placement of them. We are against unreasonable adverse impacts. We are for smart placement of cell towers. AT and T has not submitted any actual probative evidence of a gap in service. There is no evidence that there is a need for this tower. Without that evidence, the commission has no way of knowing whether the proposed tower would actually remedy any alleged gap or provide any benefit to the community. If they are allowed to put up the tower and it doesn't actually remedy a gap or provide any benefit to the community, AT and T will come back in six months and apply to put up another tower. What AT and T should be doing is to determine the minimal signal strength necessary based on the local topography. They should do a series of drive tests to record actual signal strength in the area. The drive test will show where signal strength drops too low to provide reliable service. This will show if there are any gaps, and if so, where the boundaries of those gaps are. If and only if the board has given this data can they make an informed decision as to whether the proposed cell tower is actually necessary or whether AT and T will come back again to request another tower. In fact, a drive test was undertaken by Hammett and Edison, an engineering consultancy, which concluded only that there were areas with slightly weaker signals, not no signals. This is far from a significant gap in coverage. Installation of that tower goes against the planning code.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Your time, sir.

[Fred Randolph]: Is that three and a half? Or that's three?

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: It's three minutes. Yes.

[Fred Randolph]: Thank you. I hope you read the memorandum. It's all here. May I submit this?

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Yes, you may.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Just leave it. Just you just leave it right here. Did you did you give the handout? I'll give it out right now.

[Betsy Eddy]: Good afternoon, commissioners and staff. My name is Betsy Eddy, and I'm the former president of the Diamond Heights Community Association, and I serve as the coordinator of Resilient Diamond Heights and the Diamond Heights Boulevard Median Project. First, I'm presenting findings from Evelyn Rose, who's the founder of the Glen Park Neighborhoods History Project, who can't be here today. The map published by AT and T showing the Christopher Playground sits on top of Gold Mine Hill is wrong. The site sits on a 90 foot deep ravine filled with 2,000,000 cubic yards of landfill from Dirk and Rot, pushed over from adjacent Gold Mine and Red Rock Hill by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency in 1960. The landfill created a flat area for the development of the Diamond Heights Shopping Center, George Christopher Playground, and the Diamond Heights Elementary School, now the police department. Therefore, the proposed monopole would stand on 60 to 90 feet of landfill, not bedrock. AT and T is completely silent about the geology of the site and how the 104 foot tall tower that may weigh up to 10 tons would be constructed and anchored into the ground. The landfill is historically unstable. In 1976, nine year old Diamond Heights Elementary School was closed because it was sinking and sliding down the hill and would be unsafe in an earthquake. Soil engineers said the landfill was sinking by 1.5 feet per year. The last document in the memorandum opposition, which I hope you got because it had 73 opposition letters. So I'm I would like Mr. Dacey to address that because overall, we have 83 plus letters of opposition. So the so the and also in your packet, which I hope you got, was a soil study by the San Francisco Unified School District that said that the land was sinking. And let's see. The recent 4.3 centered earthquake in Berkeley is a reminder that for over thirty years, studies have shown that the Hayward And San Andreas Faults are due for a 6.7, earthquake. And so 12 of our 83 letters, of opposition mentioned earthquakes. And this is this next one is important. This is what was from the San Francisco real estate division. The power source they said the power source has not been found for the tower and that it might take one to two years or not at all for a solution to be found by the SF, PUC, and PG and E. Real estate said the tower is on hold. How can you approve a plan that is on hold and there's no identified power source?

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

[Betsy Eddy]: Okay. I just want to say that because of the landfill

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: is your time. You get three minute everybody gets three minutes.

[Betsy Eddy]: Well, we do get ten minutes altogether. Yeah. I'm fine.

[Daniel Sharrock (reading letter from Dr. Kent Chamberlain)]: Hi there. My name is Daniel Sharrock, and I'm the president of the Diamond Heights Community Association. I would like to mention that our association did vote to oppose the monopole. But today I'll be read reading excerpts from a letter submitted by doctor Kent Chamberlain to the planning commissioners on 06/21/2025. His bona fides are listed in the letter itself. I'm writing to you as a former member of the New Hampshire Commission, a formal state body established to evaluate the impacts and safety of cell towers. Our findings are highly relevant to the proposed cell tower now under review. The proposed tower will be approximately 350 to 400 feet from homes and a children's playground, far closer than the 1,640 feet setback recommended by the New Hampshire com commission. The telecommunications industry now sites towers near neighborhoods that show no verified coverage gaps. Their own public facing coverage maps as well as those filed with the FCC frequently indicate strong existing service. Emergency communications are often cited to justify towers. However, cell networks can fail during high traffic situations as well. They're also more susceptible to hacking and jamming than wired networks. There are also physical dangers associated with the towers. Collapses, fires, and falling debris all pose risks to residential zones. Property values tend to decline near tower installations as well. Keep in mind that cellular lease contracts are often long term, fifteen to thirty years or more, and legally binding throughout the term of their duration. Thankfully, there are other superior options, and I encourage you to consider fiber optics as an alternative. It's safer, more secure, faster, and more energy efficient. I strongly recommend that you do not approve the proposed tower at 350 Amber Drive. I also urge you to thoroughly establish the need for a tower in that area using all appropriate data sources, drop call logs, drive tests, propagation models, carrier maps, and FCC broadband maps, which often show a 100% or excellent coverage even in the areas targeted for new installations. The evaluation of such sites should be backed by solid evidence, including signed affidavits, individual site reports, and testing methodology provided as reasons for their dismissal. When towers are installed in neighborhoods, the telecoms profit while the community pays the price for fire risks, security threats, property value reductions, and aesthetic disruptions. Speaking on my own behalf now, I'd like to invite everyone present in opposition to raise your signs and stand up, be seen and heard. A couple closing words here. Over 90 letters of opposition have been submitted to the planning department, along with the memorandum listing all the many ways AT and T did not follow San Francisco ordinances and planning requirements. Those letters and documents those letters document the real estate values will likely decrease. The geotechnical investigation was also included. In conclusion, for many of us, our homes in Diamond Heights are our nest eggs in long term care plans. It is not right. It is not fair that this proposed and unsightly 104 foot tall monopole should be allowed to affect our long term financial security. Please listen to our voices, and please see us today. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Next speaker.

[Catherine Dodd]: I was waiting for you to call public comment. My name is Catherine Dodd. I'm a registered nurse, and I'm a great I'm grateful to have the opportunity to address you. My letter, which replies to all the staff findings and refutes them, is is in the memorandum you just you received on September 18. I served as a health commissioner sitting in the very seats you're in. I also served as the director of the health service system. So I've had both a staff and a commission experience. And I realize that listening to public comments is tedious, but I want to thank you for being public servants working to preserve the beauty and character of our city and our neighborhoods based on the general plan. And thank you for carefully considering our public input on our neighborhood and its parks. I want to I'd like to point out two letters, in the memorandum you received. First, from former supervisor as former supervisor, assembly member, and state senator Mark Leno, who described the intricate considerations that need to be addressed when siting wireless telecom facilities. He concludes his memo, and I hope you've read it, his letter by saying, clearly, this is not a good location for a macro tower facility. It will ruin the unique aesthetic of the parks and the harmony of the neighborhood. I urge you to reject this proposal. The second letter is from supervisor John Avalos, who in 2010 introduced the San Francisco personal wireless service facility permits ordinance. It required antenna applicants to consider the visual impact of any installations that would diminish the city's beauty. A telecoms telecom filed a suit, but a unanimous California Supreme Court decided that facilities must comply with local ordinances that enforce aesthetic guidelines. That was upheld by the Supreme Court unanimously in 2019. And so here we are today. Here you are today. And that's why super Aveloz's letter urges the planning commission to reject this telecom structure because it will dramatically change the aesthetic nature of a neighborhood and parks. I also want to just point out that when I moved in, twenty nineteen eighty nine. We bought our place because it has floor to ceiling windows designed as part of the modernist architecture. It looks directly out onto the the the trees behind the police academy. This will require that I will look out onto a five fifty square foot electronic structure. Lastly, the AT and T packet, their documented visual elements, Case law requires that more than just public street level views be presented. It requires that views seen from residents homes. There are none. There definitely isn't mine. I hope you will vote against this. It will ruin our neighborhood. Thank you.

[Sue Hester]: Good afternoon.

[Maggie Hoppe]: My name is Maggie Hoppe. I live in Diamond Heights, Glen Park, Noe Valley area. As stated in our memorandum in opposition, I believe that AT and T's application should be denied because AT and T has failed to establish that granting the application would be consistent with the applicable provisions of the San Francisco general plan, the San Francisco planning code, and the federal law including the telecommunications act. Granting the application would violate not only those applicable provisions, but also the legislative intent upon which they are based. AT and T has failed to establish the proposed facility is actually necessary for providing personal wireless services within the area. No significant gaps have been demonstrated as in our exhibits d and e in the in the exhibits in opposition clearly show. AT and T has further not provided that it is necessary that the facility be built on this proposed site, nor have they shown that a meaningful inquiry was made as to whether the proposed facility is the least intrusive alternative. These facts along with a negative aesthetic and the financial impact this monopole would have on the residents of the neighborhood can only result in one thoughtful denial of AT and T's application. Glen Park Canyon and Christopher Field in the playground are active dawn to dusk daily use parks. Glen Park Canyon is unique. It is one of the remaining few areas of acreage in San Francisco that allows residents and wildlife to celebrate the natural features of the land with trails, massive rock formations, a creek, and dozens of 100 foot trees. This precious open space should not be treated as a utility hub for commercial use or a wasteland to be developed. We are counting on the city planners to recognize and safeguard parks and opens and open space by discouraging misuse of San Francisco land that for decades has provided necessary, safe outdoor space for families and nearby neighborhoods and for wildlife too. Thank you.

[Speaker 42.0]: Good afternoon. I'm Todd Elkins. I'm a twenty two year resident of Craggs Court by the Craggs Trailhead into Glen Canyon. My wife, Chris, runs the Craggs Community Garden, which is also sliding a foot and a half every year. And we're in the Canyon every day. My biggest concern about the macro tower is fire. Fire risk is real. It's ever present. And those of us who live by Glen Canyon are always vigilant about the risk that fire entails. It's not just a small eucalyptus grove by the academy. It's all the trees and the scrub, pines, cypress, maple willow, all the surrounding neighborhood that will burn. As we saw in suburban Sonoma and in the Southland last fall, devastating fires can start from next to nothing and rage uncontrollably in short order. Cell towers sparked the Woolsey Fire in '18, Silverado in '20, even in Brooklyn, New York in '21. In Glen Canyon, the winds howl most afternoons, which can fan any small flare up into an instant firestorm. Diamond Heights planners recognize the risk of power lines in densely wooded areas like our canyon and undergrounded power and cable throughout the area, both for beauties and especially for safety's sake. Additionally, the macro tower includes a

[Speaker 49.0]: 190

[Speaker 42.0]: gallon diesel fuel tank. Diesel emissions would roll down onto the Noe Preschool directly below the proposed site. The IARC classifies diesel exhaust as quote carcinogenic to humans. These fumes will especially endanger young children playing in the park or anyone visiting Christopher, shopping, hiking, or walking in the neighborhood. In the event of a fire, evacuation of Christopher Park and his preschool, Glenridge Co op in Canyon, and elementary schools in Glen Park, the shopping center, not to mention the entire neighborhood, will be chaotic at best and potentially deadly. The proposed macro tower will cause and contribute to a disaster, not mitigate it as is claimed in the commission's summary of findings. The tower also presents a financial risk to Diamond Heights and Glen Park residents whose homes ring the canyon. We're all touched by the state's insurance crisis, and every homeowner's insurance is on shaky ground every renewal year. If this project moves forward, our rates will go are guaranteed to go up. Many of us will have our renewals denied because carriers will not write policies for homes situated next to a fire hazard. Our housing flat values will plummet because those pardon me, because those potential buyers who aren't scared away by the fire disclosures can't get a policy, and people who do not want to live in a neighborhood neighborhood dominated by a giant power. There are over 2,000 homes and 3,000 people in our neighborhood whose lives and homes are being put at risk for what? Some minor transient signal boost for AT and T customers and AT and T profits? Who'll cover the cost of rebuilding after a major major fire and replace our home values, not A and T? We in Diamond Heights have a long tradition of fighting fiercely for its natural beauty from the Gumtree Girls to the proposed freeway through Glen Canyon

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: and the Thank you, sir. That is your time.

[Speaker 42.0]: And we vote for we ask for you to vote to protect us once more. Thank you.

[Speaker 74.0]: Good afternoon, commission commissioners. My name is Shay. I'm a second generation San Franciscan born and raised, and I've been a proud resident of Diamond Heights for seventeen years. I am here to strongly oppose the proposed 104 foot monopole at 350 Amber Drive. Diamond Heights is more than where we live. It's a peaceful, close knit community surrounded by nature. A 10 story industrial tower would permanently scar our landscape, block beautiful views, hurt property values in a neighborhood where many of us have invested our lives. But beyond that, it's a safety issue. This site sits in a grassy, wind prone canyon in a high wildlife risk zone. Adding a diesel tank and an electrified structure here is dangerous and unnecessary. We support better service, but not at the cost and safety of safety and neighborhood character. There are smarter and safer alternatives, like co locating on an existing structure. Please protect what protect what makes Diamond Heights so special, and reject this proposal. Thank you.

[Speaker 64.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you so much for letting me speak on behalf of my family and my neighbors. I'm a long time San Francisco resident, an immigrant, and I recently moved to Diamond Heights just a few months ago. We choose it for the views, for proximity to nature, for being close to Glen Canyon Park, Christopher's playground for our daughter to play in Dern. And quite frankly, we would not have bought this house if it's faced the monopole that's proposed by AT and T. And this is why I'm here to urge you to vote against it. Damon Heights is quite a special neighborhood sitting on top of the canyon and build out by world recognized architects. All of San Francisco Eichler homes, about a 100 of them, are in Diamond Heights. Building this will permanently destroy the character and uniqueness of the neighborhood, and we should not allow that. I am myself, I AT and T customer. I choose it because they have actually the best coverage in Diamond Heights. This is not a joke. I did my research. The coverage is absolutely fine, but the the point I'm making is that I would never ask for a better coverage at the expense of families living in Diamond Heights or any other community in the city. I'm urging you to vote against it and reject the proposal by AT and T. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 75.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Holly Newmark. I'm a twenty six year resident of Diamond Heights. I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. And I'm here to ask you to strongly oppose AT and T's proposal to build the monopole in our neighborhood. I apologize for some repetition, but please consider, first and foremost, is the destruction of the scenic views we currently enjoy. I, like many of my neighbors, chose this location for its character, its natural beauty, and views that would permanently be marred by this looming structure. If that tower goes up, this would be my view. Seriously. Diamond Heights was designed to preserve views and is zoned for buildings up to four stories. I understand that given this proposed location, that wouldn't necessarily be true. But the proposed structure would be 10 stories high, when everything else is four stories or less. Equally concerning is the proposed tower will have a direct and negative effect on property values. Numerous studies and real estate experts confirm that visible cell towers can reduce home values by 20%. For those of us who have invested our life savings into our homes, this is a major financial and personal concern. We stand to lose equity through no fault of our own. And especially for us seniors, we simply don't have the time to recoup this loss. Imagine that you were able to buy your home, albeit a small one bedroom condo with basically one window. And for twenty six years, you've had a view that looks out in the sky and greenery. And all of a sudden, this, simply put, ugly structure is proposed to be built right in your view, directly in your view. What if this was your home? What if this happened to your mother, your brother, your grandparent? What if this was negatively affecting your nest egg, your home, your view, your financial future, and your safety. I realize my remarks might seem self serving talking about my view and my finances, my situation. But please know there are approximately 3,000 residents in Diamond Heights, many of whom would be negatively affected by the monopole. I speak on their behalf and on behalf of many neighbors who couldn't come be here today. AT and T says that this monstrosity would not adversely affect the use of George Christopher Playground in Glen Canyon. I'm there nearly every day, and that is simply, simply, simply not true. It would totally affect the whole environment. Lastly, I urge the I urge the community to consider the impact it would have on our community. Certainly, there are alternative locations and technologies

[Speaker 19.0]: that can

[Speaker 75.0]: be said, please please vote please vote no on this proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Speaker 76.0]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Jay, a longtime resident of Diamond Heights, San Francisco, and I'm adamantly opposed to AT and T's installation of a 104 foot monopole at the site of one of the most significant parks in San Francisco. I think that Joshua and Cohen effectively describe the negative impacts this monopole will have on our beautiful neighborhood and park. Ms. Cohen is a certified arborist, a cofounder of the San Francisco Tree Council, and a former member of the Urban Forest Council, which continues to guide our mayor, supervisors, and other agencies in promoting a balanced and healthy urban forest. She states, San Francisco has one of the worst tree canopies in the country with only 13% overstory. Glen Canyon holds a unique place in our city supporting important wildlife and flora. The park should not be developed for a cell tower or any other human centric intrusion. Our natural areas in the City provide much needed relief from the ever present concrete, roads, noise, towers, electric poles, streetlights, and high rise buildings. Glen Canyon Park holds an ecological, geological, and archeological place as a Haven from the built environment and a place that feels of deep nature for the health of humans. Science studies show nature generates positive emotions, including calm, joy, and creativity. Cell towers do not have a place in our parks, and it sets a dangerous precedent for our open spaces, which are dedicated to the nature and provide a much needed natural ambiance for us humans. And the Seltar has no place in our parks any more than does mining or drilling. Destruction of the earth to dig this hole is deadly to the roots of the trees. I agree with miss Cohen, and I urge you to reject fully AT and T's application. Thank you.

[Speaker 77.0]: Hi there. Yeah. I think first I wanted to thank you for your time. This is quite the afternoon for you all, So really appreciate it. Appreciate the patience. I'll be echoing many of the things you've already heard, but appreciate you taking all that in. I am a newer resident to Diamond Heights. My husband and I moved there a few months ago. We bought our first home after working quite a while to get to a place to be able to do that in San Francisco. We love San Francisco and wanted to live in a neighborhood that had access to that natural space that felt really calm and peaceful and beautiful, while still having the advantages of everything that the city has to offer. So we're worried about the impact to home value that the construction of the monopole would have. We definitely do not want it to be put up and are really saddened thinking about the impact, the visual impact that would have to the natural beauty of Glen Park and to the, you know, the aesthetic architectural charm of the neighborhood. It's my understanding the pole will be painted brown, but it's obviously gonna be towering above the tree line, and I think it's clearly gonna, you know, be a visual blight. I'm also worried about safety, the other things that my neighbors have raised. So really would just encourage you to oppose this particular application, consider alternative sites, and thank you again for the time.

[Speaker 78.0]: Hi there. My name is Kiera Bronson. I don't have prepared remarks, but I do live in Diamond Heights. I have lived there for twenty five years and raised my children there, and I feel very passionate about this. As has mentioned as others have mentioned in the past, we have put our life savings into our home. Our home, you know, we're now getting to the point where we might retire soon and definitely don't need our home to devalue by 20% because AT and T wants to stick a big pole in the middle of our neighborhood. But even more importantly than that is the safety concern that I have. As Todd mentioned before, the fire danger, We are absolutely vigilant in our neighborhood because of the canyon and the wild grasses that grow there and the wind. And, you know, we have seen over the years, literally, my son is a little boy, saw smoke in the canyon one year because somebody had dropped cigarette butt in there. So it's very alarming, incredibly panicky as a resident to have any kind of fire danger, and the notion that there's gonna be a tank that could potentially catch fire or anything that could spark fire in our canyon is is terrifying. Additionally, the fact that the land itself is unstable, which I can tell you just from my own. I have a big retaining wall in the back of my house, and I can see the land sliding down beyond the retaining wall daily. I mean, every every time there's a big rainstorm, we lose a piece of our, you know, land behind our house. And and we are literally just maybe two blocks from I mean, we we're literally a tiny little walk right through on Craig's Court from the the police station. So I know it's happening there. I see it on the walk all the way up there and anytime I go, which is daily. And it's it's dangerous. It's I can imagine having a gigantic pole that on unstable land with that can cause fire danger among this beautiful community that we have, destroying our property values. So I urge you to, you know, vote no on this. I feel that there are many alternatives and that a giant poll for AT and T is not necessarily the the best way for our neighborhood to handle phone coverage or low phone coverage, which may or may not be the case anyway. Thank you for listening.

[Speaker 79.0]: Hello, commissioners. Thank you so much for your attention to this matter. My name is Nancy Hillen. I've lived in San Francisco for forty glorious years, and I am currently a homeowner at Diamond Heights Village, which is directly adjacent to the proposed site for the new tower. Diamond Heights is a densely populated area with many apartments and condominiums as well as homes. Our neighborhood was planned in the nineteen sixties sixties by the redevelopment agency using landfill to create a playground school, which is now the police academy, and a rec center, which is now a child care center. Christopher Playground provides a much needed respite for those of us with no yard of our own, and especially for children living in the neighborhood. Glen Canyon Park, which starts at the edge of the playground behind the police academy, is a place for hikers and wildlife watchers to enjoy open space. The proposed tower will overshadow these open spaces, towering over the trees and creating an enormous eyesore. Such a tower should not be built in a densely populated high use area where it will be experienced as an ominous overshadowing presence, casting a pall over the neighborhood. I implore you to vote no on this proposed tower, and thank you very much for your consideration.

[Speaker 80.0]: Hi, folks. My name is Zia. I'm gonna keep it short. Please vote no on this. I've got three points. The first one in the in the memorandum which you received, you'll see that it has 83 letters. Amongst them, six are from real estate realtors who have stated that this will decrease the property values. I hope that you've seen that. The second point, there are other technologies which can do the same thing, which this tower will do, which do not require such a massive structure impeding views and all the other points, which I agree with that people have already shared. And number three, the gentleman from AT and T said that this is not even their first proposed location. It's their second one. The previous one was a church, and even they said no. So, yeah, if the house of God doesn't want it, I don't know who else would. Thank you for your

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: time, folks.

[Speaker 8.0]: Hi. My name is Diane Kiefwafer, and I'm speaking on the final finding of the resolution before you. It reads, the project would contribute to the character and stability of the neighborhood and would contribute a beneficial development. This project will not contribute to the character and stability of the neighborhood, nor is it a beneficial development. Excuse me. This project will result in what one resident called aesthetic degradation in one of the fifty seven out of the 83 letters you received mentioning aesthetics. The residents expressed their concern using phrases like losing the neighborhood charm, harmony, and the balance of both residences and nature, which were specifically part of the initial design of Diamond Heights by mid century modern architects like Eichler. It

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: would

[Speaker 8.0]: be an intrusion upon the prized visual open skyline and have a shocking impact on the character of the neighborhood. 29 people made a point of of commenting on the beautiful views of the park and canyon from every direction. Residents who look out from their homes would have their views of the park and canyon ruined. Safety concerns recited in 44 letters. Fire was mentioned 38 times. Earthquake safety has been emphasized. And as we have learned, Diamond Heights Playground And Shopping Center and police academy are on landfill. This is a major liability for the city. This does not foster stability. Commercial and business sustainability is important. The merchants in the shopping center rely on this neighborhood, but as six real estate experts commented and 29 letters emphasized, the property values will drop and homes will stay vacant longer. Research documents that people do not want to live near cell towers, and this one is only three fifty feet from some residences. Moreover, it is 20 feet from the park and playground that the neighborhood was built around and that makes it attractive to families. The sky above the park will host an industrial electrical structure measuring the size of a studio apartment, not the trees and sky. Adding to decrease in value, increase in insurance costs will increase rents, making the neighborhood less affordable. Zoning limits the height of four stories. This will be 10 stories, five times the height of the police academy. It belongs in an industrial area, not a residential neighborhood directly adjacent to a playground and park. This visual disruption will be an environmental imposition on the community. Carriers are charged with finding the Thank you,

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

[Speaker 8.0]: Okay. I'm just saying this, this is not the only available viable option. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 20.0]: Steve Zelzer, United Front Committee for a Labor Party. I think we have to look at why this thing is happening. Why is San Francisco becoming a blighted city? Why are we destroying the beautiful sites that we have in San Francisco with industrial buildings? Why is AT and T getting away with this? Well, it happens to be because San Francisco billionaires and those who represent them, Scott Wiener and the mayor, Lurie, want to develop this project. That's why they've limited CEQA. So the residents of San Francisco have to understand, this is a coordinated political campaign by the corrupt billionaires to take away our rights in San Francisco, and to build projects like this. The Planet Commission says we have to do this because we are required it's it's not required that they go under CEQA. CEQA has been under attack by these same developers. They're not protecting the people and the communities in San Francisco. That's what is really behind this. So we have to remember that as these projects are being pushed forward in every area of San Francisco. And we have to organize a campaign against it, and we need a political party in San Francisco that represents the working people, not the billionaires who are driving the gentrification and the destruction of the working class in San Francisco.

[Speaker 19.0]: I'm an environmentalist commissioners. Some twenty five years ago, and we had issues like this, we fought to have an expert on the planning department. Do you all have an expert, a real expert, full time expert to address the electromagnetic field, to address the issues that the citizens have brought before you? Why are you stressing us when y'all are not fundamentally doing your job? Now I have sat down there and listened for to three or four agenda items. Y'all cannot do a needs assessment. Y'all create problems for people to come here to waste their time kicking the can down the street. Glen Park is a beautiful place, and I have seen it for the last fifty years.

[Speaker 81.0]: Every aspect.

[Speaker 19.0]: It also has some issues, landslides, eucalyptus trees. If one eucalyptus tree catches on fire, that can blow up the whole area. We know that. We have to nip these powerful people who have money coming for these permits, who can dole out millions of dollars just to get whatever they want to. San Francisco is not for sale. And let me tell you, as representing the Muwekma Ohlone tribe, each and every inch of this land was stolen, and we have some privileged people. They call themselves privileged people. You know, we can do whatever you want to. You can do nothing, and we can see this what's happening to our nation. Soon, you can see how we are losing our freedom. Commissioners, this is San Francisco named after Saint Francis. Do the right thing. Use your brains. Don't let these people come in the door offering a lot of money and fall fall in the trap. We have to have standards. We have to have morals. We have to have ethics. We have to do right. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 63.0]: I wasn't here to speak on this item, but when I saw it, I felt compelled to throw my little tooth since then. Thank you, Francisco, because I wanna underscore his remarks. But in addition to that, as my name is Shirley Thoms Fox, and I am I've been I'm a native San Francisco, been here all my life since 1957, born here. I had a crush on Chapito who was one of Santana's keyboard players. And if you know the history I mean, Tabale Tabales. And, sorry, Tabales. And he lived right up there in Diamond Heights. That space where he lived, you know, was just always iconic. But then I ended up having two nieces that moved up there because they have people that look like me up there. And there's a they're renters. So their voice was not heard today, but I'm here to tell you that they are up there and they support not having that eyesore. And it's possibly a dangerous zone just like they throw up in Hunters Point. And you won't know till later on the health impacts. So I want to say no to AT and T for that eyesore. But then I wanna leave you with this. You know, we need to stop destroying the beautiful land. The San Francisco Police Department and I worked with the mayor's office of gang prevention, we used to take young people from Bayview Hunters Point. And one of them was a kid. This young man right here was a kid. He was one of the ones. And we used to take him to the wilderness program right there to the canyon, to the parks, everything, so that they could get away from the toxicity over there in Bayview Hunters Point and breathe. And now you wanna take that away? So I urge the commission to do the right thing and to say no on AT and T. Go somewhere else. Thank you.

[Speaker 44.0]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Bart Fisher. I'm a twenty five year resident in Diamond Heights. I just wanted to say appreciate the time commissions are for community to to give to be able to give their input. And I'd just like you to consider today, people have waited around four and a half hours to talk to you today from the community, taking time off work, taking their valuable time to come here and give you their input. And I really hope that you listen to the community. Because if you think about it, all the public comment has been against this proposal. You haven't heard one member of the community that came here today to say, I want better self-service. The self-service up there works. It's not the greatest, but it does work. And I really hope that we'd listen to our community, the people that live there telling you very strongly they don't want this. And I really hope that you take that into consideration and vote no against this proposal today. Thank you.

[Speaker 82.0]: I am a long term resident. I wasn't gonna speak because I'm terrified

[Speaker 34.0]: of speaking in public, but here I am.

[Speaker 82.0]: I don't know, commissioners, if ever any of you have been in

[Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer (Planning Dept.)]: Glen Park.

[Speaker 82.0]: I know that I take one step in, and I'm transformed. It's wild. There's a stone's throw from the proposed area is a tree where now owls nest every year. There are hawks. There are I mean, it's wild. And this tower is going to blow it.

[Speaker 34.0]: That's all I have to say. Thank you so much.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Last call for public comment. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Michelle McGarry.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: So I lived in Glen Park for seven years. Randall and Whitney there, so I I know the neighborhood well. Hiked it all. I'm torn at the it's beautiful up there. Hundred years ago, people used to go up there to hunt. The lots are very tiny. The houses, their back gardens are like little slivers. You you won't get a car in there. You might get a bike in there, but it's just it's quaint. It's beautiful, but it's also very we do live in a an earthquake city. We live in a disaster city, and we do need communication, and we need communication instantly when things go wrong. And as it was said here, today, we are overdue for something going wrong, and when it does, we need communication to get everybody safe. I'm torn. I want to hear my fellow commissioners. I did hear that last person who summed it up saying that basically, not one person has come up here. Basically, for, for a tower or a pole in the middle of their park, and it's not a park, it's it's a canyon, it's it's, I wanted to hear about alternatives, possible alternatives, but I do really understand that basically we we do need a communication system that works when it needs to work because if one person not getting out for today's comments, it it would just break everybody's heart here. So I'm eager to listen to my fellow commissioners.

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

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I wanna thank all the residents for coming out. It's sometimes it's a long time to sit down and wait for your turn to speak, but I heard you, just to let you know. I happened to be up there at Saint Christopher Park or Christopher Park yesterday in the AM, and I've been through the canyon many times myself walking the dog with Jackie. It's a beautiful park.

[Speaker 19.0]: One thing that

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: troubles me about this location is the proximity to a children's playground. And yesterday, I saw at least 50 children in that new park. That that was alarming to me. And so I'm I'm not in favor of this location for the cell Tower. I I think it would like I'd like to see if there's any other alternative locations. But where it's at in terms of proximity to the park, the trail, the, the children's playground, which were there was nothing but very small children. There were, like, preschool children there. There's a school there. There's a, like a daycare school there. And so I've noticed that there's children there all the time. So that's about all I have to say about it. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. I wanted to share some of my personal experience here as a mother of, a child that I born she was born and raised here, and we always frequent Glen Park, and we love the park and how the rec center has become so nice now that she always practice there. And, while she does that, then I usually tends to take a hike up in the canyons. And it's a really great place and a lot of history and everybody is so friendly then. And there's, like, little neighborhood book sharing little kiosks, and then we always kind of take some usage of that, especially during COVID. That felt like something that we connected there. I just like commissioner McGarry, and I really think that this is a very special place, and we felt that a lot of my friends live in your neighborhood and welcome us to be there. And then it's really a germ, you know. It's really a gem. Sorry for my accent. Today, I have allergies. So this is I can feel that a lot of you take your entire day to be here today and share your opinion very understanding your concerns. And, also, we've been also receiving a lot of other emails that are supportive of that too in addition to opposing it, and and also for the reason that, some of them specifically say that they aren't able to make themselves available to be here. And I want to honor those comments too that we have received. However though, like recent years, my experience with my child had became she getting older now. She has trying to be more independent. So I also let her to be a little more independent. And so she she can practice in the rec and park herself, and I was just gonna see if when I can pick her out. And I realized that I actually couldn't get hold of her because my phone didn't really work in the canyon. And then at the same time, all the people who walk their dog in and out of the canyon start warning me that there are coyotes in there. This is during the time where it's getting dark. I see so many of you know what I've been talking about. I realize that it's not Christmas time, but all the doggies have that little glowing ring on their head on their neck because there are coyotes in there. So I as a mom myself and I was like, where is my child? You know? Because she loves pets, you know? I don't think she really can figure out which one is coyote, which one is the big dog. Right? So so that kind of a moment of worry really kind of brings me understanding, like, what what can we do better? How can we do a better job in maintaining a better flow of communication, but then also understanding community's concern about, these what we what we what we have to do to bring our city and bring some safety back into areas that, is identified that is needed, with our police enforcement. So I I felt that my, my heart really felt for the community, for the neighbors that actually show up and with our organized opposition to this. I felt for your concern. And I also want to share with you, just like someone like me as a mother actually have a child and all her classmates' friends are also frequently using the neighborhood's, Glen Park as practicing volleyball and basketball, we do have some and playing in the playground, we do have concern that we couldn't get hold of them at all. And it's not an area where you can see it all because it's so nice. It's very, hilly and it's really beautiful and it's the safety is a really big issue. We're not talking about safety with other safety concern that we would consider, like, if if if we're in the mission, but this is just normal safety. Right? Like, if my child end encounter a coyote, it did not know it was a coyote. And and so I just wanna share that with you. I felt for you and also wanted to make sure that parents like me and with kids that are like my child or even younger feel there's a sense of assurance that, it is a safe place for my for my kids to be there and continue to enjoy there. So with that regard though, I do want to share information that I think most of us know of. But if not, it's it might be good to put it on the record that, we do our commission has a certain level of limited jurisdictions because this, telecommunication tower is heavily regulated by the federal commune communication commissions. So it has preempted some authority over our local jurisdictions, like our department, over in, specifically in regulating wireless sites. There is a lot more, you can read more about that online. I just want to lay that out there. One last thing I might wanted to comment is that, perhaps if the visual aesthetic is a really big concern, I can hear it right now. And I see some of the exhibits that, I've seen that AT and T had done amazing job in other locations that we've seen in the previous applications. I wonder if someone from the AT and T can, come up and speak for it too.

[Camille Blackstone, AT&T Director of External Affairs]: I'm gonna bring up the whole team just in case because I can't answer the question. But go ahead.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. I'm just curious or wondering, some other previous application that you have has some really intricate tree looking tower versus the one that

[Camille Blackstone, AT&T Director of External Affairs]: you The Monopoly. Sure. So I I think Eric can speak a little bit about this, but I'll just try. We we did propose a tree initially. We were sort of guided against that just because it would add more bulk. And as part of the shadow study, we were really trying to streamline it. This this poll is in between trees, so we thought maybe it's better just to do the poll, but we're open to whatever the commission wants to recommend.

[Speaker 84.0]: Okay.

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: Yeah. I'll just add. You you you may be referring to so Palace of Fine Arts was something we brought to the planning commission. Right. It's been a few months. Right? That was a 90 foot tall eucalyptus tree. Mhmm. And that was Rekham Park asked us to do a a a eucalyptus tree. In that in that case, given the this was like a line of eucalyptus trees and then a pole. So eucalyptus tree in that point, in that respect, it sort of continued this sort of like row of trees. This location, I'll just say two things. One, Cammy mentioned the shadow study. So we have we have a slimmer pole, it's painted brown, similar to if you go to The Presidio, they're hard to see, there's brown poles in The Presidio. The pole itself blends into the, The the other issue is when you start doing a tree, then you sort of have to add fake branches and leaves. So if we're at a 104 feet, you need to think adding an extra 10 at least at least 10 feet to that for a a canopy to make it actually look like a real tree and not like a flat top. So in this this site, I mean, we're AT and T is here to build a network out and to provide service to its customers and for FirstNet. If the planning commission wanted a tree, we would do a tree. It's just there's other other factors at play here, and the shadow study was probably the maybe the the bigger one, but also because the height too, more shadow, more bulk.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay.

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: Hope that makes sense.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you so much for your response. Thank you. I I I don't think we can do that. It's our line of our sequence of conducting. I I ask the sponsor, but I appreciate though. They're a pleasure. Thanks. And that I I'm done with my comments, and I think I'd like to hear some of my commissioners have further comments. Commissioner and vice president Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I like I like to remind us that the approval for the AT and T installation falls under a conditional use authorization conditional use authorization, which requires a high bar that something is necessary and desirable. I have personally not heard any, large number of residents speaking about impaired service or non existing service in the neighborhood. In addition to that, we have other wireless companies, I e Verizon, etcetera, competing for the same market. We all know that. So if I would live there, which I don't, and I have an AT and T which doesn't work, I might switch to Verizon because my neighborhood is more important to me. That said, necessary and desirable, allows the commission to use the visualization of this project to determine as to whether or not it's impacting to the neighbors. And 83 letters seem to

[Maggie Hoppe]: be

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: saying that for various reasons, other than just simply the aesthetics, this particular facility in its current configuration has issues. Those issues which are of concern to me is definitely the idea of the geology of the site, that being significant fill. That is a safety issue. That is an issue that looks way beyond just the functionality of a cell tower. Further to that, I I heard that since the, backup for the tower has to be a diesel fuel tank, that that potentially adds a fire hazard, that together with the, foundation for a tower like that being in question, the power source for the, pole is apparently not even established. So that leaves a lot of technical questions, simple technical questions unanswered. And I'm going over this in a very practical manner, aside from fully understanding, the concerns and the fear you have of how it affects you. In any natural environment, one of these towers that we now have deemed to be necessary or undesirable, is is a for for me personally, a visual intrusion. Driving up to Tahoe, I see a couple of these fake. They're either palm trees or they're trying to be pine trees. You see them from afar, and whatever you see, they all look a little alien, and that's what they are and what they will probably remain in the future. Since we are in a neighborhood of of four story buildings, I believe that the sheer presence of a 104 foot 404 foot tall pole is highly questionable for me. I just cannot imagine for that to be uncomfortable for anybody. And in the past, and I've done, I've looked at quite a few, AT and T applications. We have come to negotiated and acceptable solutions that AT and T was looking at alternative sites. And in a number of cases, the commission denied something with a specific instruction that they cannot categorically vote against having additional facilities. However, alternative locations and the examination of those is essential to supporting communication and expansion of communication in all and every form. And I'm speaking for myself in its current form and giving the numerous shortcomings of the of of this proposed facility. I will not support it. I am asking AT and T to come back and please show us alternatives, alternative locations in order to achieve safety, communication that is sufficient in case of emergencies. However, it needs to be in a different form and in a different location. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I have a couple of questions for the project sponsor about the locations that were explored along the way before concluding landing on this one. So my first question well, first of all, is there a map that you're able to pull up from the presentation? Yes.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I'm gonna have

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: a computer if the computer can pull up.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: There we go. Okay.

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: Thank you. Can you see the dots? I know my text from my voice is

[Supervisor Danny Sauter (District 3)]: We can see.

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: Covering the one on the left, but

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Right.

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: You can see the the primary search objective is the area around the the shopping center where where you see a kind of a cluster of spots.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Mhmm.

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: And the church across The Canyon, because it has it had a tower, would have been viable. I should mention, we you know, talking about preference location, this is a number one preferred location in the city's code. Yes. So we the first thing we do when we search for sites is we're all the preference ones. So we go out and we go, where are all the churches in the neighborhood? Because there's a lot of churches in San Francisco that have that have sites. We had, you know, Saint Saint Nicholas, for example, was right next to the police academy. They were they were interested. There there's various reasons why things fall off. Usually, it's come it's terms leasing terms. It's also a very short roof, so it wouldn't really help AT and T very much to go on that roof. It doesn't really do and also, Vikram Singh is actually from AT and T is here. He's the he's a design design engineer for AT and T, so he can answer the very detailed questions about heights and where where we need to go. But these are locations in this area that were the most viable just from a code and sort of like a logical standpoint. Because in San Francisco, you can do wireless on single family zoning, you know, apartment buildings that have that's on single family zoning as long as which could be a preference seven. I've done sites with this commission on preference seven sites. We just have to demonstrate what preferences one through six are not viable and explain that. So there's a yellow one off to the side to the right, which is right across the street from the Safeway, that shopping center. That's a colocation. T Mobile's there. T Mobile has a microsite. For for AT and T, the colocate on that rooftop, that's an over the counter permit as a colocation. I don't have to come AT and T doesn't have to come to the planning commission to build a macrosite on top of that facility because it's a colocation.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: This is actually a great point. I'll I'll interrupt you just for a second there to say that that was one of my questions too. I'm I am curious to hear about the colocation sites that you expect.

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: Yeah. So so that's the only colocation in this area with the exception of there's, those small cell sites, which are not really collocatable in this and they're actually AT and T poles. So that site right there also with T Mobile is slightly downhill. There's if if we were looking at a topography map of this area, we all know behind Safeway goes up the hill. It's pretty steep. There's there's no line of sight from that apartment complex in in the Clint, to the into the canyon or the rest of the neighborhoods there. Really kinda after the police academy to the west, it drops down. So the other ones, there's a you see a church on the bottom right. That one's for the same reason. It's it's lower in topography. It's kind of starts to go down the hill on the other side to the to the east. The shopping center, which is the where Safeway is, there's some other buildings there too. The leasing folks had reached out to them. It's two things. First, most importantly, they they were not interested in doing a rooftop. It's pretty it could be pretty invasive doing rooftop sites on buildings. So they they declined to work with AT and T in that aspect, but they they that's that would be a preference for location. The so similar to some of the other churches, the roofs, it's also a little bit lower. So the coverage would have been a little bit harder to get, you know, into into the canyon. But just for the same reason I mentioned before, it's that's a preference four location. The police academy is a preference one location. So we're we gear towards the preference one locations just because that's what the city has has directed the carriers to do. So but yeah.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: My other thank you for that explanation of of what was explored. My other question is about the backup diesel generator. Mhmm. Am I, just to verify for my myself, that that's just backup power, is that right? It only runs if there's a blackout?

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: It's backup power, correct.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Okay. That's helpful to hear. Okay. I think those are all my questions. Thank you. Yeah. So, you know, this is an area that I know it's not like I live in this exact area. But I I I'm in it probably at least once or twice a week. The entrance to Glen Park Canyon via the George Christopher Playground is my primary entrance to the Glen Park Canyon on foot. And so, you know, it's a place that I've given a lot of thought to as well. And, I think that the one of the issues that really is kinda sticking with me is about a lot of the visual impacts of this tower. Now I would say that that that's been explored about whether or not it can be concealed with one of those fake trees. And I'm generally not in favor of that approach just because, again, as it's sort of noted, it looks pretty fake. And also if the concerns are about wind and stability, it just worsens that. And then also our shadow findings would be even worse. And so, you know, I I don't find the the artificial tree approach appropriate in this location. So I sort of understand that. As far as, you know, the the color of the tower, this brown color, I think that does help to conceal it a little bit. At least it stands out less than a gray tower. I would say I'm still actually a little on the fence about this one. And so I am I I'm still giving it more more thought. I have a few more minutes left at this point. But, you know, the on the plus side I see to this with the location of the tower, it is, as I stated, you know, one of the highest priority sites that we give, that we kind of push people towards, in terms of a public institutional location. Its location is, such that, you know, most views into Christopher Playground and into that park where the t ball field is, you know, when you're looking into that space, the tower is not as moving over that space. The shadow impact in the analysis is pretty modest. And then looking into Glen Park Canyon, this tower sits at the rim of that, not directly into the view lines into Glen Park Canyon. At the same time, I am sympathetic to the many issues and concerns that were raised by the community. And so I'm still taking this over and still want to hear from the commissioners who have not weighed in yet. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, Commissioner Braun. I do want to also share with everyone that we have received the, our, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto's in a letter sent to our commission to express his strong support for this, for public safety, citing that his department relies heavily on the FirstNet. It's a dedicated network for the first responders and public safety agency across California and and the nation. So currently, there are significant coverage gap affecting the Diamond Heights, Glen Canyon, Upper Noe, and Upper Market neighborhoods. So the the establishment of this site will address that gap. I just wanna share it to everybody that we what we have received. Alright. And, Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you, president. So, I have not received that letter from the police, from the police academy. Perhaps if you could forward that to us. Definitely. But I've not received it yet. So I'm also, you know, just like I think with other commissioners here, you know, but I I I'm in defense as to, like, you know, there as we were just talking about data earlier and then in a in a way, what's also the needs for this, looking at the page 93 of the document in our packet here, you know, one one thing that strikes to me here is the AT and T forecast customers growing demand for mobile data services to continue. And it looks like there's going to be a 38% increase. There's already a 38% increase from 2021 and expected to increase more by 2028. And that FCC has partnered with AT and T in terms of EFNET or in terms of the disaster emergency. So we're we're left on that. And again, this is from the AT and T, you know, AT and T rate of frequency statement. But I'm also weighing on I cannot under you know, underestimate the the voices of the neighbors as well that pretty much as of today, no one really spoke, in favor of it. And I have not read also any kind of, proponents for this as well. And so there is that, I mean, there is, you know so there is that kinda like the heaviness that the the the magnitude of, okay, what is being, you know, whether this is desirable in this neighborhood. And then we have pretty much a 100% of the neighborhood coming saying no. And also at the same time, looking into what AT and T needs, It seems like to me that this is more in the the growing needs of AT and T services, and perhaps and that's also with the FNET. The the one thing that perhaps I can, you know, weigh on this is perhaps really consider a colocation. For me as a commissioner, I would, you know, weigh in on the on the neighborhood's needs and also what our city needs is in terms of disaster air, disaster events. And, you know, so that's something that I would always weigh on. And in terms of the, you know I appreciate commissioner Braun asking about alternative locations. And you mentioned about the colocation with T Mobile that is pretty much on the lower slope. Can you expand on that in terms of, like, considering that and or, you know?

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: Yeah. This is the one I don't know if you can bring the map up again. But this is the the yellow over there. It's a it's an apartment complex. I think it's three stories tall. T Mobile has one antenna on a on a facade of the of the building. So it's technically well, on one of the buildings. There's multiple buildings, but it's technically a colocation. Mhmm. But the location of that building in respect to where the top of Glen Park is. There's a there's a pretty dramatic slope from Mhmm. The shopping center where where and where the apartment complex is up the hill to where there's there'd be essentially no line of sight. Mhmm. So the rooftop is so if it's like a three story building, you know, the with the code and and, you know, typically, we can go with sixty four zero nine ten feet above the roof deck. There's other elements on this rooftop as well that would prevent us from putting equipment on the roof. Just it's it's a flat roof and it has a bunch of different little articulations to it, and there's some trees right in front of it. So with sixty four zero nine, we're limited to 10 feet above the rooftop. We couldn't go 30 feet on the roof to clear trees or to clear the hillsides. So we're really limited with sixty four zero nine. It would be an over the counter permit. We wouldn't be here today if I was going there, and this would have been done ten years ago, which is when I started looking at this site. So we've exhausted all these candidates, and, thankfully, police academy came around, and they were amenable to doing a a location on their site, which is a preference one, which is better than the the colocation.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you again for reiterating your, response earlier. I again, I'm in terms of the I I think I would, you know, share the sentiment with vice president Moore in terms of looking into alternative locations. Again, for me, there's a high bar where a 100% of communities ask is opposing no to this. Well, except for, I guess, it looks like there is a letter from the the police academy.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Actually, I would like to put on the record. I don't think it's a 100%, but I think 100% attending today is Okay. We have received I have not received

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: it in my emails.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: We have received a lot of support letters throughout these months, but maybe it's kind of

[John Dacey, Planning Staff]: John Daisy, planning staff. I just wanna clarify. We have received 13 emails and letters in support Okay. That were sent to me and sent to commission secretary.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. I I I I apologize. I wanna be factually correct.

[Speaker 8.0]: Yeah.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: I apologize. I wanna be factually correct as well that there are proponents on this. And and and today, we have 83 letters, seems like it, that is opposed to this. So yeah. So I'm more leaning toward continuance. If anything, around this. And, yeah, and that's my where I where I am in right now. Thank you. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: My assumption going into this was that coverage is desperately needed in this area. And with that in mind, knowing that we have this growing reliance on having cell phone coverage and, like to Commissioner McGarry's point, in the case of emergencies, that we need to fix that. So it I think for me, it would but then we're hearing public comment that's saying, oh, no. It's no problem. We're we're good to go. So I a, can we just get that map back up and talk quickly about how the coverage for AT and T compares in this zone that we're trying to fix compared to, say, other areas of the city? And thank you, because I know you presented this already, but

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: Is this the map you wanted up?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Yes, please.

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: Okay. Yeah. This is the existing coverage map k. That was in just to let you know, Vikram Singh, he's been here. He's AT and T's design engineer. He would know way more about how to explain a map like this if you have, like, a really detailed question. But this map generally will show you that there's there's a very significant gap in the coverage here. It's been like it's been this way for quite a long time. Actually, the gap kind of extends. It did go north towards Market Street as well, but we can't get every every neighborhood with one cell site in San Francisco.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: So the gaps are areas that are not shaded

[John Dacey, Planning Staff]: in blue?

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: Correct. So the way the map reads so so green so a little dot to the right, that's a small cell site. It's on a on a pole, like, in front of your house. You'd see a pole. The green would be the very reliable, like the best. Yellow, you think it had you would it would have really good indoor, outdoor coverage. Where it gets to the purple, you kinda it's hard to see on the screen. Maybe you have screens in front of you. But on the left hand side, there's a little bit of yellow. That's coming from the Portola site, so you get a little bit of coverage over there from that site. But you can see where it's very spotty as the hills you could really see those the the spottiness in the in the purple or blue or whatever you wanna call it, that's that is a reliable reliable outdoor coverage, but not reliable indoor coverage. And anything that doesn't have either a green, a yellow, or a blue, or a purple is very limited. So that's why you could we can make out the outline of Glen Park here pretty pretty easily. Then Mira Loma is a neighborhood across. You can kinda see a little bit of coverage there.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. So it seems to me like it's desperately needed in this area.

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: Yeah. Just to mention too, because it it came up before and since we're on the map, where the green dot is, the apartment complex we've been talking before is just out just next to that existing green, so it's very close to that site. You can see how that site on the pole doesn't doesn't cover even though it's close by, doesn't cover the area that we're trying to cover.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Or if I was hiking in the canyon there and I had AT and T, which I do, I I would have a hard time making a call.

[Eric Lentz, AT&T Project Manager]: Well, that means my experience too, if you're coming down O'Shaughnessy, if you're in Safeway, I've I do a lot of sites in San Francisco, and sometimes I have to jump on a Teams call, and I do it for my car. My car has AT and T service as well. So I try to find a parking lot to pull into, and I've been stuck in this area before. I go, I need to leave Diamond Heights and find a location on Portola to be able to do my Teams call. I mean, I've done that quite a bit in the city. K. We tend to know where the where the gaps are. Mhmm.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Excuse me, folks. Okay. You're you're all out of order. Alright? This is just a question period between the commissioners and whoever they're posing the question to. You've all had your opportunity to submit your public comment, as well as your written submittals throughout the week.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Those are all my questions for you. But Sylvia, I think I have my next question is for you. Could you expand a little bit on the federal laws that might be coming into play here in in terms of what's before us?

[Silvia Jimenez, Deputy City Attorney / Wireless Team Lead (Planning Dept.)]: Sure. I think it was as was described earlier, and good afternoon, commissioner. Silva Jimenez. I'm also the wireless team lead for the department. You know, the FCC does preempt us from taking certain actions. One of them is the basis of denial for anything related to the EMF, so the radio frequency. That, unfortunately, is not something that can be used as a basis for denial. Another thing to take into consideration, which we've talked about in the past, are shot clocks. So just one thing to consider, there is a hundred and fifty day shot clock that does come into play that was determined by the FCC. This application was submitted at the late of last year, and we are kind of bordering that timeline. I don't know the exact date. I can certainly try to find that right now, but I can tell you we're getting close to it. So just in and as you're having a conversation about continuing the item, it's something to consider.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. Yeah. Well, I I thought I had clarity on this coming into this hearing, but I I agree this is this is a hard this is a hard one. I I appreciate everyone coming out and hearing the testimony. It this is, in many ways, like a necessary evil though, I think. In that, I think we do need to address the coverage. And so I think I'm going to support this

[Lawrence Lee]: Of course.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: With hesitancy, but I

[Speaker 20.0]: Support the billionaires.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Would would you please Yes. Just a little order here in the room.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Appreciate it.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: I really appreciate if we all can respect each other's opinions and perspective. I really do appreciate that. We're also here, though, as a volunteer to serve, and I do believe that my fellow commissioners' point of view is not we're not going to be like, please respect my fellow commissioners. I really appreciate you all to be here. Okay. Thank you, commissioners. And Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Has there been a motion, put forward?

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: If there has, I I didn't hear it.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I'd like to, forward a motion to deny the project. Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Typically, when there isn't a motion for disapproval drafted, unless you can articulate findings, we should probably, continue make a motion of intent to deny so that staff can, draft findings for disapproval. Again, unless you can articulate the reasons why, you are denying the project today. So I I guess I'm asking, do you wanna make it a motion of intent to disapprove?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yes.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. And continue this matter for a couple weeks to let staff draft that motion. Yeah?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Right. Okay. On that motion of intent to disapprove and continue to October 10, commissioner Campbell?

[Sue Hester]: Name.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Wait. Wait. Do I have a second?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Oh, sorry.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Did some yes.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Oh, I'm sorry. There's still more deliberation there. Do you want me to call that question?

[David Hooper, New Mission Terrace Improvement Association]: Yes. You seconded his Yes. I just called the question.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I I do have a question though. There was a the mention of the matter of of the shot clock. Is is are we still within the the shot clock time, for the October 10?

[John Dacey, Planning Staff]: John Dacey, planning staff. I do wanna say we have gone beyond the hundred and fifty days. The processing time for this project took quite a bit longer looking at shadow impacts and looking at design. And there were some revisions made regarding that that shadow study and that kinda elongated the time, and that's why there's twenty twenty four applications finally being heard today.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yeah. This project also came before us how many months ago? How when we first in June. So there there was plenty of time, I mean, to to bring it back around. I I I feel strongly about about the motion that I made. And

[Lydia So, Commission President]: so Thank you. And, Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: For me, this goes back to FirstNet, and it goes down to it it comes down to safety. It comes down to basic communication, to get people to get people out, in a time when you have to get people out, and you have to have coverage. You have to have communication. I know the diesel the diesel generator is there for an absolute backup, and the fire's up north. Those diesel generators went they weren't they went poof, you know, if people didn't steal them. So but there's that infrastructure and that bow backbone just has to be there because the alternative is basically people, at the very least, getting hurt. And, so for me, it it all comes down to FirstNet and people's awareness to get out, ability to get out.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: And commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Yeah. I think I do need to take a position on this, obviously. And so I think what I've been spending a lot of time thinking about in addition to taking in, what everyone has shared is is the visual impact of this tower. And I know that there were some it's only four, but there were four, visual simulations provided for the site and that it's also possible, you know, to sort of envision from different angles as well. And as I said, I have been torn on this. And honestly, a lot of it has come down to visual impact on a green space in many ways. The more I look at this and think about it, I actually I feel that the visual impact actually is fairly modest. I know it's gonna be a very unpopular opinion, folks in the room. But, yeah, I think my my main concerns are not, you know, they're kind of counterbalanced by the other, all the other factors that went into play into this and the preferred site. The things have been mentioned by commissioner So and McGarry about, you know, FirstNet part of this as well. And then the studies that have been brought forward as far as the gap in coverage and also the exploration and working with other property owners to try to come up with a site that was a little less intrusive. But ultimately, I'm going to support the project's approval. So I will not support the, motion to deny. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded, made, as a motion of intent to disapprove and continue this matter to October 9 on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Speaker 8.0]: Nay.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Nay. Commissioner Williams? Yes. Commissioner Braun? No. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Tsao?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Nay.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: That motion fails three to four with commissioners Campbell, McGarry, Braun, and Tsao voting against. Is there an alternate motion?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I move to approve.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: I second it.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: On that motion to approve, commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Nay. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? No. Commissioner Moore? No. And commission president so? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes four to three. Commissioners, that will place us on items 14 Yeah. 15 a through e.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Did you wanna keep going?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: No. I'm just powering through. But I think maybe people could take, like, periodic breaks. I mean, I guess people need a couple minutes to flow. So if you wanna just ask. I don't know. I'm fine

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: with it. Just I'm fine with it. Just I'm fine with it. Just I'm fine with it. Just I'm fine with it. Just I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it. I'm fine. It's just Yeah. Are you taking a recess?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: I'm not doing this. It's definitely

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Yeah. They're all asking me. Right. Alright. Excuse me, folks. We're still in session. So we're going to call the next item and proceed. So if you could please take your conversations outside or take a seat silently. Thank you. Items 1415AThroughE. For case numbers 20Fifteen-one20Four-nine-one ENV, PCA, MAP, DVA, CWP, and CUA for the San Francisco Gateway Project at 749 Tolland Street and 2000 McKinnon Avenue. Commissioners, you'll be considering certification of the final environmental impact report, adoption of findings, planning code, text amendment, map amendment, development agreement, adoption of the Gateway Special Use District's design standards and guidelines document, and a conditional use authorization.

[Gabriela Panto, Planning Department Staff]: Great. As of go, can we get the laptop? Thank you, Jonas. Alrighty. Good afternoon, president Zoh and commissioners. Gabriela Panto, department staff, and current planner on the San Francisco Gateway Project, also known as 749 Tolland Street and 2000 McKinnon Avenue. I'm joined today by members of the project sponsor team, including Courtney Bell, director of development with Pelagis, and other city staff including Elizabeth White, Deborah Dwyer from our our environmental division, Trent Greenan, our staff architect, Josh Witske and Dylan Hamilton, from our city wide division. And we're also joined by our colleagues at the Office of Economic Workforce Development, Susan Ma and John Lau. We're all excited to be bringing this project before you all today. This project has been in the making for a number of years. First, I'll get you guys a little bit orientated. Thanks thanks, Liz. Of what we'll do through go through today on our joint presentation for staff and project sponsor. First, I'll provide you with a little bit of context on the subject properties and describe the overall project and identify the items before you all today. Then my colleagues at OEWD will describe the policy framework that drove the DA process and the culmination of that process including the community benefits that this project will deliver. Then this project sponsored team will describe the goals and objectives of the project and their community engagement process throughout the last couple years. Then we'll jump right back into the entitlements and legislation that are before y'all today. Then our EP staff will walk you through the final environmental impact report that's before you, and then we'll conclude with our recommendation for the project. Thanks. So today, there are a total of six action items before you all. The first item being the certification of the final environmental impact report. Thereafter, the adoption of the CEQA findings, including the MMRP, the mitigation reporting program. Then we'll have an ordinance to amend the planning code to create a special use district for the SF Gateway and change the height and bulk district from 65 j to 97 x. Then you'll have a development agreement between the city and Prologis and a design standards and guidelines document. And then lastly, we'll have conditional use authorization for a planned unit development. To begin, some context for the project site. The project site is located within the city's Southeast region within the Bayview neighborhood and is composed of two city blocks that make up approximately 17.1 acres in size. The site is bounded by Tollan Street on the West, Rankin Street to the East, McKinnon Avenue to the South, and Kirkwood Avenue to the North. It is bisected from north to south by Shelby Street on the street level and then Highway 280 above. The site is currently developed with four independent structures that make up approximately 448,000 square feet of PDR, and three of those four buildings are currently occupied. As for the project, the proposal consists of demolishing the four existing PDR buildings and construction two new mixed use PDR buildings up to 97 feet in height, that will total at 8,400 square feet of retail sales and service and approximately, 1,637,000 square feet of PDR uses. The project is to be developed in two phases, one phase for each building and will be designed to provide the ultimate flexibility for future PDR tenants, with built in vehicle circulation, ramping, loading, and off street parking spaces. At full build out, the project will include a total of 125 off sheet parking spaces, over a 100 bicycle parking spaces, eight showers and 48 lockers throughout the development. And along with the modern PDR buildings being constructed, the project will also include streetscape improvements in the media adjacent area and the greater neighborhood, including new paving, ADA ramps, actual sidewalks, crosswalks, street trees, bicycle parking, and passenger and commercial loading spaces. And the project will dedicate approximately 3.9 acres of property to the city that will align with what is being proposed in terms of street improvements for public and private. Alright. Now I'll turn it over to Susan, and John who will go through the DA.

[John Lau, Office of Economic & Workforce Development]: Thanks, Gabby. Good afternoon, commissioners. John Lau with OEWD. Before I pass it off to my colleague Susan and then the Project Sponsor to talk about more specifics of the project before you today, I just wanted to spend a second setting the policy context for the conversation that we'll have today. So some audience members may recall the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning effort, which is coming on now almost two decades ago. But a main charge of that effort was to assess the industrial zone land in San Francisco, the then dwindling and now still dwindling remaining industrially zoned land, assess which areas were already transitioning to mixed use or other predominant land use patterns, in which areas were still sort of core light industrial in nature. And we wanted to keep that way and adopt appropriate zoning mechanism to go ahead and protect that industrially zone land. And that was all based on the policy, determination at the time that these light industrial uses that we call PDR, production, distribution, repair, are of value to have within our city boundaries in San Francisco, that they are related to other sectors, the local economy. They provide direct services. Many of them are related to the critical infrastructure of our city. So there's value to having them in San Francisco and that we want to keep space available to them. So obviously, this project fits well within that policy framework. It's a it's a PDR proposed project within a predominantly PDR neighborhood zoned as such. And then the next slide, if we could. And it's physically located also in this Northwest industrial, district of Bayview Hunters Point. So, a neighborhood that we've come to refer to as the Market Zone, so named for the wholesale produce market, which is located at the center of of the neighborhood. And just a quick note that, OEWD along with, some of your staff commissioners are taking a look, at this neighborhood, working with stakeholders, in and as they call themselves, the marking zone working group, producing a report upcoming that sort of tells the story of the important things that happened in this neighborhood, the nature of the light industrial activities, and how we can continue to support those. So the Prologis in this case is has been a key stakeholder in that conversation, and they're actually a supporter of that report and study as well. So like many DA projects that we come before you with previously, there are former industrial sites where perhaps we're partnering with a development entity to transition to a mixed use neighborhood or help support, the development of a whole cloth new development. This is not one of those. This is an industrial project proposed in a predominantly industrial neighborhood supported, again, by the zoning. And and and for that, still, we have been able to negotiate a public benefits package, which you'll hear more about right now, which represents over $70,000,000 in value. So I think that's really been a testament, in part to this developer's commitment to the neighborhood and the Bayview more broadly, and their willingness to listen both to, the city as part of this effort and, importantly, to the community. So I'll be here along with others for questions. Susan?

[Susan Ma, Office of Economic & Workforce Development]: Thanks for that context, John. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Susan Mahn. I'm also a member of the OEWD team. And before I jump into what is included in the development agreement, I want to take a minute to talk about what a development agreement is. At a high level, a development agreement is a contract between the city and the developer that grants the necessary development rights to execute a project. It codifies the project's specific uses, designs, regulations, and policies. A DAA can be used on any type of land or project and, once finalized, remains effective on the project site, even if the site is sold to another owner. DAA projects provide significant public benefits that are responsive to the neighborhood's needs and tailored to the project itself. These projects are typically constructed over longer periods of time and in phases. It's always our goal to have a balance between maximizing public benefits and the project financial feasibility to ensure that projects can be implemented and deliver the benefits that were negotiated. Okay. So city staff, in partnership with the supervisor's office, have worked closely with community stakeholders to ensure that the sponsor, firstly, took the time to learn about the history and residents of the neighborhood, and secondly, come up with a benefits package that reflects what they've heard from the community. I will share some of the highlights of this package, and the project sponsor will go into further detail about the community process that got us here. Commissioners, you should have received over 30 letters of support for this project. That is a result of the time and effort that they put into this process. Okay. So now for the benefits. The community benefits package will deliver an estimated $70,000,000 investment in direct support, fees, in kind services, and physical improvements, most of which will be targeted to the project vicinity and the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhoods. 8,000,000 of that will be direct contributions in support of workforce development, youth education and childcare, neighborhood infrastructure, and small businesses. There are workforce development agreements for both First Source and local hire and construction and operational jobs, and a strong LBE utilization plan with direct opportunities for baby Hunters Point businesses. And something to note is that this is the first privately funded project that has included a micro LBE goal, ensuring small local businesses will have the opportunity to work on this project. Beyond the direct community benefits, the city anticipates positive fiscal impacts to the budget, over $16,000,000 in one time development impact fees. At full project build out, we are anticipating approximately $7,000,000 annually in net new general fund revenues. And at full build out and operations, an estimated $514,000,000 in new annual spending in our economy. So So this project has an ability to make an impact not just in Bayview, but also citywide. I'd like to take a moment to invite Courtney Bell, ProLogistix Vice President of Development Management, to give the sponsor presentation, where she will speak more in detail about the community process, benefits, and building features. John and I will be here should you have any questions. Thank you for your time.

[Gabriela Panto, Planning Department Staff]: Yeah. Or you could use this now.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I'm sorry. Is this the project sponsor now? Yes. Okay. You have ten minutes.

[Courtney Bell, Prologis (Project Sponsor)]: Good afternoon, president So and commissioners. My name is Courtney Bell. I'm a vice president of development at Prologis. We are a global real estate company founded and headquartered here in San Francisco for over forty years. I'm thrilled to be here to present a state of the art PDR project with an emphasis on sustainable and innovative design. The SF Gateway project is will invest in one of the city's most deserving communities and in one of the last remaining PDR districts. This project builds much needed space and infrastructure for businesses who play a critical role in the success of this city. This project will transform the area and thoughtfully invest in the future of the Bayview Hunters Point community. Throughout this process, we have worked alongside various city departments to lay the groundwork and structure to achieve this vision. Before you is a project, among other approvals, with an EIR, an SUD, and a development agreement. The EIR found no significant impacts with mitigation. The SUD overlays the existing PDR two zoning and provides for a flexible set of uses, allowing Prologis to meet the long term needs of businesses. The development agreement delivers an extensive set of community benefits developed directly with the Bayview Hunters Point community. The project has been shaped by years of collaboration with community stakeholders. We have hosted large public meetings, presented before the Bayview CAC several times, earning their support, and worked alongside many local organizations. We have and will continue to learn from the Bayview Hunters Point community and its leaders. This collaboration has led us to connect with over 30 neighborhood organizations in over a 100 stakeholder meetings. We have developed key partnerships with groups that are growing leaders in the community, such as the SF hyperlocal contractors group and the market zone working group. Through this network of community stakeholders, we formed a project specific advisory committee To dig deeper into the project's approach and community benefits, neighbors and community leaders agreed to work alongside the project team to develop a benefits package that reflects the needs and priorities of the community. For the past eighteen months, the advisory committee has shaped the project in meaningful ways. Our team is grateful for the effort each committee member has put into this process. We have learned from you, the project is better from your efforts, and we look forward to continuing this collaboration. All of these layers of community outreach have led to a comprehensive benefits package. Our vision goes beyond the buildings. It extends to both physical and community infrastructure. Our collaboration with stakeholders is reflected in a number of unique and exciting ways here. When several community members emphasized the need for child care and support for students affected by COVID related learning loss, the project responded by including targeted support in both affordable childcare access and early education programs. Through input from local business owners, we have two exciting programs. One is the first affordable PDR program in the city. Two is grant funding for small businesses throughout Bayview Hunters Point. Building on our commitment to sustainability, we will support the city's climate equity programs to aid Bayview Hunters Point organizations who are driving an equitable transition to clean energy. With our partners in the construction trades, we are proudly committed to union labor with a strong project labor agreement. The project has two firsts in the area of small and local contractors. We are the first to develop an agreement directly with the SF hyperlocal contractors, and we are the first private project, as Suja mentioned, to provide funding directly to CMD's contractor development program. In the Market Zone, we have prioritized streetscape and infrastructure improvements to address long standing needs. The project's infrastructure investment totals over $48,000,000 enabling a significant and much needed transformation. The project is not just a new development. It's a response to a long standing need in one of the last remaining PDR zones in the city. The Market Zone is already home to dozens of businesses that play a vital role. They range from critical food infrastructure, production and distribution, and many city services. Investments in these streets and infrastructure here will preserve the ability for businesses to continue and will have benefits that span beyond the immediate neighborhood to those that rely on them. SF Gateway is a first of its kind project that gives the ability for San Francisco to set the bar high nationwide. What's key to making the investment in this project work is the flexibility of uses and innovative multistory design. With thoughtful site planning and ramps for on-site circulation, the design accommodates a variety of business businesses and is designed with rooftop solar to generate renewable energy on-site. The project is interconnected with the benefits it provides. Ground floor space provides a home for the affordable PDR program supporting local makers. The project fully builds out the surrounding streets and pushes this investment further by funding the SF market and the SF and the market zone improvements. The scale and flexibility of the project's design allows for the construction of 1,000,000 square feet of PDR space, creating 2,100 union construction jobs and once built 2,000 on-site permanent jobs. The project prioritizes residents for jobs where they can build and work in the neighborhood that they live in by providing access to workforce training programs. We are making bold commitments to sustainability and resilience. The project commits to pursuing LEED gold and net zero carbon certification. These commitments center around a significant rooftop solar array, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and energy efficient design. We are excited to bring this opportunity for Bayview Hunters Point to set a new bar and bridge toward a more sustainable and clean future.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: The project's

[Courtney Bell, Prologis (Project Sponsor)]: infrastructure and street improvements are significant in an area with critical need. Here, shown in green, are blocks where the project will transform crumbling asphalt to brand new streets, complete with new sidewalks, street trees, and street lighting. This investment of over $35,000,000 will be a transformation for the project and the market zone. To expand this reach, we are also directing $5,000,000 of funding for improvements throughout the market zone, supporting the SF market reinvestment plan, and working with OEWD on the infrastructure needs assessment for the Market Zone as a whole. These improvements will transform bleak patches of asphalt into what you see here, a safe, engaging streetscape demonstrating what a modern PDR neighborhood should be all about. SF Gateway is a community driven investment in the city's economic future. The project builds on years of planning and represents what's possible with strong commitments and collaboration with the Market Zone and Bayview Hunters Point communities. Thank you, commissioners, for your time today. I'd like to thank city staff and community leaders who have collaborated with us over the years. The project is better because of you. We look forward to building a stronger, more resilient San Francisco together. Thank you.

[Gabriela Panto, Planning Department Staff]: Thanks, Courtney. Alright. Alright. Jumping back into the action items. As mentioned, the project requires a zoning amendment to both create the San Francisco Gateway Special Use District and rezone the subject properties from 65 j shown in blue to 97 x. I did wanna note that the special usage will serve like an overlay zoning district and will not alter the existing underlying PDR two zoning district for the subject properties. Rather, the PDR two zoning district controls will remain in effect unless it's stated otherwise in the special use district. District. For these controls that are different, summarized here, a few points. Number one being that we are requiring a conditional use authorization to build buildings within the subject properties. We are gonna principally permit private parking garage uses within the special use district, and we are gonna principally permit partial delivery service up to 225 square feet, thousand square feet of occupied floor area and conditionally permit partial delivery service beyond that. Now I do wanna note the language, that you see before you today is different that was from that initially, from our hearing earlier this year. Whereas back in May, the language read that the partial delivery service was principally permitted with no cap on size. Since May, the project sponsor team and committee members have engaged in conversations and the language that you see before you today related to partial delivery is a result of that. Moving on to item three, and we are gonna allow 8,500 square feet of retail sales and service. We are changing the ratio allowed for off street parking for both retail sales and service and all other uses. And then we are gonna defer to the DEA as it relates to street improvements and the transportation demand management, but this is to surpass their actual requirement. So they're providing more than is currently required under the code. And then number seven, we are gonna allow additional building height exemptions, that are otherwise permitted by the planning code and curling infrastructure for solar and EV at the roof level that you might have seen some of the images for the project. And lastly, we're gonna outline the design review process for the development, including methods to request major or minor modifications, and incorporate the design standards and guidelines document. Now as for that design standards and guidelines document, this document will provide a framework for any future development on the subject properties. The DSG speaks to items like land use, like where we wanna see certain types of land use including like retail and PDR makerspace. I definitely wanna try to activate that ground floor. The DSD also talks to things like pedestrian oriented street frontages. So what does that space at the Ground Floor actually feel like? You know, transparency, awnings, that kind of thing. And then also it speaks to articulation and screening. So what the buildings we want it to look like in terms of, you know, facade work, things like that. And screening a vehicle because there is gonna be a lot of vehicle circulation within this project, screening that from public view. Now unlike with most DAs where we develop and adopt frameworks and then see design applications come forward at a later date, this project already has put those frameworks into place and they've come forward with the building design before you today where they're seeking approval for conditional use for a planned unit development. Under the planned unit development, the project seeks exemptions from awnings, car share, and vehicle area screening and greening, to achieve the proposed building design. Now I'll turn it over to, my EP folks that will walk you through the final EIR.

[Liz White, Environmental Review Coordinator (Planning Dept.)]: Thanks, Gabby. Hello, president Tsao and commissioners. I'm Liz White, environmental review coordinator for this project. The first item before you is the certification of the final environmental impact report or EIR for the project. The slide here shows a timeline of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. The planning department issued a notice of preparation and initial study in spring twenty twenty two, published the draft AR in August 2023, and scheduled a public hearing on the draft AR in September 2023. We published the responses to comments or RTC document on May 7. That document responds in writing to all substantive comments received on the draft EIR during the public comment period. Now we're here asking the planning commission to certify the final EIR, which consists of the draft EIR plus the RTC. The draft motion to certify the EIR is before you. As the sponsor team described, the project would provide a flexible PDR space that can accommodate a mix of users or tenants. Comments on commenters on the draft EIR correctly noted that the document does not specify specific end users. This is because one of the sponsor's objectives for the project is to develop a flexible PDR facility for an evolving range of uses. The draft AR identifies specific use types that are anticipated to occupy the SF Gateway facility. And for the purposes of environmental analysis, it was necessary to develop reasonably conservative use mix based on the identified use types. This slide shows the assumptions that the project's EIR analysis is based on. By evaluating a conservative use mix, it is anticipated that the physical environmental effects of the actual tenant mix would be less severe than those identified in the EIR. As part of the project's special use district, the planning department will review permits for future uses against the EIR's assumptions to ensure that uses, including square footages, are consistent with the analysis in the EIR. The environmental analysis in the draft EIR including the initial study found that the proposed project could result in significant impacts to wind, operational noise, paleontological, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources, and operational air quality. Specifically, the EIR found that the project would result in potentially significant criteria air pollutant impacts, a regional impact due to NOx emissions from the operation of heavy duty trucks. All significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Impacts to other topics would be less than significant. As there are no significant and unavoidable impacts, the commission is not required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations should it choose to approve the project. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR would reduce all project impacts to lessen significant levels. For example, the EIR identifies nine individual measures to mitigate the project's air quality impact, including but not limited to requiring all yard equipment and transportation refrigeration units to be electric, a prohibition on the use of older model year trucks, compliance with Cal Green tier two building standards, and implementation of an operational emissions management plan to ensure that all project emissions remain below thresholds. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program or MMRP is designed to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The project sponsor is required to implement the MMRP as a condition of project approval and the department will monitor its compliance. Staff would like to specifically acknowledge that the department received comments on the adequacy, feasibility, and enforceability of mitigation measure MAQ3I, the operational emissions management plan or OEMP. The OEMP meets the standards for adequate CEQA mitigation as specified in the CEQA guidelines and supported by case law for the following reasons. One, the project sponsor through an agreement with the city has committed to implementing the measure. Two, the measure identifies a specific performance standard that must be met. The achievement of the air district's quantitative thresholds for operational NOx emissions. Three, the OEMP provides a list of feasible emissions reduction measures that have been modeled to show that they would be effective in reducing emissions and that could be implemented to meet the defined performance standard and also provides a detailed framework for the reporting of emissions and requirements that the emissions reduction measures identified through the OEMP process be incorporated into lease terms for individual tenants of the project. For this reason, the OEMP is not considered deferred mitigation. The EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives that would minimize or avoid the project's environmental impacts. The EIR evaluated the CEQA required no project alternative in addition to three other alternatives described in further detail on this slide. The fleet management use mix alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce the air quality impacts of the project to less than significant levels. During the draft aarcom public comp public review period, the department received comments from 29 individuals and organizations, including comments and questions related to air quality, transportation, the project description, and other topics shown on this slide. The RTC addresses all substantive written and verbal comments on the draft EIR. The RTC document is focused on the sufficiency and adequacy of the draft EAR with respect to disclosing the significance of the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project. Following publication of the RTC, the department received three letters regarding the project's environmental review. Staff reviewed these letters and determined that the comments do not alter the conclusions of the project's environmental review. In summary, the draft AR and the RTC comprise the final EIR. The final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the department and provides decision makers and the public with information to understand the potential environmental impacts of the project, project alternatives, and mitigation measures. The EIR complies with CEQA, the CEQA guidelines, and chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code and is adequate, accurate, and objective. We respectfully request you certify the EIR. And now I'm gonna turn the presentation back to Gabby.

[Gabriela Panto, Planning Department Staff]: Thanks, Liz. Okay. In conclusion, the department recommends the following actions. Certification of the final environmental impact report, adoption of CEQA findings, including findings rejecting alternatives as infeasible, and adoption of mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Recommend that the board of supervisor approve the proposed ordinance as introduced to amend the planning code to create the San Francisco Gateway Special Use District at the subject properties and amend the zoning maps to illustrate the subject properties from 65 j to 97 x. Recommend that the board of supervisors approve a development agreement between the city and Prologis. Recommend that the commission adopt the San Francisco gateway design standards and guidelines document. And lastly, recommend the adoption or approval of a conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections three zero three and three zero four for a planned unit development. The department recommends, the aforementioned because the project will construct approximately 8,400 square feet of retail and over 1,600,000 square feet of PDR space within an orderly, predominantly commercial industrial neighborhood, near major highways and that creates local business and job opportunities for both skilled and unskilled workers. The project will implement a transportation demand management plan and facilitate streetscape improvements that include new sidewalks, paved streets, crosswalks, and commercial and passenger loading zones. And lastly, the project's development agreement will provide a substantial public benefits to the area including providing educational and art resources for residents, providing affordable opportunities for local businesses, providing improvements to the streetscape and infrastructure, including public transportation, and provide funding for job training and job opportunities. This concludes staff's presentation. We're all available for questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. If you'd like to speak, please come forward and line up on the screen side of the room.

[Speaker 19.0]: Commissioners, my name is Francisco Da Costa, and I'm an environmentalist. I have worked very hard for the community for fifty years. I have reviewed hundreds of disposition and development agreements. It's how you do it. While I have intently listened to every word that was in this presentation, The leading leaders with whom I work have very little knowledge about this project. Now this project, as I see it, has two two parts, the construction part, and whoever the company will be, Amazon or whatever, they're doing their things. And we, the community, have not participated in exactly how everything will be done. I have two friends here. One is a union person, Rudy. I trust him. Another is a person who hates contractors. I've known him for ever since he's been a young man. He's not going to he's not going to cheat me or or lie to me because nobody lies to me. Your commissioners have failed us on Lennar, where apartments were built in an area that was contaminated. You commissioners can hear the word sickwa, but we need the data on the air. We need the data on how many of our children, infants, children, youth are slowly dying of other diseases and why. We need career jobs, and we need to find out where the people will leave the workers. It's very it's very difficult to live in San Francisco. So how how will this training be done? How will the workers work? And as far as the construction is concerned, I can leave it to the unions. I can leave it to my friend Thank you, sir. Demetrius.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, sir. That is your time.

[Speaker 19.0]: And thank you very much, commissioners, for listening to me. It was very difficult for me to come to this meeting, but I came here

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, sir.

[Speaker 19.0]: Just to to represent the children. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 20.0]: Yeah. Steve Zeltzer, United Front Committee for Labor Party. So I I don't expect any surprise from you commissioners, the majority here, because you represent the billionaires. You represent Lurie, you represent Hamed Moghadhan, who is the owner of logistics, ProLogistix, who wants to build a major union busting Amazon facility here in San Francisco. This is the Trump agenda right here in San Francisco. Let's build a big Amazon facility and have people come in from other places because they can't afford to live here. Why not support have the billionaires have housing for working class people in San Francisco? They're gonna have to drive in because they can't afford it on the wages they make in this nonunion operation. You're pushing it. Now, what is the situation of the environment? You have the highest asthma rate in Hunters Point Bayview. Contamination, that will increase as a result of the trucking that's coming into San Francisco. What is the department of public works done about transportation in San Francisco? They're cutting services for the buses for working people in San Francisco, but they're gonna build a major artery for Amazon to bring more trucks and more workers coming into San Francisco at this facility, who are gonna be non union because of the union busting Bezos, who you're supporting in this project. This is not gonna help the people of San Francisco, and it's a racist campaign against the people of Hunters Point Bayview. That's what this is. And that's who you are. That's who you are. The billionaires who own San Francisco don't give a damn about the working people, the black and brown people in San Francisco. They don't care about it. They wanna make more money in San Francisco by more gentrification, and you're gonna help them do it. That's what who you represent. So I have to say that the people of San Francisco have to demand that the supervisors reject this, because you're gonna pass it, because you've been appointed by Lurie, whose pals with the crony who owns ProLogistix. So we have to organize a campaign against union busting to defend the community, the Hunters Point Bayview community, and to fight Amazon coming into San Francisco. That is necessary to defend the people of San Francisco. You're encouraging further gentrification, further union busting, and slave labor wages here in San Francisco.

[Speaker 90.0]: Good evenings, chair, vice chair, and commissioners. Out of a mountain of despair is a stone of hope, and you are the stone of hope for Bayview Hunters Point and San Francisco. I come as a citizen, born raised in San Francisco, 79 years of age, have been here since the forties, lived in Hunters Point, Bayview, as well as District 5 and other districts. I am a great grand, a grand, and a mother. And so I come representing the city of San Francisco, our children, our youth, and I come thankful that the stone of hope that's coming, we don't have anything perfect, but we do have hope and we do have help, and it's coming through Prologis. Prologis is offering more than any other, very few, and I won't name the few that are doing great work moving towards clean air, moving towards health and wellness as they built. But sitting with us, ProLogistix sat with us over eighteen months, meeting with us, hearing from us for what we needed for health and wellness, clean air, the vehicles and all. And they're not ending the meetings after this, hopefully, approval. Hopefully. Because we're looking to go forward. We're looking to thrive. We're looking they're offering 2,000 permanent jobs, 2,000 construction jobs. They have offered as well to Prologis coming from Prologis to our hyperlocal construction workers, our contractors, our small business owners, our people of color. They are paying attention. They are answering a call for jobs with equality, and they're putting it in black and white. It's not we hope to do and we might do. This is the first time we've had this opportunity in this way early in the game. So I am for their commitment to our contractors' workforce development, the 17,000,000 that will come in benefits to the community. And anytime, as doctor King said, is the right time to do the right thing. I hope you join us with approval to the Prologis San Francisco Gateway Project that will come and raise the bar for San Francisco. Thank you.

[Speaker 17.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Micah Pinkston. I'm a 45 native of Bayview Hunters Point, founder of From the Heart nonprofit, and We Are Success LLC pre apprenticeship program. Our program is partnership with the BNC painting, led by miss Barbara Brooks and under the instruction of miss Tina Staton, a lifelong Bayview Hunters Point resident with 46 of professional painting experience and thirty eight proud years as a union member of Local nine one three. While painting is a cornerstone of our training, our program is designed to provide comprehensive pre apprenticeship training across multiple trades, ensuring that the the participants are prepared for sustainable careers and economical opportunity within our community. For nearly two years, I've served on the Prologis, San Francisco Gateway Advisory Committee. This committee is made up of native Bayview Hunters Point leaders and residents, individuals who were born and raised here, who continue to live and work here, who raise their children across multiple generations, and pay taxes here. The advisory committee represents the wide range of expertise within our community including religious leadership, environmental advisory, skilled trades and construct and contracting, community organizing, the produce and market sector, media, small business development, equitable economic development, and pathways to economic opportunity through jobs in our own community. Together, we ensure that the voices, the needs, and the priorities of Bayview are represented and respected in the development process so that this project benefits not only the city, but also the community that has sustained the neighborhood for generations. Throughout this project and thereafter, we will continue to act as the community committee oversight, and I thank Prologis for that. And it's in writing, so it's not we don't have lip service here. We actually have some a document that says that this will continue and that this is what will take place in our community. So the jobs and the community benefits, approximately 800 union construction jobs per year during the building phase, around 2,000 permanent on-site PDR jobs with the focus of local hiring to expand economic opportunity for Bayview Hunters Point, 50,000,000 in public street upgrades, over eight city blocks, nearly 8,000,000 in direct contributions to our community and programs. I just wanna say thank you. And you know what? We ain't doing it right if we don't have haters.

[Speaker 91.0]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Demetrius Williams. I'm the president of the San Francisco Hyperlocal Building Trades Contractors Collective. I'm also the owner of CIW and Sons Plumbing. I'm here in support of the Gateway Project. We have sat for over three years working with ProLogix, on this project and understanding the significance of I'm also, a fifty four fifty four year, homeowner of Bayview Hunters Point. I've been there all my life. My kids are there. My dad passed away last year in May. He been there eighty years of his life. We've been in Bayview all our life. We watched the produce market at the top, and we watched it now at the bottom part where it's homeless and it's really being ran down. The streets are horrible. We used to ride our bikes through there as kids. We have a opportunity to see the produce market now turned into a state of the art, safe and sane new produce market, a new gateway entry into bring bringing in new businesses, bringing in new opportunities, especially not just only union jobs, but after the unions have finished developing this project, helping build this project, the community will have a opportunity to feed their families and live from walk from home to their jobs. That's better than having to drive a car. You get to bike to work now. So it's opportunities that's great. That's why I'm in support of this gateway project, and I hope you move measurements to make sure that this project is moving forward. So thank you again.

[Speaker 92.0]: Hi. My name is Ariane Harrison. I'm the executive director of Marie Harrison Community Foundation. Also working on AB six one seven, which is a part of the Clean Air Act in working on air mitigation in our community, which we really know the background and history of baby 120, which which has not been good. I know that you heard about the high the high levels of respiratory lung disease, asthma, and most youth and adults, which is the highest out of all of San Francisco. And And you also heard about accounts the cancer rates, which is no secret. That's because we we live basically in an environmental sacrifice zone and always have have in the tools something that's done about land use and the zoning laws, laws that probably will not change. But what we can fight for today is to make sure that there are safeguards on these places. Now I can say that, I've had several conversations with ProLogistix. I've met with over 2,362 residents residents, and I do not want our community divided over this. One of our one the one of our one thing that I think I think about the community as a whole, our dollar circulates our community one time before before it leaves. Now we have a lot of bad, bad neighbors in our community. And I would hope that this planning depart commission is here here and hears me, and willing to work with us, those of us who stand on environmental justice and climate works, works to actually hold them accountable and get rid of the bad players so we can bring in more eco friendly, green leaning leaning corporations that are that are thinking for towards the future in tech in technical, logical companies. Number one, if there is no if there's no upward mobility, we got a lot of these factories and different corporations that are bad, bad, bad neighbors. However, nobody on that hill and in that neighborhood are working in those places. And I'm a fervent believer that you don't get to poison us and not hire us too. You know, if anybody has anything to complain about as far as environment and climate, My life is a living testimony of that. My family's been here for seven generations. There is exposure coming from that, from emanating from certain spaces like the shipyard and other areas. I am a person that came up positive for PCI 24, uranium and plutonium exposure amongst other radionuclides. That is fact. I have seven tests from seven different labs that proves that that is a fact. So if anybody had any sense, they would have the CDC there actually testing people to stay in close proximity to that shipyard shipyard. That's it's some place that I really want this planning commission to really pay close attention to before that land is is turned over to the city seeing all the defaults that have happened in the past. My name is Ariane Harrison. I'm executive director of Marie Harrison Community Foundation. I want our people to have jobs. They they have met with and with some of our local environments that actually live in the community. So we have sat down and talked with BATMET and CARP as far as binding limits on diesel trucks and truck routing away from sensitive streets and strict and anti idling and enforcement. We have talked about enforceable timelines and requirements on vehicles. I have a lot, you know, a lot more to say. I know that my time is running short. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: But but

[Speaker 92.0]: they have met with us. And like I said, I've met with over two thou two two hundred no. 2,362 people. And I've got the information from them, and I'm looking out for the whole entire

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Please.

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

[Speaker 93.0]: Hello, members of the planning commission. My name is Cornelius Jordan. I was actually here a couple weeks ago when we were talking about up zoning. And I was in between some NIMBYs and some NIMBYs. And my stance at that time was really just talking about the relationship between development and the community directly. I'm originally from Dallas, Texas, the land of the unchecked developer. And if somebody wanted to build a cell tower on a police station, nobody bet an eye. But I'm glad that we have robust community debate about these things. Now one of the things that Pluralodges has entered into agreement with with our community are different things about hiring and direct giving and direct benefit. So if that is the case, and that's the level of engagement that the developer would like to have with the community, then that is something that I can support. Now it is, I feel, up to you to make sure that those kinds of community benefits are adequately dealt to the community, that the things that the community is expecting, promising, and hoped for are received. But I think what's in your interest as a commission is that this could possibly be a good litmus test for the things that are going to happen in case we do decide to implement up zoning measures or have other large development projects in other areas of the city that are not historically zones of experimentation. So I think that moving forward, this could be a model that you could at least gauge for other projects throughout the city. And if that is the case, that it could be a good like, example for others in other areas on other contentious debates about what to build in the city, then I think it should go forward and give some practical wisdom on the issue. That's all I have to say. Thank you for your time.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Hello. Thank you for having us. My name is Tanya Randell. I am the administrative director for the Marie Harrison Community Foundation. I'm also a part of the community, the CAC for ProLogistix. We've been working with them for almost two years, and I will say that they came into a place that we were angry, hurt, sick, and tired, and they work with us. Community benefit is very important. People seem to forget about community benefit when they want something, a mall or whatever. We are human beings and we want to live our lives the same way as everyone else. ProLogistix is not perfect, but they have helped us, they listen, and we're gonna hold their feet to the fire. It is a good project, and it's gonna come rain or shine whether we want it to or not. But our community has a chance that has not been given any other time, and that's to work in our community, to grow in our community, to be a part of the change in our community. Prologis is one step. Gateway is one step. But it's a very big step, and the project has my support, and I hope it has yours as well. I'm a 61 year old community native. I was born, raised, and bought my home here, so I do have a stake in where I live. I love my home. I can see Oakland from my home. But it is also very dangerous and toxic to our community, our elders, our children, our families, everyone. This is a beginning. It's not the end. It's not gonna stop anything, but it's a chance for us to move forward together, and it offers a lot of opportunities to our community. We are the most certified group in construction in the whole state, I would say, but we don't have the jobs. Prologis is tar targeting our community first to give us the jobs, the opportunity, and support us past the building's construction to help our new businesses thrive and grow and give each other the support that we need. So I request that you approve this plan so that we can move forward. Thank you.

[Speaker 49.0]: Good afternoon, president Sowell, commissioners. My name is Frank Scott. I'm a lifelong resident of San Francisco since 1957 and a Bayview resident. I work with ProLogistix, specifically with Courtney, for many years, first as a member of the Market Zone Working Group and after as part of the San Francisco Gateway Advisory Committee. Over eighteen months, ProLogistix has consistently supported our advisory committee and engaged in genuine, meaningful collaboration as we shape projects for $17,000,000 of community benefit package. This includes funding for workforce development, early childcare education, small business grants, cultural installations, and infrastructure improvements in the 94107 and the 94124 surrounding ZIP codes. As an advisory committee member who has closely followed project approval process, I am confident in the city's thorough environmental impact report, which found no significant impacts. That's not something we hear often. And it speaks to volumes about the care and attention behind the project's design. Beyond regulatory compliance, the project commits to lead gold and zero carbon certification with rooftop solar that all sets the building's full electrical demand. It's a model of the kind of environmentally responsible development that San Francisco should champion. This is a rare example of development that truly reflects San Francisco values. It's environmentally responsible, economically inclusive, and deeply community driven. It also delivers real economic opportunity over 2,000 permanent jobs with a strong commitment to workforce training and prioritize hiring in the Bayview residents, plus more than 2,000 union construction jobs through a project labor agreement. I work two blocks from the project site alongside many of Meals on Wheels employees. I'm the director of facilities there, And I couldn't be more excited to see this project come online. We know that both its construction and operations will bring lasting benefits to the market zone in the Bayview Hunters Point community. This project shows what's possible when community voices, labor standards, and sustainability are front and center. I urge you, I truly urge you to support the San Francisco Gateway Project. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 94.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Brendan Green. I represent the IBW Local six, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. We represent the electrical workers here in San Francisco. I'm here to speak in favor of this project. It offers us, thousands of, union jobs, also the thousands of jobs afterwards for the members of the community, also the millions of dollars they promised for the community here. So I think this project is excellent for, the city and county of San Francisco. I can't see anything that would be wrong with it. I was here to fully support it. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 95.0]: Good evening. I'm John Pillack. I'm an organizer for Northern California Carpenters Union, Local twenty two here in San Francisco. We're the first labor organization chartered in the West on the West Coast. We represent 36,000 members across the northern 46 counties of the state. That includes some 4,000 members in San Francisco County. I'm here with my brothers and sisters today to show our strong support for the SF Gateway project development. This development shows the developer's commitment to innovation and partnership with labor, particularly with Northern California Carpenters Union by committing to using a general contractor that's signatory with our master labor agreement. On any given development from the time ground is broke until the keys are handed over, our card carrying member of the Carpenters Union will do approximately 70% of the work from pile driving concrete foundations for, framing, insulation, drywall, doors, windows, cabinets, and acoustical ceilings. This is a massive project. Buildings with approximately 2,000,000 square foot of space. The developer's vision for SF Gateway aims to strengthen, San Francisco's economy and support economic recovery by paying area standard wages to journeymen and apprentice carpenters as they continue to hone their craft and make their way closer to retirement without having their pensions and annuities put into with every hour that they work. Giving them the peace of mind that they will one day retire with dignity. This is the first carbon neutral development of its kind, a signature project that the carpenters of San Francisco will be proud proud of when they tell their kids and grandkids I built that one day when they drive down the road past the project. At least 17% of the contractors and companies that help build this project will be San Francisco based companies. The carpenters of the Bayview Hunters Point community who have powered San Francisco through critical industrial work can continue to provide great health benefits, not only to themselves, but their spouses and children while working on this project. We ask you to join us in support of this historic development. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 96.0]: Good evening, commissioner. My name is Wing Tam. I'm the organizer with Log Cow Competitors Union, Local twenty two in here in San Francisco. I represent approximately 4,000 carpenters in San Francisco County and 37,000 across of Northern California. I spoke today to you not only as a union organizer, but as a carpenter representing the hope and a spirit of my following worker regarding the San Francisco Gateway Project. This massive undertaking two, three storage building, really 2,000,000 square feet of production and distribution and repair space. But beyond of the scope of this project, what matter must is efficient. The Gateway project will strengthen San Francisco economy, support our city, recover by and serving area status wages for both gentlemen and apprentices, carpenter. The wages is more than paycheck. They are contribution to pension and annuity that guarantee worker

[Speaker 56.0]: dignity

[Speaker 96.0]: of retirement after lifetime of hard work. This project is also historic. This will be our first carbon neutral development of cans in San Francisco. At least 17% of our contractor and the company in both will be San Francisco based, keep opportunity local. And most important, the project will be provide 800 construction job each year, job that sustain family and provide excellent health benefit at no extra cost and allow community like Bay Point, Hunters Point, which has a long power San Francisco industrial backbone to be continue build the city future on behalf of carpenters I represent, I urge you to join us in support the historic development tonight so we can create a job, a good job together and provide, protect the environment and build a project that San Francisco will be proud of for decades to come. Thank you for listening. Thank you for the time. Thank you.

[Speaker 97.0]: Good evening. My name is Christian Terceos. I'm a proud member of Carpenters Local twenty two, born and raised here in San Francisco. Today, I speak in support of the San Francisco Gateway Project. This development represents more than just two buildings. It represents opportunities. 800 construction jobs with area standard wage that will allow working families to earn a living, build towards retirement, and provide health benefits for their loved ones. This project strengthens our our economy, supports work and families, and sets a new standard for responsible development in our city. It also keeps investment local with at least 70% of contractors right here in San Francisco, ensuring that benefits of this project stay in our community. On behalf of the workers in the community who will bring it to life, I urge you to support the San Francisco Gateway Project. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm out.

[Speaker 98.0]: Good evening, president Tsao and commissioners. My name is Britney Shea, account manager at Bonner Communications, and I'm here to read a public statement, actually, Noel Bonner, CEO of Bonner Communications, a certified micro LBE based in San Francisco and a proud Baby View resident of more than eight years. I, I being Noel, want to express my strong support for the SF Gateway development project as a San Francisco business owner and community member. I believe this project represents the kind of thoughtful, future focused development our city needs. One that creates jobs, boosts economic opportunity, and uplifts local communities. I'm particularly excited about Prologis' plan to bring new production, distribution, and repair businesses to the market zone. These industries drive job creation and economic mobility and will help strengthen both the Bayview neighborhood and the broader San Francisco community economy. This project also reflects a real commitment to infrastructure improvements, long term sustainability, and quality job creation, all of which directly benefit Bayview residents and small businesses like Bonner Communications. As San Francisco grows, it's essential that communities like Bayview are not only included but prioritized. I also want to commend Prologis, especially Courtney Bell, for their early and ongoing engagement with the Bayview community and local contractors. Their collaborative approach sets the tone for meaningful, inclusive development. I urge the commission to support this project and help Bayview, help ensure Bayview continues to have a voice in shaping its own future. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 12.0]: John Anderson. I'm a member of the coordinating committee for three fifty San Francisco. I'd like to speak to one aspect of the largest proposal we've heard, how they are working hard to make it carbon neutral and climate friendly. The solar power, the electric trucks, and so forth, which is wonderful. But they keep using phrases like commit to pursue. And so much of that is aspirational. It's promises. They talk about electrifying trucks or infrastructure for electric trucks. There are no electric trucks right now. So it's very concerning. The environmental costs, the particulates are integral to their operation. So when we talk about transitions, it's very important to keep the health of the communities in mind. The city says the environmental standards are enforceable and will be safe and enforceable. Maybe they're enforceable. Will they be enforced? The city's record doesn't inspire confidence. So I urge you to be very skeptical of this proposal.

[Speaker 99.0]: Anne Colletitas, San Francisco Grey Panthers. I'm a bit perplexed. I thought we were on the EIR. It seems like we're covering a wide range of topics here. But anyway, I I continue. Hello, staff and commissioners. The environmental impact of this project extends beyond the actual physical site or this moment in time. And as such, as our speaker before says, this is all aspirational. The, Gateway Project is a trucking depot and distribution center in an already overly industrialized neighborhood. The project attracts polluters and union busters. The San Francisco Gray Panthers signed on to the August 14 opposition to proposed gateway industrial project, which was delivered to you. I hope you've seen it. It's a a thoughtful document that goes through the actual, health impacts that, that exist. And there's also some, mandatory safeguards if approved and binding legal and regular regulatory standards the city must enforce in this document. So I hope if you haven't seen it or you've seen it, there's quite a bit of, of detail here that you will, you will take a look as and as the speaker before me said, you know, the whole thing is in compliance. It's in how this hundred year project gets, followed by this commission, by this city. I mean, you know, we're all gonna be gone, And this project promises to still be here. So please keep that in mind when you are making your decisions here. Thank you.

[Speaker 54.0]: Hello. My name is Ronnie Diamont Wilson. I'm part of the 1,000 Grandmothers. And the 1,000 Grandmothers also signed on to the All Things Bayview letter opposing this project. I've been attending, I've been attending the San Francisco Community Emission Reduction Plan, or SFSERP, meetings in the Bayview Hunters Point since last fall, as part of the 1,000. The Community Steering Committee, or CSC, mainly composed of young people of color from Bayview Hunters Point, is collaborating with CARB, the air district, and city departments to develop a five and ten year plan aimed at reducing emissions in, the Bayview Hunters Point District. They've been working hard, and it's been challenging because of the past when the community was ignored. And it still faces issues with toxic air and water in the district. One of the focus areas of the SERP plan is to reduce exhaust and emissions from traffic and transportation. So I'm in one of these committee meetings, they happen every two happen once a month on Tuesdays, And I'm thinking about Prologis. The facility will this project this project, facility will primarily serve as Amazon distribution center or something very similar to it. That includes 759,000 square feet of new space dedicated to parcel delivery. The EIR indicates that it will generate approximately 5,000 person vehicle trips per day, and many diesel trucks and gas powered vans will be coming and going to transport parcels in and out, as we've been told. Well, at the SERP meeting, I'm thinking to myself that if Prologis is allowed to operate in the Bayview while the SERP develops a plan to reduce emissions, aren't they at cross purposes? Why would you agree to a plan that could generate a significant significant amount of pollution when Bayview Hunters Point community members are concerned about the deteriorating health effects of traffic and emission, that it produces. If the Gateway Project is approved, it must include mandatory safeguards. Thank you.

[Speaker 100.0]: Hello. My name is Chris Rosas and I'm a business representative for Operations.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Can you move the microphone?

[Speaker 47.0]: There you go.

[Speaker 100.0]: I'm a business agent for Operated Engineers Local three. I wanted to mention that our union recruits recruits workers with diverse backgrounds and gives them paid training to become construction career professionals. In fact, our local union apprentice coordinator herself was born in the Bayview area. She now works for our union full time as a recruiter, brings more women and people of color into our ranks. We fully support San Francisco Gateway Project. It's bringing local contractors, union workers, and communities together for economic development and community benefit. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 81.0]: Good evening, commissioners. I have a question, and I don't want it taken away from my time. I need clarification. Is this the only opportunity that the public will have to speak on this, Prologis project? Or is it just the opportunity to speak about environmental impacts on the project?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: The project

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: was called up together. So the EIR and the project itself are being taken. So this is the your sole Okay. Opportunity for COMA.

[Speaker 81.0]: Alright. Okay. So thank you, commissioners. My name is Mishua Lee. I'm a thirty six year resident of Bayview Hunters Point. I live within a half a mile of the shipyard. I'm living with cancer. And I am very concerned about this project. And the reason I'm concerned is that it's a billionaire boondoggle. And what used to happen is that people of great wealth in this country were taxed at a high rate. And so the public, we all had an opportunity to determine how that money was gonna be spent. Now the billionaires don't and there's 70 of them in San Francisco. And two of them, one the mayor and the other the main developer of the project are billionaires. They don't have to pay taxes, so they can make money, you know, money talks. So they can make it seem like this is going to be a great project and that the community's super involved. And I support unions. I'm a union member myself. But there's a lot of contradictions. What is Amazon doing as part of this project when they're union busters? And so I hope that we'll really look at this and not approve it until it's very clear. That money, those billions of dollars that are going into this project, why wasn't that given to the community for the community to fully decide what they want? So I urge you to really look more deeply at this and make sure that you've heard and thought about all the issues involved. Thank you.

[Speaker 101.0]: Can I get this projector

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Sure? Resev Gav, can we go to the overhead?

[Speaker 101.0]: Thank you. My name is Art Persico. I'm a resident of San Francisco for forty years over forty years. I'm a retired teamster. I'm not speaking for my union, But I feel in solidarity with all union members and everybody at San Francisco on this project, because we can be victims of this project, not just beneficiaries of it. I have some questions I'd like you to ask Prologis. I wanna get that in before I get cut off. We heard a report from Prologis today in their presentation that there will be significant air pollution impacts. So my questions are, could you ask them how many gas or diesel trucks will be used for this project? When will there be a truck transformation to all electric? Will gas or diesel exhaust be inhaled by residents, workers? Residents and workers are not. What is the closest residents to the Prologis site? Are you, as commissioners comfortable with allowing this project to go through given the potential danger to San Franciscans, especially those in Bayview Hunters Point? How much pollution can we ask Bayview residents to accept after the navy's deadly contamination of their land, air, and water, and this resulting illnesses they've suffered? This project is gonna have 2,000 space for 2,000 trucks, vans, and cars. There's a question of air quality. Diesel exhaust contains fine particulate matter, PM 2.5, linked to asthma, heart disease, and premature death according to the studies by the California Air Resources Board and US EPA. Bayview Hunters Point has long been used as San Francisco's industrial zone and includes two federal radioactive and chemically contaminated Superfund cleanup sites, the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard and Insullis Creek. Bayview Hunters Point residents live near multiple existing industrial operations, concrete plants, animal rendering facilities, and other plating industries. They live sick and die early. So community leaders and many residents have expressed concerns about this. I hope you consider the questions I presented to you and will vote no on this special use district for Prologis. Thank you very

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: much.

[Speaker 102.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Dave Fahey. I'm here with UA Local thirty eight Plumbers and Pipefitters Union in San Francisco. As all my colleagues have already mentioned, this project to us seems to click all the boxes. We desperately, with the recent work picture that we all have, everybody knows, need these jobs. But jobs that are here, not just for union workers or anything, but all the pre apprenticeship programs and all the other things that this project could bring. This project is something that seems to click all the boxes. With all the green build and all the technology that they have on the solar, we hope that you guys stand with us and get this project going as it has been long overdue. Thank you.

[Speaker 84.0]: Good evening, commissioners. I am Rochelle Holmes, legacy resident, and I am also the resident and community organizer for all things Bayview. Something I would like for you to know my my voice might go out because my asthma is acting up. I do have my pump in my pocket. Bayview Hunters Point community residents have been dying from cancer, respiratory issues, from being around surrounded by toxic pollution for decades. We have to speak out. Our lives depend on it. It's incredibly important to give the power to the community as they know their true experiences. Experiences of cancer, asthma, COPD, and living and dying with deadly toxic elements in their bodies. Needing an asthma pump. Yeah. That's me. You know, every day is toxic within itself. During not only the demolition at the shipyard, but the demolition, construction, and operation of the proposed for Lodges gateway project. We hope that you received the our and read our letter of opposition as we stand together to make it clear that as most there's the most impacted residents yet most vulnerable to the systems systemic racism. We strongly oppose the development of yet another construction zone and industrial site that will harm the people and the environment. As I stand here today, you know, I'm thinking about, two really good friends of mine. My one friend, just because they lived in Bayview, is just had surgery to cut off half his tongue from tongue cancer. My other friend, right now, she's going through radiation and chemo, because she has cancer of her throat. You know, this is the type of stuff that I'm concerned about, that I'm worried about. You know, the Navy still hasn't cleaned up all the toxicity over there, and yet we're talking about letting Pearl Rogers come in here and build and disturb the ground and bring up more of all this toxicity in the air. This is not only gonna affect Bayview, it's gonna affect everyone in San Francisco. People don't realize that, but thank you for your time.

[Speaker 34.0]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Camilla Elam, generational and legacy resident of Baby Hunters Point, proud native of San Francisco, been here my whole entire life. I'm also a member of the AP six one seven steering committee, as well as I sit on the board for the Southeast Health Clinic in our community, and I'm a proud founder of all things baby for equitable communities. I am one of the youngest founders of an environmental justice organization in my community. But if you only hear heard the stories that I hear, something has to be done and it is my duty. But most importantly, I dedicate my work to our founders, the big five, as well as to my great great grandmother who lived and died in Alice Griffith who was Muwekma Ohlone. We come here again to urgently express our grave concerns regarding the proposed ProLogistix San Francisco Gateway project. As the community was informed that the ink has already dried on the permit, we are still here ready and prepared to hold the city and county of San Francisco accountable for such project that will solidify and enhance the fifteen to twenty years of shortened life expectancy for residents and neighbors of Baby Hunters Point community. We hope that you have received our letter of opposition emailed to you highlighting our concerns of not only the construction, but the operations and the usage. I was also one of the first residents that was asked to be on the Prologis advisory board about four years ago as well. But my duty and my walk and my dedication to my fellow residents, I had to decline. As ProLogistix has exploited the need for political and economic inclusion in a community that is suffering from a lack of resources of food, basic needs, equitable education, medical care, jobs, transportation, senior services, and environmental justice. They have been successful in putting the community against each other while denying residents the real truth of not only the project's real representation, but also economic inclusion, but the direct and cumulative health impacts as stated by some of ProLogistix advisory board members. I am glad to see that some of the advisory, board members were here today, but these are the typical oppressed actions that leave the community residents feeling powerless and inferior. This is development done wrong. Will this will only contribute to long term respiratory health conditions like asthma, COPD, tumors, cancers, high rates of miscarriages, and low birth rate for residents, but also long term political and economical inequality as we need more than just low level jobs and non livable wages, but we need, actually, equitable living that will allow us to survive in Baby Hunters Point. I know it's where which is cutting me off. But anyway, thank you. It's been a a wonderful getting to know you all over this time. Thank you.

[Speaker 58.0]: I was gonna say good afternoon, but I think it's a little later than that. I know it's been a long day. I just wanna say thank you to you commissioners for your time and your patience and giving us the time to hear from your community. My name is Peter Lang. I'm the business manager of Roofers and Waterproofers Local Number forty here in San Francisco. I'm also a proud member of the San Francisco Building Trades Council. We've been early supporters of this Gateway project because of the impact it will have on our local construction workers and their families. This project will create around 2,000 construction jobs. And under the project labor agreement, those jobs will be performed by skilled union tradesmen tradespeople dispatched to our local hiring halls. For us, that means opportunity. It means bringing in new apprentices, opening doors for young people and job seekers in Bayview Hunters Point and across San Francisco to start good careers in the trades. It means stability for working families, long term community, benefits that go well beyond construction. The building trades believe in building projects that last, and this is one that's designed not only for today, but for tomorrow. With its commitments to sustainability, small business support, and community investment, Gateway shows what's possible when labor, community, and the city work together. On behalf of the Roofers and Waterproofers Local forty, I appreciate your time, and we strongly urge your support of the project. Thank you.

[Speaker 101.0]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Emmanuel Sanchez, and I am a representative for the Ironworkers Local three seventy seven here in San Francisco. I am here to support the San Francisco Gateway Project and respectfully urge you to move it forward. The developer has worked closely with our unions to promote local workforce participation and the highest standards of safety and productivity as construction moves forward. We welcome this development and the good jobs it will create here in the city, and I thank you for your time.

[Speaker 103.0]: Good evening, commissioners. It's past dinner time. Fortunately, I have some reserves over here, so I'll get through the night. Alright? My name is Dan Torres. I'm a business agent, Sprinkler Fitters, UA Local four eighty three, and a proud native San Franciscan. Born at St. Luke's Hospital. Okay? Because I became a member of Sprinkler Fitters Local forty three, I was able to buy a condo on 18th And York in San Francisco. I took the 9 San Bruno downtown to go and work, and I've worked in the majority of the buildings downtown San Francisco. Here we have a developer, Prologis, signed a PLA to work, to have local hire, hyper local in San Francisco. Union labor is gonna build this project. Okay? I stand before you to push this project forward because I represent the men and women in San Francisco, and I'm I'm doing this for the future Dan Torres that's gonna have no direction, find his way into the building trades, and find his path. Right? And his path to to a good union job and to be able to provide for his family. So for the next generation, I urge you to move this forward. Let's let's build San Francisco. Let's make this happen. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 26.0]: Good evening, commissioners and staff. Rudy Gonzalez from the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. You've heard from my colleagues about the jobs and economic impact and those opportunities. I wanna talk a little bit about, the technical aspects of what's before you. You've heard commentary, some of it very passionate and and moving, frankly. What is before you are a few really important things per the code. Right? You're gonna create a special use district. You are going to authorize staff to move forward with a framework for developing this project into the future and authorizing construction, and you're gonna certify the EIR. I stand before you to say that all of those things have been studied adequately, where there have been areas of concern raised, those efforts, there have been efforts made to mitigate those both, with the community and their concerns around operations jobs, and with respect to the environmental mitigation efforts that have been have been dealt with. I have dealt with plenty of developers in this city. Some of them totally high road, committed to San Francisco. And I've I've I've dealt with fly by night operations. Who could give a damn, frankly, about our local workforces or our local communities? This developer understood not just in the lead up to an entitlement meeting, because you've seen me here also articulating why we're continuing it yet again and continuing it yet again. They did something intentional. They brought leaders, legitimate leaders of the community together to let them speak for the Bayview. To let them speak, not through their elected supervisor, not through their union rep, not through some organized group of opposition. They actually brought people to be real stakeholders, invested in their community outcomes, and then worked with them and let them navigate this relatively wonky process of land use entitlements and articulate their own vision for the future, their own vision for what their community needs were. And I'm really proud to say that Prologis yeah. They ticked off the box on union labor years ago with us. But we sat by and observed. And from our perch, they did everything right. One of the early commenters talked about creating a lasting model for development in the city. A model whereby developers don't just seek an opportunity to extract profit out of a neighborhood, but they actually see a way to connect with and become part of the fabric of that neighborhood. There have been a few things that I was I was debating whether or not I would even give them the time of day or legitimacy, but I think I have to. This is not the scandal and the shameful acts that we saw go through the Navy and its contractors at the Hunters Point Shipyard. This is not that project. This is also not a project for Amazon. Amazon, who I will stand here before you and speak in opposition of their future developments at 907th Street because they don't honor union labor and they don't honor the community. This is a developer who's doing everything right and setting a model.

[John Dacey, Planning Staff]: And you have a

[Speaker 26.0]: chance to lift them up and show the community and show all of the stakeholders this is the way to develop as a community developer. Please urge your support. Thank you for the time.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Last call for public comment.

[Speaker 22.0]: Good evening, commissioners and community. I'm Reverend Ronnie Chisholm, a resident of Bayview Hunters Point. About almost two years ago, I was attended a couple of community meetings where Pilates was presenting, and I said a couple of things that made people think that someone was thinking in the room. And I attended a second meeting, and following that meeting, after asking a couple of questions that seem to perk interest and attention not for my ego. I received a call maybe about a week or two later asking if I would sit on a community advisory committee. And I agreed to do it under certain conditions. One that I would not be a mouthpiece or what some may say is a sellout for the community just to say that I'm part of a movement, but that I wanted full disclosure. I don't know what's gonna happen in the future, but I do know that this project would move forward. In terms of my relationship with the Prologis and its team, I've been fairly impressed with the interactions with the community and coming out and looking at some of the things that we're doing and proposing. A couple of the issues a couple of the funding areas on the matrix I asked for, one was around early childhood and continual education, and the other one was to set up a matrix of evaluating our hyperlocal contractors to build them to be the best they can be. If Pelagius is a worldwide group that is moved with a lot of efficiency, I think they have the ability to evaluate and help train our community that they say that they're here to help. I would like to hold their foot to the fire with that. In terms of dollars for education using the community benefit dollars, I think it's important that we track those dollars very closely to make sure that they're getting in the hands of children that really need it. We discovered through COVID that our children are not properly educated through our system. At least black children, I know for sure. And I know that community community benefit dollars can change that bar if you put proper tutors in the faces of these families. And I'm hoping that that happens with qualified companies or a company that can make that happen. So I'm here tonight missing my bible study because I think it's important that I know that I believe that this project program will move forward.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you so much.

[Speaker 22.0]: And I think it should, But I think that more importantly, the dollars, the community benefit dollars must be properly tracked

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you, sir. That is your time.

[Speaker 22.0]: Understanding that millions

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: We appreciate your time. That is your time. That's your time, sir. Everybody gets three minutes. I gave you more than three minutes. I already gave you more than three minutes. Respectfully, that is your time. Sir, sir, your time is up. If the commissioners have clarifying questions, they can call you up. Well, but you didn't

[Speaker 22.0]: finish. That's okay. It's okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I'm not hurting you, sir. Good night. Good night. Final last call for public comment. Okay. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners. As always, you've got a lot of moving parts here. And with the certification of the final environmental impact report being one of them, I recommend that you take up that matter first separately, and then take up the project entitlements.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. That's a good suggestion. Thank you, Jonas. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: I might be jumping a little bit. In regards to my employers, the NorCal Carpenters Union, this the labor, portion of this was settled years ago. I have to just there's a PLA on this project with the building trades. I believe there is an LOI, a letter of intent with the carpenters union that the that this entire project will be, nuts basically from foundation to finish, including the pile drivers, will all be done with union labor. I'm really excited about this. Basically, I'm in the I'm in the people business. I put people to work, and I get them trained just like everybody else here, and we give them the opportunities that basically they will gain the skills to keep working and it it self perpetuates. And it's it's just a phenomenal feeling and job when it's going. We're in a recession for the last five years in construction, and Prologis basically went to the community, went to labor, and basically, they could they did literally did two agreements here with with Labour, when basically they only had to do one. The opportunity that they're giving to and basically the the marching orders to Labour on behalf of the community is phenomenal too through Firstsource and LocalHire, and basically our responsibility to actually step up and make sure that happens. I'm fortunate. I've worked out of d ten for twenty eight, almost twenty nine years. Basically, up to 4,000 members within it. A lot of those members are Bayview residents. And the future members through the apprenticeship opportunities here are also going to be Bayview, Bayview members, or, residents, d ten residents. The skills, they gain, they will get on the job. The payment for those go through their, their benefit package. So there'll be a net zero, for people, working for the educational fund, so that money can go somewhere else. Every union member that's working there will be their education and their training will be got through their hourly working. It's it's exciting. This is actually gonna get this it's gonna this area has not seen love since the early eighties when the navy pulled out. We're gonna have sidewalks. There is no sidewalks. If anybody has walked down to that walked to walked down that neighborhood, I would I would suggest we all take a walk around. There's no sidewalks, there's no lighting, the roads are beyond repair. Somebody mentioned they they used to cycle their bicycle down there. You wouldn't be able to cycle a bicycle down there without, you know, with a fat with a fat tires on it. But the transformation that's gonna be here, the greening, the the roads, the sidewalks, the lighting, just the safety aspects, and 2,000 jobs, and another 2,000 jobs permanent thereafter where people can actually get on their e bike or their bicycle and cycle to work and have a career that's in San Francisco that has just been gone. Like, we're talking about an area that's been decimated since the eighties, and the possibilities, the opportunities through revitalization here and the net zero, I'm I'm beyond excited. I've worked out of Bayview for twenty eight years. I work goats travel to it every day for the last eighteen and a half years, and we're actually building a hall moving further into Bayview, so we can dispatch directly the local hire, hyper hyper local, love hyper local, because it's an added pressure that basically you have to perform and you have to show on a Stewart support how many people from the area are there. So I'm excited to actually get to do that. So I'm full present full, got into the enthusiastic support for fourteen, for 15 a, for 15 b, and I just can't wait to say to vote yes on this. So that's me.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, commissioner McGarry. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Thank you for the building. Excuse me, not the building, the planning department. I'm tired. The planning department. Thank you for walking me through this again. This is the second time around. And I did have some questions around the environment aspect of this project just like I did the first time. And so can you walk me through briefly some of the mitigation measures that you're going to take during construction? And as the space gets built up with and occupied, how are you going to go about monitoring that and making sure that the emission levels are safe, safe for the communities, for the Bayview Hunters Point community?

[Speaker 49.0]: Oh, sorry.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thanks, Jonas. Thanks, Commissioner William, for that question. So I just want to recap to make sure I understand. So talking about I might take the first question about to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented as part of the project. So we have measures in the project's mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and those are adopted as part of the city's condition of approval for the project. I think it's exhibit c of the motion of the CU motion. And so the project sponsor has committed to implementing these mitigation measures through this agreement with the city. And in addition, there is an environmental monitoring team as part of the planning department that proactively is monitoring and ensuring that construction and operational mitigation measures are complied with. I'm on the mitigation monitoring team and it is an iterative process with the project sponsor. We go back and forth with drafts and, at different stages of the project to make sure they are complying with the mitigation measures. And then to speak to the second question about the project's mitigation measures, We do identify there's nine air quality mitigation measures to reduce the project's impact to less than significant. We have some of them are no truck idling for more than two minutes, electrification of transportation refrigeration units. One that I spoke about in

[Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: the

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: presentation is the implementation of operational emissions management plan. And this plan, it identifies a performance standard that the project sponsor cannot exceed in terms of the project's operational emissions. And then it provides a framework and accounting for how the future tenants would have to calculate their emissions. And then there's also a monitoring component where there are reports that would be submitted to the planning department.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: That's pretty extensive. Don't go anywhere. I got a couple more. I was glad to hear that there is it seems like there's a lot of places where this is going to get checked along the way. And so one of the concerns that I've had is making sure that during this whole process, not only during construction, but afterwards, that there's something in place that's going to protect the community from emissions, right, from pollution. And, and, and so, you've laid out some of that. And and so how how are we going to, you know, moving forward just in in the future, once this thing gets built out, how are we gonna ensure, that the public is gonna be safe, and is gonna and the and whoever's in there is going to be held accountable and is gonna be monitored and and, you know, is is gonna keep this neighborhood safe?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Yes. So there is a consistency review process that's established as part of the conditional use. I don't want to misspeak, Gabby.

[Gabriela Panto, Planning Department Staff]: Jumping here. So in terms of the project, because we are kind of essentially entitling a shelve building and tenants are to be determined, once this building is built, we've kind of drafted a framework for where, you know, when tenants come in, we say, okay, you've got you know, 2,000 square feet of PDS. This is what we anticipate that, you know, air pollutant to be for that. And so we anticipate that we don't get at a point beyond what the MRPs are for because we will be monitoring. We'll be tracking it. They have to come into us. We've kind of laid out a process to track that. Yeah.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Okay. So you mhmm.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Commissioner Williams, if it's I did also wanna highlight, if I could get the overhead. There is an exhibit as part of the development agreement that highlights there's a developer will have to maintain a website. And as part of this, and I'll just flip over to the side, they will be tracking compliance with the mitigation monitoring reporting program in submittals that have come into the city. So there will be a public facing component that the public will be able to access as well.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: So so and this is gonna be this is gonna be put up by ProLogix or who Yes.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: The project sponsor will maintain this project. Reports will come into the city. We'll be reviewing them, but they'll also be posted to this website for the community to see. And also available through planning department as well.

[Speaker 82.0]: But Mhmm.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: And and who who oversees that that process to make sure that all this work gets done?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Who oversees to the project website?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Yeah. Who who makes sure that ProLogix is gonna do what they say they're gonna do and keeps this website going? Is that is that part of planning's responsibility?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Manolo, this is part of the development agreement that

[John Dacey, Planning Staff]: Sorry.

[John Lau, Office of Economic & Workforce Development]: In short, the developer is obligated to perform a number of things through the through the development agreement itself. And Right. What was just shown to you is an exhibit to our DA. I'll just mention that MMRP is also an exhibit to the DA. So the developer is already obligated by SQL law and other things to adhere to that MMRP. It would also be a violation of our contractual arrangement with the developer if they should should not do that in addition to this website.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: So And and just in case, what happens if they don't fulfill their obligations? What what what what recourse does the city have to hold them accountable?

[John Lau, Office of Economic & Workforce Development]: Well, and I'll mention to you the and I forget how many the sequence and intervals. But there's a DA reporting that goes on with your staff. So that'll be their adherence to the DA obligations is also monitored in addition to specific permits or uses that come in. So ultimately, a violation of the DA. The DA speaks to notice periods and periods to cure, but ultimately, they might be found in default of our development agreement. And there's lots of process and back and forth. We want them to comply rather than taking some legal action against them. But ultimately, it is a violation of our of a contract with the developer. Okay.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: I I appreciate that. Thank you. Again, you know, I I think the community has been very outspoken about, about the pollution and and, and and they've endured do endured a lot, obviously, over over the history of the Bayview Hunters Point community. And so, you know, I I just wanna make sure that we're doing everything that we can to monitor, keep keep accountable this part of this project. And so you've answered some questions. I think it's and thank you for for answering those questions. And, you know, it's it's important that the public know that there's all these things that are written into the d to the DA and and and that planning is is is monitoring this stuff. And so, as far as the rest of the project, we went over most of it. A lot of it is, is again, we went through it before, and so I was familiar with it. But for me, I I think, to me, again, that was that's what was a sticking point to me. I I get all the other benefits, around, that the community is getting. And I appreciate ProLogix, for working with the community and, and and, you know, offering these benefits. And so I hope that you continue. I don't know who's from who's from ProLogix here. I, I hope, I hope that you continue, to, to work with the community, and, and, and be someone that they, they can trust as opposed to, some of the developers that have come through that community before. So, thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner McGarry, you still wanna speak? Or Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you, commissioner Williams, for your questions. Especially around the mitigation measures, I was actually gonna ask as well in terms of monitoring those mitigation measures, especially in the air pollutants. And it seems like I just wanna piggyback on the question by Commissioner Williams on the public facing. In terms of the public facing reporting to the public. Can you clarify that again whether it seems like there's a thirty day notice in terms of the annual report through a DA. Is that what

[John Lau, Office of Economic & Workforce Development]: yeah. Sorry. John Lau, OEWD. So I can confirm to you that it's an annual, report, and I I I don't recall if there's automatically a hearing on it, but there's the option to to have a hearing before the commission. So there's a process to sort of make that more public. I believe it's director discretion or commissioner's ask for it, but it's an annual review on on how the developer is meeting with the status of the project and how it's meeting all of its obligations memorialized in the DA.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah. And when we're talking about the the the the annual report, we're also talking about the mitigation measures tracking of those. Right? Okay.

[John Lau, Office of Economic & Workforce Development]: Correct.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: And I guess it's it's in the discretion of the the commission whether we would like to have an informational hearing on that annual report. That's yeah. But yeah. I think it it will be great if we for the commission to have to to have a memo if where we're at in in especially in those tracking and monitoring tracking on that so that we can look into it where we're at in the in the mitigation measures. It's also I think well, part of it, I kind of want to discuss a little bit on the development agreement as well. But before I go on that, I have another question. And I'd like to hear what other commissioners think if we should require it annually to have any information here and just like in other development agreements. I have another question about the the environmental justice framework in terms of this project, and I know that the planning department is, is in you know, we've had those informational hearings before in in terms of environmental justice framework. Can someone talk to me about how whether, you know, is this project or is this development becoming like in a way, it's gonna be this kind of like the first project to have this framework and really looking into the into the environmental effects. So I just wanna I just wanna get clarification whether it meets with our environmental justice actions and provisions. Can someone talk to me?

[Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: I'm not sure how to answer that, commissioner Imperial. Why don't we get back to you? I I I think I think Steph will do a little research about what you mean by our specific environmental justice framework or maybe something I'm not familiar with at the moment. I mean, we do we we consider equity and environmental justice in all of our work. But if there's a specific barometer that you're trying to measure it against, I think we'll have to do

[Lydia So, Commission President]: a little work to

[Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: figure out what that is.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah. Well, the environmental, as I recall, the environmental justice report, actions that we're you know, it pretty much is, you know, talks about the issues in especially in the Bayview area, the air pollutants, you know, the cancer risk, like, where it all you know, it I mean, it was a study of where those issues are, and a lot of it are really you know, and really highlighted the Bayview the Bayview area. And so I'm just, you know, you know, trying to overlay whether our area plan that we're working on also overlays with this with this project and, you know, whether it is actually you know, when we're talking about the mitigation measures and also the goals for the project to be to be environmentally, I would say, equitable in especially in this area. Are are we is this development meeting those provisions and actions that we're trying to achieve in the environmental justice?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Yes. Commissioner Josh Slitsky with planning staff. You're referring to the environmental justice framework we adopted in the general plan a few years ago. I don't remember the exact year. It was maybe three or four years ago. It's a broad overlay that sort of weaves together a lot of policies across the general plan, and it does recognize that certain areas of the city have been more burdened, historically than others. And there are some maps. They generally correspond with areas you're familiar with. Of course, it includes the Bayview. And it's a there aren't necessarily specific individual policies. It was more kind of a broad a broad sweep. But this that framework and and the the ethos of it did sort of underlie the the the fundamental negotiations over this project from the beginning. The department also put together a racial and social equity framework several years ago to also help guide the the sort of analysis and review of the of the project and the negotiation of the public benefits. And all of the public benefits that you see coming out of it, plus the the mitigations are all the product of that collective framework moving forward that we work with mayor's office and and the project sponsor.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: I I I just wanna make sure moving forward, especially that, you know, I mean, we're, you know, we we've done some analysis in environmental justice, and I believe that's still, you know, still in the works. But moving forward, as we are trying to look in the monitoring of this and how it overlays with that that plan or, you know, I guess, that that that plan, then, you know, I I hope that the the planning department that we can actually also have you know, it it already creates some frameworks for us and that it should also create some frameworks for this development because of that. So I want to advise for our department to, you know, to do that, revisit environmental justice plan that we had and also in terms of monitoring all of this and how it overlays on that. Again, I think I think it's do duly service for the community to, you know, to make sure that we're actually doing something to minimize the impact of the environmental impacts that the residents have have had for for decades. One question I have is because some because I also put this in my in my on my response back then in the EIR, and I saw, you know, the response by by the planning as well. But I have a question, especially for Prologis, about your commitment in regarding the electrification of trucks.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Or

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: I mean, where where is the industry right now in that electrification of trucks? Because, in a way, I I you know, from my I hear in different countries, there is that ongoing kind of, like, development of electrification of trucks. But how is that impacting here in United States, specifically here in the Bayview?

[Courtney Bell, Prologis (Project Sponsor)]: Thank you, commissioner, for that question. What we're seeing right now and first of all, I should say that, this project at Prologis is committed, and we're really leading the industry on helping transition the entire industry towards the electric future, both at the building level and also at, how fleets are electrified. We are not at a place today where all of them are fully electric. The best way to help enable that is to build in the infrastructure, and that's what we're committed to for this project. So we have both the rooftop solar, offsetting the building's operations, and we're also committed to well above the standards for San Francisco plus I can't remember what the exact term is. Maybe Meaghan can help me. The CalGreen voluntary tier tier two above that of all of the electrification of the stalls. So we're committed to the significant investment in the electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the building. That relates also to the power capacity to build into that to make sure that you can actually plug it in. That's what we're seeing in the industry is the best way to help, companies transition is to provide that infrastructure for them, make it as easy as possible.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. And, as of now, since it seems sounds like you're in the works of electric you know, creating infrastructure and, you know, whether what where the industry is going on the electrification of electrification of trucks. How many projected trucks are gonna be in the parcel delivery are going to be used? Or how many diesel trucks are projected to be used?

[Courtney Bell, Prologis (Project Sponsor)]: If you're gonna talk about analysis, I'm gonna turn that back over to Liz. But what was analyzed in the EIR and what you see in those square footages is an estimated use mix of the building. We don't have any specific tenants identified. So the analyzed use mix is might not necessarily exactly be what is built, which is why the the department established that consistency review process. So when there are tenants that come forward, you check the city departments will check it against the analysis to make sure that it's still within line.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. Yeah. Okay. I guess that's what I was kinda, like, working on and and because just a lot of bumble. But in since the tenants are still have yet to be identified, and I think, Briella or miss Panto, you mentioned about that, you know, it still needs to be assessed and whether it's really meeting, you know, the last, you know, the goals. And that's what I was kinda referring to in terms of, like, environmental justice area is also to refer to that as well and whether, you know, it I mean, it sounds like this framework has yet to be built or or no. Yeah. In terms of, like, how what are the measurements? The measurements are based on the EIR or the mitigation measures of the EIR.

[Gabriela Panto, Planning Department Staff]: Yeah. Oh, so let's get more into what, like, numbers and all that. But we did build out a framework, like I said, just because the the kind of context of the project is we don't know who the tenants are gonna be, but we've analyzed you know, potential impacts based on this, you know, use mix. And so we've built out a framework so that when tenants do come in, that we can track that and say, okay. You've got, you know, like I said, 5,000 square feet of partial delivery that includes, you know, this many vehicle trips. And so now you've reached this. And now if you add 5,000 more, we gotta make sure that stays under what we analyze in the EIR.

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

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Commissioner Imperial, there is a we've developed a screening anticipating

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: SFCOV, can we go to the overhead, please?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: So this was our our analyzed tenant use mix that was in the EINR. And so staff has developed a screening form as projects, as the building is tenanted out to be able to see cumulatively how's how they're measuring up against this analyzed tenant use mix that we had in the EIR.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah. Yeah. And I'm assuming that depending depending on the tenants that there will still be an EIRs, that there will still needed be an EIR depending on the on the tenant or I I remember reading about substantial changes, and I think that was kinda like came into my mind, like, what that mean of substantial changes. And we didn't really I I don't know what substantial means. So

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Yeah. If thank you for the question. If there's a use that is that was not analyzed in the EIR, that could and I'm gonna look to our ERO, that could be we would analyze it, but it would depend what is proposed, and we would see whether or not there was any new or more severe environmental impacts. And then we would make that determination about whether it might need further environmental review.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: And Yes. Yes, please.

[Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer (Planning Dept.)]: Thank you. Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer. Yeah. Liz White said it accurately. That's right. With each new tenant that would be considered by the project, we would be conducting a review, not just with regard to air quality, but overall ensuring that the environmental analysis that we previously did accurately and thoroughly identified all potential environmental effects. And I do wanna just set some context here that addresses maybe your your prior question regarding how our department has considered, racial and social equity and environmental justice with in regard to our our work. The the analysis that we have done for the CIR from the beginning was centered in the recognition of this community having been disproportionately impacted by its location in in an area that has many sources of pollution. And so we made very conservative assumptions in our analysis that ensured that we were being health protective in in the review. For the air quality analysis, this includes recognizing the the project being located in the air pollutant exposure zone. We have thresholds for what's considered significant that are even more health protective what than what the air district has. We identified that also, just with the project itself, it would generate mobile source emissions, but we have a section in the EIR that discusses how there are factors that we did not consider for the air quality analysis that would have actually resulted in less impacts being identified and and not having the need for as much mitigation. So the the the way we, looked at it, you know, this project would improve or reduce the amount of of trips that would occur compared to existing conditions by by siting the parcel and last mile uses closer to where customers are, where people are requiring deliveries. This project overall reduces vehicle miles traveled. And we identified that in our transportation analysis. For purposes of the air quality review, we we chose to make the conservative assumption to not take that into account, meaning that, the we we chose instead to identify the potential the significant impacts and apply this, these mitigation measures that are now commitments the project sponsor has to is is making to reduce the impacts of the project. Again, comparing it to what it is now, there is traffic that's already occurring and that already is spewing these pollutants out of the tailpipes, and the community is being impacted by that. That's the big source of pollution for the existing traffic. So this project would actually relatively reduce that, but we chose, again, to ensure this project is going to be adding additional measures to protect the community.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you so much for that further explanation. I think I just want to, you know, have confidence that we have monitoring system in a way of, of tracking this. And again, you know, I'm very, you know, I'm not very, but I'm aware of the environmental justice that we're doing and just seeing how it overlays with that. My other question is around the development agreement. And I think my question on that is around the the 8,000,000 contributions, direct contributions to the community. And is that also part of a development agreement or is that separate or that's like, is I I see that there's a 5,000,000 OEWD, and then there's I guess, breakdown again, development agreement.

[Susan Ma, Office of Economic & Workforce Development]: Yeah. So there's there'll be roughly $8,000,000 in direct community contributions, in small business, the SF Produce Market Reinvestment Plan, workforce development, LBE business enterprise programs, and market zone improvement programs, as well as sustainability. So all of that are going to be direct contributions to community efforts.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: And how is that also being monitored? Or, I'm seeing, like, $300,000 of fund in, education programs. Is that through SFUSD or directly to the organization?

[Susan Ma, Office of Economic & Workforce Development]: Yeah. So in the development agreement, we have a community benefits linkage schedule, and they're tied to milestones to the project. So as the project progresses, some of these benefits will be released, and they will have to report on that. We will check their progress and whether or not they've met those commitments before we can, you know, advance their project and permits or TCOs, etcetera.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Yeah. So perhaps if you might just elaborate just I think just for the record that I am aware of that OEW has a pretty good sets of, reporting requirement for any development agreement. So

[Sue Hester]: just give

[Lydia So, Commission President]: us, like, a general

[Susan Ma, Office of Economic & Workforce Development]: Sure. So for this project, there's an annual review process. The planning department staff will have about sixty days to respond to that. For the environmental pieces, that is

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: an

[Susan Ma, Office of Economic & Workforce Development]: additional requirement that we have on them. That's for the environmental piece, the MMRP. So they will submit a report. They will have thirty days once planning review has occurred to make that a public document, so that anyone from the public can go online and look for it. Some of the feedback that we heard was what normal person knows to go to the planning commission website to look for these kind of documents. And we wanted to make sure it was accessible to the community, because it was very important to them that they are responsive. So the sponsor will be maintaining this website. Once planning staff has reviewed and approved the document, they have thirty days to put it on their website.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Thank you very much for explaining that. Thank you.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. And just, again, I think just echoing what other public sentiments and ensuring that the that the and there has been history of actually money not getting into communities. So just we just want to be proactive really to ensure of this money goes to them. And it sounds and when will the construction start on this? Or what's the projecting timeline for the construction?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Hi. We don't have

[Courtney Bell, Prologis (Project Sponsor)]: a projected start date right now. We're what we know, and we've heard from in our experience in the market, PDR customers really need time certainty. So we're focused on getting through this approvals phase and then excited to move on to work on, attracting possible tenants and get to our design and permitting phase.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. In general, I think what ProLogistix have done in the community and getting communities together, I'm impressed of the works of the length that you have done. And I'm also I'm also happy to see the monitoring systems that we also are gonna put in place for this. So I'm I'm in support. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. I'd like to mention that also from the Office of Supervisor Walton. He's in full support of this project too. Just wanted to make sure that it's on the record. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Thank you. I'm going to keep my comments just to the environmental review for the time being. So just big picture, I think that the final environmental impact report and the response to comments document were satisfactory. And I appreciate the changes that were made in response to the comments that were received. I reviewed that. And I have no concerns about any of that. I think the SIGWA analysis was really well done. The program of mitigations is very robust. I just want to pull out if there's even something down to a wind mitigation that has a very detailed description of the height and canopy of the number and number of trees that have to be planted and maintained in order to address some of the wind impacts. So I can't say that the I's haven't been dotted and the T's crossed as part of this. And I also want to thank Commissioner Williams and Imperial for asking a lot of really great questions. There are a lot of questions that I had and I was very satisfied with the answers. There are also a lot of great questions that I should have had, and so I'm glad that you had them. You know, I I I I came in mostly concerned about, emissions as well as part of this project, and I do appreciate seeing the mitigations around the truck model year. I know electrification for large truck is a little ways away, but at least the the emissions controls are improving. And then the the I appreciate the additional detail on the operational emission management plan, and so I was very satisfied with those answers. So I am, like I said, just sticking with the, EIR for now. So I move to adopt the final environmental impact report.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Second.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. And, Lisa, would you like to comment? Okay. And Commissioner Campbell, would you like to add more comments, or are we ready to vote? Okay. Jonas, we're ready.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Very good, commissioners. Then on the environmental impact report, item 14, there is a motion that has been seconded to certify the environmental impact report on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore. Excuse me. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Now you have the entitlements, 15 a through e.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Now we have the big long one. Okay? May I go first? Thank you for being here. It's almost 8PM. Then I I actually as many of you had shared your comments with me, it is very rare to see a local company that was born in San Francisco in the seventies and continue to stay with us and thrive and grow. And it's a company that founded also by an immigrant. And so it is today is this company that also uplifting a community that has been long forgotten or, undervalued. So I wanted to, give a special acknowledgment of the legacy of a business that started really in a humble way and then grow into a really big national publicly traded company. It is an evidence of when it's founded by a company that actually kind of created by immigrants, I found that maybe perhaps that's the reason why another way that they really reach out to really understand what really can be done better. And I hope that with a lot of the mechanism here, and I'm working at it, is I noticed the case number was dated, like, 2015. So this is, like, a ten year anniversary. I don't know what to say. It's, like, celebrating or I feel sorry about this. We should move things faster. For things for for a company like this, for a project like this, and I understand that there's a lot of, work and a lot of stones that you need to turn to make sure that you talk to everyone. And if nothing else, I think this might have been, like many of you share your comments with me today, that something that other company might like to look forward to and then and learn from what what this project had done and working so collaboratively with a city government agency, local stakeholders, and the union trades, all different union trades, and then also your sub trades. So everybody spoke eloquently, and I really don't want to have a eleven year on this project for for you to actually get some reassurance from the city that you can actually have this commitment to secure, that you can actually deliver to our communities these unimaginable amount of, community benefits that can help train our local workforce. From the community that I actually well aware of that during some of the Mission Bay construction, they were fighting and asked to get a little piece of the pie, and they were not being part of it. And and you stick out and said that you're gonna create this Bayview Hunters Point business and couple other union driven approach for really hyper local engagement with the use of the labor. And then you can train them, and then we can grow. So thank you for doing that. And with the this amount of money that we can get to stimulate our general fund, and I hope that we can see more affordable housing that truly can be built and really launch on the ground with school and transportation and all these childhood early childhood benefits. And I'm really happy to see this is coming to this full tuition fruitions. And all these people that work for this for ten years or more, and thank you for your resiliency. I feel like I'm just doing a little part of the history today. Hopefully, I can bring this over to the other hump that you have to to do. And I have I have full support of this, and I'd like to hear the rest of my commissioners comment and hopefully emotion soon. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thanks. I'm gonna keep my comments brief. I it's I'm I'm I'm a big supporter of this project, and I think one thing that we just haven't talked about that I wanna touch on quickly is that it's like the poster child for PDR. This is like it's own PDR. It's it's a wonderful celebration and strengthening really of, like, what I think of as, like, kind of a dwindling thing in San Francisco. So I really commend the project sponsor for taking the use and not just reinvesting in it, but modernizing it and and making it work for, you know, our local economy and also looking at it through a very sustainable lens as well. So and then, of course and I think it's already been mentioned repeatedly, just the level of engagement and investment with with the community. I think one of the slides said 30 plus groups, 100 plus community meetings. It really shows, and I really appreciated that comment from the sponsor, just saying it the project's better for it now, and that really shows. So, yeah, I think that's really mostly my comments. I'm prepared to I also really love that we there's a way for the community to to continue to get assurances around some of the commitments that the project sponsor has made, both with the MMRP mitigation monitoring and the that linkage schedule so we can see how the funds are getting distributed over time. So loved hearing that as well. And then I'm prepared to make a motion, just to because I like making motions. So, can I do them all at once? Do I have to do them? Teammate. Can I say, I make a motion to approve and adopt? They all have kind of, like, different,

[Speaker 75.0]: but I'll

[Speaker 99.0]: just say

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: 15 b, 15 c, 15 d, and 15 e. Motion to approve. Second. Yep.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Second, second. Yes. And commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: A quick question about the motion that was just made. I did like the idea that Commissioner Imperial raised about, annual, bringing the, annual reporting before the commission for a hearing. It's something that we've done on some other development agreement projects. I know it takes a little bit more time and effort and staff time, but this is a really big project. And I found those hearings to be really helpful. Members of the public do turn out for them. I'm thinking about the CPMC development agreement, for example, where we've been hearing that over the last few years. And I mean, now we no longer hear that one. That time period has lapsed. So hey, I guess we can backfill that thought with this one. But I think it would be really helpful to keep hearing this at commission in the future as well. So are you open to annual hearings now?

[Speaker 63.0]: I might I

[Lydia So, Commission President]: might have like, maybe director

[Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: One of the things I'd recommend rather than putting you in the motion, just because, we don't know when the project will start. And if it's in the motion, we come back to you a year from now and there isn't anything to report on, and, is that we just commit as staff to do that as part of our practice. I'm I'm happy to do that, that we'll report to you, when this starts moving forward, and then we can figure out an annual cadence from there. Does that sound amenable?

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: I

[Lydia So, Commission President]: I I think it is amenable with me.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I mean, an alternative would be we could have the trigger, be when when the, I guess, the permit is issued. I'm not sure what the appropriate trigger would be, but, I there's no need to come back to us if they haven't even gotten the permit yet. But,

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Yeah. I have a little slightly I mean, I guess, when you cite a CPMC, that was a very interesting example because that's not really well, I mean, I don't wanna compares apples to oranges here. I felt like this the project sponsor had actually done everything that they ought to do and did everything there is? And

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Well, in that instance, there were some items that were not, actually on track even as of the last update that we had, and I think it was, helpful to to identify those items.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you, commissioner Braun, for bringing that up. I again, it's I mean, I am leaning toward your whether the issuance of the of the permits when it comes out because, I mean, I'm leaning to that, but if other commissioners will be okay with that.

[Dennis Phillips, Planning Director]: Director Phillips. Obviously, this is at your discretion, commissioners. I do note that when things are mandated for the department and things like resolutions or conditions of approval, it it often gets difficult for us to track all of those things and meet them as well just like it is for a project sponsor because we help you approve hundreds of resolutions every year. So I'll I'll just put that out there that, you know, I have lingering concern when we adopt things such things formally that we're just it's it is easier for us to be responsive to you through our regular mode of communications in in my opinion.

[Teresa Flandrich, North Beach Tenants Committee]: So putting that out there.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Put that in the findings perhaps that that that this planning staff that the the yes, that the planning staff will issue a memo that, for for informational hearing when the project starts. Is that is that a okay language?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Yeah. I I think the idea is that would be annual reporting after construction of the project commences. And and it's the reporting on the status of the, implementation of the development agreement and the key benefits.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: How is it different than what OEW do you already have?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: It's not different. It's just a matter of bringing it before the commission for a public hearing. My understanding, my understanding is that the reporting is happening. It's gonna happen no matter what, and I under I appreciate that. But

[John Lau, Office of Economic & Workforce Development]: Yeah. Just to offer the language in the development agreement analysis, there will be an annual report produced and reviewed by staff. Or if nothing has happened, which may be the case in some years, that can be waived. When that report is produced and reviewed by plaintiff's department staff, anyone can call a hearing on it. So that's already in the agreement, notwithstanding the conversation you're just having about where else you may want to list that. But the director, any commissioner, even a board of supervisors member, can call the hearing on it. I dare to say the commission can call an informational hearing on anything. It wants to at any time as well. So I think you have that at your disposal as well. But

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Sure. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: To let

[John Lau, Office of Economic & Workforce Development]: you know what's in the DA currently.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Yeah. I appreciate it. That's why

[Daniel Sharrock (reading letter from Dr. Kent Chamberlain)]: I'm trying not to make a lot more work.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I just think that it's a matter of actually holding conducting the hearing. So if it's I'm comfortable with the just communicating that there has been commissioner interest in having that annual hearing when the reporting starts and the project has commenced. I can leave it at that. Okay. So with getting past that, I just had a couple of comments. And I won't take too much time because mostly I'm just saying some really wonderful, glowing things. I mean, first of all, I just want to thank all the different organizations and community representatives who've been engaged in this process throughout a fairly long time. It's a big commitment of time and effort to sit on something like a community advisory committee or, one of these organizations. And and so I just wanna thank you for that and also to Prologist for really kind of doing this right. It was interesting to hear it pointed out that this has a twenty fifteen case number, and it jogged my memory of actually in my day job in urban economics consulting. We we did a case study of multistory PDR facilities like this many years ago. And this was one of the ones that we were kind of thinking about and looking at. And so it's been quite a journey, but I think that there's a really great result in the end because of it. You know, I echo all the positive comments made about many of the community benefits as part of this project and the project labor agreement. And I also really want to just appreciate the upgrade to the terrible state of the infrastructure in this area that's gonna be made. As commissioner McGarry said, I mean, I there's a a lot of people in the room will know it. There's a nonprofit store about a block away from this that I go to sometimes, and I get there on the 24 bus, and I walk there down these streets, if you can call them that. And so, yeah, it's really great to see that this area is going to get a great big modernization through this process and also have that hyperlocal participation of of the workforce in the Bayview as part of that as well. So I'm really excited about that. And I'm just plain old excited that we're going to have a really major update to our industrial building stock here. I see places like Fremont, where in that case, there's a lot of advanced manufacturing. But they're getting a lot of modern industrial building stock that I just we just don't see a whole lot of in San Francisco. And having that flexibility, and and, modern facility like this is just a super, super exciting thing to see. So this is my full support. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay, commissioners. If there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded, and it just remains as it was originally made. Correct? Very good. Then on that motion, commissioners, to adopt findings under the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a recommendation for approval of planning code and zoning map amendments, approving a development agreement adopting the, Gateway Special Use District's design standards and guidelines document, and approving a conditional use authorization with conditions. On that motion, commissioner Campbell?

[Betsy Eddy]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Keep going. Commissioners, it'll place us under your discretionary review calendar for item 16, case number 2010.0857 DRP for the property at 2051 Quesada Avenue. This is a discretionary review.

[Public commenters (Translated)]: Commissioners. Thank you.

[David Winslow, Staff Architect (Planning Dept.)]: Good evening, commissioners. David Winslow, staff architect. The item before you today is a public initiated request for discretionary review of planning application number 2010.0857 to move an existing two family house approximately 21 feet to the east and construct a site addition as well as altering the front to provide for a garage. The existing house is classified as a C, non historic resource. And the current location of the house occupies a portion of two legal lots, which were created in 2009. The Doctor requester, Mimi Sue, of 2049 Quesada Avenue, the immediate neighbor to the Southeast, is concerned that the proposed project will significantly and negatively impact natural sunlight, eliminate long standing views, and severely reduce natural ventilation and circulation to her house. To date, the department has received, no letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project. The project proposes to move the existing house to occupy one lot. It retains a side setback at the south adjacent to the Doctor requester, which in turn allows the Doctor requester's side lot window to remain operational and functional. The project complies with residential design guidelines for setback locations relative to adjacent neighbors. Although there may be some reduction of light to the neighbor's window, property line windows are generally not protected by proposed development. The loss of views is also not meant to preclude the exercise of reasonable development rights. Therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that merit taking discretionary review. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you. That concludes staff's presentation. We should, hear from the Doctor requester. I don't know if you are the are you the disc discretionary review requester?

[Mimi Sue, Discretionary Review Requester (2049 Quesada Ave.)]: Hi. My name is Mimi. I'm the property owner of 2049. Residents at 2049 object the proposal of 2051 to relocate adjacent to 2049 for the following reasons. One, loss of natural light and ventilation. The side windows at 2049 provide daylight and airflow. Relocating 2051 directly against it would block sunlight entirely and eliminate ventilation creating unhealthy living condition. Two, fire and safety hazard. Side windows often serve as emergency exit or firefighter access. Blocking windows would reduce fire safety and emergency escape options. Three, loss of privacy. Relocating 2051 adjacent to 2049 would eliminate all privacy for the affected window, leaving occupants at 2049 with a direct exposure to 2051 structure. With the wall directly outside the window, the interior environment of 2049 would become darker, less ventilated, and less healthy directly diminishing quality of life for its occupants. Four, maintenance concern. Limits maintenance access to residents in 2049. It would make it difficult to fix the siding of 2049. Five, creating a negative impact on property value. The loss of natural light, ventilation, and privacy at two zero four nine would reduce its market value imposing an unfair financial impact on property owner. Overall, windows at 2049 will lose all of its function, light, air, safety, and value.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. If that concludes Doctor Requester's presentation, we should hear from the project sponsor. You have five minutes.

[Raymond Zau, Project Sponsor (2051 Quesada Ave.)]: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Raymond Zau, and I'm the son and owner son of the owner of the resident and the resident at the property. I'm also the sponsor for the project at 2051. Thank you for your, the opportunity to speak today. We respectfully ask you to deny this, discretionary review and approve our project. The pro the proposal we have fully comply with all of San Francisco planning and building codes. It requires no variance and is supported by the planning, department staffs. We have listened to the neighbors' concerns regarding their nonconforming property line window. In response or design, it includes significant mitigations. We are not blocking the window. We're preserving light and air with a three foot code compliance light well located entirely on our property. The kitchen also has a second unaffected rear facing window that will provide airflow or natural lights to their kitchen. After filing the applications, we proactively revise our plans to relocate our windows to enhance privacy between the two homes, so there's no direct windows to each other. And the planning department has reviewed the project, and I wanna quote what they put on their review. Quote, no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that merit taking discretionary reviews, end quote. They also noted that the property line windows are generally not protected, and the loss of view does not prevent a reasonable development. So this project we have today represents a responsible use of our property designed to meet our family needs while respecting all the city regulations, we ask that you follow the, or take the planning department staff's recommendation at the end, they said, should be denied the Doctor and approved, project that we have. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. If that concludes project sponsors presentation, we should hear from members of the public. For any person here not affiliated with the Doctor requester or the project sponsor, you have two minutes. You need to come forward. Last call, seeing none. Public comment is closed. Doctor requester, you have a two minute rebuttal.

[Mimi Sue, Discretionary Review Requester (2049 Quesada Ave.)]: So he mentioned there was a small window in the kitchen. Well, it is a window, but it's very tiny. And right now, there's two big windows where we open and use it for air ventilation because that area is our kitchen. You know, we do have a, kitchen ventilator thing. I don't know what you call that, but it's not as strong. So we really rely on that window to filter out the cooking smells, and also, it brings light into the kitchen. We kinda prefer natural sunlight instead of turning on, the light the light bulb to save electricity. So so yeah. That concludes my rebuttal.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: K. Project sponsor, you have a two minute rebuttal if you want it.

[Raymond Zau, Project Sponsor (2051 Quesada Ave.)]: So it seems like the biggest concern that they have is the window. That's our, one again, non conforming property line window that they have for ventilations. But it seems like they have a mechanical fan in there for ventilations, and there's opening of the smaller window, which she called smaller window, but I guess a window is a window that opens. And I believe their living room is adjacent to the, kitchen as well, where is, where they have giant windows facing the street. So I believe, that would provide sufficient ventilations. And again, we are not closing the two windows or ask them to close the two windows that are adjacent to our property, and we are providing the three foot light well where it opens to the end of the property where there's natural flows of airs anytime they open the window. So I don't see why this would be a problem with the airflow or even lights because there's the the light will will justify the the use of the air in the lights. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Okay. Thank you. With that, the public hearing portion is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Mister Winslow, you wanted to comment? No. Okay. It's okay. Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: First of all, I just wanna thank everyone involved in this for sticking it out for a very long time. I know it's been eight hours since we started this hearing. And thank you. I'm sorry. But the fact that you're here, I think it speaks to how deeply felt this issue is for a discretionary review requester. I have one question just for the project sponsor. It's it's a little it's just a robotic question, but would you mind coming up? So my first question is just it's kind of an interesting project in the sense that you're moving this house. So there was a lot split, right? And now this house is being shifted over. Is that is the goal sort of to free up the adjacent lot?

[Raymond Zau, Project Sponsor (2051 Quesada Ave.)]: Correct. Currently, the house is situated on two lots, and so that's why we need to move it to one side so to free up the other one to for any other future development if needed.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I see. Okay. Thank you. And then I one other question is, so I can see in the plans that you are indeed leaving. You're not covering the windows completely. It's not that this house is going to be directly against the wall and the windows will have to be completely removed from, 2049. And so, I see that there is still space. There's three feet there. It's kind of like a it becomes a little bit more of a almost a light well type situation. And, did you adjust the position of the window? There is a window across from it now, three feet away. It looks like it's higher than the windows of 2049. It looks like it's a bathroom window. So is that positioned deliberately in order to try to prevent some privacy issues? Correct.

[Raymond Zau, Project Sponsor (2051 Quesada Ave.)]: Correct. So yes, they are on the same level as the windows. And yes, we adjust it more to the rear of our development so to to not have any direct window in front of their windows.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Directly looking at each other. Okay. Okay. I think those are those are all my questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Thank you. Okay.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Thank you. So my thoughts on this are I I understand, the discussion review requester, your your position, and I understand that this is gonna be a big change. And and I I'm completely sympathetic to the concerns that you have. But the threshold for taking discretionary review is that there really have to be exceptional extraordinary circumstances. And I agree with the department's analysis. The configuration that's going to end up happening here with this change is a very common one. It is allowed in the city. You see this all over the place. I appreciate seeing that at least the windows will still be exposed somewhat. There are a lot line windows and some worse actors might actually even cover them up with their project completely. This one, it's a big change, I know. But it is leaving the three feet of space and those windows still exposed. And so for for me, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances with this project. And I I move to not take Doctor and to approve.

[Speaker 8.0]: Second.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Mhmm. Just a question to mister Winslow. So any any windows that are on the property line themselves, those Those have to be either a special window or they're not allowed. Am I correct in You're partially correct.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: So if I could elaborate a little bit more. As you see throughout the city, there's windows like that that I presume are probably wood, double hung windows on the property line, built at some situation where who knows what the lot configuration was or what the code at the time was. Nonetheless, that window doesn't comply with current code standards because it's a lot line window. If it were built new today and it wanted to have a lot line window, it would not be operable. And it would have to have a forty five minute rating in this occupancy group. Then the third part of this is what you have is a non existing condition being compromised, if you will, with some new situation, as in a building coming up and building adjacent to it. In situations where, as you were mentioning, a worse actor could say, I don't care about your property line window. I have the right to build to my property line. It's the onus is on the property line window owner to remedy the situation, which is fill it back in. Or, you know, I mean, if you if you still had space to put a window and see out, you could have a forty five minute rated window. So in this case, I believe from a building department's perspective, they're not going to enforce the remedy of their non compliant Doctor requester's lot line window because it's not being compromised by physical proximity to the new construct or the building being moved.

[Gilbert Williams, Commissioner]: Mhmm. So the gentleman that's moving his building is actually considering his neighbor and leaving that three foot space for these windows that really aren't they're not up to code. Right? They they're not they don't meet the building code because they're on the property line. Okay. Yeah. I I, unfortunately, like Commissioner Braun mentioned, I think the gentleman who moved his house over did consider his neighbor and actually configured his home in a way to accommodate his neighbor. And even though it's a change, it could have been worse. It could have been completely covered up. And so I I would say that, I I think you did the right thing. I think you, tried to accommodate your neighbor. I know, probably doesn't feel that way to, what was your name again, ma'am? I'm sorry. Mimi. Mimi. I know it doesn't doesn't feel that way to you, Mimi, but, he actually did do something, for you, that he didn't have to do. And So I just want to highlight that because I think that's kind of, for me, it kind of is the whole case, the whole purpose here. So, yeah.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. If there's no more comments, I think we're ready to vote.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: Indeed. There's a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed on that motion. Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Commissioner Imperial?

[Gabriela Panto, Planning Department Staff]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin, Commission Secretary]: And commission president Sow? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven excuse me, six to zero.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Alright. Meeting adjourns.