San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0.0]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 12/04/2025. 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 is up and take the next person queued to speak. There's 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. At this time, I'd like to take role. Commission president So?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Present.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commission Vice President Moore? Here. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commissioner McGarry? Present. And Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Speaker 0.0]: We expect Commissioner Braun to be absent today. First on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number 2020Five-two242 CUA. At 85 Liberty Street, conditional use authorization is proposed for indefinite continuance. Further, commissioners, we received late requests under your discretionary review calendar to continue item 13, case number 2007.0178DRM at 2338 19th Avenue, the mandatory discretionary review to 12/18/2025, as well as item 14, case number 2023Hyphen009469DRP at 77 Broad Street discretionary review to 01/22/2026. I have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should accept public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar, only on the matter of continuance.

[Georgia Shudish (Public commenter)]: Oh, hi. Georgia Shutish. I I sent you all those emails about it. I guess my only question is, are are the is the right thing gonna happen? Like, there's tenants there. So are they gonna have to file s b three thirty?

[Theresa Flandrich (North Beach Tenants Committee)]: I know I I mentioned I know

[Speaker 0.0]: Miss Shudish, I mean, we're on the matter of continuance.

[Georgia Shudish (Public commenter)]: I just I wanna know what's gonna happen during the continuance. That's my question. I'll leave

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: it at that. I'll leave it

[Georgia Shudish (Public commenter)]: at s b 03:30. Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: Last call for public comment on the continuance calendar. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

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

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

[Speaker 0.0]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue items as proposed, commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero, Placing us under your consent calendar, the matter listed here under constitutes a consent calendar and is considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item two, case number 2025Hyphen003269CND for the property at 557 Fillmore Street. This is a condominium conversion. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that this matter be removed from the consent calendar and considered under the regular calendar. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Move to approve. Second.

[Speaker 0.0]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to approve item two, commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Commission matters, item three, land acknowledgement.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: The Ramaytush Ohlone acknowledgment. The commission acknowledges that we are on unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as 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.

[Speaker 0.0]: Item four, consideration of adoption draft minutes for November 13 and 11/20/2025. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

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

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Move to accept the minutes. Second.

[Speaker 0.0]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. Six to zero. Item five, commission comments and questions. If there are no comments or questions from members of the commission, we can move on to item six for the 2026 hearing schedule, commissioners. As part of your packet, we submitted a draft hearing schedule that essentially cancels 11 hearings, based on holidays and fifth Thursdays. I will note that, we are recommending that in April, instead of canceling the fifth Thursday on April 30, you consider canceling the April 9 hearing for the Easter holiday. Other than that, your summer hiatus and the July 2 hearing for July 4 and the October 29 hearing for a fifth Thursday are all suggested as well as regular Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year holidays. Before you act, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their twenty twenty six hearing schedule. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and now your hearing schedule is before you commissioners.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Commissioner Moore? The calendar looks pretty straightforward. It's actually very accommodating and doesn't create any conflict. So I've I find it very positive. Thank you.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Commissioner Williams? Yes. Jonas, when when was that email sent? Unfortunately, I don't I didn't I don't have it. The email It's

[Speaker 0.0]: Did we It's What email is that?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: The other one. That has has the dates.

[Speaker 0.0]: Oh. It should have been part of your printed packet as well as part of the packet or the email that, I forwarded, as part of the agenda. Okay.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: Certainly, as the year progresses, we will look to cancel hearings as needed if there are no items.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: We have to adopt the calendar now. Right? Yeah.

[Speaker 0.0]: Well, you could continue it to Sure. Think about it if you'd like. Or, yes, the the idea is to adopt the hearing schedule. So people are aware which hearings will be cancelled.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I'm okay with the calendar. So it is yeah. If people think that needs to be continued to think it further, I'm also open to that.

[Speaker 0.0]: I mean, in case of emergencies, we can always reinstate hearings.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Mhmm. Okay. I can make a motion to adopt the current calendar. I second it.

[Speaker 0.0]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your twenty twenty six hearing schedule as proposed, commissioner Campbell?

[Georgia Shudish (Public commenter)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Tsao? Aye. So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously six to zero. Placing us under department matters for item seven, director's announcements.

[SF Planning Department Director (name not stated on record)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Happy December. So a couple of short announcements this week. First, the family zoning plan on, Monday moved through land use committee and on Tuesday had its first reading at the board of supervisors. Aaron Starr will give us more details on that. But I did just wanna take a moment to to kind of note to you all that, regardless of your feelings on or vote for the plan, I think we can all agree that staff really went above and beyond in their effort on this over the last couple years and particularly in the last couple months. And it's been an incredible honor to of work with the team that had brought that forward. And I can really say it touched almost every corner of our department, whether it was environmental review, housing policy, thinking about tenants' rights, or even just the staffing and billing that happened behind the scenes to allow us to move that forward. So it was a real honor. Many of those folks are here today. You've seen many of them over past hearings, but I'm incredibly proud of the team and just wanna call out that that first milestone that moved forward. Also wanna take a moment just as as, the milestone continues to move forward, and we do have another, vote at the board of supervisors and, of course, mayoral signing before anything is finished on the family zoning plan, to set an intention that I hope we, and by we, I mean the broader we as well as the commission, can use 2026 as a way to unify and move forward on the collective goals that we heard and all share regardless of how we felt about zoning specifics, stability for tenants, support for families, and affordability. So I'm really looking forward for the opportunity to kind of collectively move forward on on those goals that I know we share. Budget season is upon us. We obviously will be speaking to you in January about our budget. I'll just note that we don't even, as a department, get budget instructions until next week. So it'll be a bit of a scramble for us to pull together, you know, what our goals are given what the budget realities will be for the department this year. We have been told that, this budget year will be worse than last year, simply because of HR one and the federal impacts to our budget. I don't know what those will be, and we look forward to talking to you about January. But just know it'll be fast moving for us and for you. So I apologize for that. It's just the reality of the situation that we're in. And then before we close, I do wanna call out Permit SF. We September 2 was day 200 of PERMET SF. We're coming up on, in December, day 300 of PERMET SF. And so, just another initiative, partially of the planning department, but really cross departmental, that has created some some really positive reforms that you all have helped us move forward here legislatively and process wise. So we're looking forward to the next a hundred day milestone of that coming up in December as well. Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: Okay. If there are no questions for the director, we can move on to item eight, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors. There is no report from the Board of Appeals. The Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, SF Planning)]: Good afternoon, planning commissioners. Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs. First on the land land use agenda this week was supervisor Melgar's ordinance that would amend the planning code to allow the city to waive the inclusionary housing requirements for projects in areas outside the priority equity geography special use district. Commissioners, you heard this item on October 9 and adopted a recommendation of approval with modifications. The first modification was to explicitly prohibit condominium conversions of the new units resulting from this proposed ordinance. And the second was for the land dedication alternative, specify the minimum housing requirement for the dedicated land. When supervisor Melgar introduced the item, she confirmed that this was incorporating both of the planning commission's recommendations. Additionally, she also introduced two additional amendments. The first was to limit the eligibility of the alternative to projects within RHRM ins and in c districts with a height limit of 65 feet or less located within the Route Resources neighborhood. Previously, there was no zoning or height qualifiers. The second was to include the location and number of units approved under this program within the housing inventory report, and require that the planning and or the rent board note the existence on a publicly accessible website. There were no public comments or further discussions from the committee. The item was amended and forwarded to the full board with a positive recommendation. Next on the agenda was, supervisor, Cheyenne Chen's ordinance that would add tenant protections to residential demolitions and renovation renovations. This item was continued, from the November 17 hearing. At this hearing, committee member, supervisor Cheyenne Chen introduced several amendments to the definition in section three seventeen. These included the residential definition proposed by the department at the November 6 planning commission hearing, along with other changes that closely mirror those presented at that hearing. Additional items also include, first, extending the definition of existing occupant to individuals displaced within the previous five years due to a serious or imminent hazard. Second, a minor revision to one of the required findings. And third, a new requirement for the planning department to submit a report on the impact of the ordinance within three years, including recommended modifications as appropriate or needed. Supervisor Melgar proposed an amendment requiring landlords withdrawing a unit under the ALICE Act to disclose whether they intended to demolish the unit within the next five years. There are approximately eight members of the public that provided comments, all expressing strong support for the ordinance. The committee unanimously accepted all the amendments introduced and continued the ordinance to the December 8, hearing as the amendments were substantive. Next, the committee heard supervisor Mandelmann's ordinance amending the central neighborhood's large residential SUD. This item was continued from November 17 after being amended so that it could be synced with, up with the family zoning plan. During the hearing, supervisor Mandelmann introduced the item and requested the committee for this item, to the board as a committee report alongside the family zoning package. There were no public comments or further discussions from the committee. The item was forward to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report. And for the last time, the land use committee considered the suite of ordinances that implements the mayor's family zoning plan. This included supervisor Mandelmann's proposed amendments, that this committee heard on November 20. To start off, the committee heard statements from the board president, supervisor Mandelmann and supervisor Sautter, who each described amendments they proposed to add to the planning code ordinance. Supervisor Sautter proposed a non substantive amendment to his earlier commercial replacement incentive in the local program, which had been adopted into the ordinance at a prior hearing. The amendment is intended to make it, make the incentive easier to use and encourage project sponsors to replace existing commercial uses. It does this by clarifying the ability to split larger commercial spaces into multiple smaller ones. President Mandelmann described his amendments to prohibit lot mergers on sites with historic resources, which the planning commission recommended approval of at the November 20 hearing. He expressed his support for the commission's recommended modifications, which include, first, referencing the planning code's existing definition of historic buildings. Second, clarifying that the standards in the housing choice San Francisco program shall prevail in any instance where the preservation design standards are inconsistent with modified standards of the local program. And third, clarifying that the lot merger prohibition shall only apply to the housing development projects as defined in state law. Afterwards, the committee heard a presentation from department staff regarding the planning commission's actions on supervisor Mandelmann's proposed lot merger prohibition. This was followed by public comment where approximately 25 members of the public spoke. Comments vary greatly between being opposed and supportive of the rezoning. The committee then voted to include all of the proposed amendments into the respective files. This then led supervisor Mahmood motioning to table Mandelmann's ordinance since those amended amendments had been added to the original file. Supervisor Cheyenne Chen made a quick motion to send the suite of changes without recommendation. This motion was rejected by the two committee by two other committee members. The motion was then made to forward all items to the board with a positive recommendation. That motion passed on a two to one vote with supervisor Cheyenne Chen voting against it. The planning code zoning map and general plan amendments were all sent as a committee report, while the coastal program amendment will be heard on December 9 for first read. Then at the full board this week, supervisor Walton's ordinance for the San Francisco Gateway SUD passed its second read. Supervisor Mandelmann's ordinance that would amend the central neighborhoods large residence SUD passed its first read. And lastly, but certainly not least, the board passed on first reading the general plan zoning map and planning code amendments related to the mayor's family zoning plan. There was much discussion on this issue with most supervisors weighing in on the proposed amendments. Most default, not all commenters recognize supervisor Melgar as having done an exemplary job moving this massive change to San Francisco zoning laws through the committee process. After most of the supervisors had spoken, supervisor Melgar addressed the comments from the dissenting supervisors point by point, providing a thorough and tough rebuttal to critics of the plan. She defended the amendment process and expressed disappointment that even though many of the supervisor Chan and Chen's amendments were added to the ordinance, they still refused to support the plan. Supervisor Connie Chan proposed a last minute amendment, second by supervisor Walton, that would have exempted all rent controlled housing from the local program. Currently, residential developments with three or more rent controlled units are exempt. The reason for this threshold is, because some single family homes have UDUs making both units subject to rent control. Supervisor Connie Chan's amendments would have reduced the capacity provided by the rezoning, which several members of the board cited as reasons they opposed the amendment. Those in support were seeking to protect every rent controlled unit. However, the amendment would not have prohibited the demolition of rent controlled units. It would have only exempted them from the local program. When the votes came, supervisor Connie Chan's amendment failed seven to four, with supervisors Walton, Chan, Chin, and Fielder voting for the amendments. The same vote split happened when the whole package came up for a vote, meaning that supervisors Mandelmann, Melgar, Dorsey, Sauter, Mambood, Wong, and Cheryl all voted in favor of the mayor's family zoning plan. And that's all I have for you today. Happy to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: Okay. Commissioner, seeing no questions for mister Starr, we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission, except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Georgia Shudish (Public commenter)]: Oh, hello again. Good afternoon. Georgia Shutish. I don't know if you all get the Wall Street Journal, but this was article was in there yesterday in the second section, about New York City offices becoming apartments. And it has a very interesting diagram about how these large floor plates can be broken up and used. Actually, well, I shouldn't say that because Gensler is doing one, but anyway. But I'm sure the architects on the commission will will find this interesting as well as all of you. I found it interesting in the staff. And I realized while I was sitting there, it it maybe has a pertinence for, not just the rezoning, but s b, '72. Anyway, so here's the article for you, and, hopefully, someone will make copies. Thank you.

[Tom Radulovich (Livable City)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Tom Radulovich with Livable City. I'm here to talk about a state law, which, I think you're in danger of not complying with. It's SB fourteen twenty five. It was passed in 2022. It requires that jurisdictions in California update their open space elements to further social, economic, racial equity, climate resilience, and rewilding opportunities. The deadline is 01/01/2026, so you've got a few weeks, to update your general plan, but something tells me, since you haven't started that you're not going to do this. So, I just really wanted to emphasize that this is important. You know, you probably remember the environmental justice analysis, that was done by the department, a few years ago that shows some huge disparities among neighborhoods in San Francisco in terms of environmental hazards that they face. A lot of that is our transportation choices. You know, a lot of those impacts are noise, pollution, etcetera, from automobiles. But a lot of it has to do with, you know, flood hazards. It has to do with lack of open space. It has to do with lack of street greening, etcetera. These things all shorten people's lives. Right? So sometimes there's a saying in public health that zip code is destiny, at least in terms of longevity, that that you can have variations between zip codes of of up to ten years in terms of life expectancy. A lot of those are environmental factors. Some are related, of course, to poverty, access to health care, but there's a lot we can do, in the environment. And I know the vibe in city hall these days is very much deregulation, very much laissez faire. We don't need planning. The market will take care of things. But there are certain things that will not happen unless we plan for them as a city. One of them is open space networks, public spaces, equity, climate resilience, flood hazard mitigation, those sorts of things. So I'd really urge you to take this law seriously. I it just bothers me that we're the laggards, right? We should be leaders, in environmental justice. We should be leaders in biodiversity protection and sustainability. And the fact that I don't think anyone's ever talked to you about this law, that there's no plan to comply with it just is really bothersome. And hopefully, it bothers you, and you will do something about it in the coming year as you're discussing the work plan for the department. I mean, no, it's not the, you know, it's not the housing element. No one's holding a gun to your head. No one's gonna take away your ability to plan if you don't do this. Right? You're just gonna miss all these opportunities to advance health, to advance equity, to advance sustainability and livability in the city if you don't plan. So please plan and let us know how you're gonna comply with SB fourteen twenty five. Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: Okay, last call for general public comment. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. And we can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners, for item nine. The SB 79 and state legislation update informational presentation.

[SF Planning Department Director (name not stated on record)]: Commissioners, maybe before, Lisa gets started too, I wanna note that we're gonna have a a number of presenters on this item. And, one of our staff members, has not presented to you before. So I wanted to take an opportunity to introduce Sarah Richardson, who's sitting in the front row, who you might have seen as part of our housing work. Sarah joined the citywide planning division in 2023. She focuses on housing and resilience. Her most recent projects include the Yosemite SLU neighborhood adaptation strategy, which we are finishing up and incredibly proud of, leading the planning department's work on the citywide climate action plan, and her work on the family zoning plan where she led racial and social equity analysis and identified strategies to support small businesses among a whole bunch of other things. Sarah attended UC Berkeley for her undergraduate degree and earned master's degrees in both public health and urban planning and policy from Tulane University and the University of Illinois at Chicago. So we're really glad to have her. Thanks, Sarah. And thank you, Lisa, for letting me slip that in.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning legislative staff)]: No. It's great. Can I get the slide? I think the slides are up on the laptop. Perfect. Good afternoon, commissioners. Nice to be here with you. Lisa Gluckstein, planning department legislative staff. Today, we'll be presenting an update on key state legislation from 2025. And while we don't have time to cover everything that passed on the housing and planning fronts this year during this year's session, we will be focusing on several new laws that will impact San Francisco's planning and permitting processes. As always, we're happy to address specific questions at the end, or via follow-up conversations with you all. Sorry. I can't scroll. Give me one second. There we go. Sorry about that. So this year, we saw a few major trends. As you may or may not have heard, there were significant sequin housing reforms that were passed in a rather unconventional way midyear through budget trailer bills, which immediately went into effect upon passage. Second, SB 79 emerged as the most impactful and high profile housing bill in many ways of of the regular session, and we'll provide plenty of context on that later. There's a continued emphasis on strengthening enforcement mechanisms, And as somewhat of a departure from years past, we did see modest limitations placed on state density bonus law. Well, as as Sarah mentioned, we're we will cover key areas by topic, and I'll have, many friends helping me out with this presentation. I'll cover housing enforcement and building permitting bills. Kate Connor will cover most housing bills. Lisa Gibson will cover changes to CEQA, and Sarah Richardson will cover SV 79. So, to talk a little bit about some of the changes to enforcement that passed this year. SB seven or AB seven twelve, excuse me, which was authored by assembly member Wicks, allows housing developers to recover attorney's fees and to impose financial penalties on local agencies that violate housing laws. It also extends the statute of limitations and prohibits indemnification clauses that shield public agencies from liability. SB seven eighty six requires HCD to review local jurisdictions for compliance when they miss deadlines for housing element implementation indicated in their housing element. It also extends some timelines for rezoning under court order and makes general plan compliance orders immediately appealable. SB eight zero eight creates strict judicial timelines for housing permit denials challenged by an applicant, the attorney general, or HCD. And that means that the maximum timeline for such challenges, is reduced to seventy five days. And while this isn't directly within planning's purview oh, I think I missed a slide. Sorry. There we go. There were several changes that targeted building permits, and I thought it would be relevant to you all for you all to know about those, since it impacts project approvals. So AB two fifty three allows third parties to conduct plan checks if local agencies, own plan review would exceed thirty business days. Cities must report on on these the permits whether they use of the public agency's permit review or third party permit reviews in their annual housing element progress reports. Second, and somewhat relatedly, AB 13 o eight mandates that inspections for small residential projects, meaning projects of one to 10 units, must occur within ten business days

[SF Planning Department Director (name not stated on record)]: of

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning legislative staff)]: notice. So and missing this deadline is treated as a violation of the housing accountability act. So it forces local jurisdictions to inspect and potentially clear for occupancy small residential projects much faster. AB nine twenty requires large cities to create a central centralized digital permitting portal by 2028 for housing app applications, and the city, as a note, the city is currently pursuing something that would fall within these bounds via permit SF and their contract with OpenGov. And then, lastly, a b one thirty, which was one of the budget trailer bills that I mentioned, freezes local building code changes that make, building codes more restrictive when it comes to housing until 2031, unless it's justified by a few specific criteria that impact emergency health or safety, and this is a response to the LA fires in Altadena and and the Palisades. Happy to take any questions on those specifics if and and at the end. Otherwise, I'm gonna hand it over to Kate Connor to speak to other housing bills. Thanks.

[Kate Connor (SF Planning staff)]: Thanks, Lisa. Hi, everyone. Kate Connor, planning department staff. There are three bills that address nonresidential uses in housing development projects. Many of these bills were influenced after the approval of a project in San Diego that used state density bonus law to entitle a mixed use building that had hotel. So first up is AB eight thirty eight. This excludes projects with hotel uses from the Housing Accountability Act protections. As a reminder, the Housing Accountability Act limits a jurisdiction's ability to deny or reduce the density of housing development projects. So this means that a mixed use project that contains hotel would not have the same protections under the But this would only apply to the hotel portion of the project. Next is AB 87. And basically, this states that local governments are not required to grant either incentives or concessions under state density bonus law that enable the construction of hotel uses. And then finally, we have SB 92. And this caps commercial floor area ratio at 2.5 times what the base FAR is for SDV projects. So basically, this is kind of providing a cap on that nonresidential FAR limits. So next, we have Assembly Bill five zero seven, which does become operative in July 2026, so we do have a little bit more time. AB five zero seven creates a streamlined ministerial approval process for adaptive reuse projects. And these are projects that are converting existing buildings into residential or mixed use developments. Qualifying projects receive a streamlined ministerial review, not subject to discretionary entitlements or CEQA. There is also affordability requirements that are similar to AB twenty eleven, so units have to be provided on-site. Projects involving historic buildings must comply with very specific standards. The bill also includes impact fee exemptions. And projects must adhere to specific labor standards, which are a little bit stricter than some of the other ministerial programs. And then finally, local governments cannot impose any design standards that require the alteration of the existing building. Existing

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: building.

[Lisa Gibson (SF Planning, Environmental/CEQA)]: Good afternoon. Lisa Gibson, another Lisa g. I will briefly cover some of the provisions of this year's budget trailer bills that pertain to the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. AB 130 and SB 131 went into effect on July 1 immediately after signing by the governor. The bills enact significant changes to CEQA, including new statutory exemptions. I'm going to highlight three key ones. AB one thirty exempts certain urban infill housing projects from CEQA with no wage standard requirements for projects up to 85 feet except a 100% affordable. The new standard statutory exemption is similar to but generally broader than the class 32 categorical exemption. Projects qualifying for this exemption have to be consistent with the general plan and zoning and must be approved or disapproved within thirty days from the conclusion of the required tribal consultation. SB one thirty one creates a new type of CEQA streamlining, the so called near miss exemption. This constrains environmental review for housing projects that narrowly fail to qualify for a CEQA exemption. CEQA review for such projects is now limited to the environmental effects caused by the condition that kicked the project out of a different type of exemption. Finally, s v one thirty one exempts from CEQA local rezoning actions that implement an approved housing element. These exemptions do have requirements that limit their applicability. For example, the infill exemption prohibits demolition of historic structures and has environmental site criteria that are similar to ministerial housing streamlining laws. Also, the rezoning exemption doesn't apply to a rezoning that would allow for construction to occur on sites that are defined as natural and protected lands, which includes certain hazardous waste sites. However, all of these have the big advantage that statutory exemptions are not disqualified for the exceptions that apply to categorical exemptions, such as unusual circumstances, and they have a more favorable legal standard of review. So they do provide new pathways for a streamlined CEQA review that will save time and money for eligible projects. Thank you.

[Sarah Richardson (SF Planning, Citywide Planning Division)]: Hi. Sarah Richardson. I will cover s b 79. Senate bill 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act goes into effect on 07/01/2026. It establishes minimum housing density and building height zoning provisions within one half mile around certain transit stops. The types of stops are divided into two tiers, which include in tier one, heavy rail stations like BART and Caltrain, And in tier two, light rail stations like Muni Metro and bus stops for frequent buses operating in dedicated transit lanes like those on Van Ness and Geary. You can see the locations of the qualifying transit stations and the s b 79 geographies on the map here. The law pro also provides jurisdictions with some time for implementation by allowing for near term exemptions for parcels that meet certain conditions, but those expire in 2032. Additionally, s b 79 allows for a locally adopted alternative plan that meets the transit oriented housing capacity goals of the law in place of s b 70 nine's uniform densities and heights. After and after all of the work that we've done on the housing or or on the family zoning plan, this is what we intend to pursue. Here you can see the SB 79 allowed densities and heights. Around each tier one and tier two stop, there are three concentric radii measured as the crow flies to which the zoning provisions apply, including within 200 feet of a stop, within one quarter mile of a stop, and within one half mile of a stop. Heights range from five stories to nine stories closer to the stops, and densities range from 80 to 160, units per acre. Take note that many of the larger changes would be in residential areas. For reference, within the family zoning plan area, s b 79 would permit greater height than the family zoning plan allows on 57,000 parcels. The law permits some parcel exemptions until 2032. They include if the zoning of that parcel allows at least 50% of the S B 70 9 density, if the parcel is in an in an area that is vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise, if it's in an area identified as low resource by the state, or if the site was listed on our local historic register as of 01/01/2025. Additionally, permanent exemptions are allowed for any area that is considered an industrial employment hub as defined in the legislation and for parcels that are more than a mile walk to a transit stop. Assuming the adoption of the family zoning plan, the parcels in orange, all outside of the family zoning plan area, are the ones that would likely not qualify for the near term exemptions, though a small number of these may qualify for the permanent exemptions like being more than a mile walk to the nearest transit stop. In place of the uniform zoning requirements under s b 79, the legislation allows jurisdictions to create and adopt an alternative plan that meets specific requirements. The most notable are that the total net capacity of the local zoning must be equal to or greater than under S B 79 within the S B 79 geographies, and that the zoning on all parcels in these areas allows at least 50% of S B 79 densities. First, the total net capacity of the family zoning plan area is greater than the S B 79 capacity in S B 79 geographies, and all parcels in the family zoning plan area meet the minimum density requirement for an alternative plan. This map shows in orange which parcels outside that area would be subject to planning code changes to allow modest additional density. This map differs from the previous map and that the near term exemptions, most notably for low resource areas, have been removed. So there are more sites particularly on the east and south sides of the city. And while the alternative plan is the only option after 2032, one year after our next housing element is due, it can be adopted earlier. If the city would like to pursue any temporary or permanent exemptions or an alternative plan, then we implementation ordinance. The planning department recommends preparing a compliant local implementation ordinance for commission and and board approval before July 2026 that identifies permanent and near term site exemptions and outlines San Francisco's alternative plan. The planning department must provide HCD the ordinance before it goes up for local adoption and then after local adoption, HCD has up to one hundred and twenty days to review it. Planning recommends starting this process early in 2026 to make sure that there's sufficient time for both the our local process and HCD review prior to July 1. Additionally, the legislation states that MTCABAC must publish a final map of stations and station area geographies. So if these are different from what we use for our analyses, then we'll need to update our analyses accordingly.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: And that's

[Samantha Fafroler (Madrone resident, public commenter)]: it.

[Speaker 0.0]: Okay. Does that conclude the entire staff presentation?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning legislative staff)]: It does. Yes. Thank you. Happy to take any questions.

[Speaker 0.0]: With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Again, you need to come forward. Last call.

[Georgia Shudish (Public commenter)]: I just mentioned it to Sarah before, but I'm hoping that the maps, when they come out, are are not as fuzzy as they are now. When you, you know, you you go like that on your iPad, you can't read the street name. You can't distinguish the lots. And I think if if it's gotta be done between now and July, hopefully, you know, in January or February, the maps will be easy to understand what lots are affected by a s p 79. Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: Final last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This informational matter is now before you, commissioners.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you all for the presentation. And I do have questions in terms of the maps and the ones that were the less than 50% gross unit. So it sounds like there will be some form of analysis on what are these parcels and or what the these parcels look like. Is there going to be a plan to do that?

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Joshua Switzky with planning staff. Yes. I mean, this the maps already reflect an analysis of the zoning and a comparison to S B 79, and we can we will certainly provide a more in-depth rundown of what all these parcels are, what their zoning is, what the what the delta is between what the zoning allows, and what the the 50% would require. And we'll we'll provide that full rundown as we get into the the process of bringing things forward to you.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And that will also be interlayered with the MTC plan or not MTC. Is it MTC that also providing the transportation layout?

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Right. So so the mapping that we've done is based on our data of the eligible transit stops based on our interpretation of the bill, as well as the data we have on all of these transit stops. And some of this data does come from previously published maps that MTC has published on similar types of transit station tiering. The the MTC has a transit oriented communities policy, the TOC policy. We talked about it a bit during the family zoning plan process that uses a similar universe of stations, BART stations, Caltrain stations, etcetera. So we've used those those published geographies. There are some nuance differences between their mapping for that purpose and what SB 79 requires. SB 79 geographies as they're mapped per the bill are a it's required to to map these distances at the walking distance from every pedestrian access point to these stations. So for some of these stations, just take a Downtown BART station, for instance, or Muni Metro Station, there are multiple pedestrian access points for each of these stations. Every stairwell and elevator is a separate access point. And so each of these technically requires a separate radii drawn around them as opposed to one clean circle for the entire station, which is what MTC has previously mapped. So we've used the single radius for each station. So there will be some nuance differences once MTC publishes the map. We're pretty confident that those differences are at the margins. They're fairly nuanced, that the analysis that we've provided to date shouldn't fundamentally change once those those final maps are published, but there will be some very subtle differences, I think, once MTC publishes the map. I'll just note that that data MTC is in the process of trying to figure out where and how to get this data. It doesn't necessarily readily exist of where all these stations are. So they're they're going through the process of talking to all the transit agencies and the cities to because they have to do this for the entire region to to provide the data. Yep.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I'm looking forward to see the maps where it where it describes about the parcels, what kind of buildings they are. My understanding, the PDR and three unit rent control buildings are exempt on s b 79. Is that correct?

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Buildings that have three or more units of rent control are exempt. Yes. So well, a project cannot use SB 79 on a site that has three or more units of rent control housing. We'll just put it that way. Sites that are PDR zone are not necessarily automatically exempt from SB 79. Rather, the city would have to proactively and affirmatively exempt eligible PDR areas as what Sarah described as the industrial employment hubs. It's something the bill provides for. It says industrial areas of a certain size, certain minimum size where housing is not allowed can be permanently exempted, but the city would have to put that in its ordinance to exempt them. And if we didn't do that, then then they wouldn't necessarily be exempt.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I see. Okay. So that has to be part of the process. And in terms of the the by 2032, again, parcels in Orange would need to rezone to allow fifth at least 50% density. So we're talking about, I guess, through the s the seven SB 79 has that kind of guidance in terms of how these densities would increase.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Well, that if you could put Or

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: that would be part of the kind of the conversation that will happen or the plan that will happen by July 2026.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: We can get the the the slides up. So the map on the left so s p 79 provides both density limits and height limits. So the map on the left are the density limits prescribed by by SB 79. So these are the as they're applied there, you can see. So every parcel has to provide for at least 50% of those numbers. So where it says 80 units per acre, those parcels have to allow at least 40 units per acre and and so forth. So I see. So the the analysis that on these later slides that have the the orange parcels, we've done that analysis, and we believe that those are the only parcels that don't currently allow at least 50% of these densities.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. And then because the local because another is the timeline. In terms of the timeline for the local ordinance, is that has is it the study that has in 2026? Well

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: '20 Commission

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: I mean, nothing nothing is required to happen by the law. The law goes into effect on 07/01/2026. So if the city wants to not have SB 79 apply and wants to have its alternative plan and and, you know, all these other exemptions apply, then it's incumbent on the city to move quickly to pass an ordinance and get it reviewed by HCD by that date. But theoretically, we could do it at any point after that as well.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Before 2032, that would be

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Or afterwards. I mean, it's it's sort of up to the city to put something forward at at whichever time it Yeah.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I would suggest that, of course, again, I'm more I'm more proponent of committee engagement when it comes to these kind of conversations to really engage. And if it's needed to be, you know, create more, you know, extension for that timeline, I don't want us to stick on that July 2026 if it doesn't you know, if we don't have that much of committee engagement.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Well, I think it it depends on whether how the commission and the board feels about having s b 79 go into effect in in these areas. Yeah. You know, I think their supervisors and those communities may feel like they want they would, you know, prefer that the alternative plan was in place and that s b 79 didn't come into effect on all of those orange parcels on July 1.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: But the conversation will start by January, I I I would assume.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Yeah. Yeah. We I mean, we've we've been briefing all the supervisors on on the implications as part of this process. You know, I think we've gotten generally if I could be suitable to say general feedback, that encouragement of, yes, we you know, it's it would be a good thing for the city to move forward with an alternative plan as expeditiously as possible and look at see what what, you know, we could do

[Speaker 0.0]: to,

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: as a city as a whole, have an alternative plan in place of s b 79. But Mhmm. That, you know, ultimately, it's up to the decision makers to decide if

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I understand. And I'm thinking about the role of the planning commission on this. July 2026, I'm not gonna lie, sounds very fast to me. And how is that, you know, in terms of presentation here in the the planning commission and also the committee involvement. So that's what I want to emphasize is that really to start I mean, it sounds like starting discussion with the board of supervisor members and also the communities that's part of it, of this orange parcel.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Yes. Relatively immediately. Because to make the as as Sarah mentioned, that HCD ultimately has a hundred and twenty days to review. I mean, I think we we want to provide as much cushion as possible, theoretically, so we would potentially bring things forward in you know, by the end of the first quarter so that we provide that buffer. Yeah.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And there will be I'd like is that something that the commission has to approve?

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: If there are planning code amendments associated, yes. For sure, they would they would have to come to the planning commission. And in terms of the actual ordinance, I would think so. I mean, we'd have to consult with the city attorneys and all others. But

[SF Planning Department Director (name not stated on record)]: Alright. Tosa Commissioner Pirell, maybe just to summarize some of what Josh was saying too. I I think we're the way state law works is if we don't have those changes in place to accommodate, state law changes it their way for us. Right? That's kind of the way it works. So, I think when we talk about the near term exemptions and and meeting our interim 50% threshold on the few set of parcels that Sarah and Josh referenced in the map, most of those will be minor density changes. Right? Just it's it's our density might say it allows a 100 units, and to meet the s b 75 criteria, it needs to provide a 110. So those are the kind of tweaks that we'll be looking at and and probably bringing forward to you in the near term. And, we do take your input about your your statement about community input to heart. However, I think in this statement about community input to heart. However, I think in this narrow instance of of meeting the near term threshold of July 26, our focus is just gonna be on understanding what does MTC say, what are the small tweaks we need to do to make sure our plan moves forward and not the state's plan and getting those forward? And there won't be a whole lot of back and forth to discuss about that because we'll just be doing what we can to protect ourselves from the immediate impacts of of what SB 79 would otherwise impose. Yeah. That makes sense.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: And I'll just add to what Sarah just said. I mean, the benefit of having done this family zoning plan is that the city as a whole has the capacity you know, the big test is does does your local zoning have equivalent or greater capacity than SB 79? And as as a result of the family zoning plan, we can comfortably say that is true. And so it's just these individual parcels and the rules that apply to them. We're in a much frankly, in a much better position than a lot of other major cities, and we were in close contact with our colleagues in Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, other other cities that that are scrambling because they would have to do much more significant rezonings across their city to to be able to meet this test, whereas we've just gone through this big process and we're, fortunately well positioned to to move forward with this alternative plan in the near term.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Well, thank you. You know, I I understand the process and, and I understand that these are small, I mean, parcels. And I think for me as a commission is understanding those part parcels. That's the most important thing for me to in in order to understand what's what we're trying to achieve here. So thank you. Thank you.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Before hearing the very thoughtful presentation by all the multiple aspects that come together, it is very confusing to stand on the outside and see how those two things potentially could benefit each other. Mister Schwitsky, if I understand you correctly, if you wouldn't mind answering this question, in the end, since you created a family zoning plan that has more capacity, you will be able, if I interpret this correctly, to composite the SP 79 over the family zoning plan and try to sort out where those objectives meet each other and where you potentially shift certain density allocations based on the transit priority considerations of SB 79. Is that a correct interpretation?

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Yes. We've already run the analysis. We did it over the last couple of month or two as both the family zoning plan was going through its final stages and after SB 79 was solidified and and and approved. So we've it's it's it's a very complicated set of calculations with a massive spreadsheet with a 150,000 rows and, you know, dozens of of columns and, many calculations. But, yes, we've we've overlaid both the SB 79, densities and heights and all of those provisions, our own local zoning inclusive of the family zoning plan, and we've been able you know and we've calculated where all the the the differences are and what the totals are. So we've that's we've run that analysis, and we will continue to refine it as

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: It would be actually interesting, at least for me, particularly hearing people talking about the fuzziness of when you try to overlay or understand maps with each other, to see the compositing in live presentation on a large screen so people really see the interactive potential benefits of both things working with each other. One of the questions that is probably at this particular scale of presentation not possible is to ask, does this affect upzoning in priority equity areas, which has been a concern all along because priority equity areas are often located within the tier one of trans proximity, etcetera.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Are you you're asking does S P 79 affect?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: That's correct.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Yes, it does. And we can, yeah, we can certainly provide that.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: So we have to see upzoning in those

[SF Planning Department Director (name not stated on record)]: areas. Again, to clarify the and maybe, Josh, can you bring up the map that you had with those

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Yeah.

[SF Planning Department Director (name not stated on record)]: Actually small subset of of orange parcels.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Actually, maybe I could also put on the overhead this other map that's we we also published this fact sheet that's been on our our web page for the family zoning plan for some time that that actually has a couple additional maps on it that we didn't share in the in the presentation today. So I'll just start with this. This map is a map that shows the difference between the SB 79 height limits and our local zoning height limits inclusive, you know, now that the family zoning plan has adopted. And so everywhere everything that you see colored on this map in yellow and orange is where S V 79 would allow higher height limits than our local zoning. So when Sarah was talking about 57,000 parcels, that that's what this is. It's actually more than 57,000 parcels because it's also areas outside the family zoning plan area.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: That is good to know. But if you keep that particular image static for a moment, if you would overlay the boundaries of priority equity areas over that, many of them would fall into it. Is that correct?

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Yes. That that is correct. This this upper map, this is not exactly the boundary of the priority equity geographies. It's it's fairly similar. The this this purple area are the low income or sorry, not the low the low resource tracks, the state opportunity map low resource tracks. It's not exactly the same as the PEG, but it's somewhat similar. So you can see these are the areas that, you know, are the state considers low resource. It's somewhat similar. We can certainly overlay the PEG map with it as well. But you can you can see a lot of the the Southeast part of the city is is

[Speaker 0.0]: in other areas.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: I believe that fine tuning will have to be very sensitive about those areas in order not to burden the massive amount of up zoning into those areas.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Yeah. I

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: think the concerns of the community have been expressed pretty uniformly about need for protection of those areas, and it's gonna be a careful balancing act to hit to hit the sweet spot by which the burden of s p 79 does not fall entirely into this area.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: And and as the director described, the the zoning changes that would be needed to meet that 50% at a parcel level are are are are minor changes. They're not they're not gonna be major density changes. And so And I think we'll bring them forward, and and we'll talk

[SF Planning Department Director (name not stated on record)]: about that.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Think it will be interesting if we're speaking generics here in the particulars that you know when we don't. It will be very interesting of how you carry that forward, and I have all trust that you would do that. On a completely different note, I'd like to know how SB 79 potentially makes VENA cycle numbers irrelevant. We have a VENA cycle adjustment in 2026. Is that correct?

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Well, the next VENA cycle is in our next housing element in 2031.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: How ultimately do you see that VENA cycles will remain relevant, or will they ultimately be absorbed in proper response to the mandates in front of us?

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: Oh, well, that's a good question. The the SB 79 actually explicitly directs HCD to figure out before the next housing element cycle how cities should account for SB 79 in their in their zoning capacity. So over the next few years, HCD will have to figure out how we ought to account for this as part of our zone capacity. So

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Well, I think that is good to hear because many questioned as to whether or not that conversation was properly had before and numbers that were given were relevant to what is really actually happening in certain communities. So those are my questions, and I had a lot others, but they really clarified themselves in an excellent presentation. Thank you.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Just a couple comments. What sticks out to me is looking at all the state bills is they're very punitive. And there's a lot of stick and no carrot, basically. And what I mean by that is there is no that we're there you know, we're doing another up Sony with, SB 79, and there's no, affordable housing money attached. There's no mention of affordable housing. There's no mention of anything, for low income communities, for seniors. And it's just a comment. It's to me, it it's, it just speaks to the to the people that are writing these bills, unfortunately, not prioritizing those communities. And so, you know, I I would say that it's kind of it's kind of, depressing, actually, to, to be here, sitting here, and understanding that, that the great need for affordable housing, as it's implied in our housing element, 57% of all new housing should be affordable housing, that none of this is, is, is going to be realized or is attached to any of these new bills coming out. For me, that's something that stands out. I have to mention it. And so another thing that kind of stuck out to me is how this new up zoning, how is our infrastructure, how is it gonna impact our city infrastructure? How many more new units is how many more how many more how many more impacts is it going to have on our on our on our on our neighborhoods? And so is is there an any kind of analysis? I know that there's been, we just did the the family zoning plan that there was a lot of analysis done there, but this is gonna add more, if I'm not mistaken, right, it's gonna add more up zoning to what what's already been done. So is there gonna be an additional analysis done for for the new up zoning? Is that

[SF Planning Department Director (name not stated on record)]: Commissioner Williams, maybe to clarify, and I think this relates to some of, commissioner Moore's points too. And and I want to apologize because s b 79 and how we comply with it both near term and long term is incredibly complex, and I think it gets buried in some of the details here. But the the punchline and and the response to your point, are are we gonna require up zone more up zoning? Pretty much, no. The real punchline here that staff is trying to get to is that because of the pending adoption of the family zoning plan, the impacts of s b 79 on what will happen to San Francisco here after the adoption of the family zoning plan are minimal, incredibly minimal. There are two things that are happening here, and I think this relates to commissioner Moore's point. With regard to near term compliance, and we have two thresholds. Right? We have near term compliance where our low resource areas are temporarily exempt. So to commissioner's point Moore's point about the priority equity geographies, and we're dealing slightly different geographies but very close geographies, those are those are exempt. With regard to long term compliance, the way S B 79 is set up, it says, if you have an alternative plan that gets you the same total housing capacity as what S B 70 Nine's map would get you, and those other parcels are no less than 50% of the total density of what S B 79 would have told you your density has to be, you are also exempt. And so what the family zoning plan does is it helps us meet it basically meets that threshold with the exception of that very small subset of orange parcels that we can bring back up to the map. So I just wanna be crystal clear about that because it is kind of confusing. And I think you are right that for many communities, s b 79 is going to either impose or require cities to develop their own plan to up zone. We have already done that through the family zoning plan. So with that pending adoption, we're good is really the punchline that I wanna make sure you guys understand.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Well, I I appreciate that analysis. I I I I just I think, you know, the the public should understand that. And so, hopefully, that that message that you that you just eloquently gave would would is gonna carry over. Because there there has been a lot of concern about the family zoning plan, as we all know. And so yeah. Again, I I I just I wanna, you know, I wanna kinda bring up again that where's where's, you know, where's the money for affordable housing? I mean and and I know, you know, we we can't solve that here on this commission, but I think it's it's worth stating over because what I see the state doing is, you know, again, they're doing everything but actually funding the housing that we need most. And so it's, I don't know what else to say, but to say it plainly. And so just wanna make that point.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: K.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you for the clarification. Thank you for the briefing. And, commissioner Moore, you have more.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Yes. I have one more question. I I have many, and as I was going through them, there's one that is kind of urgent. Does does a density bonus apply to SP 79, and does also density decontrol come into play? Those are two tools which are very difficult and very, very hard to understand when it comes to understanding projects three dimensionally, and those two things have been conceived as threats which people are very uncomfortable with.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: So if f b SB 79 were to apply to any parcel, yes, a project can use the state state density bonus on top of what SB 79 allows for. However, there are strict limits in SB 79 about how projects can use the state density bonus. It does not require cities to approve projects that that exceed the heights the height limits of SB 79. So a a project could use a state density bonus, but they couldn't necessarily get more height out of it unless the city was amenable to it. And in terms of density control, no. SB 79 does not provide explicitly for form based zoning. It provides for those specific density limits that are prescribed in the bill.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Thank you very much.

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

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I just have to go on record again. S p 79 is not an option for San Francisco. It shouldn't be an option. And I have to applaud the department for the family zoning plan and all the work they put into it. Basically, what it did what it did well, it's it's a disagreement around this around the city, and I think there's a serious misunderstanding of just what the impacts are. S f s p 79, you lose control. Family zoning plan, the the city took control. The city not just took control, but it's in the future, it will fan out housing right throughout the city, whereas s b, 79 would concentrate or allow that housing to be concentrated in certain parts of the city, the certain parts of the city that we feel should not be impacted, but have taken the brunt of all housing in the last few years. So I live on the West Side. I think the West Side has done literally nothing, for the city and county of San Francisco to build new housing. I welcome new housing on the West Side. I've got neighbors who do and neighbors that don't, but I really have to applaud the department and the city for all the work they've done because s p seven 79 is there is nothing but it's basically it's do what you want as opposed to control it. Basically, allow for low income housing to go on the West Side. For years, it didn't. You know, there's there's a there's a movie, and this chambers is within that movie, Fault Line, regarding how the West Side has done absolutely nothing. So the South needs a break, and it's so dense right now. There's there's nothing there's nowhere left to go. So one story the whole way up Geary Street, the infrastructure is going in, it's hard, but there is a whole new source system and water system going down Geary Street right now. So and the city is preparing the infrastructure in the last few years for what is coming. But the fact that we've done nothing for years has got us in the situation we are and the deficit of that 82,000, units that have to be built. Everybody who comes here and says no, no, no, another version of just saying no, but it's either a yes in my backyard or no in my backyard. But the end at the end of the day, our hospitals are popping out kids. Those kids are getting older. They're going through school. We are losing parents at middle school out of the city because the middle schools are not that great, or basically they had they can't upgrade into that two bedroom apartment that should really be a three and a half bedroom because they're basically living in a shoebox. We either create a bigger shoebox or it stays the same, and the same right now is unacceptable. The state has come in and said, s p 79 is the law of the land if we do nothing, and we've done something, and I would like to applaud the planning commission for everything we've done. Thank you.

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

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I, I think it does shine a light on just how much, change is coming down from the state. I have a very general high level question, which I'm gonna direct to you, director, which is, are there resources online available to the public or potential project sponsors to keep up with all the SPs and the ABs coming down from the California legislature? Or do we see that being part of this centralized digital portal that's being required from AB nine twenty as part of that kind of resource?

[SF Planning Department Director (name not stated on record)]: Thank you, commissioner Campbell. I don't have a a good answer for that. I I think the short answer is no. And I think Lisa Gluckstein will come up and talk a little bit. We've talked a lot of in the department about how the speed and magnitude of what comes from, you know, in state law in the magnitude of ways that it touches planning, and you've heard a bunch of them today, is a lot.

[Tuya Catalano (Reuben, Junius & Rose; project representative)]: It's a lot.

[SF Planning Department Director (name not stated on record)]: And we have staff full time assigned to this, and we still miss things. So we've been talking about how to do better. Lisa, you wanna

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning legislative staff)]: Yeah. I believe this 2025 2024, 2025 session, there were 60 housing related bills alone, and that doesn't include all the other planning related bills that just don't have anything to do with housing. And so it's hard for us to keep track of, let alone you all who don't, do this every day. So, what we can do is circulate there are some end of year end of session summaries that get produced by other organizations that we could circulate to you all. I can I can try to pull some of the most helpful ones if that's of interest? And, of course, if you have specific questions, you're welcome to ask them of me or my colleagues. But we're trying to figure out how we can be a little bit more comprehensive in how we're tracking everything and be both proactive about responding to changes. It's it's a constant struggle on the department side just tracking legislation as it gets introduced and then change and it and it might get gutted and amended to something entirely different. And so it's it's very breakneck at the state level and there are flurries of activity that make it very hard to track. But we would we endeavor to keep you apprised of the major things that are happening, and we can try to at least circulate some summaries for this session. And then as the next session unfolds, let's let's just keep thinking about how we can be in better contact around things. You know, we don't wanna inform you of things that ultimately end up changing because that often happens and we don't wanna waste folks' time. Yeah. But we are certainly open to input as to how to do a better job.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I just can't help but wonder if this centralized digital portal that we're required to create, especially in light of all the advancements in AI, if we if if we could really future proof that so that it's linked up with all the changes live that are happening at the state level.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning legislative staff)]: It's funny you mentioned that. I mean, the digital portal is more about applications

[Caitlin Holloway (Property owner, 524 Vallejo Street)]: Mhmm.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning legislative staff)]: For projects as opposed to tracking codes. But there are several efforts that I've heard about in recent weeks around using, you know, AgenTic AI to track state legislation and square that with local codes and understand where there are gaps or opportunities. I think it's naive to think that that's gonna solve all our problems. But, we are certainly looking at ways that we can use some of those, large language models to to conduct more review and and keep closer tabs on what's happening at the state. So stay tuned for more.

[Caitlin Holloway (Property owner, 524 Vallejo Street)]: Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I'd like to take this moment to, really appreciate our planning staff. Why remember, there are a few public comments, and also some of my fellow commissioner requested to hear more about SB 79 just two months ago when we're in the midst of also looking into, a deep dive into family zoning plan. And I know that you all are really busy. There's a lot of things to do and a lot of things to digest all around. Our department is not one of the largest department with thousands of staff. So I really wanna take a moment to thank you, thank everybody, and thank you for all my commissioners doing this. I am really proud of San Francisco Planning Commission and department because I'm I'm it's proud of for me to say that, not too many planning commission in our Northern California does these kind of presentation and also speak eloquently and honestly about this thing is just constantly evolving. And you have to track the balance of confusing all of us more or try to wait until it's kinda solidified a little bit more to let us know. So I really appreciate you taking that courage to do that, because demystifying some of the information is helpful. So you took a risk to get into further confusion or help us to demystify it and also help us to make sure that we restore transparency and understanding to the public. So I'm really happy, really appreciate you do that. And I think that some of my commissioner make really good relevant points. Let's not forgotten, housing is very important. We have not done much of anything in the past decades, even prior to my child was born. So, now, this is I'm just genuinely really optimistic about the future of San Francisco. Not only it's very important to be able to carve out opportunity for deeply affordable housing, but it's also very important to enable housing for all different types, the missing middle workforce housing, and senior and assisted living. And very importantly, also, continue to not let our guard off of tenants' protections. So now we're collaborating or continue to following or chasing after MTC for all the amazing multimodal transportation enhancement with infrastructure. So I just look forward to see what we can do in the next six months to, continue to be more informed to our general public. So thank you for everybody. I missed saying thank you for you all and thanksgiving, so this is my thank thank you speech. So I think we're ready to the next item. Thank you, Jonas.

[Speaker 0.0]: Very good, commissioners. It'll place us on item 10 for case number twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero four seven one four g p r for the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan amendments enabling the Mission Bay South Block four E project. These are general plan conformity findings.

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

[Matt Snyder (SF Planning staff)]: Good afternoon commissioners, Matt Snyder of department staff. Before you today are amendments to the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan and this is an association with 100% affordable housing project on Mission Bay Block 4 E. This is one of the last vacant lots in Mission Bay. For today's presentation, I'm joined by Philip Wong of the Office of Community and Investment and Infrastructure. And just right after giving you a little bit of context, I'm gonna hone in on the actual, action that is before you and I'm gonna turn it over to Philip who's gonna dig a little bit more deeply, into Mission Bay South and Block 4 E. And just as a quick orientation, Mission Bay South is the south portion of the Mission Bay neighborhood south of Mission Creek. As a redevelopment project area, it is under the jurisdiction of OCII who has full jurisdiction over land use entitlements. Block 4 E as I mentioned is one of two of the last vacant parcels. It is located on 3rd Street. It's a one acre site, just kitty corner from the Mission Rock, development site. And so the project itself, Mission Mission Bay Block, Mission, sorry, Mission Bay South Block 40, is looking to have as a 100% affordable housing project that will be constructed in two buildings in two phases. Phase one on the south side of the parcel or on the left side of the image on the screen would include 165 units in a structure that would have a tower element that would reach 160 feet. Phase two would be built later. It would include 233 units, and would be 225 feet tall. Both phases look to provide, affordability at a wide range of AMIs, with a significant number of units reserved for families that had experienced homelessness and a large percentage of family sized units. It'll feature off street parking for both vehicles and bikes and would include a significant amount of amenities and on-site services for its residents. So so currently Mission Bay South redevelopment plan, which of course provides the broad parameters for the development in Mission Bay, caps the number of units across the plan to 3,440 units and the height of buildings to 160 feet. The phase two portion of the project would be above this cap. And its proposed heights would be above the 160 foot height limit 160 height limit. The proposed amendments would increase the cap by 250 units and enable a structure on the north side of the site to reach 250 feet. The the commission on the Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure recently took several actions to approve the project. So one of them was the redevelopment plan amendments that we'll talk a little bit more about what we just talked about. Other actions include amendments to the Mission Bay South design for development that essentially made some tweaks in terms of street wall height requirements, tower separation requirements. They also made amendments to their owner participation agreement, which kind of acts as their DA. It had a similar cap that capped the number of affordable units that was raised so they could do phase two. And then they approved the projects themselves through approval of conceptual schematic design for both sides of the project. So the action before you, our role is a little bit more constrained but very important. When we have amendments to redevelopment plans, we need to make consistency findings with the general plan. And staff is recommending, as provided in the draft motion before you, that you do find these amendments consistent with the general plan, most specifically with our recently updated housing element that is, of course, is centered on racial and social equity, Along with this providing affordable housing at various AMIs and setting aside the units for homeless families, the project has targeted holders of certificates of a preference, or COPs, both in the project's programming and design and is prioritizing the units for COP holders. COPs, as you know, are documents provided to those that were negatively impacted by previous redevelopment agency activities, such as the community in the Fillmore. Another point of consistency is the project's location in Mission Bay, which of course is a vibrant amenity rich neighborhood with great access to transit and especially being right on the 3rd Street and uni's rapid transit network. Again, staff is recommending that you do find these amendments consistent with our general plan and would recommend approval to the board of supervisors. With that, this concludes my portion of the presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. And again, Philip Wong is here from OCII to further the thank you.

[Philip Wong (OCII Housing)]: Thank you very much, Matt. I think especially for your dedication and precision when it comes to advancing a project as incredible as Mission Bay South Block 4 East and a 100% affordable project, but also, the number of affordable housing projects that you've supported. So thank you, Matt. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Philip Wong with the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure, OCI, Housing. And, I'm gonna give a little bit more detail on the Block 4 East project, although Matt has done an incredible job describing it. So the Mission Bay South project area where Block 4 East is was established in 1998. It was it was established to address blight but also to expand affordable housing opportunities and it was always envisioned as a mixed income and, mixed use community. And Block 4 East is one of two remaining affordable housing sites and we think it's going to be a fantastic addition. As Matt mentioned, the owner participation agreement caps the number of affordable housing units at twelve eighteen, of which ten fifty three have been completed. The remaining 165 are going to be built in phase one of this project. And then in terms of history for the project, it's been ongoing for many years. I joined OCII two years ago, approximately when the request for qualifications went out in November 2023. And since then, we've brought on an incredible development team. It's Curtis Development and Dave View Senior Services. They're the co developers. We're joined today by the incredible Charmaine Curtis of Curtis Development who also developed 400 China Basin, a 100% affordable home ownership project. Pretty close to 4 East. And then we have Iacou Eskew of Y Studio. They're our lead architect. Perry Architects is the associate architect. GLS landscape architecture is the landscape architect. And again, as Matt mentioned, we had a incredible set of major approvals that was provided by the OCI Commission last month on November 18. Of the commissioners present, they unanimously provided major approval. So that was the basic concept and schematic design approvals and then all of the specific technical amendments to plan documents including the redevelopment plan amendment to facilitate the phase two project. Both projects but specifically the phase two project for the redevelopment plan amendment. And this is a slide that's an overview of the development program. It's quite ambitious. Again, 100% affordable, providing three ninety eight units across the site. 80 of those units are going to be set aside for families experiencing homelessness and that will be subsidized by the city's local operating subsidy program. We're also providing quite a large range of incomes from 30 to 95% area median income. That's to particularly accommodate our priority certificate of preference holder community. As Matt mentioned, those that were affected by formal redevelopment actions. And the unit mix again is a is is focused on family size units. We have twenty five percent one bedroom units, approximately fifty percent two bedroom, twenty five percent three bedroom. And notably, in phase two, we'll have five four bedroom units and two five bedroom units. And then in phase one, we're gonna have a modestly sized approximately 1,200 square foot community serving commercial space that's going to have tentatively a youth or senior service focus. And the project is also going to be providing on-site parking, 88 parking spaces across the site and secured bicycle parking spaces. But for East is a transit oriented development. So we have multiple modes of transportation available, not just the on-site parking that I mentioned. It's close to regional transit, like the t third Mission Rock stop is right adjacent to the project. Ferry landing, we have about half a mile away is Caltrain, and we have lots of I although the map said it was a low resource area, we think it's quite resource rich with Chase Center down down this down the way on 3rd Street. And

[Tom Radulovich (Livable City)]: also,

[Philip Wong (OCII Housing)]: I wanna note Mission Bay School, which is opening up in August, which is quite exciting. This slide is an overview of the environmental review that was conducted with assembly bill fourteen forty nine, which went into effect in January 2024. It it allows an exemption for a 100% affordable projects, including those with plan amendments from CEQA. And this slide outlines all of the exemption criteria. And OCI has confirmed that based off this exemption criteria, Block 4 East is exempt from CEQA. So this is a beautiful slide that shows where Block 4 East is situated within a very complete neighborhood and we think that Block 4 East will make that neighborhood even more complete. And I'm gonna turn it over if I can to very talented architect, Yaku Askew to take us through a design overview.

[Y. A. (Yanku) Askew (YA Studio, Principal)]: Thank you, Philip. Yanku Askew, principal with YA Studio. As mentioned, this is a joint venture between ourselves and Perry Architects. Excited to walk through some of the elements of the design for you. We're gonna have a short amount of time, but available for questions as well. This is a, illustrative site plan of the Ground Floor. Things to note are we really took a lot of attention to activating 3rd Street, providing a lot of the, sort of, active uses along there, really helping to reinforce the pedestrian experience and really tucked all the parking and loading and services as far as into the center of the building as we could. Here are a couple of street views of the two entries. So one located on the north on Parcel 2 on the right. And the one on the left is phase one orienting towards the south. Again, just very inviting entries and lobby sequences to really activate 3rd Street and the corners of China Basin and Mission Rock. And this is just a glimpse of some of the design elements that we included into the project, really looking at both history and texture and articulation to emphasize the design of the building. I wanted to look at cost effective but also really durable, rich materials that provide a lot of shadow, a lot of depth, a lot of texture, and a lot of variety along the street phase. So you can see here some of the inspiration that we took for the design. And then a illustration of phase one. So this is looking from the South towards the North, towards the Northwest. And so this is phase one here in the foreground, phase two rising behind in the background. Again, really a lot of emphasis to accentuating the activity and improving the pedestrian experience along 3rd Street and providing a very dynamic building. And then a quick illustration of phase two. Again, looking from the North down towards the Southwest. And you can see phase two. And then a night view, just the cap at the end of the illustrations. And I could be available for any other questions.

[Philip Wong (OCII Housing)]: And I wish we could conclude on that very beautiful rendering at night of the project. It will look even more magnificent, I think, in reality. And to speak to when that reality will become true for us, after this after this commission hearing, we're going to be intending to introduce redevelopment plan legislation to the board of supervisors next Tuesday. And then the phase one project will be applying for financing throughout 2026, intending to start construction at the 2027. Phase two is staggered by year, and we'll also be applying for financing throughout 2027 with the intention of starting construction at the 2028. So a little bit of a long time horizon, but we are we are trying to move as quickly as as we can. So again, we're joined by our fantastic, our fantastically developer, Charmaine Curtis, Yacu, myself, OCI staff, Matt. We're all here to receive your comments and answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: Okay. If that concludes all presentations, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

[Housing Action Coalition representative (name unclear, heard as 'Witter')]: Afternoon, commissioners. Witter from the Housing Action Coalition. San Francisco is in a housing crisis and whenever we have the real opportunity to add affordable homes for families, especially in the neighborhood with transit, schools, and daily services already in place, we should absolutely take it. Mission Bay is one of the few parts of the city where adding height and density isn't really controversial because the entire district was sort of zoned for it. The surrounding blocks already have tall buildings, wide sidewalks, excellent transit, open space, so allowing more affordable homes there is responsible planning. Every day we hear from people trying to stay in the city, raise kids here, or return after displacement. And projects like this don't just solve the housing crisis alone, but they move it in the right direction. This is the chance to turn an empty lot into 400 affordable homes or nearly 400 affordable homes and give families stability and make the Mission Bay a more complete neighborhood. So we urge you to support these amendments and, keep this moving on. Thank you.

[Peter Brandon (Mission Bay resident, public commenter)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight, this afternoon. I'm a, my name is Peter Brandon. I'm a twelve going on thirteen year resident of Mission Bay. I've seen it from inception. I was one of the first residences, located just down the street from this project. And and it is a detractor project, and it's, it's exciting one. I can see why so many people are excited about it. My fear is that it's way too costly. Well, a candidate, Mayor Lohrey, frequently mentioned that he was he considers his crowning achievement, that he was able to build housing faster and cheaper than city hall projects. His organization, Tipping Point Community, built affordable housing for 377,000 a unit versus up to 1,200,000.0 per unit for city led projects. He called this an innovative model that shattered the norms of responsible San Francisco housing of of the San Francisco housing crisis. This project is not that innovative model. While there is no economic or cost analysis in the planning commission documents, this project is likely to exceed $1,000,000 per unit, and it may cost half $1,000,000,000, on 400 units per acre, probably the highest density affordable housing project in the city, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong. This project is not necessarily it is not necessary to build, costly high rise housing. All prior affordable housing in Mission Bay are lower cost per unit designs that are really nice five to seven story units, buildings. In fact, I think all of them are five to seven story, including those surrounding immediately this project. The only high rise units are, a handful of market rate, one market rate, 16 story, and I believe three market rate condominium projects that are also 16 story, and nowhere near the density level of this project. So I urge you to do some comparative cost analysis to look at this project as it relates to the other prior five to seven story affordable projects, unit height projects in the area. Because it it if historical numbers are correct, this is it's twice the cost per unit. And I I fail to see how it will be economically feasible to attain financing or I'm not sure where where this money is coming from. So thank you very much for hearing me. I really appreciate it.

[Samantha Fafroler (Madrone resident, public commenter)]: Good afternoon, President Tsao and commissioners. My name is Samantha Fafroler, and I'm the resident of Madrone, which is it's literally just opposite the new building we're talking about here, the Block 4 E. I come from social housing back in The UK, and I, like you guys, I I would love to see everybody housed. But I do have a concern, and my concern is is this proposal being advanced safely responsibly and with transparency on land that does also have significant geotechnical risk. Just like the guy who just shared before, you know, we are, you know, lower lying blocks around that area. And also, it was interesting, I was here when you were just sharing about these zonings. I made a little note here. Mission Bay is, you know, below sea level, sinking, grand water, etcetera, and I think if, you know, this law that you just spoke about sorry, my notes are all over the place. The one from state, if that comes in in June, Mission Bay would be under that area at FRET that potentially wouldn't be able to go this high. So again, I just want to come focus back down on we don't need it so high. And one one thing I I actually went to the meeting with the OCII, and I've been asking our concerns for the sinkage of Mission Bay. Just recently, I was actually given two reports, one from 2005 and 2025. So back in 2025, it was shown that Mission Bay is actually on rubble, loose sound organic material, and up to 124 feet of very soft mud. That's why we're getting cracks in pavements. There's actually legal stuff going on at the moment with other condos. Now I asked for some environmental geotechnical research to be shared or at least done before we go and grant higher levels. There was something was done in 2025, but it was only for Block 4 E, not the rest of the environment or the community. Now I'm standing here as a member of the community who would really like to see this project thrive. And just from the get go, we're asking there's asking for let's build more. Let's build more. Let's pack more. Let's have more density. At what cost? Somebody mentioned to me that there was a project called the Geneva Towers, and it was high, and it was a lot of numbers, and it was actually really devastating. It got pulled down because it was not successful. Please consider integrating this building, into the community, and the things that we need from an environmental standpoint for the people who live there and the people who are gonna live there. So environmental survey, please. Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: That is your time. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: I just want to express my excitement about the project. I think it puts a dot on the eye on many of the concerns we had through all the lengthy decisions about affordable housing in the up zoning plan, including the housing element. This is the first step in the right direction in an area that was planned for decades, even pre 1998, a date that was mentioned today as a beginning point of what we see today. Given that, I believe it is exactly that area where this particular height is already a noticeable urbanization of the area of Mission Bay, which used to be basically rail yards, endless rail yards of nothing. This is, I think, a point of noting an area which can afford additional height. It's designed in a sensitivity that spreads the massing in a U shaped form, slowly layers up from, is it east to west? And I believe it is a great project. What is interesting is the detail and emphasis on mixed income, an emphasis on affordability, and a response to absolutely necessary unit sizes that most, denser projects avoid. The spread of one bedroom emphasis on two, three, four, and five bedrooms is something we rarely ever see, and I think this is the area to do it. This is indeed in an area of very rich in resources, not only parks, transportation, nearby hospitals, schools, etcetera. I couldn't see any more appropriate response to this type of housing at this particular phase of Mission Bay overall. So I'm in full support. I'm actually admiring of what you all have achieved. Presentation was exquisite, and I am in full support of what those changes are that this commission will be supporting today, which is height and unit numb numbers. That is basically only our responsibility, but I wanna express the broader support, including for developer to step forward to participate in such an ambitious project. Thank you.

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

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I totally agree. I'm totally excited about this, this project. 398 units, basically well resourced area. It wasn't always always that way. I became a member of Local twenty two thirty six on eighteenth and third in 2000 or 1997. And, basically, this is a terrible area. And to see how it has been transformed, it's a perfect example of what urban renewal should be. It was it wasn't just rail yards. It was abandoned industrial buildings that were, every window was knocked out of them. It was just a really bad part of town. And to see what it is now and with the new school about to open up as well, it's it's it's amazing. And the fact that basically every part of San Francisco, from one to a three a five bedroom unit, from 30% of AMI to 95% of of AMI, and a 100% affordable, encompassing everything and the best of us all, and it will make the best of us all in one community is absolutely amazing. And I it has my full support. Mhmm. Thank you.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Just wanna say hear hear to commissioner Moore and commissioner McGarry's comments. And also wanna thank the OCAI and the planning department in working on this. In this time's affordable housing is greatly needed. And the fact that you're pretty much covering a 100% affordable housing with increased height from low income to middle income. The this is from 30% AM, 95% AMI. And that's kinda like missing middle income that actually we've been really looking into that's still part of this affordable housing. So that is one thing that and we if we're looking into changes into affordable housing, the the diversity on the income levels is something that should be, you know, should be adopted in for in projects in years to come. And so we and in terms of the the location of this, this is a perfect location. And I definitely commend you also, commissioner McGarry, on what you're saying that urban renewal should look like this. I also wanna applaud OCII in also in taking considerations on the COP holders and also their comments for this for this project as well. And I think, again, when we talk about affordable housing, sometimes we talk about the COP holders that has been displaced back in the thirty, forty years ago. And the effort to still do that is still very important until now, and and that applies to their descendants. So that's something that I wanna also emphasize too. And thank you for the the architect for considering in terms of the the inspiration for this project as well. I'm looking forward to the for this to be really be built in the timeline that we have. And, yeah, I'm just really looking forward to this. So thank you. So if oh, okay. There are other commissioners too, so I was gonna make the motion.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: But You you can

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: if you may want to. I'll make a motion to approve.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: It's like early Merry Christmas. Thank you for the presentation. I really appreciate this map of Mission Bay South, like, you know, aerial view of highlighting what the future is like in a diagrammatic form, which helps us kinda evaluate what we're asked to do today is to look at if this proposal adjusting the height is consistent with the general plan, and I found it is consistent with the general plan for the future of Mission Bay. A lot of my fellow commissioner had complimented many of the the same sentiment that I have, so I'm not gonna repeat myself in that regard. But I do want to call out the I really appreciate the on-site parking, the family friendly units with more bedrooms. It's something that it's really identified we really much needed in San Francisco. Senior living is also very important to me looking at our aging population in San Francisco. In general, I also really appreciate the design intent to show the idea of these fenestrations. I really appreciate the slide and, which kind of delve tell into my personal appreciation to OCII in collaborating and encouraging, BIPOC development and design team. Really appreciate this effort, which truly represent why we need to do what we need to do have been doing for these years for San Francisco to continue to move forward and adding diversity in all level of professional practices. And I really fully support of, this project, and also what you asked for us to do today. And I also want to close it with, I wish you secure the financing you need in Godspeed. And I would with that, I'll pass it on to commission McGarry, you want to further comment? Okay. So that would be commission oh, you do. Right? Or

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: I will.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: The reason the sidewalks are actually sinking in Mission Bay is because they don't have a foundation. None of the buildings are are sinking because they do have a foundation, but there does seem to be a problem in Mission Bay with whoever is laying the sidewalks or has in the past. Commissioner

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Williams?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Mhmm. I

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: want to thank all the commissioners for all the thoughtful analysis on this project. It's a bright light, this project, and all the work that's gone into it. But more than more than all, all the, you've you've checked off a lot of boxes that everyone has kind of alluded to with this project. And so I just wanna say thank you for all the work that's gone into it, OCII for the very important work that they do carrying on the work of the redevelopment agency in this area. There's been many generations that have had a hand in in this area. The vision of affordable housing and and the important vision of inclusion, The COP certificate holders, I thought that this is the first time that I've heard in a while the COP certificate holders mentioned, which points to the equity, which points to to the equity and and and what you guys are trying to accomplish here. And so it's just greatly appreciated. And so again, thank you very much for all the work. Thank you for checking off all the boxes. Thank you for making this an equitable project. Thank you for making it bigger and including everything that you have. I know it's a little bit taller than most of the projects around there, and that's brought up some concern. But I think when you look at the totality of the project and what it brings, I think that we're, well, at least most of us that believe in affordable housing are willing to, to accept some some inconsistencies as far as the rest of the neighborhood. And so that's it. That's what I what I have

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: to say. Thank you. Great. I think we're ready for a

[Caitlin Holloway (Property owner, 524 Vallejo Street)]: vote. Or

[Speaker 0.0]: yeah. Indeed, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt general plan conformity findings and a recommendation for approval on that motion. Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously six to zero, placing us on item 11 for case number 2020Hyphen011010 one 0 F A for the property at 120 Stockton Street. This is an office development authorization. I believe, commissioner Campbell, you have a disclosure.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I actually have a request for recusal.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: My employer is Gensler, and we are the architect of record for 120 Stockton. We are actively still working at the building, and we'll continue to be working there, or possibly continue to work there. So I think it's most appropriate, given that fiscal, relationship that I recused myself.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: I make a motion to recuse commissioner Campbell.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Speaker 0.0]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to recuse commissioner Campbell. Commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero. Commissioner Campbell, you're hereby recused.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I will.

[Speaker 0.0]: And within ten days. Thank you. Alright.

[Jonathan Vimmer (SF Planning staff)]: Alright. Good afternoon, commissioners. Jonathan Vimmer with department staff. The application before you is a request for a large cap office allocation of up to 111,660 square feet of office space for the property located at 120 Stockton Street at the Northeastern corner Of O'Farrell And Stockton Streets within the C 3 R zoning district. The subject property was substantially remodeled circa 2019, and the proposed allocation would represent conversion of up to 61,661 square feet of existing retail to office space atop the existing 49,999 of office. No exterior work is proposed, and if approved, the allocation would capture just shy of 10% of the square footage currently available in the large cap. Department staff find that the proposal is reflective of recent legislative changes that have made office use in the subject zoning district principally permitted regardless of use size and floor level, and further represents the evolving mix of uses necessary to assist in the revitalization of the large scale buildings throughout our downtown area. The department further notes that retail will remain the predominant land use of the site, most significantly at the Ground Floor. Two letters in support have been received echoing similar sentiments with no correspondence expressing opposition to the proposal. This concludes my brief presentation. Project sponsor is in attendance with one of their own. We're both happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: We should hear from the project sponsor. You have five minutes.

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

[Tuya Catalano (Reuben, Junius & Rose; project representative)]: Good afternoon. Tuya Catalano with Ruben, Junius and Rose representing the property owner and the sponsor for this request. So if I could have the overhead, please. This is the building that we remember from up until a few years ago, the former Macy's men's store building. Not the prettiest building in Union Square. It worked great as a single tenant department store for decades, but it was certainly not transparent or conducive to multi tenant occupancy. The current owners entitled the building in 2017 and 2018, shortly before Macy's moved out. We received approvals from the planning commission at HPC in April 2018, including Commissioner Moore at the time. And those approvals included a Prop M allocation for 50,000 square feet from the small cap pool, with the rest of the building, which is approximately 190,000 square feet remaining as retail. Construction commenced in late twenty eighteen and was completed in late twenty twenty two. On the next page is an image of the building after the renovations showing the rooftop, which has been occupied by Ciotto Mates since October 2023. And then here is a building building photo of the full building. The current the other current tenant in the building is Convene, who is meeting an event space facility and have occupied the 4th And 5th Floor since October 2023. So this building, I think, is an example of quite significant investment by a project sponsor in San Francisco since they purchased the property in 2017. The transformation of this building from the former bunker, so to speak, to the current building, took many years, resources, and certainly significant expense. It is a great building today, and the owners continue to believe in Union Square and San Francisco. But it has been a tough time since the start of construction for reasons we all know. The upper floor retail in the current market remains really difficult to achieve. So what we're asking today is an additional 61,000 square feet of Prop M. But since the prior allocation was from a small cap pool, it would all be coming out of the large cap pool. If approved, the building would be more evenly split between retail and office with about 53% retail and 47% office. That's about 110,000 square feet of office and 130,000 square feet of retail. So we're certainly not proposing to eliminate retail, but this is really to provide more flexibility to allow the building to achieve a higher occupancy sooner. For example, having a retail company would be able to utilize a significant portion of the building both for office and retail uses. So this request is really about giving the building additional tools to provide for the activation that will help also other nearby buildings. I'm gonna pass it over to Todd Sanders, for the property owner, to say a few words.

[Todd Saunders (Property owner representative, 120 Stockton St.)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for Thank you. Thank you for considering this application. My name is Todd Saunders. And, Tia, thank you for doing such a nice job. I'm not sure I can add an awful lot that she hasn't already said, but I've had the privilege of being in charge of this project for the last six years. We were in front of you. You all were very thoughtful along with with the planning staff and helping guide, I think, what is the design of the project, which hopefully we think it's a beautiful project. We hope the city believes it's a a beautiful project and a great addition to Union Square. I'm gonna underscore, I think, something that Tuya said, and that is is we have because of the the timing in which we got our approvals, the small CAPM of 50,000 square feet or $49,009.99 was the right thing to do. I think today, having spent the last six years trying to lease out that space, we've realized that we've missed so many opportunities to pursue larger tenants, tenants in the 100,000 square foot range. And in talking this over with our leasing teams, talking it over with our investors, I think our conclusion was if we can increase the size of our our pool that we can pursue for office space and bring those tenants into Union Square, we think that's gonna be a positive at the end of the day. So we greatly appreciate your consideration for this, and I'm happy to answer any questions you guys might have. Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: Okay. If that concludes sponsor presentation, we should open a public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: I'm in support of adding the request for additional office. I think this building has made a remarkable transformation, and I hope that at this particular critical moment in revitalization of Union Square, we can indeed take full advantage of the layered nature by this by which this building may a great be a great contributor to activating, reactivating not only Stockton Street, but the overall transition from Union Square down Stockton Street onto Market. During, COVID and with the closure of other major retail stores on that particular block, it has been a difficult, street to enjoy, because in the beginning, as a transition, it was always fun to go down. There was Barney's and everybody else. You could really see things, informally hop into Crate and Barrel, go to Nespresso or whatever else they were doing, and then all of a sudden came to a screeching halt. Then came the construction, but I think it's right now Phoenix rising from the ashes, and let's give it a lift to create the mixture by which this building can greatly contribute to activating Union Square's entire retail environment, and I can only see it at as a timing by which there are the sparks bringing back UNIQLO, etcetera, that this comes all together in one, revitalization effort. So my support is here, and I'm prepared to make a motion because I'm very excited about it. So I do.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner

[Speaker 0.0]: Was that a motion?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Is there a second to that motion?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Yes. Second. Oh, wow.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Great.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: And I'm up. This suit was bought in the former bunker that was Macy's men's, and it was a great building, you know, but it's an example of how of what what went wrong with Union Square before, COVID. It was it had Macy's had to downsize. Everything went into, around the corner, and this project was transformed into what it is today at a time where I'm sure the expense and the resources went into it. And I totally understand the the size of what what the loss you've made not having the 100,000 square feet to lease out. And then I see the potential of of the tenant improvement on that, the people going to work, the cubicles going in, the hard offices going in, the peep the foot traffic in Union Square. Union Square is bouncing back. It is the Phoenix rising out of the ashes, and something of this magnitude leased out. It's about the foot traffic and the activation, and it's what Union Square needs on a daily basis, not just Saturday and Sunday. And so I'm in full support of this.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yes. I I can agree with everything that's been said. And just remembering that building, when it was Macy's, I used to spend a lot of time there shopping and happened to like the bunker. But I like what was inside more. But you've done a remarkable job transforming that building. And I just want to say that I'm in full support as well.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: The Chotto Mate stays. Right? Okay.

[Speaker 0.0]: Okay, commissioners. Okay. With that, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions. On that motion, commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And, Commissioner President Tsao?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously five to zero. Commissioner Campbell, you may rejoin us now for item 12, case number 2024 hyphen 011561 c u a for the property at 523 excuse me. 524 Through 526 Valeo Street and 4 Through 4 A San Antonio Place. This is a conditional use authorization. Commissioner Moore, you have a disclosure.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: I wish to disclose that I have a professional relationship with the husband of miss Holly, who is the planning consultant listed on this project as a project sponsor. Miss Holly is not is not the property owner, and I do not believe that that relationship I mentioned has any impact on my ability to to be impartial on this matter, but I ask that the minutes reflect this disclosure.

[Vincent Page (SF Planning staff)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Vincent Page, planning department staff. The project before you today is a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code section three seventeen to legalize the merger of three dwelling units into one unit and to reinstate a fourth dwelling unit on the Ground Floor of an existing residential building located at 524 Vallejo Street in Supervisor District 3. For context, the subject property was originally developed in 1907 with two residential flats, 524 And 526 Vallejo Street. Between 2013 and 2016, two unauthorized units, 4 And 4A San Antonio Place, were legalized as part of an interior and exterior remodel. At some point between 2016 and 2022, all four units were merged without authorization. And the subject property has been functioning as a single family dwelling ever since, even though the assessor recorders data for the property reflects that it is legally a four unit building. The planning department opened an enforcement case in January 2022 in response to a public initiated complaint about the merger. The project proposal is to legalize the removal through merger of two of the units and to replace the fourth unit that was also merged through the addition of a studio unit on the Ground Floor behind the garage. While the planning department cannot definitively determine whether or not the units proposed for merger are subject to the rent ordinance, this being exclusive purview of the rent board, it can be assumed that based on the age of the building, these units are likely rent controlled. The department has received nine letters in support of the project and five letters in opposition. Two from former tenants who were bought out during the remodel, one from a neighbor, and one from the China County Community Development Center, and one from an interested member of the public. Opposition to the project is centered on the fact that it would result in the loss of two units of rent controlled housing and that approval could set a precedent where property owners merge units without authorization with the expectation that this may be legalized at the planning commission. All of the letters in support of the project come from friends or neighbors of the property owners. Support for the project is centered around the fact that it would preserve sized dwelling unit and would replace one unit one of the units that was merged. Supporters of the project also note that the current owners are not the ones who actually caused the merger. The department's recommendation that the Planning Commission deny the project is rooted in the objectives and policies of the housing element of the general plan, which called for the creation of 82,000 units of new housing and discouraged the loss of existing housing. In order to respond to the city's decades long housing shortage and housing affordability crisis. Approval of the project would result in a net reduction of units of available housing in an amenity rich part of the city, further burdening the city's overall housing supply. In light of all of these facts, the department is unable to support the project and finds that the project is neither necessary nor desirable for, nor compatible with the community and the neighborhood in which it is located and would conflict with the generally stated intent of the general plan. This concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

[Speaker 0.0]: Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Caitlin Holloway (Property owner, 524 Vallejo Street)]: Thank you. Before we get going, we have some slides. Can we have a moment to get things loaded?

[Speaker 0.0]: Sure.

[Caitlin Holloway (Property owner, 524 Vallejo Street)]: Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Oops. Sorry.

[Caitlin Holloway (Property owner, 524 Vallejo Street)]: Okay. Thank you, Steven.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commissioners Gov, can we go to the computer?

[Caitlin Holloway (Property owner, 524 Vallejo Street)]: Sorry. Thank you. May I start?

[Speaker 0.0]: Yes.

[Caitlin Holloway (Property owner, 524 Vallejo Street)]: Commissioners, thank you so much for your time today. My name is Caitlin Holloway. My husband, Ben Ramirez, and I own the property at 524 Vallejo. We live in this home with our two young boys, Luca and Juno. And we are here today because we want to do exactly what the city encourages homeowners to do, create real, safe, livable housing. And I want to emphasize that we're here in partnership today, not as adversaries. Ben and I have called North Beach home for more than twenty two years. After a lifetime of renting and building our lives and our careers here, we finally were became first time homeowners in 2021. When we first bought the home at 524 Vallejo, we inherited the home exactly as the family before us had lived in it. And more strikingly, exactly how they had received it from the developer who renovated it before them. For nearly a decade, through two sales, thousands of photos, MLS listings, and lender inspections, the property has had one layout, one architecture, and one use a single family home with a single kitchen. But shortly after moving in, we learned that the city's record showed something very, very different, a four unit plan approved in 2013 that, best as we can tell, was never actually built, but rather exists on paper only. In 2016, DBI issued a certificate of final completion for the actual structure that existed on-site. And by the 2017 sale, the floor plans already matched exactly the home in which we are living. It is clear that the four units from the 2013 plans haven't existed in this building for nearly a decade, if ever. Not one of those units that was approved has ever been available to rent. Not one has supported a family. And not one has added to our inventory. So now, as the family living here full time, we're put in an interesting and strange position. We're being asked to preserve or reinstate units that don't actually exist. But that's why we're here, to fix a longstanding problem, a problem we did not create, but one that we're willing to take accountability for and solve openly, honestly, and with your support. We tried in earnest to follow the initial direction to reinstate all four units. We filed plans, paid the fees, and hired top architects. And it became clear that in doing so would not only be grossly infeasible and inefficient, it would require major reconstruction, produce low quality units, and would almost certainly displace our family. So we look for a better solution, one that aligns with your policies, with S B 330 and with your recent approval of 1090 Randolph, a nearly identical fact pattern. We're asking for support to convert our long standing single family home into a true two unit building, a family home upstairs and a studio downstairs, safe quality housing that someone in this neighborhood can actually live in. The greater good here is this, turning ghost units into real homes for real people. We just want to live here peacefully, compliantly, and in partnership with our community that we love so much. A denial leaves us carrying the consequences of the developer's choices. An approval turns us into a win for a city, a win for our neighborhood, and a win for our family. So I'll now turn it over to our architect, Steven Sutro, who will walk you through the visuals that show why this home hasn't ever functioned in alignment with the 2013 plan. Thank you very much.

[Steven Sutro (Architect for 524 Vallejo St.)]: Hello, commissioners. My name is Steven Sutro, and I'm the architect for 524 Vallejo. I had no involvement with the developer's work. I'd like to walk you through the physical evidence of what the building actually is and why the proposal for you is the only feasible unit producing path. We completed full as built documentation and the layout matches the twenty seventeen MLS floor plans and photographs exactly. Everything reflects the single family layout with one kitchen, one interconnected stairway, and no unit separations. One key example is the open modern staircase that connects all levels. Its floating design and glass guardrails cannot be made fire rated as the developer plan would have required. It is completely incompatible with the multi unit configuration. This type of stair must be built during framing and it cannot be retrofitted after final inspection. DBI issued the certificate of final completion on 05/09/2016. The structural inspection showed that the building's structural layout was fully established at that time. The structural layout matches the condition that we see today, not the developer's plans. The differences between the 2013 developer plans and the 2017 as built include grossly relocated load bearing walls, a different position of the elevator shaft, the open stairwell and consolidated circulation. These are all framing stage elements that cannot be modified after final inspection without a major construction project, leading us to question when it actually happened. Reinstating the four units approved on paper would require major structural reconfiguration, multiple new kitchens and bathrooms, new fire separations, and entirely new egress paths. Even then, the resulting units would be extremely small and not well suited for families. At 1090 Randolph, you approved a nearly identical fact pattern as Caitlin mentioned. Units existed on paper but not in the as built condition. The commission relied on the physical, the verified physical layout just as the evidence supports here. So in summary, a two unit configuration is really the only reasonable path that keeps a four person family in the building in North Beach, adds another real used housing unit, and aligns with the pattern along Vallejo Street where family units are part of the fabric. Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: Okay. If that concludes, project presentation, we can open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward.

[Jerry Darantler (Public commenter)]: Thank you, James. Thank you. I need to get

[Speaker 0.0]: Mister Chatley, are you ready?

[Jerry Darantler (Public commenter)]: Yeah. I'm having a my first drive didn't work, but I've got it on a second drive. And, I I'm ready.

[Speaker 0.0]: Very good.

[Todd Saunders (Property owner representative, 120 Stockton St.)]: Thank you.

[Jerry Darantler (Public commenter)]: Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Darantler, and I fully support the planning department recommendation to deny the CUA to remove two housing units from the subject building. A 2011 planning department NOE for 524 To 526 Valeo and two units at the back of the building as business offices documents the existence of the four housing units. There is no discrepancy in the city records, and there are no phantom units. The $4,900,000 3,700 square foot property has been illegally occupied as a single family home for the last eight years, and the city has never addressed the illegal deck. The 2023 building permit filed by the project sponsor to adapt address the '20 22 NOE, was never issued. This is a Peter Eskander project. He also illegally merged housing units and constructed an unpermitted deck at 460 Valeo Street, which will be before you as well as some other projects of this. This is the permit that legalized the total of four units. Why are two Peter Iskander unpermitted roof deck and unpermitted dwelling unit mergers on Vallejo Street unresolved years after the NOE was issued? The image on the right is 460 Valeo Street. The deck there includes a swimming pool. That house was offered for sale for $13,000,000. Are these Peter Eskander projects representative of the planning department's code enforcement's efforts? On the left part of the slide, you see 460 Vallejo Street. The NOE has been under review for seven years. This is, images of the penthouse on the top of the subject property on the unpermitted front deck. On the right image, you can see buildings in back of the penthouse. This is an image of the deck that's unpermitted behind the penthouse. The barbecue is under the fire escape and is sitting on a wooden deck. The barbecue is the barbecue three to five feet from the property line, and does the installation meet the fire code? I doubt the people in the adjoining buildings find the illegal deck necessary or desirable. This building, the as built of 4,516 square feet includes a 736 square foot garage, which is 302 square feet larger than the proposed 432 square foot unit. The numbers on the left are nonsense because they can't be 4,500 some feet because they don't include the garage. Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: Next speaker.

[Theresa Flandrich (North Beach Tenants Committee)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Theresa Flandrich, North Beach tenants committee. I'm here in support of the denial of, of this project. I commend both the department as well as I'm urging you as a commission to, to support us in not going along with the CUA. Again, public records have showed different things at different times. Certainly, enforcement is one, but what has been clear is that this is a was a four unit building built in nineteen o seven. You also have the letters from two of the tenants. I understood there were gonna be three, but, anyway. So when two of those tenants say that they were forced out in 2013, one had having lived there for twenty seven years and one having lived there for seventeen years, something is very different than what you've been hearing thus far. I do know that in 2013, we had a huge wave of speculation that swept through and swept out 69 tenants within eight blocks of this site. They were rent controlled buildings. There were different ways of getting people out. And again, 69 people looking for an alternative home in that same year in just eight block radius. So we cannot we cannot afford to lose and legalize what was lost here in terms of three additional units that housed four households. I'm asking you to not set a precedent, to not go along with with doing the legalization of the existing two once a two unit building there with the rear having an additional two. I I this is nothing against the people who currently live there. It is against we cannot lose more and contribute to the loss of more rent controlled housing above all. So please don't allow this to be set as a precedent. There are alternatives certainly. I personally would sue not only the realtor, also the developer, and then use money from it because believe me, the developer has made millions over the years. But to then restore those units that have indeed been removed. So thank you and please support the denial of this CUA. Thank you.

[Jamie Vigil (Neighbor/public commenter)]: Hi there. Good afternoon. My name is Jamie Vigil. I am a neighbor of Ben and Caitlin's across the street at 533 Valeo Street. We've lived there for approximately twenty almost twenty three, twenty four years. My husband and I, own the building. We didn't eat for three years when we first got married, and we both come from lower middle come lower income backgrounds. I'm a fifth generation native to the area. My husband's third Mexican American. And I have to say a couple things about in support of Ben and Caitlin, this property has changed hands several times over the last over a decade or longer. The notifications that we got over the years were that, oh, the property's coming on the market. The prop the work was being done. We lived through all the construction. If there was a problem before they purchased the property, then maybe the attorneys who owned it before they did could have divulged that. They weren't told the truth. I don't believe. I'm a real estate agent, a residential real estate agent. I'm not party to any transactions at all to this specific property. But I can tell you that they're such kind, wonderful people, and their family is lovely. They had no knowledge of this, and, they should probably be slinging lawsuits all over the place. But they're such kind people that once they found out that there was a problem, they're trying to mitigate it and fix it. So, I would like to support them, in any way possible to stay in their home. If they have to move forward and do what is being asked of them, we'll never see them again. They'll probably have to sell it. We won't have homeowners in the neighborhood. My understanding is they come from very similar background as myself. Not huge property owners whatsoever. So I think that, we'd like to see them stay in the neighborhood. I have a child also that I'm trying to raise in a city that is not childhood friendly, that is not financially, feasible, to be spending money on things that they have no knowledge about prior to purchasing the property. So, you know, I think that if if the questions should be asked to the people that

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: owned it before them, they

[Jamie Vigil (Neighbor/public commenter)]: shouldn't be punished for other people's doings. Thank you very

[Philip Wong (OCII Housing)]: much. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name

[Kevin Liu (Public commenter)]: is Kevin Liu, and I'm a longtime friend of Ben and Caitlin. I've known them for over sixteen years. We met at work and have grown up professionally together in San Francisco over the past sixteen years. Like me and my wife back here, we've all chosen to raise our families here in San Francisco through tough times. Right? You're all here. Through COVID, through the exodus, we have made it we made a commitment. We would chat about it. We're saying, San Francisco, we're we're here. And we've all made our commitment to stay here. They have both their kids in public school, and they're leaders in their community, and at work creating jobs that create economic opportunity for residents of the city. And they've been in North Beach for as long as I, remember. They moved here from Stockton. I remember when they lived on Pfeiffer Street, 700 square foot apartment with their first baby in one room. So I I I know they would, not wanna live anywhere else. But given the situation, as you heard, they bought the property in good faith, during the pandemic, and they had no knowledge of that, illegal merger. And they're inheriting liability, for that corruption from over a decade ago, it seems. And I see them working collaboratively with planning department here rather than fighting in court another speaker here suggested that they just sue sue people. Right? And that that's not who they are. Right? It sounds like the plan aligns with the city goals. It adds a legal unit. There's no demolition. It doesn't displace any family, including their own family. It just legalizes what exists, and it solves the problem, right, proactively. So just my question as a resident, as someone who's raising their family and lives here and loves the city, right, do we wanna retain a family like Ben and Caitlin's, who invests in the city, who doubles down during tough times? And do homeowners who buy in good faith, should they bear the full burden of the previous owner's violation? And if they do, should they be given a chance to rectify it? And I think that the proposal aligns with the Planning Commission's goals of more housing notice placement and bringing everything to compliance. So just in closing, you know, I believe that that Ben and Caitlin, their family is exemplary of the kind of family that SF, should be working to keep. And I think that's the underlying principle of trying to make housing affordable. We want to keep families. Right? And and I think this this this path allows, allows, us to keep Ben and Caitlin's family. Thank you.

[Alex Noor (Neighbor/public commenter)]: Hello, commission. Thank you for your time. My name is Alex Noor. I am a neighbor on the 500 Block Of Vallejo and here in support of our neighbor's application. My wife and I are relatively new homeowners ourselves. We understand how important it is to navigate San Francisco's housing and permitting and landscape in a responsible way. Caitlin and Ben have worked tirelessly for several years to find a solution that supports the city's housing priorities. Their proposal adds a unit while resolving a unique situation they inherited. My wife and I are active in the community and we have both seen firsthand how much this family contributes to the community, especially to neighborhood youth and families. They are thoughtful, civically engaged, and always striving to do the right thing. We hope the commission will consider the facts of this edge case and support their pathway forward. Thank you.

[Susan Taylor (Neighbor/public commenter)]: Hello. My name is Susan Taylor, and my partner and I own the building next door to Ben and Caitlin's building. We bought in 2011, so we were there during the entire construction process. And it was clear to us during the entire process that what was being built next door was a single family home. We our our windows look onto each other, so we have a long standing joke about the fact that what happens in one house stays in that one house since we can see each other all the time. So there was no illusion on our part about what kind of construction was going on next door. It was always going to be a single family home. I cannot emphasize enough how much this this pair and their children mean to our neighborhood. It's the reason why we have a neighborhood and not just a block. They are tirelessly committed to the cohesion of our merry little band on Opera Vallejo. And they are completely civic minded. I I hate to see the sins of their predecessors being laid upon them. And there's also an element to me of economic waste. This building was purpose built as a single family home, and I'm not sure how realistically it becomes anything else without literally taking it all down and starting all over again. And that doesn't seem to be logical. So I'd love to see a family that is this committed to San Francisco and to seeing San Francisco be the great city it is, be able to stay right in place where they are, doing the good work that they do. Thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: Okay. Last call for public comment.

[Georgia Shudish (Public commenter)]: Can you fix the clock for me, please? Thank you. As someone Georgia Shudisch. As as someone interested in the flat policy, this project caught my attention when I read about it on today's agenda. It is shown as two flats on the Sanborn maps, but from the record, it is clearly three, if not four, legal units. This application for conditional use raises many issues going forward in terms of tenant protection and new projects under the rezoning. The staff has written a pretty emphatic recommendation for denial of the CUA. In order to be consistent with this recommendation for denial and in the future under the rezoning and under the proposed TPO, the department guided by this commission and the managers should be reviewing all proposed projects with the same mindset and diligence that the enforcement staff does their work in reviewing violations. When former director Hillis reorganized the department and folded the ZEA and the enforcement staff into current planning, it seemed like it would be a good opportunity for project applications to be reviewed with the same stringency and viewpoint that is necessary in an enforcement case even under the accelerated time period now required by the state. This is particularly important not only for any demolitions of existing housing, but for any demolitions or major alterations where there may be tenants or multiple units or where there may be UDUs. This CUA illustrates the need for strong tenant protection, not just when there is a demolition, but for major alterations like occurred here where a project has a complete interior makeover. While this was a major interior alteration that required a 03/11 notification in 2011, alterations of even a relatively minimal amount of interior demolition can displace tenants and cause evictions which should be concerning in the future. It is unfortunate that the current owners be before you are in this situation. The commission has a difficult deliberation and vote. However, it is also unfortunate that the tenants who lived there over a decade ago were in that situation as written in the letters from mister Grant and mister Monosat. That is on your commission website. It is a situation that should be avoided with future projects under the rezoning. And I'll just add when I put these letters. I looked at the 2009 Google Earth, and if you look at the side where the street is block is now blocked off, there were four little holes that showed meters. I assume those were meters for the meter reader. So I think there were four units. I don't think they were paper. And there's that paper in my letter for you. Thank you very much.

[Lindsay Lou (Public commenter)]: Hi, everyone. I'm Lindsay Lou. I'm also dear friend of Ben and Caitlin. I'm struck today by everyone feeling a little bit confused about the situation and how we got here. And I feel deeply sad for our city as a resident of San Francisco that we could ever be in this position.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Speak louder, please.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning legislative staff)]: Oh, yeah.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Thank you so much.

[Lindsay Lou (Public commenter)]: Especially as someone who or a family who is wanting to raise their kids in San Francisco. I'm also fifth generation San Franciscan. Ben and Caitlin are dear friends. They love this city. They love it so much. They invested in this city, in a house that they wanted to be in in their neighborhood of North Beach. I think we're all probably sitting here a little confused about how this happened, and I hope that I know that this decision feels weighted and that it's has more weight than just the people here. But I also think what are we trying to communicate to families that invest have their dream is to live here and to be here and choose to make a purchase here, which is not a small purchase as some of us know. It's it's a big investment. Ben and Caitlin chose here. They chose North Beach. They chose the dream of be of being here. And choosing to allow them to make this into two units is allowing them to continue with the dream of being in San Francisco, a dream that I'm sure every single person here cherishes and appreciates being a part of the city. So thank you.

[Speaker 0.0]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just wanna say it's this true truly tragic situation that's before us. How it got to this point is, you know, a question that I I'd like to and I don't even know if if, miss Waddy, if you could, weigh in on on, on any additional information that the city might have on how how this all how we got here today, how how they the city missed this this merger of four units into one and and how it was able to to exist for so many years. I mean, I don't know if you can add anything, but I'm I just need to ask the question.

[Liz Watty (Deputy Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: Yeah. No. Absolutely. I mean, what I would say is our enforcement process, both at planning and at DBI, is a complaint based system. So we find out about things when somebody files a complaint. We don't proactively go, you know, walking through people's homes and and looking for mergers. And so I think that's unfortunately, the problem is that the complaint came in once these owners lived in this building as opposed to when it happened. There was illegal work that originally there was illegal work where they went through legalization. I know Vincent can sort of talk about that before under prior owners. But between that moment in time when it was legalized as a four unit building, I mean, the irony here is it was legally a two unit building, originally, originally. And then they illegally added two units. That got legalized. That got caught. That got legalized. They executed it. And then they undid that illegal work to bring it back to a single family home. So, I mean, the irony here is if they had not added those two illegal units, they would have had two a two unit building. It would have been a a much less difficult resolution of the problem of where we are today, but, that isn't the case before us. Mhmm. So, you know, I think, really, the crux of the issue is we're a complaint based enforcement system, and the complaint two owners later. And now they're stuck dealing with the problem.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Mhmm. Thank you. I I also, the the irony is is, you know, the four families that were unfortunately displaced by the actions, not of this previous owner, but of other unscrupulous individuals that and that carried out, what's happened here. Unfortunately, I, I'm gonna have to agree with the recommendation of of of the planning department, and I'd like to make a motion for a denial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second.

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

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: This is tragic tragic.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Anybody anybody second?

[Lisa Gibson (SF Planning, Environmental/CEQA)]: Yeah. You got it.

[Susan Taylor (Neighbor/public commenter)]: Theresa Oh,

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Sorry. This is

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Mister McGeary. Yeah.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: This is truly tragic. This is a two unit building that was turned into a four unit building, a San Francisco special, pretty much. That's that's what happens. Chopped two unit, chopped up into a four unit, and then basically back to a two unit, but skipped that and went straight to a single family home. So, but the person I wanna see here is Peter, I can't pronounce his last name, I s k a n d e r, Iskander. Sorry if I'm if I'm butchering that. Master Builders SF Twin Boys Corp pulled the permits on this. AKA Master Builders has done it elsewhere. That's the person I would like enforcement basically to go after, speak to, talk to, and whatever else they can do to them, they should do. Because I've looked them up online. There is a plethora of, basically, instances, people just like you who he's he's basically, they're not here yet, but I'm sure they're coming. So I feel really, really uneasy in this situation here because you are you're a victim twice removed. You're not a it's not even you. It's the person. If anybody knew about this, it was the previous owner, the one you bought it off. If they had any indication, well, they bought it off him, so and if you go online about him, you have to know everything you need to know about this individual and his companies. Companies, because the naming of these companies are terrible too. That should be a red flag. Anybody, you know, anybody smiling has done their homework. The sad thing is I have to support the denial, but I am looking for some way that this could or the possibilities of the planning department or someone that we could actually go back and look at this as a two unit unit building, as it originally was, not chopped up into the four unit, because I don't believe you're not at fault here at all. You know? There's you're twice removed. It's not you're not even close to being at fault. So and what we can do, how we can do it, or if there's another another avenue you can go, and the fact that you're actually working with DBI and all the rest, you don't do that. You just keep going. So but, unfortunately, our hands are tied and I have to go with the denial, but I'm really put putting it out there if there's anything, any other avenue where you can be helped on this, the city should be there to help you because they are taking your property tax. You know, there's, the the the the permits were signed off on, So there these are these are things we can't ignore. Yeah.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. This is, again, another one tragic, one tragic situation we are in here. And, you know, looking into the you know, I empathize with the current owners because it's not your doing. It's the whoever the developer and the real estate agent that turned this into a one single family home. However, I, you know, I still look into the for me, in in the bigger picture as well, and we just had this tenant protections ordinance. And it you know, the tenant protections ordinance if, you know, when it's when it was being put on, I mean, these were kind of the things that we were thinking about because there were other cases that have happened like this. And, you know, I'm more worried about the precedent that it will do in the future. The fact that there are, you know, there is I mean, I'm looking into the record. There is it is recorded as a four family dwelling unit. And so, you know, it's very hard to see that there is this family that's taking this over. But at the same time, you know, looking into the zoning, and that's what the planning commission planning department is all about, are the codes the planning codes that we have to adhere. And someone did this illegally without any, you know, hesitation what the planning code is, you know, is is all about and what we're here to. And so I'm in a way for commissioner McGarry, there needs to have some accountability as well, whoever the developer is, that this should not happen again and should not and should not look into victimizing another family that's actually wanna invest here in San Francisco, wanna live here in San Francisco. There there needs to have a strong enforcement, and I'm not sure if this developer in the blacklist into TBI, we should look into that, whatever projects that he's on and really need to get a closer look in those developments because, it cannot just go on like this, continue victimizing future families or current families, and also at the same time displacing former tenants. So he's doing double whammy, you know, screw tenants and the current homeowners. And I feel like, again, this is, you know, this is what planning department, planning commission is, and I I will have to support that denial. Thank you.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: It is getting increasingly more difficult to sit here and have to deal with issues which I believe actually should not be considered by us, but but those people who potentially participated in them. And I have to look towards DBI. I have to look at inspection, including no follow-up when initially concerns about illegal construction in this particular building were noted prior to these owners of of being, in the building. Then I'm asking, what disclosure dis what disclosure requirements are being made during high end sales? This is a $4,860,000 building. And who's responsible selling this thing? Who's responsible? Where is disclosure on what I believe is a real estate disclosure? And how are, potential owners are being, made aware that even if you buy a house, there may be still something that is not being properly disclosed. And why does the buck stop here? When you sit here and have this happening again and again, which it has, ultimately, our ability to just sit here and decide starts to be limited, and that's why I believe that, at some point, we need to draw a line, and that that that line indeed may be, today, because the extent of what happened here indeed got four households, many of whom have left the city, also wanting to live without being here anymore. And it is in the confluence of this incredibly tragic chain of arrows, oversights, neglect, where it comes to a crash where I believe I cannot continue having to sit on reflect on other people's destinies, disappointments, destruction of dreams when we need to support that the brakes are put on earlier than us sitting here, listening to life stories that almost bring tears to people's eyes because you have to emphasize and put yourself potentially into that same position. I do not envy mister Wimmera as a planner to have to basically go into the depths of researching of what went wrong with this project. He as a planner, if everything would be fine, would basically speak about something that is easily supportable and approvable, and he has to sit here and go to the extreme, not only reflecting what has happened over the last fifteen years, but also reflecting on the most critical moment where we are relative to upzoning and all the blood and blood, sweat, and tears that has gone into the creation of the housing element and the legislation that was approved by the board of supervisors on Tuesday. So I am exhausted. I am disappointed. I am hurt. I am empathetic, but I do not believe that I can take this any further, and I have to I cannot extend I I will I will have to support the department's recommendation. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Thank you for all being showing up here, and I feel I'm really sympathetic for both sides. I also I want to say a few things, like displacing people out of San Francisco, keeping family here, it's it's kinda where we we're, like, we're looking at it all the time. And, like, there are previously, there are some cases where homeowners purchased some a house and immediately wanted to do some excavation to add more square footage, and that's when they find out that what they had purchased was not what was being documented in the record. Some of the homeowners decided to quickly spend their money to revert back to what was actually allow them to do and then ask for a little bit more leniency by respecting our land use and keeping housing units and stock in our city. They revert back to what the number of housing units in their house and then proceed and ask for a little bit more excavation. And I do believe in process of how you find out or you ended up here is that you are submitted a set of plan, wanted to excavate further to add a unit to your existing property. And I think this is kind of in light of where we are, where we are today, just giving you some perspective of what other San Franciscan family had made their decision to move forward with. I do echo Commissioner Moore's comment about this is a pretty high end purchase, and I do believe there there had been some due diligence in the real estate transaction, some level of what do you call that? I forgot. I'm not a real estate agent. When during during before the title and right. There's disclosure, thank you, to check mole and termite and check all the stuff, and I'm sure you gotta have to receive a three hour report. That in there, it really basically signify in your title what type of property you're purchasing. If that had missed or deliberately omit from your purchase, that is something I really want you to take a really closer look at what really happened there. Because I personally have not seen that happen. I don't think you can. I'm not again, I'm not a real estate agent, but I do not think that they can redact this information because that is fundamentally the key information why you purchased that piece of property and what is your land value and what is your projected tax that you have to purchase there. But I do, however, you seem like a lovely family, lovely neighbor, and I'm really sympathetic for your situation. I really do. It's really hard to have family here and also be able to work your way up and be able to own a really nice house. And I do have sentimental understanding on some of my commissioners talking about talking about, like, what happened before you got the opportunity to purchase this. We can all take that as a lesson learned moment of what can we do better in the future, what can we do inform people when they purchase houses, the excitement of having a really big house in San Francisco and what the key pieces that you really need to look into before you sign that document, really is sympathetic for your situation. But I probably have to, agree with my planning staff that it is for the matter that is coming before us, what we're asked to do in the policy that is governed by the planning department, I need to be stand by my staff. Yeah. And commissioner Williams and then commissioner Campbell.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I just have an additional question, for, miss Swati. There there was, there was some permits that were signed off, on on the on the construction of the building at some period after the initial or or some time. And so I'm just trying to wrap my head around, like, the process of pulling a a a building permit for a major renovation and then not understanding that the the the unit count on the building. And how how did that get missed? And and just so I'm not sure if if now there's a way to you know, when a building inspector or whoever pulls the permit through the building department, if they check to see, you know, how many units there is to make sure that, you know, what they're looking at is is is legally, you know, a a one unit or two unit building, is is there a process to, for, for the planning or excuse me, the building department? And I'm I'm sure that you could

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Yeah.

[Joshua (Josh) Switzky (SF Planning staff)]: You you

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: could probably answer that. But is there a process that's now in in, that's now a part of the permit process to make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again? That's that's basically what I'm trying to get to.

[Liz Watty (Deputy Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: Sure. Sure. Sure. So two parts of this. One, the building inspector should be crystal clear on what the unit count is that they're inspecting. Like, that is a primary aspect of their role, especially when the scope of this permit was to legalize two units. That that really is the last permit. And Zach, can correct me if I'm wrong here. But the last permit that we have on file was to legalize this as a four unit building, taking it from a two to a four. So that being the scope, that's what you're inspecting on, is that there should be four final units there. That's what's being legalized. So and that's what was signed off. What we don't have because our technology is very antiquated is photos or videos of said inspection. We have a sign off. We have a date. That's what we've got as evidence. Right? We've got the plans and then the date that it happened. What I will say in terms of moving into the future, one of the things we're actually working on with as part of PermaDOTSF technology project is looking at ways to leverage technology like photos in the field, videos in the field, things like that during inspection. So there's no mincing of words or truth lost in translation of what exactly is being approved. And so I personally am I'm really excited for that being one of the advancements that we're able to launch with this new technology project. But the way it is right now, the the facts are approved set of plans, you know, what stage of an inspection, you know, rough, final, that sort of thing, date, and the person. And that typically ends up being the bulk of the information that we have right now captured in the system.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I I I appreciate that. I think that's that's a great idea to to have a photo accountability of what's being inspected. You know, as a general building contractor myself, I've I've, you know, I've had to deal with many inspections and deal with with with inspectors. And they never, yeah, they never take a photo of your work. I I don't you know, but it I think that's a great idea, just to have that that that record, that photo on record, as well as the the the building permit and everything else, to go back just in case there's any kind of question about what you inspected and and what so I I I I think that, you know, I I agree. I'm excited to hear that that that's gonna be part of moving forward with the with the building of the department. And and I I think there's a lot of areas because we we've seen stuff like this before. And and I think now that there's these changes in DBI, and I I think this would be a good opportunity to, you know like you're doing, is exploring, to find solutions to some of these problems that have come up because it's not fair, some of the things that we've heard, as well as what's happening today, when folks find themselves in a situation that happened well before them. And and so thank you for that. Yeah.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner Campbell, thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I echo the sentiment of a lot of my fellow commissioners that this this one has me particularly sick, to be honest. I one of the first things I thought to ask for was the three r report as well, which the the assigned planner was able to give to me and it I I think just as part of classic due diligence, that that's what should have been provided to you upon this transaction, and it's clear that it was identified as a four unit building in the eyes of the city. I think what I really struggle with here is that denial of this means that you're you really have no choice but to build these four units. And if you're going to stay in this home, you're it's not a very sustainable and practical solution. Right? You're gonna do that, and then you're gonna try to live in it as a single family home, which I think doesn't

[SF Planning Department Director (name not stated on record)]: make

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: good sense to me, although we're righting the wrong. So I just wonder if there's alternative solutions that have been explored or if there's precedent for, you know, reinstating the units upon sale or, you know, delaying that. And I I suspect we want this cleared up as soon as possible, but I wondered if there's precedent for delaying the work to another point in time when it's more reasonable for the family, if that's even something the project sponsor is interested in. I don't know if that's a Vincent question or if that's a Liz Waddy question or if that's a Sarah question. She might not have heard it, so maybe you wanna

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: take it.

[Vincent Page (SF Planning staff)]: I will, Liz, I've been so it's a bit of a team effort in responding to commissioner Campbell's question. I don't know of I, in this case, I have in the slightly awkward position of both being the case planner and the enforcement planner assigned to the project. So in this role here at Planning Commission, I'm speaking as the case planner. The decision about how we proceed with enforcement would be the zoning administrators who, you know, under the enforcement case after the hearing. Liz, I don't do you know if there is precedent for the

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Could you repeat your question?

[Lisa Gibson (SF Planning, Environmental/CEQA)]: Sure. I should.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Wondering if there's precedent for reinstating the units upon sale versus doing it at this point in time, just knowing that it doesn't meet the needs of the current owner. And if they were to do it, it would be somewhat gratuitous, and then they'll continue to occupy it as a single family home as best they can. But is it something they could do later? I don't even know if that's of interest to the project sponsor, but just curious.

[Liz Watty (Deputy Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: We have definitely had 12 unit merger cases before with a variety of different unique personal circumstances where we've effectively authorized a merger, and required the restoration of the legal unit count upon sale or change of circumstances. I know we've had some where there have been the needs for caretakers. I think we had one where, I don't think it was quite yet a reasonable accommodation, but it felt analogous to that or the need of different unique, familiar situations where there was some, I think, sort of empathy to cut, you know, cut a opening between two units, keep both kitchens, allow them to use it as one, restore it upon sale. So we've definitely done things like that in the past. You know, we don't maybe don't have the exact mechanics to present to you today on exactly how, you know, we could do that, and execute that. Certainly, if there was a majority of commissioners here who were interested in that, we could go back, you know, we could continue this for a week and come back with that information. That's probably the best the best path forward if that's of interest. But we definitely have done that where we've basically allowed, to it's it's effectively punting the decision. Right? We're saying, hey. Ultimately, we're restoring these units to the housing stock, but we're not gonna restore them to the city's housing stock until

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: To the

[Liz Watty (Deputy Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: the property transacts. You know, I I do think the other factor to to keep in mind is the amount of construction that will be necessary to restore those. Usually, in those circumstances, the amount of construction is pretty minimal. It's like, you know, fill in a door opening or something along those lines, and we've maintained you know, we've required maintenance of plumbing and kitchens and things like that. So it's a fairly low cost restoration, if you will. I think this is a a bit different. You would have to create new kitchens, probably new circulation. Right? I mean, just the expense. We heard the story here of what the expense would be to restore it. So I think that would probably be our hesitation to taking that approach in this scenario. But it is a concept that we have certainly done in the past.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Well, seeing the direction that this vote might be heading, I would be curious to hear if the project sponsor is even interested in that option. From my point of view, that would be something I would be willing to support, but I don't know how my other fellow commissioner thinks, but I think maybe we start with the project sponsor.

[Caitlin Holloway (Property owner, 524 Vallejo Street)]: First of all, I wanna say thank you for offering a creative solution. I think we're open. I can feel myself getting emotional, and I know that's not the point. All creative solutions are welcome.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I think from a practical standpoint and from a sustainability perspective, I would lean towards that as a as a as a compromise in this situation. I think it it's a bit of a win win. It gets, it keeps a family here in the city. It provides them a home that works for them, but upon sale, it gets us back the units that we're looking for in the market. So.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Commissioner Moore? I do think that the applicant expressed their willingness to do things. However, architect Sutro described to us in elaborate detail how they were modeled to a single family home, relocated utilities away from a future subdivision, or retrofitting it into a multi story, into a building with multi stories. And the costs that were described in going down such a pathway seemed exorbitant. I think we have a description of that in the staff report, and so I think that that may be an idea, given however the analysis that has already been done, it makes it somewhat peripheral, if not impossible. Not to talk about the glass stair, indeed, and not having stacked utilities anymore as you as you ultimately have in a multi multi unit building. So if if commissioner Campbell wants to have architect Sutro restate his observation on the multiple multiple units, that's one thing. But if this building would have to be reconstituted to multiple units before their leave, I don't think there would be much sale benefit to a sale anymore because the money has already been spent. This is already a $4,860,000 home, So, and probably going up as we speak, because this particular size of unit is indeed a desirable thing that everybody wants, but it's very difficult to get in San Francisco. So that those would be my observation, just recalling, what we heard earlier.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commissioner, there is a motion in that has been seconded. Shall I call that question?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. Commissioner Gilbert, Gilbert Williams had put a motion in and it's been second by commissioner Imperial, and commissioner McGarry had some more comments.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: On the motion, could I was wondering with, commissioner Campbell, could we amend the motion? Or is that what you were thinking about? An amendment to the motion to reflect the possibility of this scenario of these units reverting back to their original four units at the point of sale?

[Liz Watty (Deputy Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: I think the the issue right now is the motion that's on the table is for a disapproval. Disapprovals don't have conditions of approval. Gotcha. So I think if this commission wanted to take sort of the the alternative approach, we would likely need to continue it out so we could draft an approval motion with conditions. So it would be approving the merger, but effectively, like, a finite merger with a commitment to build effectively three additional, you know, two additional units before the sale. So we we would need some time to figure out how to craft an a different staff report effectively as different motion for you.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: So this motion I

[Liz Watty (Deputy Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: think the the motion, Jonas can correct me if I'm wrong, is is to take the staff recommendation of disapproval, and there's a second on that.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President/Commissioner)]: Go ahead and do that.

[Speaker 0.0]: I asked because I didn't hear an alternate motion. I heard a suggestion. I okay.

[SF Planning Department Director (name not stated on record)]: But I

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: think that would be a continuance then.

[Speaker 0.0]: Got it. Right. You need to make a motion to continue.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Do I do it now?

[Speaker 0.0]: I I didn't hear it. That's why I apologize. Continue. Okay. So there is now a motion to continue that has been seconded, which takes precedence as a procedural matter. So we shall call that question first. On that motion to continue, how long do you think you need? Okay. On that motion to continue, December 18. Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Williams? Nay. Commissioner Imperial? No. Commissioner Moore? No. And commission president Tsao?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Speaker 0.0]: That motion fails three to three with commissioners Williams, Imperial, and more voting against. The on the motion to disapprove, Commissioner Campbell?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Nay.

[Speaker 0.0]: Commissioner McGarry? Nay. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Tsao?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Nay.

[Speaker 0.0]: Okay. That motion fails three to three. If there is not an alternate motion, the conditional use request is de facto disapproved. I'm not hearing a alternate motion. So there you have it. It's a three three vote, de facto disapproval. With that, commissioners, it concludes your hearing today as the discretionary review calendar items have been continued.

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