San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Lydia So, Commission President]: This webinar is being transcribed and summarized.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 11/20/2025. 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 disruption or outbursts of any kind. And at this time, I'd like to take roll. Commission President So.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Present.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Commission Vice President Moore. View. Commissioner Braun. Here. Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Here.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Here.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: And Commissioner McGarry. Present. We expect Commissioner Williams to be absent today. First on your agenda, Commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number 2025Hyphen007879CUA at six ninety Van Ness Avenue conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to 12/11/2025. We have no other items proposed for continuance. So members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: Motion to continue. Second.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue item one as proposed, commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president so?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. Six to zero. Item two, land acknowledgment.

[Amy Campbell, 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.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Item three, consideration of adoption draft minutes for 11/06/2025. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your minutes

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: are now before you, commissioners.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Commissioner Imperial? Move to adopt the minutes.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Second.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commission President Tsao?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, six to zero. Item four, commission comments and questions. Okay. Seeing none, we can move on to department matters. Item five, director's announcements.

[Director Tanner (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Great to see you again. As we approach the Thanksgiving holiday, I do wanna convey how grateful the department is for your service. So, another another aspect of gratitude. Thank you very much. I'm supposed to speak louder. Thank you, Catherine. I will speak louder. I don't have a whole lot of updates today. We did have last week and then again this week on Zoom, two sessions for the Fillmore Community Action Plan, which was a great opportunity, and great dialogue with community, both in person and virtually. And I think that was a great match of of offering both options with kind of the same format, but, and we actually had some people attend both, which which allowed them to kind of evolve their thoughts from one session to the next. So that was a that was a great session and really proud of staff for, shepherding the whole city, including the mayor's office and supervisor Moomoo's office through that, process and series of workshops. The family zoning plan, continues to be discussed at the land use committee. It was heard on Monday. You'll hear a little bit about that. But we are still on track to, get to the full board in December. So we look forward to that as, as amendments continue to be forwarded to that package. And we continue to be in active conversation with the Department of Housing and Community Development at the state to make sure what we're doing, meets state muster. That's all I have. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: There are no questions. We can move on to item six, review of past events of the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission.

[Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs (SF Planning)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron Star, manager of legislative affairs.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: This week,

[Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs (SF Planning)]: the land use committee started off by considering supervisor Mandelmann's ordinance concerning the central neighborhood's large residential SUD. This ordinance would expand the boundaries of this SUD. As part of this change, it would eliminate the Corona Heights large residential SUD and merge that area into the Central Neighborhoods SUD. The expansion would also incorporate parcels that became part of District 8 during the most recent redistricting process. It also expands the controls to all parcels in the SUD, not just zoned those zoned RH. The SUD sets a maximum of 3,000 square feet on unit size, also known as monster homes. Commissioners, you may not remember this ordinance, as you heard it back on August 1. At that time, you recommended approval with two modifications. The first was to not include accessory garage space in the calculations for gross floor area, and the second was to specify that for the purposes of calculating gross floor area in multi unit buildings, shared space shall not be included. The delay in this coming to the land use committee was due to the need to pair it with an up zoning, because in some cases, a limit on unit size can be considered a down zoning. At the time At the land use hearing, supervisor Mandelmann proposed amendments, to the ordinance to include both the commission's recommendations. During the committee hearing, supervisor Mandelmann explained that his district has seen a growing number of oversized single family homes on lots that could otherwise support smaller, more appropriately scaled units. He emphasized that these large homes are typically unaffordable and out of character with for the surrounding neighborhood. There were several members of the public who spoke in favor of the ordinance. This amended item was then continued to the committee's next meeting of December 1 so that it could be synced with the family zoning plan. Next, the committee considered supervisor Cheyenne Chen's tenant protection ordinance. This ordinance amends the planning and administrative codes to codify and expand the state's tenant protections and housing replacement requirements that are established under s b three thirty. By embedding these protections into local law, the ordinance reinforces the city's commitment to balancing housing production with long term tenant stability. Commissioners, you heard this item on November 6 and adopted a recommendation for approval with modifications. These modifications incorporated all the changes proposed by the department and both supervisors. Key updates include revisions to the conditional use findings and thresholds, a new demolition definition, enhanced disclosure requirements for buyout agreements and LSAC evictions, and an expansion of the existing occupant definition to include tenants displaced through the LSAC evictions among other changes. The sponsor accepted all the proposed modifications except those regarding changes to conditional use findings and thresholds and the updated demolition definition. During the hearing, supervisor Cheyenne Chen highlighted the collaborative process between interested parties in developing the ordinance, emphasizing its significance in strengthening tenant protections. Supervisor Melgar praised supervisor Cheyenne Chen's work, describing the ordinance as one of the largest and most impactful pieces of legislation she has seen in her decades of engagement with affordable housing and tenant protection. Supervisor Mahmood also comment commended supervisor Cheyenne Chen and underscored the ordinance' importance within the broader context of the family zoning plan. He expressed his full support and signed on as cosponsor. A total of 32 members of the public provided comments, with the vast majority expressing strong support for the ordinance and the proposed modifications. Supporters specifically requested, amendments to the demolition definition and the conditional use authorization findings. Two commenters opposed the ordinance, and one commenter expressed support, but raised concern about potential impacts on redevelopment of rent control housing. After public comment, the committee continued the ordinance to December 1. Most amendments were adopted, while those related to the conditional use findings and thresholds, as well as the demolition definition, were deferred to the next hearing for consideration after additional outreach. Lastly, the committee considered for the third time the family zoning plan. At the start of the hearing, staff provided the committee with a presentation that discussed the following. First, the different capacity analyses done to assure compliance with state requirements to add a capacity for 36,000 new units, the relationship of the family zoning plan to s b 79, and staff's approach to assessing how the various proposed amendments could impact the legislation's effectiveness. Prior to public comment, supervisor Mandelmann introduced a new map and text amendments that together would remove properties listed in article 10, both individually listed and contributors to historic districts, from the rezoning. Specifically, such properties would be removed from the proposed new r four height and bulk and new RTOC underlying zoning designations. The committee moved to incorporate these amendments into the original board file for the rezoning map and planning code actions. During public comment, there were approximately 66 speakers. Comments varied greatly between being opposed to and supportive of the rezoning broadly and the various amendments proposed. At the end of public comment, the committee then acted on the various ordinances. First was the general plan amendments, no specific discussion by supervisors, and very little comment from the public regarding this matter. The committee continued it to December 1. Next, the zoning map amendments. The committee moved to incorporate into the original file several amendments, including first, Mandelmann's amendments that were just described, an amendment to reduce the proposed heights and only allow form based density under the local program at various d two locations. This includes the Marina Safeway, the North Side Of Point Street between Hyde and Larkin, and two sites on Geary. Heights were also increased at two other locations, several blocks on the West Side Of Van Ness and two blocks along Pine Street. These were proposed by supervisor Cheryl. The map amendments that failed the committee's motion to be incorporated into the file include, first, the amendment to remove parcels from the priority equity geographies from the rezoning. This was proposed by supervisor Cheyenne Chen. And then amendments to remove many parcels within the coastal zone within D 1 from the rezoning. And this was proposed by Connie Chen. Sorry, supervisor Connie Chen. And the third was an amendment to remove one d one parcel from the s m SFMTA SUD, also proposed by supervisor Connie Chen. The amend the map amendments were then continued to December 1. Next, the planning code text amendments. The committee moved to incorporate the following amendments into the original file. First, the amendment to reinstate underlying unit mix requirements for the local program, while retaining the proposed lower threshold for five units. This was proposed by supervisor Cheyenne Chen. The text amendments that failed the committee's vote to be incorporated into the original file include, first, an amendment to reintroduce pre application requirements for developments at SFMTA sites to evaluate the site's feasibility for 100% affordable housing. This was proposed by supervisor Shayan Chen. And amendments to remove form based density in the base zoning and revert to underlying density controls in all districts. This was proposed by supervisor Connie Chan. Then the original file was continued December 1. Then the committee moved to table most of the duplicated files, which after the land use motions contained those amendments that were not moved to the original file for later consideration. One duplicated file, will be under the review of at the duplicated file, will be under the review of at the planning commission today, which is President Mandelmann's lot merger restrictions. Then at the full board, supervisor Fielder's Medical Cannabis Dispensary Ordinance, Supervisor Dorsey's Planning Fees Ordinance, the mayor's, timeline for appeals for the zoning administrator, the state mandated accessory dwelling unit program, all passed their second read. Then the San Francisco Gateway Special Use District, sponsored by supervisor Walton, passed its first read. Next, this, supervisor's considered supervisor Connie Chan's ordinance that would require a CU to replace a legacy business. Commissioners, you heard this item on October 16 and took the rare action of recommending disapproval of the proposed ordinance. When the item was heard at the land use committee, it was amended so that small businesses would be exempt from the CU. Because this commission actively recommended disapproval of the ordinance, thereby finding it inconsistent with the general plan, the board required eight votes to override that determination and adopt their own general plan findings. During the hearing, supervisors, Mahmood, Sodder, and Cheryl all spoke against the item, all, citing the Small Business Commission and this commission's non support of the item, and the need to make things easier, not harder for new businesses. When the vote came, it earned just six yes votes, two short of the eight needed to override, this commission's general plan determination. The ordinance has failed and will not have a second read. Lastly, the board heard the appeal for the final mitigated negative declaration for the proposed project at 570 Market Street. The project would demolish two existing two story commercial buildings to construct a 29 story, 300 foot hotel with approximately 211 guest rooms. The planning commission heard the PMND appeal on May 1 and rejected the appeal. The appellants primarily raised issues related to geology and soils, construction noise and vibration, and historic preservation. Appellants contended that the vibration mitigation measure was not feasible and that the city was deferring mitigation and study by not studying geo technical impacts upfront and relying on DBI process. Regarding construction noise, the appellant's argued that the adjacent office building should be considered a, sensitive receptor, even though office uses generally are not. Balance also initially raised issues regarding construction, air quality, shadow wind, and freight loading during the appeal. There were about four commenters in support of the project. These commenters were construction and trade union representatives. There were no commenters who supported the appeal. There was no significant discussion from the board. Supervisor Sauter was the only supervisor who spoke. He echoed the department's position that the appellant have not provided substantial evidence based on facts to support the need for an EIR and that the MND, as prepared, adequately analyzed the project. He then made a motion to reject the appeal, which passed unanimously. And after 18,028 words, I am done.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Seeing no questions for mister Starr, the board of there is no report from the board of appeals, but the Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday and considered several legacy business registry applications. That included Glamorama on Valencia Street, Catherine Clark Gallery on Utah Street, The Hair Place and More, Barber Shop on 22nd Street, The Sword and Rose on Carl Street, and Deitch's Woodwind Workshop on Clement Street. They also, adopted a recommendation for approval to expand the boundaries for the Castro LGBTQ cultural district. 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 accept agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Denise Louie, member of the public]: Okay. Good afternoon, president Tsao, commissioners, and director Phillips. My name is Denise Louie. I'm a long time advocate for fire prevention and preparedness. Today, I urge you to reject the proposed 104 foot tall AT and T antenna at 350 Amber, because it is a fire hazard. In addition, it would be situated among 100 foot tall, dangerous eucalyptus, which are known to ignite easily because of their volatile oils to burn hot, to explode, and because of their large leaves and peeling bark to send burning embers flying for miles. What we really need instead is a redundant public alert system, like the one that was shut off due to the potential hacking. Imagine the unavailability of cell phone service. I request that you insist that, that staff study alternatives for backup communication systems. Now, some people may want better wireless AT and T internet service. I did, so I switched to Xfinity. And it's cable service. So I'm saving $15 a month while I'm getting better internet service. We don't need AT and T for that. I also urge you to plan for seismic upgrades to fire and police stations. The two fire stations in Chinatown and in the mission that are meant to be command posts in a disaster are seismically unsafe. As chief Crispin himself said, we would first need to rescue our first responders. So other fire and police stations also need retrofitting. Please take steps to keep our first responders safe. Thank you.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Ma'am, I didn't wanna interrupt you, but just so you're aware, the planning commission already considered 350

[Rich Sucré, Planning Department (Current Planning/Historic Preservation)]: Amber Street and approved that project in September.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Just so you're aware. Approved that project in September. Just so you're aware.

[Kathleen Courtney, Russian Hill Community Association]: Good afternoon, President Tsao and members of the planning commission. Kathleen Courtney, Russian Health Community Association. A decade ago, supervisor Rafael Mandelmann's godmother, Eleanor Burke decided to do a walking tour of San Francisco. She's an artist and a writer. The result was a 116 page book about the vitality and passion of San Francisco neighborhoods. I thought about this book while watching the land use committee. There was a very professional, somewhat sterile presentation by the planning department with emphasis on the computer program that calculates the density and capacity, which resulted for us in the allowance of six story buildings on our 30 alleys in my neighborhood. But it noted that the sophisticated program, of course, couldn't calculate affordability, which is one of the, after all, goal of this initiative. But supervisor Chen and supervisor Chan did address affordability. And I thought it was creative, and I thought they did it with passion. But their proposals will not be passed on to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Melgar noted that she agreed philosophically with several of the concepts put forth, but was very sorry that there was not enough time to work on them fuller. And yeah, it is very sad. There is little institutional memory. I look around. There's very little institutional memory here. But some of us remember what happened to the Fillmore, and some of us remember what happened to Japantown. And we were aware for the devastation that this rush to judgment had and its significant ramifications. But the implementation was short term. The proposed upzoning family zoning plan is going to be rolled out for decades. Too bad there was not more time for the planning department to walk around and see the vitality and the excitement of the neighborhood, to see why residents in the Pacific Avenue area spent five years with the planning department working out a district for Pacific Avenue. It's too bad there's not more time, too bad to walk around the city and explore the neighborhoods as Eleanor Burke did. Thank you.

[Hugh Hines, Mission Bernal Merchants Association]: Good afternoon. My name's Hugh Hines.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I'm a

[Hugh Hines, Mission Bernal Merchants Association]: resident of the Mission Bernal area, also an architect and professor of architecture and urbanism at CCA. I'm coming to you today as a representative of the board member of the Mission Bernal Merchants Association. We're aware that a lot of the focus has been on the family zoning plan for all these reasons, and that the planning department, and presumably the commission, is currently undertaking an evaluation of the implications of S B 79, which, does impact our corridor. We we, oversee Mission Street between Cesar Chavez, and Cortland. I just wanted to share some of the, impacts of a kind of convergence of some recent redevelopment projects in our area, which I would argue, perhaps, offers a preview of some of the impacts as SB 79 becomes implemented. So right now, our our Mission Bernal area has about 450 units of a 100% affordable housing, either recently completed or under construction, which will mean influx of up to a thousand new residents in a 10 block area over a two year period. So this is this is great news, something something we should clearly be proud of. However, we're also experiencing the growing pains of several years of major converging construction projects concentrated in a small area, which I would say is perhaps akin to what we might see in a redevelopment project where a redevelopment plan would presumably be accompanied by other mitigation measures, services, and infrastructure upgrades to accompany that and support that increase in population. However, we're not seeing that currently, since, as we're aware, there is no comprehensive redevelopment plan currently in place. So some of those impacts include our merchant members reporting a 30% drop in revenue year over year due to the deleterious effects of ongoing instruction. So obviously, that's an existential threat to some of these businesses. Furthermore, we're we're looking at potentially 50 to 60% of our small businesses along the Mission Bernal Corridor threatened by displacement under SB 79, for which we understand there aren't any direct protections or mitigations currently in place at the moment. And so that's something that, obviously, we're we're very concerned about. And, you know, I think as well, in light of the plan for the Safeway at Mission thirtieth, obviously, a very ambitious plan that came out yesterday, you know, we think that's a kind of indicator that some of this convergence and intensification of development is only set to intensify. So I'd ask you today as commissioners to please take a careful look beyond the upzoning of SB 79 and examine the critical need for comprehensive mitigation measures that must accompany its density changes. And, admittedly, much of that may extend beyond the purview of the planning commission, but I I would I would offer that that's, really what's required here is a, kind of a concerted interdepartmental effort, to to kind of examine and mitigate the impacts of these, to our our neighborhoods. And I also invite you to come down to, Mission Portal and see for yourself how this is unfolding, since, as I say, I think our corridor offers a preview of some of the challenges of implementing these. Thank you so much.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. We can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners, for item seven, case number 20Seventeen-seven400 and 68 ENV, the SFO recommended airport development plan certification of the final environmental impact report. Please note that the public hearing on the draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the draft EIR ended on 06/02/2025. Public comment will be received. However, those comments will not be included in the final EIR. And if I recall correctly, commissioner Campbell, you have a disclosure?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Actually, I have a

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: recusal.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: I work at Gensler, and we do do a tremendous amount of work at SFO. This is what's before us is centered around an airport development plan. And there is scope in here, specifically a new terminal boarding area each, which is something we are definitely tracking and likely pursuing down the road. So I think it's best to, recuse myself from this item.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Is there a motion to recuse commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Move to recuse, commissioner Campbell. Second.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Thank you. Commissioners on that motion to recuse commissioner Campbell. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: So moved. Commissioners, the motion passes unanimously six to zero. And commissioner Campbell, you are hereby recused.

[Kei Zushi, Environmental Case Coordinator (SF Planning)]: Right. Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Kei Zuci, planning department staff and environmental case coordinator for the SFO recommended airport development plan or the proposed project. Joining me today are Audrey Park, environmental affairs manager at SFO, Tanya Shaner, environmental case supervisor, and planning department technical reviewers for this EIR. Can my presentation be up? The item before you is the public hearing on the certification of the SFO recommended airport development plan final environmental impact report or final EIR. The purpose of today's, hearing is to take public comments on the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the final EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA and San Francisco locals local procedures for implementing CEQA. Since the publication of the responses to comments document, we received a letter from concerned residents of Palo Alto dated 11/12/2025 stating that the response to comments document prepared for the pro project is inadequate and requesting that the planning commission withhold certification of this EIR. We have also received a letter from the city of Palo Alto dated 11/19/2025 raising various concerns related to the EIR, and requesting that a revised draft EIR be recirculated for public review. Department staff carefully reviewed these letters and concluded that they do not raise any new environmental issues that had not been addressed in the draft EIR or response to comments document. As I will discuss further later on my in our presentation, planning department staff recommends that the planning commission certify the final EIR today. I will now hand it over to Audrey Park with SFO who will be over, providing an overview of the existing project site and the proposed project. After Audrey's presentation, I'll briefly provide information regarding CEQA review that was done thus far for this project and public comments raised, on the draft EIR as well as next steps of the overall process. Thank you.

[Audrey Park, Environmental Affairs Manager (SFO)]: Good afternoon, esteemed members of the planning commission, planning department, and the public. My name is Audrey Park with San Francisco International Airport, a department of the city and county of San Francisco. And I'm here to provide you with a brief refresher of the recommended airport development plan or the RADP. In 2016, SFO prepared the draft final airport development plan as a long range landside development plan containing the vision for how SFO would accommodate growth and demand for air travel to and from the Bay Area. As passenger demand for air travel grows over decades, it would trigger certain RADP projects for development over those decades. The RADP is about when growth in air travel occurs, how can SFO accommodate that demand in a way that elevates guest service and amenities that is reflective of San Francisco. As you can see in the site map, the RID Peak largely contains the development of landside facilities such as boarding areas, parking garages, and aircraft parking aprons. These facilities are right sized to match the capacity of the existing runway configuration in their existing form. So in another words, it would not make sense to build a 100 new gates if the runways cannot accommodate the aircraft operations to utilize all 100 gates. Facilities and the RADP are right sized to match the ultimate capacity of the runways. There are no changes or expansions proposed to the existing runway system or to the aircraft flight paths or the aircraft procedures. These are the purview of the FAA as empowered by Congress. This slide provides the planning study goals and objectives, which is reflected in the selection of the RUDP projects. First and foremost, SFO wants to provide the highest level of guest service and be the number one long haul and international gateway of choice. We think we can achieve this by optimizing our existing airport operations, including aircraft or airfield movement, so there are no delays for our passengers leveraging technology and maximizing common use facilities for our airline partners and maximizing gate capacity and flexibility, which I'll touch on in a little bit. Overall, we want to make smart airport land use choices for decades to come within the limited airport land that we have today. The new boarding area H is a project example, which would provide contact gates with passenger boarding bridges that could accommodate both international and domestic flights, depending on the demand of the traveling public. So we would have secure passenger corridor for convenient connections to other terminals and bypass security checkpoints. We would also have a sterile corridor to the federal inspection station for international arrivals. And most importantly for SFO, this new boarding area would remove the need to develop hardstand gates where passengers would get bused to the airfield and board and deplane from the ramp. While hardstands are common in other continents, SFOs, similar to other U. S. Airports, want to accommodate passengers with contact gates. We want our passengers to board an aircraft from a comfortable and convenient boarding bridge. These facilities do not induce people to decide to travel to or from the Bay Area, nor does it induce airlines to add new flights. As a business, airlines react to real, realized demand. They add flights in response when a flight is consistently booked out, purchased by us. We purchase the tickets and we fill those planes, and in response, airlines add routes that are popular amongst passengers. And if we continue to have growing desire for air travel, whether for leisure or business, domestic and international airlines add flights in response. Again, the RDP is about how we accommodate them if that demand is realized in the future. It can be the travel experience we get with hard stand bus operations, or it can be from a comfortable contact gate. Second project example. Central Hub is would replace the existing Central Parking garage, which is located within the terminal area. Again, this garage is seismically deficient under current California building code. Instead of an in kind replacement, the RDP envisions an integrated multimodal ground transportation hub and parking facility. This is, again, about how we can accommodate passengers. We envision the new hub to accommodate different ground transportation modes with different levels designated for public transit, shuttle and charter, taxis and transportation network companies, and employee and public parking that would also alleviate traffic congestion on the existing domestic terminal roadway. There would be integrated lounges and wait areas for a sense of place for all of our airport guests. Lastly, for the third and final example, if there continues to be demand for aircraft maintenance on the West Coast, SFO could develop a new maintenance hangar that accommodates up to two additional wide body aircraft. And as with our other RIDP projects, if there is no demand in the future for that use, we would not build it. But the RIDP contemplates that as part of ultimate build out. As with all such capital improvement projects, SFO would fund and finance the RADP with airport revenues only and some federal funding for, airfield or grant eligible projects. In fiscal year twenty four-twenty five, SFO made an annual service payment of $58,000,000 to the city from airport revenues. Thank you.

[Kei Zushi, Environmental Case Coordinator (SF Planning)]: Kei Zushi, department staff again. The draft EIR was published on 04/16/2025, and the public comment period closed on 06/02/2025. The department received comments from 33 individuals, agencies, and organizations in response to the publication of the draft EIR, including questions and comments related to analysis assumptions, transportation, noise, air quality, cumulative analysis, alternatives, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems. The comments did not raise any new environmental issues that had not been addressed in the draft EIR. The responses to comments document published on 11/04/2025 responds to the issues raised by the commenters. The project would result in significant impacts regarding the environment topics shown on the slide. All project significant impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level, except that the project would result in significant and unavoidable operational air quality impacts. To address the impacts requiring mitigation measures, the EIR analyzed three feasible alternatives to the proposed project under CEQA, the no project alternatives, which is an alternative required to be analyzed under CEQA, the reduced development alternative, which would remove from the proposed project the boarding area h, international terminal building main hall expansion, and aircraft maintenance hangar projects to eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable operational air quality impacts. The boarding area H only alternative would remove all RIDP projects from the proposed project, except that, boarding area H project to to to eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable operational air quality impacts. The alternatives represent a reasonable range of alternatives for the EIR analysis and would avoid or reduce the less than significant mitigation impacts of the proposed project. The draft EIR, in response to comments, document constitute the final EIR. Planning department staff recommends that the planning commission, adopt the motion before you, which would certify the contents of the final EIR are adequate and accurate, and the procedures through which the final EIR was prepared comply with the provision of CEQA, the CEQA guidelines, Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. Implementation of the project will result in less than significant impacts with mitigation applied, except that the project would result in significant and unavoidable operational air quality impacts. Staff from SFO, planning department, and I are here, to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Thank you. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward. Last call. Public comment is closed, and this environmental impact report is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Lebron?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I am satisfied with the environmental impact analysis, report analysis, and with the response to comments, I further reviewed the letters that were submitted after closing the public comment period. And I agree with staff that they didn't raise issues that weren't already addressed in the analysis and in the response to comments. So I do agree that the final EIR is adequate, accurate, and complete. And so I move to certify.

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

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: McGarry.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: I would agree, and I would I think it's fantastic that we actually have the hangar maintenance that can take two wide bodies, by, bodied aircraft. With the amount of aircraft that are going in there, That is something that airports are actually putting out. Space here is constrained, but the fact that we we can actually work that in to possibly what we think is the best airport in the world, it certainly will service all the planes that it needs. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah. I also want to support the certification of DIR. DIR. And at the same time, I also want to appreciate the comments that we received from sort of Palo Alto, from the Bard in terms of their concerns. However, the EIR, as it laid out, actually put a lot of mitigations on this. And the concern about the, diff I guess, the increase, I think the increase of, of flights, I think that it's something beyond the EIR that, can uphold. And also in terms of the BART, I think there were also concerns about the construction and how it would affect. But, again, it was also addressed in the EIR as well in terms of the construction of that. The only thing that I would point out from the BART's letter is around the connection, I think, in terms of the long term goals of the connection of the BART and also the caltrain. There there are also the plan of the caltrain. So there seems to have some regional planning around the transportation. And this might be beyond AR, but I I'd like to if there's any information about those connections on transportation, is that something that is still in the works? I I can see that this is this is, like, a twenty year project. And can someone speak something about that? Okay.

[Audrey Park, Environmental Affairs Manager (SFO)]: Thank you for the question, commissioner. Yes. It is something that, all of the projects, are demand triggered.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Mhmm.

[Audrey Park, Environmental Affairs Manager (SFO)]: And when that demand is realized, then it sets in motion the very long, you know, public project delivery process, including, environmental review, if there needs to be additional, or, financing, all of those, city processes that we have to go through. And then we look at implementation there.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. Yeah.

[Representative of One Treasure Island (name not stated)]: Thank you.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah. I I just like to I think this is an exciting, project. I I know this could, if it's realized, this is a lot of work. I understand that. And so but nevertheless, this is an exciting project, and I think there needs some improvements in in SFO even though it's one of the best airports actually in the country. So we should be proud of that. So thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, commissioner Imperial. This is a pretty robust, EIR study. I don't know how long it took you guys to do it, and I saw that you have a lot of exhibit coming into that packet. You had cross checked your findings with EPA and other federal agencies. Really appreciate the thoroughness of it and also the attentiveness to, your neighboring communities. And I did ask this question to our team, and I would probably like one of you to reiterate that the monitoring component after the EIR to looking into how SFO addressed all these environmental mitigation. If you don't mind, one of you, to come and just describe this a little bit in public so it's on the record of how often and what is this process with peep basically, I think, to address some of the concerns or the unknown of, like, now it is a mitigate it's determined to be having negative impact, but there are a lot of mitigations. And so how is the monitoring component worked out? I trust that there's a lot of really great partnership we have with the airport department. But I think Yeah. I'm just asking this question too so that everyone can hear it Yes. And watch it in TV.

[Chelsea Fordham, Principal Planner (SF Planning)]: Chelsea Fordham, planning department staff. I'm a principal planner. I manage our environmental monitoring team. And, the process is that basically, you know, who's responsible for what and implementing the mitigation measures is outlined in the MMRP, which has to be adopted as a condition of approval. And, it basically lays out who's responsible for implementing. Many of those things need to be reviewed and approved by the planning department. And we have the same staff that are here doing air quality analysis, review those mitigation measures as well, make sure they meet the requirements. And we usually have, you know, several runs of review to make sure they meet the intent. And then they are incorporated into any type of construction documents, before construction starts. And if they're ongoing operational, they are submitted to us with the frequency of the MMRP. So it is, usually done before every single project goes to construction.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Thank you for explaining to us and the public. Appreciate it.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to certify the environmental impact report on that motion. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commission President Soh?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously five to zero. And we'll place us on item eight for case number 2007.0903 PHA-seven for 449 Avenue H, major modification. Commissioner Moore, I believe you have a disclosure to make.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Yes. Out of abundance of caution, I request that my fellow commissioners excuse me from participating in the consideration for the upcoming item, the Treasure Island, project, 20, 11 project with d four d's, which we're considering today, were prepared by SOM. And as a retired associate partner of the the firm, I receive an annual payment, which, asks, requires that I recuse myself.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Do I hear a motion to recuse commissioner

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Moore? Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Move to recuse vice president Moore.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to recuse commissioner Moore. Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Commissioner McGarry. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: So moved, commissioners. Commissioner Moore, you are hereby recused.

[Elizabeth Mow, Planning Department Staff]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Elizabeth Mow, planning department staff. The application before you is a request for a major modification from the facade transparency standard of the Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island designed for development or D 4 D. The proposed project includes the construction of a new practice facility for the Bay Area's National Women's Soccer League team, Bay FC, on Treasure Island. The project includes a one story athletic training building with three soccer practice fields. The project site is within the Treasure Island open space zoning district, specifically within an area of the island envisioned for a multi use sports park. The major modification would reduce the the design standard in the D 4 D from 65% transparent to 13.9 transparent along the street facing facade of the proposed athletic training building. The project's use as a sports practice facility along with its end user, Bay FC, creates a unique scenario where player privacy is essential for a national women's soccer team. As a result, there's little to no opportunity to provide a fully compliant and functionally adequate level of facade transparency facing the street without sacrificing building operations to meet the needs of professional athletes. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the major modification. The department has received one additional letter in support from One Treasure Island since the publication of the packet. In total, the department has received five letters of support and no letters in opposition to the project. Sorry. In total, the department has received six letters of support, so two letters have been received in support since the publication of the packet and no letters in opposition to the project. This concludes my presentation and I am available for any questions. Staff from the Treasure Island Development Authority are also here and available for any questions, and the project sponsor will present now.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Lisa Goodwin Scharf, Executive Vice President, Bay FC]: Hi. Thank you, commissioners, for having us today. I'm Lisa Goodwin Scharf. I'm an executive vice president at BAYFC. And with me today is Laura Sitton with our architect firm. Before I turn it over to Laura to talk about the design, I just wanna briefly share a little bit about BFC and what this facility would mean to us. We are the professional soccer team competing in the National Women's Soccer League representing the Bay Area. We just finished our second season. This facility would be one of the few training facilities built and created specifically for women across the country and across the world. And it would be so fitting for Bay FC to literally be in the middle of the Bay right on Treasure Island in San Francisco. And the city of San Francisco would be our partner in building the standard for what women's facilities will be. While only heading into our third season, we have global aspirations and wanna be a global sports franchise. And every sports franchise needs a home, and this would be that for us. It would be our home and our heartbeat for our athletes and our players and our coaching staff, and it would give our players the resources and training facilities they need to compete at the highest level and hopefully bring home championships back here to San Francisco. We're also excited about the opportunity to be on Treasure Island specifically. We know the island already has a rich history of sports, and we look forward to adding to it if we can. We also know residents and organizations have been there for decades, but that it's also going through a revitalization. We've already been connecting really closely with the community on Treasure Island and throughout San Francisco. Our general contractor is DevCon, and we've connected them with One Treasure Island's workforce development group already and look forward to hiring local. We also have and will continue to volunteer at One Treasure Island's weekly food pantry, attending their annual galas. We held a soccer clinic at the YMCA on Treasure Island for, for local youth. We hosted a student from Life Learning Academy, the public high school on the island, as an intern this summer at our business offices, which is also here in San Francisco in SoMa, and we're working with them to develop a health and wellness platform for the students at Life Learning Academy. Broadly across San Francisco, we're also committed to community impact through our partnership with Visa. We're launching next year a girls only soccer league for the boys and girls clubs in San Francisco. And we did this last year. We're doing it again this year. We're volunteering at the fire department's annual toy drive. So this facility would give us a chance to continue to connect with the community in Treasure Island and San Francisco and also give our, athletes the resources they deserve to compete for championships and, again, hopefully, bring them here to San Francisco. So with that, I'll turn it over to Laura. Thank you.

[Laura Sitton, Project Architect]: Yeah. So I'm just gonna I'm just gonna briefly, give an overview of the site design and the building design. Are we able to break

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Yes, Safeguard.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Can we

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: go back to the computer, please? Yeah.

[Audrey Park, Environmental Affairs Manager (SFO)]: Thank you.

[Laura Sitton, Project Architect]: And so as Lisa mentioned, the facility is proposed at the in the heart of the bay, in the heart of the Treasure Island, ongoing development. You can see there that's the urban park that's planned, part of which is dedicated sports park. This will be joining some facilities sports facilities that are already there and hopefully to be a catalyst for continued development of that sports park, which you see on the right. The site itself, as was mentioned, has three full size soccer pitches. It has the single story 24,000, square foot facility, as well as dedicated parking to accommodate the staff and athletes that would use the facility. The building itself is oriented, in the northeast corner of the site to kind of engage Mackay Lane, which is the main plan to be the main thoroughfare there. It is set back slightly from the street to create a planted buffer to tie in to the larger park system, and kinda emphasize that park pedestrian experience along this thoroughfare. While it strives to also be, as Lisa said, set a standard for women's, professional facilities in performance, we also hope to do the same just in aesthetics and to embrace, the aesthetics of the Bay Area and the marine environment. That said, it is, a mass timber building will expose that structure. We have some, wood siding that will age over time into a driftwood aesthetic, kind of just embracing that marine environment. And the facility itself orients the performance spaces onto the pitch. It can open up and become naturally ventilated to create this seamless transition of indoor outdoor, again, embracing and celebrating what it means to be in the Bay Area. Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Okay. If that concludes project sponsor's presentation, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

[Representative of One Treasure Island (name not stated)]: Hello, President Sewell and commissioners. I'm here today representing One Treasure Island. Since we've partnered with Bay FC, they have shown a commitment to the inclusion and development of the Treasure Island community. As we continue to develop the island and revitalize with some of the new buildings and housing that we're building on the island, this fits right in perfectly. As mentioned, they've attended our galas, but more importantly, they've been present at our community events and continue to show support for our community through the growth and development of programming for the youth of the island, particularly the young women. So we are very happy to support BAFC and look forward to the building of this training facility. Thank you.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I think we always have the best of intentions when we lay out these design standards for these larger developments. And as we've seen, like, not only does the world change, but, you know, we can't predict every scenario. And I do think a training facility of this nature is incredibly unique and, you know, it's a very unique building typology as well. And it really does want to be a more inward facing type of campus, and I appreciate the challenges of of that in conjunction with the standards we set out years ago. So, you know, I think what makes up for not meet being able to meet the facade transparency is what I see as a, as a lovely design. And, you know, I to me, that's really made up by, the choice of materials, and what we're seeing when we are, experiencing the building along, Mackie Lane, I guess. Is it Mackie? Am I saying that right? The I'm seeing, you know, very kind of, like, high touch materials, like corrugated metal and, the wood. I think And and this kind of very, like, soft, lush landscape, I I if we're able to sort of, like, persevere with that, in the execution, I think it more than makes up for the lack of transparency dictated by the standards. This, for me, this gives me zero concern. I'm more excited just to to see it happen. I think everything that's going on in Treasure Island is just thrilling. So I would make a motion to approve. I see we have a couple of other folks that would like to

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

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I second the motion to approve. So it's not only is it exciting to get the facility itself, but also to see this site being improved. Not too long ago, I took the ferry over and walked most of the publicly accessible areas of Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island. And this this lot in particular really stands out just because of the all the fill dirt that's been moved to it and basically create a mountain. And then I was sort of baffled by it. So it's great to now see this come before the the commission and and see what the future vision is for the site. I appreciate the, the revised rendering that was just shared during today's hearing because one of my questions was going to be some confusion about, you know we had the plans that showed where the sidewalk public sidewalk was relative to the landscaping and building the rendering didn't show it and so I'm glad to now see kind of what what the vision is a little bit more clearly in in the revised rendering. So I don't have a concern there and I agree with commissioner Campbell that the you know, I'm not a design person, but even so, you know, I I'm I'm looking at what the street environment is for pedestrians on the public sidewalk and seeing that the amount of landscaping, you know, really does a good job of screening the building and making kind of softening this edge where there is this reduced transparency. So that's why I I do support this. And and those are all my comments. So, yeah. I I am in full support.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: I love soccer. This is exciting for me. Downside, I got three boys, you know? But all three of them well, two of the three have played in the baseball fields that are around that are next to you. So and the dirt there, that's for compaction. So you'll have it a you'll you'll slice it off and get a nice perfect level field. I'd agree with everything, but I just wish you well, and I look forward to getting season tickets. Go be go Bay FC.

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

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. Sounds like a pretty fun, presentation. It's great and lighthearted. I have been frequently visiting Treasure Island in these recent weeks, and it's been wonderful. And I would like to see a lot more activities going to Treasure Island, bringing a world class all women soccer lead. It's, really amazing. My daughter play used to play soccer and now switched to volleyball. But, I really applaud your courage, to pick San Francisco to plan roots. I have just a few questions, and I have no issues without, reducing that transparency. I understand that quite some time for professional athletes, particularly for women, it is a really critical privacy. It's very critical, especially when they get really famous. So I'm not gonna hear to talk about the design of the building per se, but I'm just looking at the beauty of Treasure Island master plan has this diagonal grid. And now, first I look at your drawings, I thought it was just a branding rectangle. And then I realized today I see that it is actually the plan is a a big rectangle, in the middle of of our diagonal grid. I wonder, is there any challenges that you couldn't really, continue to respect the diagonal grid, but just kind of, like, really looking just kinda put in it right in the middle. It's gonna it's gonna see it's gonna greet us every time we land SFO, speaking of.

[Elizabeth Mow, Planning Department Staff]: Yeah. Lizzie Malle, department staff. So I think the portion of the site that you're talking about would be if we're looking in plan view, the south west corner of the lot is where we're cutting through that diagonal grid that we have on Treasure Island. And so, we have some tied to staff here, so, Joey can follow-up with additional information. But that's a temporary lease line. So right now, it's gonna act as a temporary parking lot for the training facility with the intention of restoring that land. And so that's intended for the agricultural park, in Treasure Island. And so that's kind of where we see those diagonal grid lines, and then that's been, arranged with the Treasure Island Development Authority on that leased basis.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: So to summarize the respond the diagonal grid will be, disregard or it will be somehow eventually restored?

[Elizabeth Mow, Planning Department Staff]: It it should be eventually restored after a period of time.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: With the urban farm? Yes. Okay. And that's on the just on the cell on the bottom left corner?

[Elizabeth Mow, Planning Department Staff]: Yes. On the bottom left corner.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Awesome. My other question is regarding to that youth program, I think the yeah. You're I forgot your name. I'm sorry. You mentioned about youth program, and I knew that, like, there are going to be continued to increase population in Treasure Island, the local communities. Would would do you have any kind of local incentive program to encourage residents to participate in these training, the the soon to be a wannabe soccer, amazing soccer girls. Yeah.

[Lisa Goodwin Scharf, Executive Vice President, Bay FC]: Yeah. Thank you. Lisa with, AFC again. Absolutely. So our whole mission from a community perspective is to create access to sport and build leaders in our community. So this facility will give us a space to do that, invite them in, watch our trainings, hear from our players, be a part of what we're building there. And we are our goal this year, we hosted nearly 10,000 community members at our matches. I think this facility can add to that. So the hope is that we can continue to make an impact on all of the little girls and, commissioner McGarry, little boys throughout San Francisco and the Bay Area and continue to provide access to the sport and hopefully build future leaders in our community.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Would you be creating program to encourage there's equity issues. I I know that in the Treasure Island, residents are Yeah. Often concerned. Would there be any subsidies or sliding scale of family that can participate from the local communities?

[Lisa Goodwin Scharf, Executive Vice President, Bay FC]: Our from a community impact perspective, everything on our end is at no cost to the community. Attendees that we have out, our goal is to serve the underserved and the nonprofit groups that their audience is focused on that. So, yes, it is we are we love the youth soccer teams. We wanna still be a part of those groups and have them have access as well. But when we think of community impact, it is to the underserved and marginalized communities at no cost.

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

[Lisa Goodwin Scharf, Executive Vice President, Bay FC]: Thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: I have a one last question. I'm sorry. I keep asking. This is my last question. Probably perhaps to the architect. I noticed that you have some parking arrangement in the program. Is it exceeding the capacity or is it just kind of minimum capacity?

[Laura Sitton, Project Architect]: Yeah. Right now, there's, it actually exceeds the capacity for the there's a dedicated staff lot, which is the capacity of the team, and then an additional lot which exceeds the capacity of the staff, that would serve the facility.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: So That's great. And then you you have, you might have some sign to say, be kind, to yield for people, and not fighting for parking spots. Right? Isn't it?

[Laura Sitton, Project Architect]: Yes. Yeah.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: It's kind of like that when people visit San Francisco. They just kinda took over people's spot when they wait

[Elizabeth Mow, Planning Department Staff]: for it.

[Laura Sitton, Project Architect]: There are dedicated bike and car share and things like that as well right now.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: That's great. Thank you. And commissioner Braun, you have one more coming?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I have a question about something that was noted in the staff report, and it's not it's not directly related to this project. And so I, I know that there are members of, the staff from Treasure Island Development Authority here. And so if you're able to answer the question, I'd appreciate it. But if not, I understand. The the staff report references that to the north of the site, there is the grocery store and warehouse building, and it says that that area is going is slated to, also we've also become open space. I'm I'm just curious, what is sort of the future vision for Treasure Island as far as having groceries and fresh food on on-site, given that I believe that's the the sole, source of groceries today?

[Joey (Vertical Development Project Manager, TIDA)]: Hi, commissioners. Joey with Treasure Island Development Authority, vertical development project manager. We we we certainly would not move the tenant from the grocery store off the island prior to having them move into a new facility or, you know, executing a lease for some other operator of a grocery store. But currently, in the design for development, it was envisioned that one of the historical hangars on the island would house maybe like a food market hall or grocery store. The exact location for the future grocery store is not set, but there's hundreds of thousands of planned commercial space on the island that could accommodate that.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

[Joey (Vertical Development Project Manager, TIDA)]: Thank you.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: And then with the the question came out left field, but it was just something I wanna make sure is being addressed. Thanks.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Very good question. I think we're ready to vote.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Okay, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. And commission president so?

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously five to zero. Commissioners, it'll place us on the final item on your agenda today, number nine, case number 2021Hyphen005878 PCA for the family zoning plan, planning code text amendments.

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Lisa Chen with planning department staff. Good to see you again. So we are here today with members of our rezoning team as well as preservation staff to present a revised amendment to the family zoning plan that was raised during the adoption process at the board of supervisors. So we won't be giving the full background on the plan as, you know, we have had many hearings, so we'll be really focused today on the amendment that was made at the board. So we'll, do a brief recap of the process thus far. We'll dive into the legislation that is before you today, and then describe our department recommendations. So the action for you today is a duplicate ordinance of the planning business and tax regulations code ordinance filed two five one zero seven two. We are recommending adoption with modifications. I will note that this morning, we sent by email a revised recommendation. We've also just distributed it to you in paper form for your reference, and we'll be going over that today. I know you have been receiving updates from mister Aaron Starr on our process, but to recap, this is our adoption process thus far and our anticipated hearings to come. So following the adoption hearing at this commission in early September, We have had three hearings at the land use and transportation committee of the board, most recently on Monday. Today, we are hearing, the the one piece of legislation or the one amendment that required rereferral to the commission. And following this, the the legislation will be heard again at the December 1 land use hearing. We anticipate that after that, it'll be going to the full board of supervisors. Of course, this is all subject to change. And the upcoming deadlines are December 19, when the charter stipulates that the general plan amendments that you all approved are deemed approved by the board if they don't take action before that date. And then the ultimate deadline from the state is January 31 for the full rezoning to be adopted. We also wanted to clarify the record because I I know it can get com complicated with various, duplicates of the ordinance, that are active. So, today, so sorry. Stepping back. The original ordinance that you saw, filed two five zero, two five zero seven zero one, is what's gonna be considered at the December 1 land use and transportation committee. That file includes amendments that have been adopted by the land use committee that the department advised are generally compliant with state requirements. The two duplicate files are the one that you are reviewing today, two five one zero seven two. This is the one that includes the amendment by board president Mandelmann, which would restrict lot mergers on historic properties citywide subject to certain conditions. There is another duplicate ordinance, two five one zero seven three, that was tabled at Monday's land use hearing, and that includes amendments by supervisors that were not accepted by the land use committee for a variety of reasons. But, we we did, note that, several of them have, impacts on potential compliance with state law and our housing element. So the ordinance today has this lot merger amendment as noted. So it would update section one twenty one point seven to prohibit lot mergers citywide. So this is going beyond the boundaries of the family zoning plan on lots that contain certain types of historic resources listed here. The the prohibition is exempt, however, if the project preserves the historic resource and complies with the preservation design standards. I'm not gonna read every line of this definition. It is quite expansive. As you can see, it includes various historic resources under article ten and eleven. It includes our state and local registers, and it also includes surveys and historic context statements. So as noted, we are recommending approval with modifications, and I'll be going over the revised recommendations that we provided to you this morning. So our first recommendation is that we remove the proposed list of historic resources that are subject to the restriction of lot mergers and instead substitute it with a reference to the planning code's existing definition of historic buildings as noted in section one zero two. We believe this would create greater clarity and alignment with other planning code policies. There are other policies in the code that already refer to this definition, and so it's clearer for members of the public, for our own staff, frankly, as well as sponsors. It also ensures that the policy does not add a development constraint on sites that do not have known historic resources. As I noted earlier, the definition that's currently in the legislation is quite expansive, and it includes things like non contributing sites in historic districts, whether eligible or listed districts. It also can include, at times, category b and category c properties if they're listed in a historic context statement. So we think that this existing definition that we have is much clearer, and it also ensures that we're not adding additional constraints, which is something that HCD has cautions about on sites that are not known to have historic resources. Our second recommendation, is that we clarify that in instances where the preservation design standards are inconsistent with the modified standards in the local program or the housing choice SF program, the standards in the local program will prevail as long as they do not result in the demolition of the resource. Again, this we believe this would provide greater clarity and certainty around development standards. Right now, the legislation as drafted is silent on the issue, creating perhaps some legal gray area as to which one would be would prevail and whether or not you would still be eligible for the lot merger if you are following the local program. It also ensures that we continue to have meaningful incentives for projects that choose to use the local program in the family zoning plan. As you recall, we've had many hearings where we really crafted the incentives in the local program so that they, you know, are meant to provide a little bit of flexibility and and then incentivize projects to use our local standards, including our preservation design standards, our broader citywide design standards, and other planning code standards. And I we just wanna note that broadly, the local program and preservation design standards are aligned with each other. We could only find one instance where maybe there there's a bit of inconsistency, but this would also just allow for any minor inconsistencies going forward because we know that the local program will continue to evolve. We know the preservation design standards will also continue to evolve. Our recommendation three is to clarify that the lot merger prohibition shall not shall only apply to housing development projects as defined in state law, specifically in the Housing Accountability Act. So the rationale here, is that discretionary projects that are not protected already undergo environmental review processes and are generally not eligible to use the state ministerial streamlining laws. Examples of project scopes include single family homes, nonresidential projects, and mixed use mixed use projects that are not majority residential. So these projects are already going through environmental review as noted, and that process may uncover mitigations or changes to the project to avoid impacts on historic resources. The mitigations could be different or they could be, in some cases, stronger than what's in the preservation design standards. And so we think that this amendment would basically clarify that this is really only focused on projects that are perhaps ministerial approved, projects that are housing development projects. And, again, similar to the other recommendation, we also wanna note that because these processes continue to apply, the prohibition could add an unnecessary additional development constraints that could, in some cases, pose a barrier to successful adaptive reuse of the projects. We have seen with projects in the past that have successfully reused and and preserved historic resources that lot mergers sometimes are necessary and helpful to the preservation of the resource. It allows you to build on top of, around, next to, throughout the resource. And so we just wanna make sure that we're being really judicious in how we're applying this prohibition. Our final recommendation is not related specifically to the ordinance itself, but we wanted to reiterate that the department should continue to evaluate the preservation design standards at some point in the future, after it's been applied to more projects. I think at the latest count, maybe no projects have yet used it. And we should see if there should be adjustments that could be made to ensure that they are achievable and really achieve they are really reaching the spirit of of preserving the resource while not prohibiting housing development. And so, you know, in the areas where the local program applies, so, you know, again, this is a citywide policy, but in the plan area itself, you know, there could be additional incentives that are offered through the local program if it's found that additional flexibility is needed. So we just wanna, before we close the presentation, also just wanna remind people and reiterate that we have a whole range of preservation policies and programs that are really designed to support adaptive reuse and preservation of existing resources. So, of course, we have our demolition protections. So, in addition to article ten and eleven requirements, our local program does not allow demolition of resources, and the various state housing programs also do not allow demolition. And then in the recent amendments from this last week, the board went a step further and actually exempted listed and designated landmarks from the rezoning itself. We, of course, also have mentioned our preservation design standards, which are really meant to provide clear standards for adaptive reuse. We have our environmental review process requiring various mitigations and other actions. And then, of course, our SF survey program and our landmarking programs together are really about making sure we have, the adequate designations and protections in place for our resources. So the SF survey, of course, identifies resources that are eligible for listing your designation, and is currently prioritizing the sites that may be more susceptible to development in the future. Similarly, our landmarking program, really accelerates the landmarking process, for the most notable properties, historic resources, providing them that added layer of protection. Finally, we have a range of adaptive reuse incentives, including in our local program, you all recommended that we add an adaptive reuse incentive, which has been amended into the ordinance. We also have our existing Mills Act and TDR programs as well as other efforts.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: So finally, we wanted to I know this has been very dense. We wanted to show some examples of adaptive reuse

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: and to, I know this has been very dense. We wanted to show some examples of adaptive reuse in real life. Just coincidentally, all of these use brick, but we know adaptive reuse does not always use brick. But these are all examples of projects that did require a lot merger in some way or another throughout the city. And I think they're really exemplary projects that show how development can breathe new life into an existing resource. It can kind of bring a new chapter of use to these to these resources and make sure that they're used and really stewarded into the future. So I wanted to thank the commission for your guidance on the plan so far as and we're looking forward to your comments today. I also I apologize, Calvin. We we do have Calvin Ho from president Mandelmann's office here. He's also gonna be giving some remarks on our work together. We have been working very closely with them. We're continuing to work with them. So even as we have recommendations today, we're continuing to refine them. We're mostly in agreement. There may be some areas where we're continuing, to see how we can find common ground. I also wanna really thank our historic preservation team. They have been with us in lock step throughout the entire rezoning. You may recall that they were at all of our open houses as well, and we continue to do outreach with them. And so that's, you know, Rich Sucre, Maggie Smith, Melanie Bishop, Frances McMillan, Alex Westoff, and many others. They have really made sure that preservation is embedded throughout the family zoning plan. Thank you.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Thank you. With that, we should take public comment. Members No?

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: Sorry. To clarify, Calvin Ho is going to just give some comments from the president Mandelmann's office.

[Calvin Ho, Office of Board President Rafael Mandelman]: Thanks, Lisa. I'll keep my remarks very brief. Good afternoon, commissioners. We are supportive of the first modification to change the definition to refer to historic buildings. We are not supportive of modifications two or three and are fine with modification number four. I wanna thank Lisa. I wanna thank Rachel and Rich and everyone at Planning who has been helping us in our efforts to preserve historic resources. So I just wanted to say thank you for your partnership on that. Thank you.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Okay. If that does conclude presentations, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward.

[Paul Wormer, member of the public]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I would like to say that I am extremely disappointed in the way this has rolled out. There are assertions that there is provision for affordable housing through inclusionary fees. Failing to mention that large numbers of lots are upzoned in levels that are suitable for less than 10 units and therefore do not pay inclusionary fees. And I raised this in in a general public comment a while back. I tried to get clarification from planning staff if that was an accurate assessment or not. It should be a simple yes or no, right, if they've gone through this legislation and understand it. Haven't gotten a response back yet. My sense is you have established a process, and by the way, my name is Paul Wormer, if I didn't say that before. You have established a process that is easily gamed to build very expensive units with no inclusionary housing or inclusionary fees. And where you have an inclusionary fee paid at under $250 a square foot, that pays what percentage of the cost of actual construction? I know you can't answer me on that, but let's just say it's less than half. And it talks about matching funds, but sort of ignores the fact that the feds have cut all sorts of programs because after all, they're fiscally responsible. And so what we're doing is creating something that encourages very, very expensive units, doesn't do much to encourage moderately priced units. And by moderately priced, I mean things affordable to making a 150 to 300,000. Doesn't do much to encourage that because the land costs are too high and does aggravates the situation for the very low income and low income and moderate income households. And that's a problem. That does not serve the city well. I understand fully that you are constrained by legislation that is foolish and ill considered. And I'm disappointed that none of you have had the courage to stand up and make that point publicly, that you are trapped in a bad situation and trying to do the best out of it. And call to account politicians who have played games for political advantage and donations from developers. So you're not solving any problems, you're making some problems worth and you're really creating opportunities for the mayor's brother who was that real estate agent. You may may remember his quote a couple of three weeks ago. He can't find enough mansions for his clients. He'll do well with 4,000 square foot flats with nice views. Thank

[Lydia So, Commission President]: you.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Last call for public comment. Again, you need to come forward. This is not general public comment. This is public comment on the family zoning plan. Sure. Yeah. On the come on up. Okay. I'm not

[Unnamed West Russian Hill resident]: really ready for you, but

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Come on

[Unnamed West Russian Hill resident]: up. Hi. Sorry. I've got bad voice. Had treatment cancer surgery on my throat. But anyway, here I am, because I care so much about this. I'm a West Russian Hill neighbor. I live on Union Street between Van Ness and Polk. And as I'm sure you're aware, we have been disproportionately impacted. Here I am, just our little Edwardian, and as you see, there's all the magenta climbing up and surrounding me. I have photos that show, you know, that have been, promulgated that really show how bad it is. But, and then as one goes up a little bit, it goes from a 140 feet to 250 feet, and then 300, as you know, when you get to Broadway. The disproportionate impact is huge. One reason I'm here is to try and figure out they just made another amendment where they took away some other, ill conceived height, and they just threw it onto Van Ness. I don't even know where. I've tried to call Eric's supervisor It'll sort of be one more time. But what I'm really heart I'm heartbroken over all this. It's going to be horrible on our on the whole neighborhood, any sun, all of that. But what I'm heartbroken over is the lack of transparency. This bill came up before SB 79 was finalized. When I saw SB 79, I was shocked to find out that the height that they were calling for for the transit corridors was basically 65 feet, with a rare time that it would be 85. And and here we are, 140 to 500. And yet, when planning puts out its bulletin I just got a new one they keep telling the public that we're having no impact. It's very slight. They really describe kind of the SB79 kind of approach. So this is not something that people say has to be just because we have a bus going up our street. And SB79 informs the way I'm not saying it's a perfect bill. But when it comes to the transit corridor, the entire state has looked at what is the appropriate height when you're trying to get a neighborhood. The six you know, maximum of eight stories. We don't want to have ten years of of construction with high rises, with steel. And and also, nothing has been in all that 500 pages of of material, I don't see anything about what we're going to do. At 85 feet, does it have to be steel? You know, all that stuff, I couldn't find it, and I put it through SB I put it through CHATGBT. They couldn't find it either. Please at least be transparent about what's really going on so that the public could understand that, in fact, this is higher, much higher than anything that was even proposed by the boogeymans at the state. And maybe we could have a mix and match situation that was a little bit more helpful. Thank you.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Come on up, sir. Speak into the microphone, please. Into the microphone, please.

[Unnamed public commenter]: My major concern about the planning is that they're going to be very high very high buildings along Van Ness and the side streets also, going 100 feet, 200 feet, and will leave the smaller buildings in total darkness. The Human Rights Commission has complained about the El Salvadorian prisons because they stopped the prisoners from getting natural sunlight, which leads to people having physical problems as well as emotional problems. What you are doing here with the height of these buildings is turning Van Ness and the surrounding areas into a hellscape of darkness and depression, which will show up in the people just as it does in other areas where you have people with no light and too much density. Like, I don't want to be overly dramatic, but like rats. There are going to be rats shoveling through the dark nights of San Francisco. And the rats are not going to be rats, although there will be rats. But they will be the people who are caused to be depressed, unhappy, and unhealthy because of lack of light along this area, if they actually want to live where they live. And the people who live here, many of them, have lived here for many years. And they're elderly, and they need the light for a little bit of happiness, a little bit of health, and a little bit of sight. So I would suggest that the height is the biggest problem of this plan, the height that was the type of height that they had in the Pink Lady, which was a building built by the federal government to house the poor. And it was down by Fillmore and was a huge, tall building. And after about twenty years or thirty years, they ripped it down because nobody could live there. It was too dense, too dark, and too unhealthy. Thank you very much.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Okay. Final last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Yes. I just wanna start by saying, you know, in response to some of the public comments, that this what we're hearing today is related to the to the family zoning plan, but this commission already heard and approved the plan previously. So I just wanna make sure that's that's clear because the probably the scope of our conversation is gonna be a little bit narrower today. And the plan itself, the broader plan is before the board of supervisors at this point. And so I do hope you continue to follow and provide input at the board as well. So having said that, I guess I have I have a few questions. As staff noted, it's a little complicated. And then there are some some changes that just came through. So I'm doing my best to kind of, to think some of this through. So first of all, I guess I have a question about something that maybe has now been addressed through the staff modifications. But, you know, I'm I'm really happy to to see that the supervisor's office has agreement on referring to historic buildings and the current planning code definitions that I I think it's a much clearer way of doing this. And, you know, I'm not even gonna ask my question. My question was about what was intent what was meant by potentially eligible, which seemed like a very confusing, phrase in the old legislation. But yeah.

[Rich Sucré, Planning Department (Current Planning/Historic Preservation)]: I can address this. So part of what we have and in the world of kind of historic preservation and evaluating historical resources is when you make a determination as part of what regulation and kind of in what space. So for example, there are staff determinations that planning will make as part of the CEQA process that basically assigns a status to a building. There are other times that a resource or a building goes through a formal state process or local process, like, for example, through the HPC or through the State Historic Resources Commission or even up to the keeper of the register. The state basically has various codes for how you basically ascribe that status to a building. So the term historical resource largely means, you know, are you eligible for a historical register either at the local level, state red state level, or national level. And then you can obviously have significance within that. And so we have a lot of kind of gradations of historic from designated landmarks towards things that we know that are just historic because they went through a CEQA process. And so that's basically what that's kind of hitting at. And so we were looking, for example, at historic context statements, as one of the avenues, for defining something as historic. But at issue is that our historic context statements are really creating evaluative frameworks for our staff to conduct the analysis. They don't actually make a determination on a particular site. They are framing out why something is important relative towards, like, a certain aspect of history. And so they'll list buildings, for example, within it, but not actually make a determination on whether something is historic. Did I get that?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Yes. That is helpful. And I'm curious, you know, if if the legislation were to move forward with the the term potentially eligible for designation, which I don't think it it sounds like it's not. But I'm curious. I mean, does that have a formal meaning? Or is this a better switch now where we're

[Rich Sucré, Planning Department (Current Planning/Historic Preservation)]: I I will say this. Our our recommended solution is much more clear.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Yeah.

[Rich Sucré, Planning Department (Current Planning/Historic Preservation)]: And our data is better organized in the way that is currently suggested. So we have a very clear idea of what is the historic building within San Francisco versus what is potentially eligible, which is a little squishy in that space.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I agree. Okay. Thank you for helping to clarify that. And I probably need a lot of clarification. So you know, there's the the one, Lisa Chen, you you were bringing up the examples of adaptive reuse projects that involved lot mergers. What I guess I'm not I could just use, like, a case study or two sort of of, under this legislation, if you have an adaptive reuse project that is let's say it's off the top of my head, a funeral home with the adjacent lot that's a service parking lot, and the funeral home is a historic property, and there's an opportunity for adaptive reuse in a housing project. Under this legislation, would that lot merger be prohibited or what's sort of the way this would play out?

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: So the the language and and we have it too if we wanted to refer to it, it's it is quite clear in many respects. It basically says you can't lot murders are not permitted on the historic resources described in the legislation unless the project maintains the historic resource in compliance with the preservation design standards for the life of the project. And and then it has kind of others some other conditions around NSRs and such. So so it really is just meeting the preservation design standards. And then, you know, there's no additional hearing or any other requirement in that regard.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you. That's actually very helpful. Because for me, I realize that we're still testing out the preservation design standards. So I do definitely support the department's recommendation that we look back at those and make sure they're working as they start getting used. But knowing that, you know, a project can still move forward as long as they are meeting the preservation design standards makes me much more comfortable with legislation. And I'm just gonna pause my comments there right now. I'm I'm kinda not trying to take a position on recommendations at the moment. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry, Commissioner]: I'd just like to acknowledge everybody that has been involved in this. There's been people who have been yes from the start, there's been people who have been vehemently no from the start, there's been people like the supervisor's office who are attempting to bring some compromise, the supervisors all brought a lot to the table, and then the planning department who have to put all that together, and you've done a phenomenal job for that. I also have to acknowledge, Paul's comment there, before he left. The city's in a terrible spot here, and everybody needs to know, and I don't think we've done a good job of messaging the alternative s b, 79 and the builder's remedy. They're just unacceptable when you look at them. So it's either take control or lose control, and the city, planning department, historic department, and everybody has basically created, brought to the process their input, and I think we're in a phenom Lisa, your department, what you've done, you've phenomenal work, and I'm surprised you didn't lose people, Rachel, along the way because a lot of departments just wouldn't be able to survive it or wouldn't, you know, just walk away from it. So I just wanted to acknowledge and accommodate, any way I can, my appreciation for everything you've done along the way. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Thank you. I have questions on the first, on how we're tackling this. I was reading on the you know, during the family zoning plan deliberations a couple of months ago in terms of the historic preservation comments. And one of their recommendation is to prioritize or, in a way, prioritize the SF survey in the family zoning plan. And it looks like the what's, can you elaborate more on how it's being prioritized right now?

[Director Tanner (San Francisco Planning Department)]: And maybe I'll ask if, mister Soukre and miss Chen can speak both to the incentives in the family zoning plan, but also our work that we're doing in accelerating and expanding our preservation team.

[Rich Sucré, Planning Department (Current Planning/Historic Preservation)]: Yeah. Hi, sup commissioners. Rich Soucray, department staff. So, yes, one of the kind of, I guess, on my end, best things that has come out of the family zoning plan is a firm commitment, both from our new director as well as from the mayor, mayor's office to help complete SF survey, and also make sure that we both have resources and budget and staffing to make sure we get it done on time and basically, expedite it. On the settler path, as part of the family zoning plan, we created a landmarking program basically specific for moving more buildings through our article 10 process. That included coming up with a faster way to create our designation reports, providing for some recommendations on how we make landmarks faster, and then basically also going out to each of, the supervisor's districts to try and basically figure out what do we already know, in terms of what is historic in your districts, what what is eligible for our landmarking program. So while we are planning for growth, you know, through a lot of our neighborhoods, we're also trying to recognize those important sites and buildings that are really emblematic of, you know, who we are as San Franciscans and who, best represent, the neighborhoods itself. So there's been a great commitment, especially to historic preservation, within this realm. I think the family zoning plan also provides for some carve outs specific for, historic preservation. I think supervisor Mandelmann's amendments recently have removed the landmarking from, the re the rezoning and, increases in heights, throughout the our local landmarks in article 10 are not subject to our local program, basically, for use. For the ones that are kind of regular historic, for a lack of a better word, They are able to take advantage of adaptive reuse incentives that we've included in the local program to basically help incentivize keeping existing historic buildings and then allowing you to kind of shift that development density into other parts. So, you know, I think this is one of the kind of nicest things that have come out of the plan, at least from my end as the manager of our historic preservation team, is that we've seen this kind of balancing of between growth and then making sure that we understand, the kind of best parts of San Francisco.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Yeah. And thank you, mister Socrate. I think that, that also leads me to my another question in terms of the presser, and the recommendation number two. And I understand that, you know, bill building that capacity and, and it seems like the way I see it, we're kinda like which moves first. And it's really a matter of time that I feel like that I'm worried about, honestly. And so in the recommendation number two, the preservation design standards, and it's being recommended that the local program shall prevail. Why is that?

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: Yes. Thank you, commissioner. So if you recall from our prior hearings, we crafted those local program incentives pretty deliberately. Right? The intention really is to, I think we called it flexibility, but with guardrails. Right? We're try trying to create targeted areas where we're offering a little bit more flexibility than our current code and standards allow. There are other parts of the local program that allow, incentives from our, citywide design standards as well, not just the preservation design standards. But, you know, really incentivize them to basically adhere to our local rules and maintain that local control instead of seeing more projects using the state density bonus where they would not need to meet the lot merger prohibition. They also wouldn't necessarily need to meet the preservation design standards. So that's really the framework, and you all actually recommended amendments to the incentives that allow flexibility from the design stand the preservation design standards. If you recall, we added a unit mix recommendation, that would allow, a little bit of flexibility with the front setback, for example, for on top of historic buildings going from 15 feet to 10 feet, which is, you know, it's only five feet, but that can be meaningful for projects. I recall a few months ago, there was a project on Mission near Bernal Hill with affordable housing where they were going more than of less than 15 feet into their setback. Right? So the idea is to allow a little bit of that flexibility through the local program and to be clear that, when those two are in conflict, it is the code that prevails over the design standards. Structurally, that's already what happens. That's what the city attorney has advised us. When there is a conflict between the code and our standards, it is the code provision that prevails. But we think that adding this clarity will just make that more obvious. So it it just doesn't the question doesn't necessarily get raised by sponsors or by our staff, etcetera.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: So the so the local program can provide more flexibility and the pro the preservation design standard also includes that flexibility. So what's the wait. I'm trying to

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: The the standards are a yes or no. Right? And that's and that's because they're meant to be objective. Right? That's kind of the standard that you can just apply it without any discretion. Right? But what we did through the local program is that we said in a variety of areas, you can have, you know, basically not flexibility, but it's like a modified standard. Right? So we said that your rear yard can go from, you know, 25 to 18%, for example, or, you know, you can meet different exposure requirements. So that's what we did is we it's not flexible like a a waiver like it is under state density bonus where you you can propose something. It is just a different number, essentially.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. So there is the yeah. There is some standard, modified standard. Mhmm. For supervisor Mandelmann, can you, you mentioned earlier that you're non supportive of this recommendation.

[Calvin Ho, Office of Board President Rafael Mandelman]: Yeah. So, we're partially not supportive of this modification because unfortunately President Malmohan is out of the country right now, and so we actually haven't had enough time to sit down and talk to planning staff about the reasoning behind the modification. So there is a chance perhaps after he returns, we can have a meeting to discuss this in more detail and be, actually supportive of of modification. But as of right now, we're not supportive.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: I see. Yeah. And what do you envision or what does your office envision in terms of the, I guess, it's gotta be more in conversation, in terms of the lot merger and preservation design standard on this.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Mhmm. Uh-uh.

[Calvin Ho, Office of Board President Rafael Mandelman]: Sir, can you repeat the question?

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Oh, what do you envision? Because there's gonna be I can see that there's gonna be evaluation of preservation design standard at some point in the future. Mhmm. Do you also anticipate to be to be part of that conversation regarding the lot merger?

[Calvin Ho, Office of Board President Rafael Mandelman]: Yes. We can be. Yes.

[Theresa Imperial, Commissioner]: Okay. And so as of now, nothing specific yet. It's just let's see how what's Yes. Things gonna work out. Okay. Yep. Okay. Thank you. My for me, it's the I'm very much leaning onto the original original ordinance by supervisor Mandelmann. And I do understand where the the the department is coming from in this. It's because it's the, you know, the the fact that it's being interpreted as putting constraints on the developments and perhaps and and I I see how the department's taking this is to encourage to use the local programs that where we have more control and in a way they they incentivize the state program or using of any state programs. And, you know, the the the way I see it is we're always trying to move around or navigate around on what the the state would do and what we're. But inter instead of, like, really looking into the preservation, you know, the preservation aspect, of historical resources. The the other things too is that the I I really want the, you know, us, the department, to really focus on the on the prioritizing the SF survey. I wish that it, you know, that is kind of like I would rather have that, the preservation survey, be put, you know again, it's for me, it's like we're running out of time on this, and that's where I'm kinda, like, leaning on for the department to focus really on the when we're talking about preservation instead of maneuvering around the state density programs. Mhmm. But yeah. I mean, I know there will be future conversation preservation standards, and I'm interested to hear more and what would supervisor Mandelmann's take on that as well. So thank you.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: And director Yeah. Tanner, you have a comment?

[Director Tanner (San Francisco Planning Department)]: I just wanted to respond to commissioner Imperials, your question, or one of your your comments, which is certainly, you know, you kind of you're noting concern about, you know, having the survey move in parallel to the rezoning. Well, what if, you know, we lose some resources in in the interim? And I think that's what president Manilman is concerned about. Right? I think what mister Dugay did not share is, you know, we have a fast track of two years to complete the survey. So that's why we have been adding more resources, human resources to that team and a plan that's in place that really, again, goes and looks at our most vulnerable places where we think we'll see development first, such as our corridors, buildings that, don't have housing associated with them, so they wouldn't have protections from demolition from those types of laws. And we're triaging going district by district, and not just the quarters, but also looking at, commercial, or historic districts as well. All of our great survey work and context statements using those as the springboard. So we're really on an accelerated timeline. It's certainly, we we hope in some ways development, gets started sooner, but we we are really focused that next year and the year after, and we've already been doing a lot of work this year in District 8 and others to get those those buildings landmarked.

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

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Thank you. I am appreciating staff's recommended modifications. I think my concern with every amendment we've seen come, out since September 11 when we voted on the family zoning plan is that they present potential roadblocks and deterrents to achieving the goals of the family zoning plan. So I guess what I would like to understand is maybe this is just taking a step back, is what the this seems very specific, around lot mergers. And I guess I would like to just understand what the and I don't know who can answer this, but, like, what the fear of lot mergers specifically are.

[Calvin Ho, Office of Board President Rafael Mandelman]: Yeah. So I believe President Obama's concern is it's mostly just related to the potential ministerial demolition of historic resources. And so after meeting with different preservationists, one of their recommendations was to include an amendment that referred to law mergers specifically. So this recommendation is rooted in community and less so directly from President Edelman.

[Audrey Park, Environmental Affairs Manager (SFO)]: Oh, sorry. Yeah.

[Calvin Ho, Office of Board President Rafael Mandelman]: Yes. So yes, this, recommendation came from, preservationists. They are concerned that through merger projects that we might be losing these specific resources. So this is in tandem with the other, amendment that was made at land use on Monday that would remove the all current landmarks from the rezoning plan.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: And is there is that because there's data from other cities that when we see upzoning in in neighborhoods or cities that, like, lot mergers is a is it something that happens more frequently? I guess I'm just trying to understand, like, why we're so focused on I understand the concern around historic resources and wanting to not wanting to make sure we're protecting them, but just

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I'll I'll

[Rich Sucré, Planning Department (Current Planning/Historic Preservation)]: say, when we look at our kind of past precedent, for example, with the up rezoning in Central SoMa and Eastern neighborhoods, we saw about 20% loss for the category a's overall, and obviously, any kind of number way of aggregating lots and kind of looking at different compositions of sites were used to kind of help fulfill those plans. So that was kind of the the kind of baseline that I think we've used in looking at all of this.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: I see. Okay. So given that we have a lot of protections and preservation design standards in the local program, There's a lot in place. And I guess I'm wondering, with these proposed amendments, once we apply the recommended modifications from staff, what scenario what kind of scenario are we addressing at the end of the day?

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: So I think what Rich's comments really, spoke to is, you know, not necessarily the landmarks that we're worried about. Those are, you know, kinda absolutely protected. Right? I think it's, the eligible resources that people have more concerns about where, you know, there maybe are some state laws that, you know, allow demolition or, you know, other uses on the site. So under this lot merger based this amendment, essentially, you can only get the lot merger if you preserve the resource and you meet our preservation design standards.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: While I've got you, one last question. Because what I'm hearing is not total alignment here with the staff's recommended modifications, and I'm curious if everything on the table is what encompass encompasses the conversation. I think you mentioned that there will be continued dialogue. So is there anything else that because I know this is this is kind of all late breaking. So is there anything else that we're aware of?

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: Yeah. I mean, I I think, you know, we are very close to having a consensus. It is really just these questions that have come up as we've thought through the implementation. You know, like, you know, what if there is a conflict between these two, you you know, the standards and the code. Right? For example, and we know that each of those is gonna continue to evolve in the future. Right? We wanted to basically make sure that this is as clear as possible for implementation. And so I think that's where we're just working through those details together.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you. Those are all my comments and questions.

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

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Yes. I have two more questions. So one is to Calvin Ho. So you said that the supervisor is not supportive of the one we haven't talked about, the third, staff recommend modification, clarifying that the lot merger prohibition shall only apply to housing development projects. Right now, the legislation, I believe, covers any property with an historic building on it. And I'm curious, this is coming forward as part of the housing focused rezoning. And so what's the thinking behind covering commercial projects as well? It sounds like this would apply to a commercial development project that involves a historic resource. You wouldn't be able to do a lot more for those either unless it met these new criteria.

[Calvin Ho, Office of Board President Rafael Mandelman]: Yeah. So, I believe that we are supportive of the idea behind the thermoplication. I think there is just a question around, the reference to, housing developments, pursuant to certain, parts of California state code. So I think once we have clarity around, which, portion of the code that we're referring to, then our office will be supportive of the modification. But we, President Melman is supportive of the concept for item three.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. So, but part of the intention of prohibiting lot mergers was to cover projects that are not housing projects as well?

[Calvin Ho, Office of Board President Rafael Mandelman]: Our intention is to just cover housing projects.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Okay.

[Calvin Ho, Office of Board President Rafael Mandelman]: Yes. Yes.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Alright. Thank you. And then my second question is to maybe to staff. I'm curious about so Lisa, you mentioned that with the second recommendation about having the having the local program prevail when there is an inconsistency between the preservation design standards and the local program. One concern it raises for me was sticking with the preservation design standards. In that instance, it's, I think, something you were saying maybe, or maybe it was Rich, about that there's greater flexibility, a little bit more flexibility in the local program. Did I hear that right? Is that is that the perspective from staff?

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: It's it's not that there's more flexibility. It's that there's different standards. Right? And and they're the way that they're phrased in the code is these are modified standards that are applicable to the local program. Right? So that's where the potential conflicts lie. Right? Because to use the previous example, you all recommended and then it was amended into the ordinance that there is a unit mix incentive where instead of 15 feet for your upper story setback, that can now be reduced to 10 feet. So that is something that we that the you know, through the policy process, it was decided that this was a reasonable incentive to get people to use the program. But now it's in conflict with this lot merger restriction. Right?

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: I see. And so I guess what I'm trying to make sure we're not that we're avoiding is adding a constraint to housing development. And I I I don't feel like we are adding a concern if we if we defer to the preservation design standards versus the local program. But Maybe

[Lydia So, Commission President]: I can

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: that's why I wanted to explore this a little bit more.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Yeah. Maybe I'll try just a different tack. It's saying the same thing. So it may may not I may not do any better. I think if you look at, you have, I think, this handout with blue, bright pink highlight on if you look at it's page one seventy one, but it's the first page.

[Director Tanner (San Francisco Planning Department)]: And you look at line 21, it says, you know, well, twenty and twenty one, mergers are not permitted on lots described in this subsection unless the project maintains the historic resource in compliance with the preservation design standards for the life of the project. Well, that sounds great, but there are a few instances, and I wanna stress there are a few. And Lisa is saying, basically, the one of the two that we know of, which is the preservation design standard says you have to have your front addition set back 15 feet. Local program says it can be 10 feet. We wanna clarify that under how we would have the hierarchy of the code and the standards live, the code would prevail. And the local program is in the code, and so that would be 10 feet instead of 15. So then you have to say, well, then is that project in compliance with the preservation design standards? Or is it not in compliance with the preservation design standards because it's so this is again, it's a very minute thing. We may have overthought it, but that's how much we think about the family zoning plan and all these amendments. And we look at them late in the night, and we think of all the things that we need to fix. So that is a minute thing. And I think to, Calvin's point, we wanna make sure the supervisor has the chance to understand all of this and super And

[Rich Sucré, Planning Department (Current Planning/Historic Preservation)]: I think to provide some color just in terms of when we were working on the preservation design standards. Remember, again, the challenge on our end was to create a very absolute objective, yes or no, black or white standard for how we do, for example, vertical additions to historic resources. In every other instance and in terms of practice, we work with a sponsor, we look at viewpoints, we basically try and do what is best for the resource, but that also helps to achieve a goal. So it's hard to basically create an absolute number. We came up with 15 feet because that's, for example, our standard practice. I even think commissioner Campbell questioned the use of the 15 feet when in other instances, we have a lot of great projects that use 10 feet, that use 12 feet. But the problem we have is that these standards need to apply to all historic resources. So we basically kind of started with a number to just make sure that we have something that we can then kinda launch off from. And then as we run through those examples, we would bring back the standards for your consideration and the HPC's consideration to see if there is flex that needs to be happening within that context. So I think the example that we're using is the conflicts between the two. That just gives a little color in terms of why we're kind of at this moment and where we are. So

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Okay. Thank you. You know, I I I think that the the staff recommended modifications in this case are practical, sort of implementation oriented types of recommendations. I understand that there might still need to be a further process to determine whether those are exactly the right, you know, metrics. But I I'm comfortable moving this forward with, with the staff recommended modifications, if only to make sure that those are being taken up and considered if the legislation sort of evolves a little bit further? You know, because I think I understand it's really important to have clarity on local program versus preservation design standards. It's really important to have clarity on what we're talking about, when it comes to a housing development project, which, as has been said, is the focus of of this legislation. And so I think these are these are just practical implementation types of recommendations. And so I I move to, recommend approval of legislation, but with the staff recommended modifications.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you, commissioner Braun. Well, first of all, I really appreciate commissioner Braun's really thorough thought process on this. I'm actually in alignment with you, and I would like to second his motion. But then I also have a few questions here, More so on trying to get everybody the public understand all these really hard to understand back and forth. We wanted to be more transparent to have our San Franciscans to understand how the process on any given project go through planning department and building department, ultimately get a permit, no matter how small it is or how big it is. So, ultimately, I think this what we work so hard, our team, Lisa, Josh, Richard Soukray, Rachel, and Sarah worked so hard together closely with also supervisor Mendelmann's office and Calvin. I'm pretty sure you guys had not slept for many days and months, and Rihanna too. It's really is trying to make sure that our people, as San Franciscan, really understand or, have less fear of what will be in the future and what how they live. What it comes down to is how when we talk about all of this, what how does it impact the timeline to get any permit? Is it do anything to it or make it throw a project back to two more years?

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Or

[Rich Sucré, Planning Department (Current Planning/Historic Preservation)]: Sure, commissioner. I can address that. So when it comes to housing projects, now based on new state law, we are mandated to complete the review and both the approval of projects within a certain time frame. So at least for in the realm of housing, we are certainly in compliance with state law. We have a review time line for marking applications complete. We have a review time line for basically issuing our first notice. And then we also have a review timeline for scheduling projects once the environmental determination has been complete. So in terms of impact on the timeline and or review of a project, it should not have an impact, on that. This would be, for example, one of the eligibility criteria that we use in screening for projects. So that has been an important component both in state law and in local law in terms of the review of housing projects.

[Director Tanner (San Francisco Planning Department)]: And I think that just to add to that, I think that's what's a great part of this proposal is that there's a solution. Right? Because we have the preservation design standards, this prohibition has a very clear, straightforward, objective way for folks to to not, be subject to the prohibition. So we think it is a good match of kind of having a solution ready, for folks who wanna advance those projects.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: So it's more pretty much black and white. Kind of everyone can actually look at one guidelines, which is what we painted painstakingly review back in September.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Yes.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: The our objective design guidelines said that we can all point to the same document instead of, like, you instead of based on feelings. That's great. And, also that transparency, aligning with our permit center and streamlining process will be continue to provide more transparency, reliable turnaround time for the review of any expectations of our project. That's great. One last thing I wanted to hear is that, what what are our, colleagues in the Historic Preservation Commission's hearing from yesterday's about this?

[Rich Sucré, Planning Department (Current Planning/Historic Preservation)]: Sure. In this particular instance, the HPC didn't isn't afforded an opportunity to review the amendment, but we did inform them, that president Mandamin, was introducing both this amendment as well as the other amendments related to landmarking. And so there generally seemed, positive affirmation, basically, of it. So

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Okay. Thank you. That concludes my comment. And commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: I acknowledge the tremendous work and trying on this particular subject matter that has gone into it and the rapid speed by which it is moving forward and pretty much changing. I find that process difficult and confusing, partially because I believe that the planning part itself is ahead of the tools of how to properly implement it. It's kind of like having designed a car and still not knowing how to drive it, and that's of great concern to me. I would like to ask perhaps, mister Sukway, that, for example, your recommendation, your modification under point four is actually more a reminder of how you would practice. That in itself does have little to do with modifying anything other than looking at how am I doing it. That is what I call how to drive the car. And I'm not critical of that, but I don't consider it a modification to the rules themselves. What is indeed difficult for me is that mister Ho still says that the legislator, that is a supervisor Mandelmann, still is not seeing not fully supportive of two and three. And like in many other pieces of legislation, doing here under the family zoning plan, I always wait for the supervisor, the legislator, him or herself, to see eye to eye with planning in order that what we're moving forward really arises from the experience and the deeper soul searching that our legislator are bringing to the equation. And it's for that reason that I am hesitant not standing fully in support of what's in front of us, including the modifications, but I'm still saying there's certain things that need to be clarified and in place for me before I will say yes. I I would like to, ask, I recall that supervisor Chen had a number of preservation suggestions that all of a sudden without them being anywhere addressed as part of the communication, where are they? Have they disappeared? Has supervisor Malaga determined that they will not be considered any further? Because it's in that dialogue that she promised us to pursue that everybody who is talking and thinking about preservation at the board of supervisors would really work with each other to come forward with a unified way of looking at the issue. And in this particular case, I do not see her concerns still being on the table or anywhere addressed in what's here in front of us.

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: Sure, supervisor. And I may actually we had a slide that just shows the different ordinances, so I might just return to that just for a visual cue. One moment.

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

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: If we can get the slides as well. Thank you. There we go. All right. So as we noted at the start of the presentation, in terms of kind of just the general housekeeping of how the land use hearings have occurred, there's been kind of the original ordinance, the the file that all of you heard, and then there's been these two duplicates. The the Mandelmann supervisor Mandelmann amendment was put into its own file specifically because it needed re referral to this, commission. Everything else was put into this third ordinance, which is the the second duplicate. And so, over the past three hearings at the land use, committee, essentially, you know, it wasn't a unilateral decision by, board chair of Melgar. It was, through the actions of the committee, they took votes on which amendments to move into the original file. The intention is, that that is the file that is well, every that is the file that will be considered at the board. And the the rationale for that was, as she noted, it wasn't necessarily to quibble on the merits of each one or the, or the actual topic at hand. She was very clear that items that get moved into that file should still be consistent and compliant with state law. And so at our previous hearings, what we've been doing is actually going through amendment by amendment and and having a discussion of not only the policy content itself, but also is this something that could bring us out of compliance with state law. As you recall, HCD did issue a letter in early September stating that the proposal that they saw, which was pretty much the same proposal that you all voted on, was compliant with state law and that we needed to be careful about future changes and that if there are changes that bring, densities down or heights down or add significant constraints, we need to think about how we offset those changes. And so that's been part of just the overall process is making sure that the, ordinance that gets forwarded to the board is something that can still meet state law, and we believe that that is the case.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: So you're saying, if I may interrupt because there's a lot being said, file one, which contains supervisor management's file, is moving towards the board depending on what this commission decides, of support, I mean. And file number file modify file number two because there was no support at land use for it has basically disappeared.

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: Well, it it is being tabled, but if anyone

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: tabled mean?

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: So, essentially, it it's kind of like that's where it ends. But if somebody wanted to bring back any of the the policies, the amendments at the full board, they were considered at land use. Right? So it doesn't mean those policy ideas are are gone. Right? It just means that procedurally, they're not in the ordinance that will be considered on December 2.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: What is interesting to me, and I'm really not an expert in how file one, file two would tend to work, I I hear that file two has been vetted with ATD or land use has determined that there are too many constraints or too many unintentional unit reductions for that to be able not to be tabled.

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: Sorry. If you could restate the question.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Since File two did not move forward, there has been a preliminary evaluation that HED would not recognize or accept these kinds of modifications as suggested by supervisor Chen. They could not come forward because of either numbers are being reduced or other constraints of development are implied.

[Lisa Chen, SF Planning (Rezoning Team)]: I I think that's true in some cases. Essentially, what's in that third file are items that did not get voted on, that did not have the committee approval to be moved into the first file. Right? So that could be because we provided guidance that some of them may not be compliant with state law. It could be for other reasons. You know, there wasn't consensus, for example. So, you know, there's a range of amendments. They have different impacts. We did, you know, go through them all and we did advise, you know, which ones raised more concerns about compliance with law, state law.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: And, Rachel and Sarah, you might want to chime in?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Yeah. I just wanna say I think your summary, vice president Moore, of kind of, you know, the really two main dynamics, which is that it, reduces the number of housing units that can be built under the family zoning plan to a level that's too low. And so that'd be one thing. That'd be capacity. The other is the constraint. Is it affecting the timing, the predictability, the ability of a project to achieve its maximum density? Is it affecting, the feasibility or capacity of of projects? And so that's a little squishier, a little more qualitative than quantitative at times, but that's also, as as miss Chen was saying, where we provided guidance. I think, maybe just to pick up on another point that you raised, and I think this hopefully present from this hearing is that we are working as collaboratively with president Mandelmann's office on this item to really have it be evolved over the last, what was it, month, I think, that we've been working on this. And so, we really are really grateful for that. I think as you know, vice president Moore, you've noted many times, this goes forward with your all blessing to the land use committee to have further discussion. And so we are confident that in the intervening time, we can continue to massage these ideas. But at least they've been brought forward here for discussion, for your consideration, and then the land use committee has the opportunity, to also consider those ideas, as well. And so, we do look forward to continuing that that dialogue.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: Miss Tanner, what still is a mystery for me is where does working with HCD come in that we, the first time around we hear it, are better informed to not support something which does not have a chance to move forward either.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Right. You wouldn't wanna support that.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: With HED? Are the supervisors who's working with HED? Has HED ever come and presented to anybody who were present in any of these meetings? I find myself kind of Yeah. Not able to understand the process because the deciding factor is HED basically being The regulator. Right? Yeah. Comfortable with what you're doing or saying no. And we're basically on the outside of understanding that. We're trying to do of what we believe is correct for the city, but we do not have any direct guidance of what the triggers are.

[Director Tanner (San Francisco Planning Department)]: Maybe mister Mora, maybe just to to to close on that. I think with regard to the item before you today, we have determined that the proposed amendment, does not have impact, and we've discussed this with HCD. We have regular weekly calls on the capacity and the metric to what they are going to be holding us. That is why we are recommending approval today. On the bucket of other amendments that you noted, those are active conversations. Unfortunately, those are not before you. Those are before the land use committee at this point in time.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: And maybe just for your your, state commissioner, but also for others, here and also people who are listening. You may recall, before the before the September 11 hearing here, we got a letter from HCD. So it was fairly clear in their guidance, which is, like, if you add constraints, we would like you to reduce constraints.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Yeah.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: And if you reduce capacity somewhere, you need to make sure you keep your capacity whole.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Right.

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: So those have the two biggest, I think, overall directives that we have that we've been trying to adhere to and kind of use that guidance so that when we submit our final adopted plan, to them for review, that they would find it similarly, as they did earlier this year, that it is in compliance with with state law.

[Kathrin Moore, Commission Vice President]: For me, it is ultimately a question of process, where there is an element of gray where the decision's being made, the matrix of which I do not understand. And that just makes it difficult for me to sit here and support and support and say, why are we not being informed to collectively move something forward which we all can agree to and accept in whatever difficulties we may have fully understanding it. So that's my point.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Thank you. It is a very confusing evolution

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: of

[Lydia So, Commission President]: a lot of things. I I do admit it really it's really confusing. And, thank you for these comments because, also, thank you for clarifying the processes with the flowchart and also reiterating and reemphasizing where we are at here today for. It is really confusing for, not just one or two people, but for quite some people. And I I'm pretty clear on what we're doing today, though. So and I wanted to hear more. Commissioner Braun have further comments, and then we can ready for a vote.

[Derek W. Braun, Commissioner]: Yes. Just something that vice president Moore said makes me want to, adjust my my, motion. So I wanna clarify that we're making the motion to adopt a recommendation for approval with, staff modifications, which are really just the first three modifications. I said four, but the fourth is just the recommendation generally that staff revisit the preservation design standards in the future to examine their implementation. So, a secondary presence. So, that's that's the one change I would make, that it's to adopt a recommendation to, support the legislation with the three staff recommended modifications.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Very good, commissioners. If there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell, Commissioner]: Aye.

[Planning Commission Secretary (name not stated)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? No. Commissioner Moore? No. And commission president so? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes four to two with commissioners Imperial and Moore voting against. That concludes your hearing today, commissioners. And you all get a break for Thanksgiving next week.

[Lydia So, Commission President]: Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Meeting adjourned.