San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 12/18/2025. When we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can 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 roll. Commission president So.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commission vice president Moore. Here. Commissioner Braun. Here. Commissioner Campbell. Excuse me. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. And Commissioner Williams? Here. We expect Commissioner Campbell to be absent today. First on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance, item one, case number 2020Four-ten467 CUA 50 Quint Street Conditional Use Authorization is proposed for continuance to 01/08/2026. Item two, case number 2020Five-seven500CUA at 2785 San Bruno Avenue. Conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to 01/22/2026. Item three, case number 2020Three-five928ENV at the Westside Portable Emergency Fire Fighting Water System Project. An appeal of the preliminary mitigated negative declaration is proposed for continuance to 03/26/2026. Further commissioners, under your discretionary review calendar item 11, for case number 2020Five-six120DRP at 2620 20th Street. Discretionary review is proposed for continuance to 01/22/2026. And this is just to allow both parties to reach an agreement. And both parties are in favor, as far as I'm aware. I have no other items proposed for continuance. And so we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed in your continuance calendars now before you commissioners.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to continue all items as proposed.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Second. Thank you. Commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed, commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So move, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously. Six to zero, placing us under commission matters for item four, land acknowledgment.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I'll be reading the land acknowledgment today. The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatushaloni,

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatushaloni have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working under traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramatu Shaloni community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Item five, consideration of adoption draft minutes for 12/04/2025. 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 Moore

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: move to approve second

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you commissioners on that motion to adopt your minutes commissioner McGarry commissioner Williams aye commissioner Braun aye commissioner imperial aye commissioner Moore aye Commission President So.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I'd like to share some of my own personal thankful speech that I wanted to share with you all. As we all know, last week, our mayor and all our supervisor has signed the family zoning plan. And it's a happy ending for our long journey. And I'd like to thank everyone who took the time and effort to participate through this whole process. It was long, longer than anyone in the public would like to know. I think it was almost trending five years of work. And I like to sincerely thank my fellow commissioners sitting alongside with me and also those that are already served prior to me, all their effort that reflected countless hours of reading and listening and debating and refining. Each of you brought thoughtfulness, rigor, and deep commitment to equity, housing stability, and the long term health of our city. The work was not always easy, but it was done with respect and a shared sense of responsibility. And I want to take this moment to also, of course, acknowledge our planning department staff and the leadership to our staff, city planners for their dedication and their professionalism in guiding this complex effort forward. So it is just my gratitude. I wanted to thank you all here today for all the hours we put in through this in this room and also outside of this room. Thank you. And then now with oh, you want to

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: No.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. So typically, we do this for someone that had been spending a lot of years. You can start counting it as a quarter of a century or maybe sometimes maybe half the century. I have been working dedicate his and her entire career, his career to the planning department and serving city and county of San Francisco. So, I, with this, a very happy and also sad is a bittersweet moment that I got the honor to recognize our amazing staff, Aaron Starr, his quarter of the century, I may say, of service to the planning department. And we have a proclamation to present to you. And I have the joy of taking a few of them to read out aloud into our record for today's hearing. So whereas Aaron Moore recently continued his use of artificial intelligence to truncate the overlay verbals writing of everyone else in the department, including the authors of this proclamation. Whereas, Aaron worked tirelessly to simplify the legendarily behemoth planning code so that it might on a good day and with favorable winds be considered somewhat comprehensible. And whereas Aaron has been afforded the greatest possible compliment by one of the city's most prolific tenure and contentious activists by having his work publicly recognized as being adequate now. And that on the occasion of his retirement, the San Francisco well, therefore be it resolved that on the occasion of his retirement, the San Francisco Planning Commission and the Planning Director expresses their deepest appreciation to Aaron Starr in recognition of his twenty years of remarkable contributions and exemplary service to the San Francisco Planning Department and to the people of San Francisco and issued this proclamation to his honor. So thank you for all the audience patience. And may I indulge you with furthermore appreciation for our amazing Erin Starr. We have our supervisor, Melgar. And she would like to say a few words.

[Speaker 2.0]: Thank you, President So. So I have been the chair of the Land Use and Transportation Committee for five years now. And even before that, had the great pleasure and honor to work with Aaron before that. But for the past five years, I just stand in so much admiration for his professionalism, his clarity in terms of representing the department and representing all of San Francisco to make sure that our code is clear, concise, and understandable, but also his patience, sometimes. So I will say that Aaron is the master of subtle shade.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair, Land Use & Transportation Committee)]: And he has elevated that to an art form. So whenever I lose my patience myself, I, of course, think, what would Aaron say? What would Aaron do? And I emulate that, because I have seen few public servants with as much grace, but also crystal clear about what we're feeling and thinking. So I will miss you dearly, Erin. I will miss your intellect and your communication skills, but also your elegance and diplomacy in how you go about these things. I know all of your colleagues will miss you, and so will the commission. I know that you'll still be around. But I want to say it's been a pleasure working with Aaron. And from our side, him being the go between you guys and us, you couldn't have asked for anyone better in every way. And I have been so lucky and honored to work with you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: That was so nice. And Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Supervisor Mueller's words are hard to match, but she chose very, very lyrical descriptions of Aaron. And I would fully second what you said. Aaron is remarkable in his patience. Legislation for people who do not do that all the time is actually difficult, difficult to read, difficult to understand. It's a real subtle skill to learn. And I called Aaron quite a few times, actually, disagreeing with him. And he was able to really take it apart to the extent that you really understood what he meant to do. It didn't mean that the code significantly shrank. I think it actually grew. But as supervisor said, with the right winds, he could actually sell it as a light touch. So thank you, Aaron. Not only that, did you do your job well, but you inspired people to travel. Each time he came back from a trip, he was either wearing the white shirt, or she commented on something by which one got curious to ask him if he had recommendations about distant places to travel. And she recommended several things to me over the years, and he was always spot on. And thank you for that as well. Thanks.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: That was lovely. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I'd like to say thank you, Mr. Starr. And I will definitely miss your weekly reports to the commission. Your weekly reports are always entertaining to me, even though they might be mundane. But you've always mixed it with humor. And there are times when our city are moved in different ways, and you would still express that. And that's something that I truly appreciate in giving the tone of the commission as we start our hearing. So thank you for your service. And I wish you well. I wish you luck for your next endeavor. Thank you.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Good luck, Aaron. I'm going to miss your attire. You're the best dressed person in city hall. But like everyone said, it's funny. Just sitting here, I, too, am going to miss how you come to the podium and eloquently explain the complicated legislation from the board of supervisors and everywhere else. And so I think I've learned a lot just watching you, how you go about your business. And you're a great public servant. And I just want to appreciate that. And whatever you do, good luck to you.

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

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Aaron, good luck to you. Your eloquence and your clarity will be sorely missed. How you managed to get out with all your hair is phenomenal. I wish you all the best in everything, the endeavors you have, going forward, and you will be sorely missed. Thank you for, everything you do at the City and County of San Francisco.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: You know, didn't know this was coming today, and I have a very heavy heart and feeling for a loop. That's what happens when I the one time I missed the department holiday party. But like everyone said, I'm absolutely going to miss having you up here before us, Aaron. And you have such a clever sense of humor and such a great sense of style as well. And your thoughtfulness and your insights when you brought forward all the legislative items and updated us on what's been happening each week at the board, it's phenomenally helpful. And I'm really just grateful for your service. I appreciate it, and good luck to you.

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, Commissioners. If there's nothing further, I will also extend my congratulations to mister Star on a great career with the department. You'll be missed. But as this is also the last hearing of the year for the Planning Commission, I wanted to express my gratitude and recognition for your accomplishments this year, commissioners. In 2025, you sat through 43 hearings and considered 247 items, and this was a slow year. So with that, we can move on to department matters, item seven, director's announcements.

[Sarah (Planning Department leadership)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. I want to share, and mister Ionan's thanks to all you have done over this past year. I only saw about half of it, but really amazing work. I also just wanted to and I'll speak on behalf of the department here just note the department's sense of loss with Erin's retirement. I can say that and this is included in his proclamation he really has served as a compass for the entire department as we look at how the planning code can be shaped, developed, and moved forward. And I've had the opportunity to learn from that back when we first started together in the early aughts, but dramatically so over the last six months. So I just want second everything you guys said and just know, Erin, that that is felt by the entire department. It will be a big loss. And then the rest for our director's report, Mr. Sucre will address.

[Rich Sucre (Deputy Director of Current Planning)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Rich Sucre, deputy director of current planning. I just wanted to give you an update on an initiative that is rolling out for us on 01/01/2026. We are shifting the collection of our fee, basically, away from the building permit application and onto our development applications. It's part of legislation that you had previously reviewed. But I wanted to inform you, as well as members of the public, that starting on January 1 or I should say January 2, you'll see that we, planning, will be collecting the fee. So it's no changes in how we collect our fee, but the timing of when the fee is collected. So happy to answer any questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. There's no questions for the director, we can move on to item eight, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Dept.)]: Good afternoon, Commissioners Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs for the Planning Department. At Land Use this week, first on the agenda was the mayor's ordinance to implement Proposition O, a voter initiative that permitted reproductive health clinics citywide. Commissioners, you heard this item on June 5 and recommended approval. There were some supportive comments from the committee members, no public comment. The committee then voted to forward the item to the full board as a committee report. Next on the agenda was the mayor's ordinance to allow parking in driveways, after public comment where several people spoke in opposition. It was continued to January 12 to allow for more outreach. Next, the committee considered Supervisor Mahmoud's ordinance to amend the definition of family in the planning code. Commissioners, you heard this on November 13 and voted to recommend approval with modifications. Most of those modifications were proposed by Supervisor Mahmoud. However, you also added the following. The first was to make all residential care facilities a residential use instead of an institutional use and exempt residential care facilities from the inclusionary housing requirement. The second was to amend the definition of household to include single and multiple provider households with dependents. Third, you directed the department to monitor and implement sorry, the implementation of the legislation for potential unintended consequences and report back to the commission twenty four months after the effective date. And finally, you encouraged Supervisor Mahmoud to consider the CDC's comments that were sent to the Planning Commission prior to the hearing. Supervisor Mahmoud adjusted the definition of family based on your recommendation. However, the issue of making all care facilities a residential use is going to be accomplished in another ordinance that is currently being developed. There were several speakers who spoke in favor of the ordinance. No one was in opposition. After public comment, the committee then sent the item to the full board with a positive next supervisor, Cheyenne Chen's tenant protection ordinance was back at land use. This was continued from December 8 because the amendments were made, and they were deemed substantive. During the hearing, there were approximately seven people who spoke in favor of the item. There were no significant comments from the committee members, and then the item was passed out of committee as a board report with a positive recommendation. Lastly, the committee considered supervisor Fielder's interim controls that would require conditional use authorization for laboratory uses in the PDR 1 G zoning district. As interim controls, this item does not require Planning Commission review. These interim controls are intended to address what some members of the board and community feel is a loss of PDR space to laboratory uses. They feel this is a the loss of these spaces is reducing the number of blue collar jobs and has a negative impact on the surrounding community. There's also concern that these lab spaces are being used to develop drone delivery technology. Some amendments were made to the original file to add some clarifying language and to direct the planning department and OEWD to study the issue further. The file was also duplicated at the request of Supervisor Mahmoud in anticipation of further refinement of the resolution. During public comment, there were many public speakers, in favor, some from the community and some representing labor. The original file was, recommended as a committee report, while the duplicated resolution was continued to the call of the chair. Then at the full board this week, the inclusionary housing waiver sponsored by supervisor Malgar passed its second read. Surcharge for appeal sponsored by supervisor Connie Chen passed its first read. There was a tentative, map appeal for 333 Mission Street. However, that was continued to February 3. The reproductive health clinics ordinance passed its first read. The tenant protection ordinance passed its first read. And conditional use authorization for laboratory interim controls was adopted. So now, as everyone knows, this is my last board report and my final Planning Commission hearing. I'm retiring at the end of the year. As some of you may be wondering how someone who's 50 and only twenty years of experience can retire, it's because I'm a good planner. Seriously, though, the retirement has made me think a lot about these past twenty years and what it means to be a civil servant. Being a civil servant is not for everyone. Not everyone is good at it, and not everyone should do it. And, unfortunately, sometimes people do it for the wrong reasons. But I can honestly say that most of the people, in fact, the vast majority of people I have encountered while working, for the city, do have what it takes. I've been consistently impressed by the professionalism, dedication, and integrity of San Francisco's public servants. Nowhere has this been more apparent to me than in the planning department. What has made this work more fun, more bearable, and ultimately more rewarding are the people I've had the privilege to work with over the last twenty years. I've made friends I'll carry with me for the rest of my life, and that means that that matters more to me than any other professional accomplishments I could think of. Retirement has also made me reflect on what I've accomplished. If I can claim anything at all, I hope that I can humbly say that I have helped in some way to make the city a better place. The work has had its ups and downs, but I'm proud of what I've done and the small role I've played in the accomplishment of others. My understanding of city planning has also changed a great deal since I started. I began with a lot of idealism. What I have now is a clear sense of how things actually get done. Progress is incremental. Compromise matters. And good planning depends as much on listening as it does on a vision. Over time, I've come to appreciate that some of the most important work in government is quiet work. It doesn't always make headlines, and it rarely feels dramatic in the moment, but it adds up. I don't yet know what I'll be doing after I retire. I plan to travel a bit in the coming year, and I hope to find a second act. I'm a fool going over a cliff, taking a leap of faith, but with a pension. And whatever comes next, I hope to find another way to serve my community. Know, religion isn't something I talk about much. It's very personal and private. But as I was thinking about this moment, I was reminded of a passage from the book of Matthew that speaks to service. It's, You are the salt of the earth. You are the light of the world. Salt preserves. Light guides. But both do their work quietly. And to me, that's what public service looks like at its best. Thank you to this commission for your grace and respect. You have shown me over the years, and and to all of you for letting

[Searle Hackett (Project Sponsor/Builder)]: me surf alongside you. Thanks.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: You can Okay, you can cry. We appreciate you.

[Cory Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: All right. Well, I hate to follow that. But good afternoon, President So, commissioners, Cory Teague, zoning administrator. The Board of Appeals did meet last night. They considered three different appeals, one of interest to the commission. As you'll remember, the new hotel project at 570 Market Street was before the commission several months ago. It required a mitigated negative declaration, a conditional use authorization for the hotel use, and a downtown project authorization. Ultimately, after two hearings, the Planning Commission did approve that project collectively, unanimously. As you may know, the mitigated negative declaration was appealed to the Board of Supervisors, but that appeal was denied. The downtown project authorization was also appealed both by the two adjacent property owners at the Chancery Building and at 44 Montgomery. And that was the appeal that was heard last night at the Board of Appeals. It was a pretty robust discussion and conversation, just like the hearings we had here at the Planning Commission. And two members of the Board of Appeals did have a lot of questions and concerns about the lack of any loading or vehicular access, and what that would mean to kind of the daily operations of a large hotel like that in terms of garbage collection and removal, laundry, etcetera, as well as the potential loading and traffic impacts on Sutter Street. But on the whole, they came to very much the same conclusion that the Planning Commission did, that on balance it was consistent with the planning code and the general plan, and that they voted at the end unanimously that the Planning Commission did not or abuse their discretion. And they denied the appeal. So that project will move forward. And then related, similar situation, Commissioner Rick Swig, who's been on the Board of Appeals for, I believe, ten years now, and other commissions and boards in the city. Last night was also his last hearing, and he was recognized for that as well. But that concludes my report. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, the Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday. They similarly well, Historic Preservation Commission President Matsuda issued a proclamation for Moses Koret, who is also retiring from the planning department and longstanding employee. They also adopted a resolution supporting a bust in city hall for mayor Art Agnos. And then they considered the community sponsored landmark designation of the Justice for Vicca mural at 717 California Street. And they adopted a resolution not recommending it be recognized as a landmark. Finally, they adopted survey findings to expand the

[Andrew Junius (Land Use Counsel for Empire)]: what is it?

[Rich Sucre (Deputy Director of Current Planning)]: That we adopted survey findings for the Castro, Hanoi Valley, and Glen Park neighborhoods, and then commercial Thank you, Mr. Sucre.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: With that, commissioners, we can move on to general public comment. But before we do, those of you standing in the chambers, you need to find a seat. If you cannot find a seat, I'm going have to ask you to leave. We are setting up an overflow room in Room 408, where you can watch and listen to these proceedings. And when the item that you are interested in is called for public comment, you can then come back into the room to submit your testimony. Okay? But if you cannot find a seat, I'll ask you to leave to Room 408 where you can watch and listen to these proceedings. Thank you. I appreciate your cooperation. Ma'am, I need you I need you to find a seat. Okay. Looks like everybody fit. Great. 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 15 limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. Again, members of the public, you need to come forward, light up on the screen side of the room. Last call for general public comment, items not on today's agenda. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. And we can move on to your discretionary review calendar, commissioners, for item nine, case number 2007.0178DRM, 2338 19th Avenue this is a mandatory discretionary review

[Wesley Wong (Planning Department staff)]: good afternoon commissioners wesley wong department staff the item before you today is a mandatory discretion review of building permit number 20162179787 at 2338 19th Avenue The project is requesting to modify the elected method of compliance for the inclusionary affordable housing program from providing an on-site below market rate unit to payment of the in lieu fee. On 07/20/2020, imagine seeing that three times fast, the subject building permit passed a final inspection and attained a certificate of final completion and occupancy for the construction of a four story duplex with two dwelling units in the R H 2 Zoning District which did not require planning commission approval The subject property was part of a development proposal to construct five two family residential buildings on a single parcel. Following project approval the original approval was subdivided into five individual lots which have been all turned into condominiums the subject unit has never been occupied and has been continuously owned by the developer as part of the original planning approval the project was required to provide one below market rate unit on-site to satisfy the inclusionary requirements due to the current market market conditions the project is now proposing to modify the elected method for satisfying inclusionary obligation through payment of the in lieu fee requires commission approval pursuant to plan code section four one five point five g three no other changes are being sought under this mandatory doctor request to date the department has not heard any opposition for any members of the public regarding the proposed change department recommends that the commission take discretionary review and prove the changes to the building permit with the modifications and conditions as proposed since the project will remain compliant with the planning code including the inclusionary affordable housing requirements under section four fifteen this concludes my presentation I'm joined today in person with staff from the planning housing implementation team and virtually staff from the inclusionary housing policy team from the mayor's office of housing and community development we're available to answer any questions you may have thank you the project sponsor we're gonna have a brief presentation

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: project sponsor you have five minutes

[Jeremy Shaub (Shaub Lee Architects)]: Hello, President So and commissioners. My name is Jeremy Shaub with Shaub Lee Architects. As you might infer from the project date, project started in 2007. I started on the project in 2013 as a baby architect. It took many years to come to fruition. Unfortunately, the construction completed in the middle of COVID when everything was locked down. Several of the units were marketed and slowly sold. This subject BMR was never sold. Upon being contacted by the mayor's office due to a misunderstanding, the project sponsor did in fact work with a realtor to market the unit. All the responses they got from prospective below market rate folks was that it was too large. It's almost 2,000 square feet, which means it's very expensive even as a below market rate unit. So due to being unable to comply with the on-site unit, we are asking to pay the in lieu fee instead, in which the city can then go out and build additional affordable units. Thanks. Oh, and I should say the project sponsor is here if you have questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. If that concludes sponsor presentation, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Again, you need to come forward. Line up on the screen side of the room. Last call. Public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

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

[Speaker 17.0]: I have

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: a question. What is the unit? Is it one bedroom, two bedroom? What kind of unit is this?

[Jeremy Shaub (Shaub Lee Architects)]: It's officially three bedrooms over two floors.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Two floors. And if so you meant it sounds like it hasn't it went you applied, or there is MoCity has seen LYNCH: the unit on this.

[Speaker 18.0]: I don't

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: have the answer for

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: that. Marketability. What's the process with

[Unidentified public commenter(s)]: MoCD?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I think we can defer to MoCD, who's online virtually today. But I believe that they did conduct a site inspection. But maybe, Chaska or Sisti, if you're online, if you could confirm. CHASPER

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: J. CHASPER

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: J. Hello? Can you hear me?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: CHASPER Yes, we can.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: CHASPER Hi. Good afternoon, President So, commissioners. This is Chaska Berger from the mayor's office of housing. We did not conduct a site visit to the property. Okay.

[Chaska Berger (Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development)]: Okay, thank you. And there is no marketing yet for this unit, correct? Correct. There has been no marketing through the mayor's office of housing for this unit. Okay.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. And the reason to pay an in lieu fee is for the market, the financial feasibility of this building? Is that the main reason? What other reason?

[Jeremy Shaub (Shaub Lee Architects)]: Again, Jeremy Shaub, Shaubly Architects. Understanding is that they tried to market it. The rates are set based on the income level of the prospective resident. And the realtor that our owner was working with was unable to find anyone that was qualified.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And what's the AMI unit that they were marketing it for?

[Jeremy Shaub (Shaub Lee Architects)]: I'd have to look that up. Sorry.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I

[Jeremy Shaub (Shaub Lee Architects)]: can get back to you.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. And usually, it's so that's why I asked whether it has been marketed. It sounds like it hasn't been marketed through the BMR program.

[Jeremy Shaub (Shaub Lee Architects)]: I can ask the owner to answer some of this. Cyril, can you?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Yeah. Searle: I do believe it is AMI of 90%, nine-zero.

[Searle Hackett (Project Sponsor/Builder)]: Good afternoon, Searle Hackett. I am the builder of the project.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So you marketed it, but without not in the inclusionary housing program?

[Searle Hackett (Project Sponsor/Builder)]: Initially, was supposed to be in the inclusionary housing project. I met with the realtor who was recommended by the city of San Francisco, Robert Belli. And when Robert looked at it, how big the unit how big the unit was, he felt that it was very it would be very difficult to market.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. So it's based on that.

[Searle Hackett (Project Sponsor/Builder)]: It's two stories. It's two stories almost three little over 3,000 square feet.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Okay. Thank you. So again, I'm a big supporter of our inclusionary housing Program. And even though this is a small project, it's only 10 unit. And the BMR homeownership, as far as I know, has its faults in its way. But at the same time, these are good opportunities for especially what we call middle class or lower middle class families. And the fact that it is a three unit is actually going to be marketable for that kind of population. For my opinion, I will not approve, or I will not take the discretionary review, simply because we have this inclusionary affordable housing program, which in this project will be in compliance for. The fact that it is just not marketable or it's too big kind of, again, talks about in terms of how we should run an inclusionary affordable housing program. But I'd like to hear what other commissioner thinks as well. But that's my opinion as of now.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I'd like to take a slightly different tack at this because I am inclined to approve the discretionary review in order to move the unit but recapture the fee with interest. At this particular moment, I think that will create a better outcome. At the time when this project was designed and discussed with the commission, which is quite a while back, we all thought that this was a real step in the right direction given the housing type. But since that time, so many things have changed, fully understanding the correlation between size and affordability, but also then meeting an ever increasing rise in housing costs and an inability of many people not even being able to meet the minimums. So I still see this as a positive step to bring the units back to market. And under the really significantly changing conditions, I feel comfortable of doing that.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I just have a question about has anyone on staff, whether in the room or online, determined what the approximate total amount of the in lieu fee plus interest would be?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yes. So the housing team has calculated that amount. Again, eta tan department staff. It's approximately $1,000,000 which accounts for interest. And it's using the old methodology of per unit basis to do the initial base fee and then the accrued interest using the treasurer and tax collector's office interest rates.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I appreciate that. I am in favor of allowing the switch to the in lieu fee payment. It is a not that this should matter necessarily, maybe. I don't know. But it is a substantial fee payment that we can leverage with outside funding to produce quite a few affordable units at deeper levels of affordability. I do have some sensitivity to the loss of a sort of middle income ownership unit. But in this case, I am willing to be in favor of the in lieu fee payment. And so I know that there's one other comment. But I will just I'll move to take discretionary review and approve the change.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: guess I have a question in terms, are there small development trends that are switching off from on-site to Ingloo?

[Sarah (Planning Department leadership)]: Kate, feel free to come up if you'd like.

[Speaker 20.0]: Kate Connor, planning department staff. We haven't seen any sort of prevailing trend as far as this type of a switch that we've seen recently. This one's also kind of difficult, too, just because of the timing of the project and when it was approved and when construction happened. So I think we've seen kind of more of our switches, maybe post entitlement, preconstruction. But again, no full trend.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. I'm just worried about I mean, I understand that building small developments are already expensive. But we have this inclusionary housing program that allows for 10 units and up. And I want firmly preserve that integrity of that inclusionary housing program, whether we see the trends or not. And the fact that, again, for me, it's a family size unit speaks volume of, actually, there are many lower middle class that are looking for this type kind of units. And again, there needs to have more program in terms of the homeownership, in terms of the financial assistance toward it as well. But I don't want to go in ways we're doing it piecemeal by piecemeal, where as of now, it looks small. But I'm also trying to see what's going to happen in the next two years, three years with these small developments. And it's just something for us to think about as commissioners. If we're seeing more of this trend, then we need to bring yeah, we need to have a conversation around this small developments.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: And what is actually I want to give a little bit of a clarity of understanding if did you actually listed unit on the market or not? Or you just had a conversation with your realtor? Because most CD is definitely said that they have not marketed.

[Searle Hackett (Project Sponsor/Builder)]: Again. No, it was never marketed and we I met on the on recommendation of the department, I met with the realtor who was recommended by the department, Robert Belli. And he has experienced hundreds of BMR units in the city. And he looked at it, walked through it. And so it never he was the one who explained to me the in detail the the process for the BMR unit, was difficult at the time for me to understand. I'm a small developer, a small builder and we have to remember that it was a very difficult time because of COVID, because we were closed down right at the we were first off delayed by the Caltrans because of being on 19th Avenue. So it was very difficult and it got lost in the shuffle somewhat. But Robert Belli is probably the most prolific realtor in the city for BMR units and as per and recommended by the city. So he was the one that I spoke with and then after that made the decision that maybe this project would have been would be better if I could possibly move on with it and do the in Luffy. It made more sense at that time after a lot of delays and COVID.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams or director, you want to chime in?

[Sarah (Planning Department leadership)]: I just wanted to respond to your question from the department perspective as well. I will note that one of the things we try not to do is go through a process if we think we know what the response is going to be. And I think that's in part why MoCD recommends this early process of talking to the realtor in advance. So there is a process of timing here. If you went through that full process of actually trying to sell the unit, would delay all of those units moving forward and it will also delay MOCID from removing the fee. So I think that's why we're looking at this process now instead of after the unit has been tried

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: to be sold. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I'm just trying to understand a little bit more about how you got here to this point. Could you explain,

[Searle Hackett (Project Sponsor/Builder)]: was it

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: financial that you're not going forward? You said that there was a realtor involved, and he told you. But I still quite get the full picture of why it's not marketable in the inclusionary housing program. And so that's where I feel like there's some more clarity than it needs to be.

[Searle Hackett (Project Sponsor/Builder)]: I don't know if maybe that's the correct language. This is is this something I'm used to doing, but I don't think that's effectively the correct language. The As a small builder, I had never done anything like this before and I was unsure of the BMR status. But the project got delayed by quite, as Jeremy pointed out, quite considerable length of time. With regards to being financial, no, it wasn't so much being financial. It was just well, you know, I mean, yes. I suppose in a sense financial because the project was delayed and didn't you know, I I was absolutely struggling financially and and mentally through having been delayed and COVID. I mean, you have to remember we were the building was closed down for two years, completely finished with a certificate of occupancy approved by the city and immediately the first day of open house was the day that the city, the mayor, London Breed, closed the city down. So the units were not allowed to be marketed. None of the units were allowed to allowed to be marketed for two years or were should I say were marketed for two years due to the COVID. And then when they finally were when they finally were marketed, they had to be reduced in price. So pretty much I'm here today thankful that I got out from under this project. And then when I found out from the city that we needed to move forward with this, the city contacted me and said that I never rented the unit. I never lived in the unit. I never mark it was never marketed as such. I mean, as soon as I knew the process, the moment I found out the process and it was recommended to me, the realtor. I didn't have to use that realtor but I decided to use that realtor because it was recommended by the CNE had a CV of hundreds of the most prolific in the city for marketing BMR units and through the process of getting ready to market it and then put it on the market as a BMR unit, we figured that it was going to be difficult to market because of the size of it. And an opportunity came available that I was I was told that I had an opportunity to be able to purchase it, and that money then would go towards building more housing in the city for like a million dollars as even in this day and age, me being a construction worker and me being a builder knows that a million dollars goes a long way. So I mean, I don't think I'm hiding anything here. I think I'm being very upfront and I'm willing to pay the in lieu fee and move forward and maybe, you know, reestablish my life and my financial credibility and my mental state of affairs.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you for that response. And I hope you as well recover if you did take any kind of a loss. Like Commissioner Imperial, coming from a low income background and a working class, affordable opportunities are very important. And I'm caught between understanding I'm trying to understand, was it the cost of the unit that was why it wasn't marketable or because anyway, I'm trying to figure out I wish the real estate person was here to explain why he came to that conclusion. Because I think it's important that we understand that aspect of it, right, moving forward. If in certain locations, if the construction costs are so high and people can't afford the units. And there's actually they're in the inclusionary housing program. That is something that I think is important to understand. And so I'm a little conflicted about the decision. Is he a he's not here today.

[Searle Hackett (Project Sponsor/Builder)]: I know he's he's not here today. You know, at at the outset, there was never an issue of it not being a BMR unit as such. But due to all of the problems we had with the construction and unfortunate circumstance of COVID and everything, it changed everything. And then it it just got you know, it it got pushed back and as soon as I might find out from the city. So, you know, I think if if this had happened right away, would certainly have been a BMR unit and just just things got got delayed and delayed and delayed. And then when I sat down and there was a little bit more clarity on everything, I realized that there was an opportunity that maybe to contribute something back to the city and as a developer, I could contribute something back in a more meaningful and in a in a more fitting way and and that being the the in lieu paying the in lieu fee. And in talking to people who are developers and and knowing building costs and everything, it was felt that, you know, yes, it's a it's a considerable amount of money for to to pay in lieu, but most people would understand it that it's it's quite a contribution and would benefit the BMR program. And that's my opinion anyway, but obviously, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Right. But I felt that the opportunity was there. I mean, it's it's written there that you have an opportunity to buy to pay the in lieu fee or to put it into BMR units. I took I took what the the second option or in actual you could say I took the first option. I took an option that was available. I'm I'm asking for an option that is available to me and then paying the fee that the city have have mandated or will mandate that I pay. So I think it's a win win for everybody.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: It it it is a substantial fee, and and I agree we'll have an impact. For me, it's just a question of, how we got here. That, to me, is something I still feel that I haven't got a real clear answer on. But thank you. Thank you for explaining everything that you had. Really appreciate it.

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

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: So this is my neck of the woods. I live in the West Side. I've been tracking this project for years. I saw the studs go gray, silver, and back to gray, a differentiated gray. So I do believe there's I actually saw this project for years in in its state of delay. I think at this stage, the city can leverage that million dollars, and they need the money to leverage us on basically acquisition of other parcels around the city that can actually put be put into motion. If I saw this going up in the average eight to twelve months, I would think differently. I'd be all over the unit and keeping the unit. But in this in this instance so from start to fruition, how many years does this did this project take?

[Jeremy Shaub (Shaub Lee Architects)]: The project started in 2007, I believe, under a separate owner and architect. We came on board in 2012 or 'thirteen or so.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: So for clarity, it's 2007 till. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. Thank you. So do I hear a motion?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: There is a motion and it has been seconded. If there is no further deliberation, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to take discretionary review and approve the conditions of approval change in the Ian Luffy. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Nay. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? No. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president So?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes four to two with commissioners William and Imperial voting against. If there are any members of the public who are here for item 11 for 20th Street discretionary review, that matter has been continued to January 22 and will not be heard today. Commissioners, that will bring us to the last item for your final hearing of 2025, number 10, case number 2020Five-seven116DRM at 1 Montgomery Street. This is a mandatory discretionary review.

[Sarah (Planning Department leadership)]: Commissioners, I'd like to offer a few remarks just as the planning staff and the project team are preparing for this presentation. Just to go back in time a little bit to speak a little bit about the POPOS program that brought us here. So our privately owned public open space program was formalized as policy in 1985. It had a couple of key goals to provide places for both respite and recreation for primarily downtown office workers given what, at the time, was a pretty limited set of public parks downtown. It also had the goal of integrating open spaces into large high density developments, so we're balancing growth with amenities and for providing spaces for art. And so I think that that framing is is kind of a helpful one when we look at this today. Since the adoption of the downtown plan in 1985, San Francisco has added and revitalized a number of open spaces in its downtown core, ranging from major parks like Sue Bierman Plaza to pocket parks like Ecker Square and privately developed plazas like those at Golden Gateway. At the same time and more recently, the way people use downtown has changed. I know we all have been grappling with that as a body since COVID. It's continuing to change. What we've you know, an interesting part of that is that spaces that are open Monday through Friday from 9AM to 6PM, which are the required hours of our POPOS program, aren't relevant for a large portion of our population, almost anyone who isn't a downtown office worker. So as you know, much of the city, and you have been a partner in this, have spent the years since COVID trying to reconcile how things are changing downtown with an explicit goal of welcoming all San Franciscans, not just office workers who work from nine to six, back to our downtown core. The proposal you're gonna hear about is exactly in line with that movement that we've been trying to address, aiming to make downtown's open spaces and the activations within them relevant for broader community use rather than just office workers. We're pretty excited about the project before you because it allows us to test a different way of engaging a broader population downtown without changing city policy or weakening our downtown goals. And it's a pretty unique opportunity. It's not one that is replicable because it really relies on this unique sponsor and their goals of contributing to our downtown, to democratize how we attract and serve all of our San Francisco community downtown. We think it's the right public benefit at the right time of recovery. Dakota speaker on our team will take you through the details of the proposal, as will the project sponsor and Dakota. I don't want to steal your thunder. But I do want to emphasize that what's being proposed today represents an eitheror guarantee. So it really allows us to kind of test these public downtown events. And if they don't happen, the POPOS reopens. So we think that guarantee provides us some really good opportunity. We look forward to describing that in a little more detail. Thank you.

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department)]: Thank you, Sarah. Jonas, I have a presentation ready. All right. Good afternoon, commissioners. Dakota Speicher with the planning department. The project before you is a request for discretionary review to modify the conditions of approval for multiple previously approved motions and resolutions to conditionally eliminate public access to the rooftop terrace located at 1 Montgomery Street in exchange for free public downtown events. In 1979, the Planning Commission approved a new 38 story tower, the Crocker Tower, a new shopping galleria, Crocker Galleria, and the demolition of 11 stories atop the 1 And 25 Montgomery Street Building. Conditions of approval required the rooftop outdoor terrace to be available to the public. To date, the department has received a total of 21 letters in opposition to the project. Opposition to the project is primarily centered on the loss of existing public outdoor space. According

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: to

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department)]: the project sponsor, they have hosted several in person meetings with individuals and community organizations to discuss the project. The sponsor has also executed memorandums of understanding with several labor union partners, And they are here and can speak to both of those points if you have any questions. A total of 30 letters in support were received, as seen on this slide here. For the sake of time, there's a visual representation rather than listing them all out in this presentation. But that said, this morning, one additional letter in support was received by the department. So in total, 30 letters in support were received. There have been three enforcement cases opened against the subject property as outlined in your packet. Most recently in 2022, as relevant, the ZA issued a notice of violation and penalty decision but allowed the rooftop terrace to remain closed until a new tenant occupied the building. That case is still open, and enforcement staff is here should you have questions. So the project before you proposes to modify the conditions of approval to eliminate public access to the rooftop terrace located on the roof of the commercial building at 1 Montgomery Street, which is approximately 7,500 square feet in size. The project sponsor has agreed to host a minimum of three public events annually consisting of cultural, artistic, musical, recreational, athletic, or other similar events conducted downtown San Francisco that are free and open to the public. The map on the right hand side of the screen visualizes where these events would take place. Each event would have a minimum attendance of not less than 1,000 people per event, with a total cumulative attendance of not less than 10,000 people annually. As stipulated in the conditions of approval, the project sponsor will submit annual reporting metrics as outlined in your packet. Should the sponsor fail to meet these requirements, the rooftop terrace would return to the commission to consider revocation. The department supports this request as it allows project sponsor to focus on activating ground floor space and maintain a historic landmark building while satisfying long standing public benefit requirements to alternative means that supports ongoing recovery of downtown following the COVID nineteen pandemic. Just making sure I'm on the right slide. The subject block was developed circa 1980 as a single development site and carries the majority of the open space requirement for the entire, original project and incur significant financial burden for the maintenance of the currently underutilized terrace. The original conditions of approval responded to the high demand for public open space in the downtown area coupled with a lack of available public open space at the time of the project approval. However, since the years since the advent of COVID-nineteen, while there is still high demand for places for the public to gather in downtown, the ways in which the public want to gather have changed. Fewer office workers congregate in the downtown area means that workers do not use the rooftop space throughout the day for lunch and informal gatherings with the same frequency as in earlier years. Instead, visitors to the downtown seek larger spaces for one time events and activation, often outside the regular business hours. The rooftop space, as condition, thus no longer meets the down the needs of downtown open space users. The sponsor argues that replace replacing the rooftop condition with this requirement to activate areas of downtown with one one time events better satisfies downtown's open space needs. The rooftop terrace was established prior to the downtown the adoption of the downtown plan and specifically Planning Code Section 138 and was typical for other similar elevated open spaces and sunken plazas that were thought at the time to be refuges from streetscapes. More often than not, this approach has historically resulted in disconnected and underutilized public spaces that fail to support vibrant urban life. The existing terrace design does not reflect current best practices in urban design and is inconsistent with the department's urban design guidelines, which emphasize the importance of activating street edges and ground level spaces to create lively, people centered public environments. The project sponsor has historically hosted numerous events, which are outlined in your packet. The benefits of such events and activations throughout the years have not only translated to meaningful qualitative benefits for the city, but also significant economic benefits to local food, beverage, and retail stakeholders. The project sponsor is here and can provide additional information on this. Through required public events, the project sponsor would continue to invest in San Francisco by leveraging its expertise to cultivate and support the culture, arts, community, and local business. As part of the project, the sponsor also requests the option, after five years of hosting public events, to pay a one time in lieu fee to permanently relieve the subject property of its publicly accessible open space obligation. The department supports this request as it provides the sponsor with a monetary alternative to fulfilling publicly accessible open space requirements, an option available to new development projects within the district per an existing fiat mechanism under Planning Code section four twenty six. The rooftop terrace has served the public for approximately forty five years and was once a well utilized amenity, particularly when the Crocker Galleria and surrounding downtown core were vibrant and active. However, since the onset of COVID nineteen pandemic, the rooftop terrace has become significantly underutilized. The proposed in lieu fee option offers a programmatic and equitable path forward that reflects current urban conditions. Moreover, recognizing that the project sponsor or any future owner may not wish to host public events indefinitely, the fiat option provides a mechanism to relinquish this obligation while enabling the city to reinvest those funds into public realm, space, improvements that may yield greater benefits to the community. Additionally, because the project would result in a lack of access to the public art that was required as part of a prior commission approval, the sponsor has agreed to incorporate a major work of art, shifting this obligation elsewhere onto the subject property that is available for viewing from the right of way. And their hearing can speak on that as well. Finally, the project proposes to allow all future change of use for the project to be reviewed or for the subject property, I should say to be reviewed under the current planning code procedures, aligning procedures for the site with other parcels in the same zoning district. The original conditions required discretionary review, so a public hearing, to be held for all change of use applications at this site, even if the proposed use is principally permitted within the district. Last thing I'll note for the commission is that no work is proposed under this application. However, because the building is a landmark, generally all interior exterior improvements would be reviewed at a staff level or potentially elevated to a preservation entitlement to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Overall, the department supports all requests before you as it is a creative modern solution that benefits downtown's recovery, allowing for the rejuvenation of a key historic property while providing the property owner with alternatives to satisfying their open space requirement. To summarize, the project, one, modernizes public benefit by replacing underutilized rooftop terrace with contemporary benefit that would draw people to the downtown core. And I'm sorry. Okay. That's a less important slide to get to, but last slide nonetheless. So two, enables property activation, allowing a focus on ground floor activation of a landmark building. Three, provides alternatives to meeting their obligation for the city while funds could be reinvested elsewhere. This concludes my presentation. My colleague Ben from OEWD is here with a presentation. And enforcement staff and I are available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

[Ben Van Houten (Director of Nightlife, OEWD)]: That'd be great. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Ben Benhouten, director of Nightlife Initiatives at the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, here to express our department's support for this project and also for the proposed conditions, which we think will deliver a significant public benefit that is directly in line with and indeed an extension of our work around downtown economic revitalization. For just a few minutes, I'd like to explain a little bit more context about that, about our approach to arts and culture as an economic vitality tool. And then, how we have tried to effectuate that in the downtown space, and how the proposed conditions around public events further that work. Next slide, please. A lot of words on this slide, but really, I just wanted to briefly share our broader vision for the role that arts and entertainment play in economic vitality. And Dakota hit on a little bit. There's really two streams, I think, of economic benefit that come from arts and entertainment. One of them is the direct economic impact and the ripple effects of spending money. Investing in producing arts and entertainment leads to audience spending, leads to ripple effects in the local economy, and then also tax revenue for governments, which is nice. But in parallel, there are all of these other benefits that I think are candidly equally important to creating economic vitality. More arts and culture activity is good because we want creative activity in the city, we want the city to be an arts and culture hub. Positive experiences for residents, workers, visitors, creating space to socialize that meet these people where they are and provide opportunities for them to build connection. Reputationally, the enhanced perception of San Francisco as a having positive sentiment that the city is a vibrant cultural hub and a place where, yeah, you go to see arts and culture and to socialize is really critical. And then, also see tourism and business boosts from investing in arts, culture, and entertainment. So, it's really a critical area for us. I suspect everyone has a shared view that arts and entertainment are critical to our city's comeback, but just want to map out how that plays out in our work. And, that's how we think about it through a downtown recovery lens. How can we make and reinforce that downtown is a place where people want to be as opposed to a place where they have to be? It's through creating meaningful cultural and social experiences for people to come together, supporting the downtown economy, and reaffirming that it is a vibrant, thriving neighborhood, not just during daytime office hours, but really moving toward a 20 fourseven neighborhood. We have done that over the last few years through multiple approaches to leverage arts, culture, and entertainment to support downtown recovery. So just a little over a year ago, we launched the first entertainment zone in California, the success of which has led the board to adopt 23 additional entertainment zones in under twelve months. 16 of those zones have been active with events. That's a picture of Front Street, which is, I think which was the first zone, has been very successful. Businesses have reported economic benefit to the tune of up to 1500% from these entertainment zone events. And other downtown corridors have hosted events. Ellis Street has one tonight because of the value of arts and culture to bringing people downtown to revitalize this economy. Additionally, we have supported a variety of cultural activations. The photo there is from the Let's Glow Festival that just concluded on Sunday. Again, rethinking and reimagining how people experience downtown at night by leveraging culture for local residents, but also for visitors draws tens of thousands of people downtown and generates substantial economic impact. And we think about cultural activations also within the context of events like our Bongren Beats series or regular programming in Union Square. Really, again, doubling down on arts and culture. And then finally, vacant to vibrant also adds another lens of how do we meet people where they are by activating storefronts, by activating the Ground Floor so that people can come and walk our streets and engage with arts culture retail experiences. Based on the success of these programs, they demonstrate the power of events and activations to deliver experiences that our workers, residents, and visitors want. And by meeting people where they are, we can continue to drive our downtown recovery. Events and activations are critical to this. And I'd say we also know that producing events is a substantial undertaking. Events can be expensive and complex to execute, but we need cultural events to support and advance a thriving 20 fourseven downtown neighborhood. As a result, in committing the project sponsor to produce multiple free public arts and culture events downtown each year, these proposed conditions will deliver significant public benefits that are very much in service of the same goals we are working on to continue to support downtown's comeback. Thank you all for your consideration and happy to answer any questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: That concludes staff presentations. We should hear from the project sponsor. Through the chair, you have ten minutes.

[Ghazi Shami (Founder & CEO, Empire)]: Good afternoon. My name is Ghazi Shamy. And for those of you who don't know me, I'm the founder and CEO of Empire, distributor, label and publisher here in San Francisco. I was born right here at San Francisco Children's Hospital almost fifty years ago.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I'm gonna pause your time just real quick. Sfgov, can we go to the computer, please?

[Ghazi Shami (Founder & CEO, Empire)]: Go ahead. And, this city has been the backdrop of my entire life. Growing up, I worked in my father's laundromat. By the age of four, I was already fixing washing machines. And by 14, I was doing pause tapes with Gemini music mixers. That early obsession with how things worked led me to San Francisco State University during the .com era. I saw the intersection of music and technology before streaming was even a household world. And, while I spent my time in days in Silicon Valley tech firms, I spent my nights in the Tenderloin, the Soma, and the Dogpatch mastering my craft as a music producer, writer, and an audio engineer. I lived in a rinse and repeat life cycle. I was laboring in the studio until three a. And then I would drive back to Silicon Valley for work. And then I would come right back to downtown and get back to work. And, you know, I always tell people when you come from nothing, appreciate everything and you learn that hard work and dedication are the only currencies that really matter. In 2010, I embarked on a mission to build a company that treated artists as partners and not subordinates. We started in a small office in Petoro Hill, the same neighborhood where I was born. Since then, we've grown from a team of one to a global staff with offices in New York, London, Nashville, Lagos, and Johannesburg. But, my heart and headquarters never leave San Francisco. You know, during the pandemic, Clint Riley, who's the owner of the office building I currently occupy at 235 Pine Street told me, if you do nothing else in life and if you reach critical success, make sure you buy a building. So, a year and a half ago, found one Montgomery. To many, it's a historic landmark, but to me it's a really surreal opportunity to provide a public benefit not only to San Francisco, but to my staff. It wasn't until the deal that was almost done that I realized one Montgomery was historically Crocker Bank, which is the same bank that I used to go to in Westlake with my mom to make merchant deposits for my dad's laundromat. It wasn't just a full circle moment for me. It was the Olympic rings of full circle moments. Today, we are transforming that 100,000 square foot local treasure into Empire's permanent headquarters. We aren't just building offices. We're planning a world class destination for artists to bring music and culture back to the city and downtown. I have thirty five years of wisdom in the music business. We have a history of exporting our best talent and I wanna reverse that trend. I feel a profound duty to be the change I want to see. While others may look elsewhere, I'm choosing to hire locally and keep empire firmly planted in the city that birthed and raised me. I'm banking on San Francisco. I mean, literally bought a bank. So, pray this moment is where the next chapter of our story begins. Thank you.

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Good afternoon, President So and commissioners. I'm Shadi Kayway, counsel at Empire. Empire is the largest independent record label in The United States, and more importantly, the last record label and music company in San Francisco. By our estimates, San Francisco has lost 1,000 to 2,000 music jobs since 2008. Spotify, Apple Music, Pandora, SoundCloud, and more have all left. Despite offers of tax incentives and special treatment from cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Atlanta to move Empire's headquarters there, Ghazi has, without hesitation, doubled down on his hometown, making a significant investment in a property many developers looked at, but nobody could make financial sense of at a time when the commercial real estate market in San Francisco was at a near standstill. That's because for Gazian Empire, this isn't about a return on investment. It's about building a forever home, a cultural arts and entertainment destination that breathes life in downtown. We want talented young San Franciscans to look at Montgomery and say, I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to work in that building one day. We believe our proposal to host at least three large scale public private public events downtown every year, which we should note is in addition to all the other free public programming we have been doing and will continue to do throughout San Francisco, provides a significantly greater public benefit than this rooftop, which has been closed for almost six years. These events will not only provide millions in economic impact, our 200 plus San Francisco based employees will support the neighboring Crocker Galleria and numerous small businesses in our district and around Market Street. Further, we have verbally committed to hosting nonprofit events for groups like Somapilipinas and A Rock at One Montgomery, workshops for underrepresented groups, art exhibits, and even including One Montgomery and the Victorian Alliance's coming downtown historic building tours. To talk about our outreach for a moment, I think the following anecdotes important for you all to hear. We take seriously all of the messages that we've received from the public, and I personally responded to every one for which we have had contact information. It was clear that much of the opposition was actually due to limited information or a misunderstanding of our proposal. Three members of the public that contacted the commission with concerns about our project initially have now, since learning more about the project and about who we are written letters of support. I'm proud of that, and I know that doesn't usually happen, so I wanted to note that. We are an arts company first and foremost, and plan as part of our proposal to commission a beautiful and substantial sculpture or other fixture in the Ground Floor portico of the building, created by a local artist, which represents the diverse fabric of our company and this city. Further, rest assured, we are preserving every single historically designated feature within the building. Finally, it's important to note three critical items regarding our proposal. One, the reason for this request is simple. The entertainment industry comes with unique challenges. We've had many security incidents almost weekly, including but not limited to artists, artist managers, and employees assaulted and robbed at our offices, along with people impersonating Empire employees to gain access to our building to reach Gazi and other prominent people in our staff. There's also a public safety element. If one of our famous artists visit our offices like K pop superstar G Dragon and post on social media, I'm at Empire's offices, we will no doubt have thousands of young fans on that rooftop attempting to breach our offices. Further, it's not practical financially or operationally to secure the only route the rooftop which is accessible, the elevator, not to mention the three emergency stairwells, each of which take you directly through our offices. Our goal is to protect our employees, our artists, and our guests. We knew this rooftop was publicly accessible when we purchased the building, but we also knew it's not a POPOS, and therefore, we had an opportunity to negotiate in good faith with the city to negotiate a greater public benefit while also addressing our security needs. This proposal does not weaken the POPOS program. The conditions of approval that apply to One Montgomery predate POPOS policy, and there's no mechanism in the planning code which would allow any new or existing POPOS owner to replicate the requests that we are making here. This is a unique ask for a unique building for a company with unique security and operational needs. And thirdly, the power remains with the city. We must fulfill our commitment and report to the city every single year. The commission may revert the public access requirement if we ever fail to meet our obligations unless we pay the in lieu fee, which at today's codified amount comes to about $19,000,000 wholly infeasible and not something we ever plan to do. This restriction also runs to any future owner of the property, the sale of which is equally unlikely. We want to bring arts and entertainment to an area dominated by tech, AI, and finance in order to accomplish the city's goals of bringing people, particularly young people of all backgrounds, not just white collar office workers, back to Downtown San Francisco. We want this to be our forever home, a reason for people domestically and internationally to visit San Francisco, and a source of pride for San Franciscans. Thank you.

[Ghazi Shami (Founder & CEO, Empire)]: I guess the last thing I want to say is that recently, I did a panel and people asked me to describe my relationship to my company. And, I told the audience that it was felt like it was in jest at the moment. And, when I left, I realized that actually that's what it's really become. I said, Empire is really a philanthropy company masquerading as a record label. We provide livelihood to thousands of people globally and here in the city. And, in order to protect that livelihood, I would respectfully ask that we change the condition on the rooftop so I can protect my employees. Thank you so much for your time.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Members of the public, I'm going to request that you refrain from clapping audibly. Okay? If you want to support somebody move your hands and fingers up in the air because, more importantly, not only is it disruptive, but you can't even hear what the person is saying. Okay? So the commissioners can't hear what the public commenters will be saying. With that, we shall open up public comment. So members of the public, please line up on the screen side of the room or to your right and come on up. Through the chair, you'll each have two minutes. Come on up, sir.

[Unidentified public commenter(s)]: Good afternoon, president So, members of the planning commission. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jay Anthony Menhivar. I'm an organizer for the Norco Carpenters Union Local twenty two here in the beautiful city of San Francisco. I represent approximately 4,000 carpenters and 37,000 greater in Northern California.

[Jay Anthony Menjivar (Carpenters Local 22)]: Today, I'm speaking on behalf of all my brothers and sister carpenters that live here in San Francisco in strong support of the Empire proposed one Montgomery remodel. This project represents a kind of serious commitment downtown needs right now. Empire's commitment to using union labor on this project is critical. That commitments translates directly into creating union jobs for San Franciscans while also uplifting the surrounding community. For carpenters, this means good union wages, strong good I'm sorry. Good union wages, strong benefits, and apprenticeship opportunities. The kind of work that sustains families and strains the next generation of carpenters while delivering the highest standard of safety and quality. Just as importantly, it gives us a chance to bring a long quiet landmark back to life the right way with union skill and pride. Instead of closing off the historic banking halls behind private offices, this plan opens the Ground Floor to the public through events and active retail and restaurant uses. And while rooftop access is being removed, we gained something bigger, year round free programming that creates real foot traffic and a real economic lift on the streets to help small business actually strive. In conclusion, North Car Carpenters Local Unit twenty two fully supports the proposed development at 1 Montgomery remodel. Despite popular belief, there's that many developers that will work with labor in San Francisco. Local construction workers have been suffering from the long lasting downturn spurred by the twenty twenty pandemic, and this project will likely get that back on our feet. We ask a commission to support those who support us and endeavor to revitalize the city.

[Rudy Corpuz Jr. (United Playaz)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Rudy Corpus. I'm also a native of San Francisco, born right here in the South Of Market. I'm very honored and I'm humbled to come represent and speak for a gentleman who I know is a person from God. My brother, guys, he ride here. He is humble. He doesn't tell you a lot of the stuff that he has done for the community and for the people. Just recently this weekend, and we're not against the second amendment. We are survivor of gun violence right here. That man helped us get 212 guns off the streets of San Francisco. 18 of them guns were assault rifles. Not only that, he supports and helps the brothers coming home for restorative justice. He's so humble, he doesn't need to speak on it, but he takes care of the kids. From the elementary to the penitentiary. This brother right here has been helping even before he even got this building. So, anytime I see somebody who's not just a native of San Francisco, but somebody who wants to help the people, I'm a come stand up for. This man right here is just like, you know, to meet a great opportunity to rebuild and vitalize our city, our downtown area, but more importantly, to help our people to bring economic and equality justice to our people. And so I wanna say thank you, Gazi, for always standing, always standing for our people. You know what I mean? Me and him go that's my guy. Me and him go back like a hot bowl of grits. That's my dude, man. And I got nothing but love and respect for him, and anytime he asks me to come to speak and represent, I'm a come up and do it. Because when he jumps, I'm a jump with that brother without a parachute. Thank you guys for standing for truth, king. Happy holidays to everybody. Merry Christmas, happy New Years, and happy everything.

[Emmanuel Sanchez (Ironworkers Local 377)]: Good afternoon, president Sue and members of the commission. My name is Emmanuel Sanchez and I'm a native San Franciscan business agent, iron workers local three seventy seven. I am here to support the proposed project at 1 Montgomery. Well, I appreciate and concern I can appreciate the concerns around setting precedent if we modify an an existing open space. I can also think it's important about what segments of our community actually have access to the existing one. The fact is currently privately owned public open space serves a very narrow demographic and the proposal before you would pivot that to a much broader community benefit that more San Franciscans can access. Let's put the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few and let this be the beginning of a long term relationship with the project sponsor who I believe is deeply committed to working with the community and the future opportunities of this area. Thank you.

[Brendan Green (IBEW Local 6)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Brendan Green, local six business rep. We represent all the electricians here in San Francisco. Personally, for me, working downtown for the last twenty five years, walking by one Montgomery, it is a beautiful building, and it really hurts my heart when I see it empty, not being able to be used by anybody. This is just coming for me personally here. But for a full labor agreement that he's given here to get us back into that building, it's just I think it's an opportunity here that we're going to be, regretting if we deny it. And promising for a 100% union, that's something we're not getting from developers downtown now that are buying these buildings. And this is an opportunity I think we have to get a 100% by. Thank you very much.

[Diego Hernandez (Laborers Local 261)]: Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Diego Hernandez, and I'm a business rep for Labor's Local two sixty one. I'm also a native of San Francisco, and this project brings everything. Brings labor, brings community, artists, you name it. So we're I'm here on behalf of our 4,000 members in San Francisco that, fully support, Warren Montgomery.

[Unidentified participant (brief interjections)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified nonprofit representative (The City Eats)]: How you doing, commissioners? I'm here today to support Gazi. Gazi has definitely supported my nonprofit, the City East. We've been running for thirteen years, feeding low income families. And he has been a big heart in what we do. So 10,000 families have been fed because of this man. You know? And I'm thankful for what he's doing. I'm all for whatever project he does, and I'm in full support. So let's go. Let's do it.

[Brandon Bracamonte (Sprinkler Fitters Local 483)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Brandon Bracamonte, and I'm representing Sprinkler Fitter's Local four eighty three. And I'm here in strong support of Empire's proposal. This project represents a $40,000,000 private investment used in union labor, creating more than 100 high quality union jobs at a time when downtown construction is limited. These are family sustaining jobs that support local workers and apprenticeship pathways. From a planning standpoint, the proposal activates a long vacant landmark with year round free public programming that expands public access and generates consistent foot traffic for nearby small businesses. Importantly, it preserves and reactivates historic interior spaces by opening them to the public rather than privatizing them. Empire is a longstanding San Francisco employer with a demonstrated commitment to the city. This proposal aligns labor standards, public benefit, and downtown recovery, and I respectfully urge your support. Thank you. Happy holidays.

[Walter Oriela (Teamsters Local 300)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Walter Oriela. I'm a business agent for Summit Mesa's Local three hundred. I represent here in the city of San Francisco nearly 500 members and a total of about over 300 thousand members. I support this project for a simple reason. It is a better outcome than what we have today. The prior concept would have turned a historic public interior into public space. This plant brings that Ground Floor back to the people through events that retail and dine in and will actually draw visitors. This is how we create safety, energy, and pride in downtown core. From a labor perspective, this is the kind of job we want. A major union build funded by the sponsor with the scale to put a lot of our members to work. As for the rooftop, I understand the concern, but the reality is that it is slightly used. Limited hours amenity cannot compete with a year round public programming that activates the whole district. Thank you so much.

[Joe Sanders (Painters & Drywall Finishers Local 913)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Joe Sanders. I represent painters and drywall finishers local nine thirteen. And I am here on behalf of my union to support this project. This is just the kind of commitment that Downtown San Francisco needs. Empire is putting a lot of their own money into this project and committing to all union labor, which means jobs with benefits for a lot of people for a prolonged amount of time. I think that the benefit by the public events outweighs the access to the rooftop, and I urge you to support this project. Thank you.

[Unidentified public commenter(s)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Israel Vargas. I'm here representing the plasters and cement masons here in Northern California. Here to speak in favor of this proposal. And PAR's proposal, I think, very good.

[Israel Vargas (Plasterers and Cement Masons)]: It comes in a moment where the city is living an excitement moment of recovery. And I'm very happy for it right now. Also, it has 100% commitment for a union. And that's one of the things that gets me happy. One of the things that gets me happy for is twenty years ago, I had an opportunity in projects like this because it has a path for bringing apprentices. That's how I pretty much started. Okay? San Franciscans here need these right now. We have a memo momentum, and we need to keep it going, not only for union labor construction buildings, but for the San Franciscans revenue here in downtown. Thank you.

[Unidentified public commenter(s)]: Please consider to move these forward.

[Unidentified POPOS advocate (opposition)]: I'm afraid I'm going to unleash a mob scene because I think I'm the only one here to talk in the opposition. Rather than lose what is probably San Francisco's premier popos, I'd like to encourage a radical solution, one that's definitely not in vogue these days, and that is compromise. Nobody gets exactly what they want. Everybody gets something. Everything everybody has said here is great. Union labor, Gazi's a god. He's doing wonderful things. But only 1% of that has anything to do with the POPOS. He can still be a philanthropist and keep the popos open. The Holbrook House at 1 Sansom shares their popos with the public. They're allowed to close a couple of days every month for private events. Empire could similarly designate a few days when access to the rooftop is restricted to alleviate security concerns for their visitors. The statements that they've made about the access and their inability to make it secure, I think they're very overblown because the access to that POPOS has always been through the Crocker Galleria, not through One Montgomery. This solution would obviously be greater for the public than a full closure. It would kind of sort of keep in place what is supposed to be permanent public access. And it would help restore the community's faith that privileged interests are not being prioritized over those of the public. Don't underestimate how riled up people are over Gazi's media statements about making the rooftop private and mega cool so that his employees never want to leave the office. Empire clearly believes that public officials will rubber stamp their efforts regardless of the existing requirement for the POPOS.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Oh, wait, wait, what? Everyone That

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

[Colin Johnson (Bricklayers and Allied Crafts Local 3)]: has time. Two

[Unidentified POPOS advocate (opposition)]: I just think everybody sharing means that everybody Thank

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

[Josh Bowes (Sheet Metal Workers Local 104)]: Good afternoon. My name is Josh Bowes. I'm a business rep with Shoot Metal Workers Local one hundred four. We started in San Francisco in 1903. We've been here a long time. We don't wanna lose anything in San Francisco. And Gazi is saying he's gonna stay here in San Francisco. We've lost everything, everything. Right? Every record label, construction business, big tech business, they all leave California. He wants to stay here. Let's approve it. Let's give them what they want. It's going to benefit everybody. It's going to benefit the community. It's going to benefit the construction industry. It's going to benefit the vast majority of San Francisco. So we need to keep that right here. We to let them do what they got to do and get this work done. 100% union labor is going to be great for us. It's going to be great for them because it means it's going to get done on time and on budget or under budget. We all know that. So let's get this done. Thank you.

[Colin Johnson (Bricklayers and Allied Crafts Local 3)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Colin Johnson. I represent the bricklayers and Allied Crafts of Local three. I myself and my wife live in Richmond, just across the bay, but frequent over to San Francisco with my kids on the weekends to enjoy the benefits of San Francisco. This is a serious commitment from an entrepreneur trying to bring business back downtown. We'd like to catch the ferry over and walk around downtown from the ferry building and check out everything down here. I didn't grow up in San Francisco, so a lot of this is still my first time seeing everything. And it's a pleasure to bring my children over here so they can enjoy the same kind of vitalization of downtown. Representing the union that I do, we greatly benefit from restoration, and the workers there are gonna be committed to maintaining the stability and the historical aspect of Montgomery. And with Gazi committing to full union labor, that creates jobs for the city and will help revitalize downtown with all of the union workers eating and visiting the places that we go. As every union member in here can attest, you drive by a building and tell everybody you know that you worked on that building. So everybody likes to revisit those things. So I'd like to thank you for your time, and please approve this project. Thank you.

[Trevor Long (Glaziers Local 718)]: Good afternoon. My name is Trevor Long, and I'm the business representative for Glazer's Local seven eighteen here in San Francisco. Now, I sat down and wrote out some words that I don't want to regurgitate now because I've heard all of my colleagues come through and make all those points to you. I think the benefits of the approval of this project outweigh any negatives. I think this is a step in the right direction towards bringing some fresh energy, fresh blood, fresh money into San Francisco. And I wanted to come up here and say that. Thank you very much, and happy holidays.

[Speaker 17.0]: Here, give me a moment. My name is Olga Miranda and I'm the president of SEIU Local eighty seven. I represent the janitors in San Francisco. We are the skyline of San Francisco. All the twinkling lights when you see up, bother to look up and enjoy the city skyline, Those are my janitors turning the lights on and off.

[Olga Miranda (President, SEIU Local 87)]: For us, this one Montgomery has been vacant. We lost those jobs. And when you think about what the American dream and what the promise is and why it is we bet on San Francisco, These are the hardworking men and women of a union that represents predominantly immigrants, but it's the children that we hold and that we raise that we want more promise and opportunity for them. No one is a god here except the great one and the prophets. But I will say that to be able to see somebody come back and give to his community and his city is exemplary. The lady who spoke earlier about what she said, while I respect the First Amendment, I also know what crazy sounds like. This is an opportunity, and I appreciate the the task and the work that you all as a commission have upon on your shoulders. But think about what the city needs a comeback. The mall will be closed in a few weeks. I have 60 janitors out of work. One of those could potentially still have health coverage and still be able to cash a check when one Montgomery opens. This is what we represent. On a janitor's wage, we could buy a home. We could still provide for our families and retire with dignity, but the opportunity of One Montgomery is very significant to us because we lost those jobs, and no one knows bullshit better than our members because not only can we clean it, we can smell it, and we can call and name it when we look at it too. So, to the commission, we hope you support One Montgomery. We want to be able to work and provide for our families and our babies too. And, for Gazi, thank you for coming back. Thank you for giving us, and thank you for betting on San Francisco like we do every day. Thank you.

[Marcus Alvarez (IUEC – Elevator Constructors)]: Good afternoon. My name is Marcus Alvarez. I'm the organizer for the International Union of Elevator Constructors. I'm happy to see this project come up. It makes sure that we have a 100% union labor providing families with the ability to to pay for their bills and to continue serving the city of San Francisco. But more than that, what I'm really excited about is the future opportunity this brings to the city of San Francisco. With the guaranteed of of the free events and free concerts, it makes me something excited to look forward to as as an expecting father that I can keep coming back to the city and bringing my my family to those special events and to see the city of San Francisco grow. We need something like this. We need to be able to to enjoy ourselves. And this is gonna bring that opportunity not just once, but three times a year and free. That means that we can also be able to support our businesses in the area, and at the same time, still provide amazing, unique opportunities for everybody here and who works and services the city of San Francisco. Thank you so much for your time. Happy holidays.

[Lara Kiswani (Executive Director, AROC)]: Afternoon, everybody. My name is Lara Kiswani. I'm the executive director of AIROC, the Arab Resource and Organizing Center, working with, serving, and representing thousands of working class Arab Muslim Palestinians across the city of San Francisco. I'm also a proud daughter of immigrants, working class immigrants. And I wouldn't be standing in front of you if I did not believe that the vision that Empire Records and Gaza have for this project would be in service of all of our most vulnerable communities in the city of San Francisco, along with others. We've spoken to our members and leaders, and everybody is so excited about the potential that this project can bring to San Francisco and to that area that has long been abandoned. I know firsthand from our own community members how they feel alienated, isolated from the city, don't feel safe walking through the streets. So, when I think of this project, I think of culture revitalization. I also think of safety and community, something that's very well much needed in this moment. I also know and imagine you have a lot of questions, and as you should, for such a historic project. And I encourage you to engage those questions with Gazian Empire. If I did not believe firmly that they are going to be collaborative, work with community partners, work with the city to ensure that all of our concerns are addressed and that this is in best service of everybody, I wouldn't be standing here before you. I encourage you to support this proposal and look forward to working with you in the coming days. Thank you.

[Abby (Chinatown CDC)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Abby, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Chinatown CDC in support of Empire's proposal for One Montgomery Street. Empire has a strong track record of elevating Asian and Asian American artists and creating platforms for cultural expression that are often missing from highly visible spaces in San Francisco. We see them as a thoughtful cultural partner and a responsible steward of the site. As the city works to revitalize its downtown, it is critical that arts and culture culture are part of that effort. Bringing curated community oriented cultural programming into the financial districts not only will help restore vibrancy, but also expand representation for communities like Chinatown. And For these reasons, we urge the commission to support this proposal. Thank you.

[Speaker 18.0]: Hi, commissioners. I'm David Harrison speaking today on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce in strong support of this proposal. We have been doing so much thinking and work about the future of our downtown, and this goes to show how we can find creative ways to think about diversification of uses of bringing activity and vibrancy and arts into the downtown to enliven it. I think also being creative about public open spaces and are they serving their best use for the community in various capacities. And I think this proposal brings a tremendous amount of public benefit to the downtown, to the people of San Francisco, and certainly our partners in labor.

[David Harrison (San Francisco Chamber of Commerce)]: So, I'm super excited to be in support of this proposal and look forward to seeing it move forward. Thank you.

[Rudy Gonzalez (SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: Ron Hi, honorable members of the Commission. Rudy Gonzales with the San Francisco Building Trades Council. A pleasure to be before you. And before we get on with it, I want to thank the hardworking staff of your department, from the MEA ranks to the IFPTE twenty one ranks to the SCIU members and the analysts and so many other working professionals as they gear up to for your final meeting. I want to recognize their work. They are going to be staring down a massive budget deficit made worse by you know who in D. C. Who has stripped away health care for tens of thousands of people and put another $400,000,000 hole in our budget deficit. And that's gonna mean some tough choices for city hall to make. And that brings me to the project because what we need is more people willing to invest in San Francisco. In the short term for the jobs, for people I represent, in the long term, for the revenue and the ability to actually staff a robust public sector, from our health care system, right, to our ability to actually staff our own division of building inspection, for example, to our public works and street cleaners. We need all of that funded. And the way that's gonna get funded is by investment in San Francisco, and not just in a transactional manner. I think you have a unique situation where POPOS is being thrown around a lot. I've even fallen prey to that. But really, the existing framework predates that idea, that concept, that code section in the planning code. I think we should look at reasonable trade offs that we can make at this body. And then I also think as leaders in this space, you all bear a secondary responsibility to make sure that this is not the only conversation that is had about community investment and community commitment. I think you can all help facilitate more conversations that are not necessarily in the code, but are in the community. And I stand here to support the project, and I know that this project sponsor is committed to both this code change, but also the community investment. Thank you.

[Steven Bracco (Community member)]: Hi. My name is Steven Bracco. I'm a Castro resident and long time POPOS lover. I moved to the city in 2003 and first found out about Popos through the public library's city guides program, which actually has the city spaces and public places tour, which is actually going on right now, which used to include this Popos, which I couldn't believe that it's been closed for six years. It's hard to believe that you can say that it's not active when it hasn't even been open for like a really long time. That seems kind of crazy. But to keep it short, I hope there's some sort of compromise that we can find here to keep it open. Because this POPOS is one of the two best in the city, with the second one being at 343 Sansom. I'm always bringing I'm sorry. I'm always bringing like my friends to these places. And it just seems strange that we can't keep this open. Three events a year doesn't seem like a good deal for the city. That's just one weekend. Even Downtown First Thursdays is once a month. So, I mean, at least 12 seems like that would be a good compromise. Let's see. Yeah, just in general, I hope we can find a solution to keep this populace open because I fear that once this commission allows it to go, it's going to be gone forever, even though there seems to be some rules to bring it back. But from my experience, that really never happens. We all want people to come downtown. I'm downtown all the time. I'd love for there to be more things to do. They have some really awesome plans for things to do on the Ground Floor, but that's not on the rooftop. I just don't understand how we can't find a way to keep it open. So, thank you so much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, last call. Excuse me. Last call for public comment. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

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

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: So this is really cool for me. This is basically San Francisco. This is the American dream here. You Gazi, you're actually bought not just the branch, but the bank of that basically you're you and your parents deposited checks when you were a childhood. That is, like, absolutely phenomenal. The working class of San Francisco out here, except for one, Colin, who says he comes in here, b a three. Colin does more for San Francisco and his members here than a lot of people here. The fact that every labor union in San Francisco here, and I am a labor union representative, The fact that every one of them are lockstep behind this project is absolutely phenomenal because anybody who knows labor these days have not been a lockstep behind in any way, shape, or form for quite some time. So I believe this project, when finished, will go a long way to not just reactivate but revitalize downtown as we know it. The building has been offline for five years plus. But more importantly, the private sector construction industry, basically, we're well into the sixth year of what I can only describe as a savage recession. We have two administrations telling us that basically everything is fine, but the reality is our members basically are losing health care every day of the week, and many of them have lost it for quite some time. And as we all know, we are basically hourly workers in the construction industry, which means if you don't work, you don't get paid. We need a vibrant downtown. Downtown has been our bread and butter for years. Downtown is basically, as we know it, may cease to exist, but it can be revitalized. And I believe that this project doesn't just revitalize the building, but basically many blocks around it. The creation of an entertainment zone is phenomenal. I think it's it's it's exactly what the city needs. I hosted a panel basically a couple of months ago on adaptive reuse and the possibility of office to residential. I don't believe that's possible unless you actually have an active an active vibrant downtown because who wants to live next door to a building that is basically, 6060% occupied and 50% of those are are basically working from home. So the construction industry, the working class in the of San Francisco who work in the construction industry, basically, desperately need this work, because this job here reverberates. It is the ripple in the pond that basically, creates confidence on the building across the road. I've seen I've seen our our the florist go. You know, the building shut down. The florist go. The shoeshine go. The cobbler gone. The basically coffee shop gone, individual retail shops gone, and then basically, I've seen two the two two of our biggest hotels almost gone, brought back to life, and we've got rejuvenation there. This, is more rejuvenation in San Francisco, and I'm delighted to support this. And, basically, I will make a motion to take discretion and review and approve with conditions. I believe arts, culture, entertainment is San Francisco, and I think this is exactly what can actually be the shot in the arm to bring us back. Thank you.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: So first of all, I want to acknowledge the immense investment that's being made with this project and the work that would go into the building. And I want to appreciate that. I can be a little sort of technical at times. And I'm also thinking that's not really I'm not really approving the user here. I'm approving a change in requirements about the public use of the rooftop terrace. And so in general, I've long been very skeptical and concerned about reductions of public access to our private open spaces, whether it comes in under the downtown plan or whether it comes in through prior one off agreements and conditions of approval. Because like the speakers we heard, I think our I'll just refer to them blanket here as POPOs. I think our POPOs are a really great resource. There are some really unique spaces. It's been disappointing to see how property owners over time, in some cases, have made them very difficult to access, put you through a lot of hoops, or had their security guard steer you down while you're trying to access the rooftop POPOS. And so I've tried to hold the line, in some cases, on attempts to privatize these spaces, One Sansom comes to mind, where I was trying to be very cautious about the number of events and enclosures that were allowed and was not in favor of expanding them when it came to us because I wasn't seeing a commensurate public benefit being offered for the closure. And so I looked at this really carefully. I spoke with the project sponsor. I spoke with folks from Office of Economic and Workforce Development as well as department staff. And I have a couple of questions, first of all. Do want to one thing that hasn't really come up very much is the fact that there's another publicly accessible open space on the rooftop Northwest Corner of Crocker Galleria. That's still there, right? And that's not subject to this, correct?

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department)]: That's correct. So it's separate ownership. They are retaining their open terrace on the roof of the Crocker Galleria. Yeah.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. And then my other question is about the it's an unusual and creative solution to have this suggested alternative public benefit of the event programming. I appreciate the creativity, but I don't think we have a lot of history of monitoring events It's a planning department that's primarily focused on land use and design. So I'm curious, how is it that we're going to monitor compliance with that requirement if this is approved?

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department)]: Yeah, definitely. So those are baked into the conditions of approval. The sponsor will be required to submit annual reports to the department. And the conditions of approval were crafted specifically to provide a strict threshold that you need to meet. So it's three events. It's 1,000 people per event, and it's 10,000 people annually. Those are sort of the major ones. So the sponsor is going to provide those numbers to the department for review. And assuming that they are meeting compliance, then they would continue to have that rooftop terrace closed.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Who would be responsible for estimating the attendance at those events? Or would that be done?

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department)]: The project sponsor would be responsible for that.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Could I maybe ask the project sponsor then what sort of how is it that you would estimate the attendance at the events? What's the methodology there?

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Yeah. Absolutely. Many of our events are in a enclosed area, but, we have multiple additional methods. One of those methods is we, even though they're free, have, either used Eventbrite, Partifle, or RSVPify to track RSVPs and then confirm them when people arrive at these events. We've also taken sample size photographs of the events at the peak of those events and used software to estimate with a good degree of certainty, how many people are present at those events.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: And is this a type of reporting you regularly have to do for other purposes? Is this a pretty established kind of approach?

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: These events are a significant financial RAFAEL: and operational undertaking to put on. And so we'd like to know what we're doing, what the cost per person is, and what the commensurate benefit is when we do these events.

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

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Thank you.

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department)]: Just to clarify as well, if I can direct your attention to page nine. So condition two subsection or condition three subsection two says the attendance of each public event along with the explanation and the methodology used to determine the attendance, that will be included as part of the reporting metrics.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. And actually, Dakota, you don't mind staying up, I think you can see where I'm driving at with some of my questions. What I'm trying to really understand here is the balance of what's the public benefit if we're losing one type of public benefit, which is a public space open during business hours, what are we getting in exchange for that in terms of community benefit? And so my last question on those lines is about the NLUFI payment option. So after five years, Actually, I just thought of a different question, too, as I'm saying this. They still have the option of the in lieu fee payment after five years if they're not in compliance with the public event requirement?

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department)]: So if they were not in compliance with the events requirement, staff would effectively bring this item back to the commission for consideration of revocation. So it would be at the discretion of the planning commission. So no, that in lieu fee option only becomes available after five years of complying with these events requirements.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. And I recognize also we have discretion, if it does come back, to do whatever. So Okay. My last question then is, for the in lieu fee payment option after five years of compliance, I'm seeing it put out there that it's a $19,000,000 in lieu fee payment. Of that is that it's the in lieu fee amount of around $2,500 a square foot times the total square feet of the existing public rooftop area. I guess, is that as I understand it, this space took on more of the requirements for the whole development project initially in the early '80s than just for itself. And I'm a little concerned that the in lieu fee payment might be based on what the obligation for open space would be based solely on this parcel, which could, I imagine, potentially be less. So is that the how would the in lieu fee payment be calculated?

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department)]: Yeah, definitely. So I think what you are referring to is so Planet Code section 138 basically determines how much open space that projects need to provide. So that number is set. Section two four twenty six basically says for every square foot of usable open space not provided, they pay that $2,500 per square foot. So it's not necessarily So it's determined based on the existing square footage of the terrace as it exists today, if that clarifies.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: That clarifies it. I'm a little concerned about it. I'm concerned that the obligation might be set based on what the obligation would be based on the square feet of development on the site rather than the existing open space.

[Sarah (Planning Department leadership)]: Commissioner, per code, our fees are set per code. And so as the code states, we charge the fee based on the square footage of open space that is. Whether what you might imagine might be required or not is not what would be replaced if they chose the in lieu option. So we would only be able to charge the fee as it exists in the code, which is based on the square feet that would therefore be removed by paying the fee.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. As long as I have that assurance, I'm comfortable with this because I just want to make sure this is calculated based on what's on-site now, not on some recalculation of the obligation based on the square feet of the usable space in the building. So Okay, with that assurance, then I appreciate that. And those are my questions. Thank you. So like I was saying, give us a lot of thought. I think if this came to us as a request for removal of the condition to simply close the rooftop terrace to public access, that would be an easy no. I think that this time is different from some of the prior requests to close out public access to spaces because there actually is, in my opinion, a commensurate offer of an alternative community benefit. And so this activation of downtown through the events, I see that as being a reasonable alternative to a business hours only open space, especially given that there are others in the area. And right now, at least the Crocker Galleria one is still there as well. And hopefully, Crocker Galleria will be active again in the future soon. And then also, the in lieu fee payment, if this is a $19,000,000 payment, that seems like a reasonable both incentive to maybe not want to pay that and to continue the event programming so long as that's possible with the current sponsor. And then if there is a $19,000,000 fee payment in the future, that's quite a lot of revenue that can be used to reinvest in our truly public open spaces as opposed to business hours only spaces. So I think that this trade off is a reasonable trade off, in my opinion. And so I am comfortable supporting this project with this set of community benefits. I don't see it as a precedent per se, so I don't want it to be taken that way. But in this unique circumstance, I do support the project. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you, Commissioner Braun. A lot of detail have been laid out and presented. I'm just today, I'm really thrilled to hear a lot of union members spending your precious before holiday time show up here. Is a job that is a project that really truly going to sizzle downtown back to hopefully the next century and decades. And we're always talking about how do we activate streets? How do we enhance downtown? It is a very I'm really sympathetic about some of the people mentioned about their experiences about these rooftop access. And I took a look and I think about it, rooftop access. This particular one predated many of us who actually probably haven't born when this thing was enacted forty five years ago, right? So not revealing everybody's age, but just thinking about that. And the acronym POPOS didn't exist until probably twenty, twenty five years ago. So just keep that in the perspective about this is a very unique scenario. This is a very unique scenario with a development agreement that was predated many of us who hasn't been born. But I'm looking at in the light of I agree with all my fellow commissioners have been spoken right now. But in looking at having something that is so hyper local, someone who were born and raised in the city, Palestinian American, decided to invest back in the city and throw himself and everyone together and attract so many talent, Also invest in elevating minority women, all different men's and women of different colors to be in the leadership position and uplifting creatives, artists that otherwise are really struggling to provide housing for them. I don't know what else to say. This is just speaking just literally music to my ears of having you guys there. And I really applaud my planning staff and also with the OEWD department. It really is looking at working collaboratively with the sponsor to really come up with this set of proposal that create how can we enable continuing to revitalize our downtown and encourage people to come back? That has all these multiple benefits that Ben showed us in these slides in addition to tax revenues. It was just kind of like I am really in full support of it. And Commissioner Braun mentioned that there's also rooftop access in nearby location. This, I think, right now, if we're looking at a truly urban design and urban planning, even just looking at principle, we should also, as designer in architecture and urban planning, we should look at we are designing spaces to encourage behavior and shape our people, not just from an idealistic standpoint, but looking at a practical way of how can we actually engage to actually really activate the spaces that is left, been left as a void. So this project has my full support with my fellow commissioners. If no one have seconded the motion, I will be seconded it. And then I think that my other commissioners also like to speak. And Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you. And thank you for everyone for coming out. First, I want to first congratulate Mr. Gazi in buying this building. I want to also appreciate also validate your experience here in San Francisco and how you have also amassed the community support for your project. And it is important that we also support San Francisco native investing back in San Francisco. But I also want to ground us, and especially me, in terms of my connection in the South Of Market community and how the popos in the South Of Market has been something considered as important because South Of Market is one of the area that is very dense and has only one public open space. And that is only the Victoria Manalo Drive Park. And many of the community activists also advocated for POPUS because it's a way to be integrated in the developments that are coming up in this side of market. And throughout the years, these POPOs have been underutilized. There has been studies where the project sponsor or the developers or the owners don't make the popos that accessible. And that's why I think here in the commission, we've had a lot of conversations in the popos that I've been in tenure, how to make the popos more accessible and more cohesive with the community, with the residents, especially in the areas where there is a lack of open spaces. So I just want to ground that in terms of the perspective of Pobos, at least in how I brought up in the community. One thing that also reminded me back, I think, a couple of years ago is there is this one POPOs that is actually inside the building, I think, the Conservatory 1 Conservatory Building in Wansansomi. And I enthusiastically supported that POPOS in a way that there are events that are open and there are days that it's closed in order to support the businesses, the business. And I think they came back to the commission in terms of like trying to expand more closed days for the POPOS. But they returned to us with a report of how they're really activating POPOS in the days that it's not where they don't have events. Actually kind of like you, Mr. They actually had a lot of community support, worked with the community, and having events in one sense, so mistreated. And so I think we approved it at the end of the day because of how well intentioned the owner of that. So just also, one of the conversations we had here in the Planning Commission. There's one thing, too, that we also talked about was the Transamerica and the, I think, the connection to the Maritime Plaza and how Maritime Plaza is actually in the second level. It's in the rooftop. And because of the closed because of the COVID pandemic, the Maritime Plaza is not that I it's not I'm saying it's accessible. It's actually you can still walk around in Parade time. But it may not be that popular because there's no activation. And in the commission, we've had conversations of how to make POPUs to be more activated in a way that is also connected to the downtown revitalization. And I always think that the best way to make POPOs activated is to have consent programming in there by the owner in a way that they're making good means being part of the community as well. So I just want to give the background of these conversations about the POPOS. And what I would say one of the successful rooftop POPOS is the sales force. I always go there, and you will see people having a picnic, walking around. There is a cafe there. There are morning exercises that I've gone there at some point, too. And there is that activation. And you feel that it is in the middle of offices, but it's pretty well active. And I always think that that's one of the successful rooftop purpose that we have. So I also taking this in not lightly in terms of closing a purpose. And just because once the purpose is closed, I would think I'm trying to think that it's beyond what the building or what the owner would do, like what would it look like in the ten years, twenty years. If the billing gets sold, means we will will it revoke back the purpose in itself? So that's also one question that I'm wondering too, because this is more like I'm not saying it's a policy, but something to think about in the future as well. Nevertheless, I have a question in terms of the public events that you would like to hold. And my understanding, are these public events going to be conducted on the rooftop or not necessarily?

[Dakota Speicher (Planning Department)]: I think that's best answered by the sponsor.

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Thank you for the question. So because it is a downtown public benefit, we wanted to offer a commensurate downtown public benefit. And so the planning staff designated the geographic boundary of downtown. And part of this is that the goal is to be creative in terms of continuing to bring people downtown. And so we plan to host events all throughout that geographic area. And as I briefly mentioned, that will include the rooftop on occasion. That will include the banking hall that's going to turn into a flexible event space. But it's also going to include all of the areas we currently host these events, in the entertainment zones, in our Barcadero Plaza, so on and so forth. The three that are designated for downtown are going to be specific to downtown. But we are already in talks with doing a post Chinese New Year's concert, Chinese New Year's parade concert, reggae concert near Ba Buena, a mission concert on Valentine's Day. This proposal is for three to give back specifically to downtown, but those three are in addition to the activations we'll be doing throughout the city, and one Montgomery and otherwise.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yeah. And

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: so there will be There will

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: be something on the rooftop. That's what your answer is.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So there will be no public event on the rooftop?

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: There may be.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: There may be. There may be.

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Yeah.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. So at least three. That means minimum of three. And would you consider increasing from three to 10 or 12?

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: We've thought about this carefully, and we really are more at 10 or 12. As I mentioned, the three are specific to downtown. These are tremendous financial and operational undertakings. They require creating an entire additional team at our company to do so. We have been spending upwards of $500,000 per year to produce these events. They take months to plan. We have to coordinate safety. We have to coordinate with the city. We have to coordinate permitting. We wanted to do something that accomplishes two goals. One, to keep these fun and creative and actually attracting people. We don't want them to become stale. First Thursdays and Fridays on Ellis And night markets are awesome right now. Will they be awesome in ten years as long as we keep them interesting and make people want to go to them as destinations? And secondly, we want to make sure that we can fulfill our promise to you every year. A 1,000 person event, that's our minimum, is not easy to produce. It is not easy to convince 1,000 people to come out onto the streets of San Francisco three times a year. And we're promising to bring 10,000 people. Just to put things in perspective, to serve 10,000 people on the 7,500 square feet of our rooftop, 40 to 50 people would have to visit that rooftop every single business day for an entire calendar year. It's unlikely. So we've thought about it very carefully. This was not like a random, flippant decision.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Yeah, I would assume because the minimum attendance that I would also think that the total attendance of 10,000, that is a pretty high minimum of 10. Although it looks like you've done other events that had 20,000.

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Our events last year did over 30,000. Again, this is commitment for these three specific events. But if you take all our events together, again, we want to make sure that we can fulfill our promises to you for decades to come.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So you mentioned that the main reason for closing or the intention to close the purpose is for security purpose. How do you anticipate so if there is a purpose that open, how do you anticipate or how does your security look like right now?

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Well, we're not currently at this property yet. It's been demoed on the interior. So we've been taking things one day at a time, admittedly. We haven't planned our events, and we are bringing in a security consultant generally. But as an example, when we hosted the Civic Center concert on September 15, honoring our fifteen year anniversary, security was the highest priority of Ghazi. Not let's make this the coolest event and show off empire. It was if we can't protect all of the people coming to this event, this is going to be a terrible, terrible thing for Empire in San Francisco. So that's the first thing we consider. We work in conjunction with San Francisco Police Department up to the chief level to make sure that these events are adequately staffed. If ever, whether we host on the rooftop, in our banking hall, or Fridays on Ellis, that's the first thing we think about. And we do that in coordination with the city and the police department.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Mean, are my questions. Me, I'm trying to figure out as well in terms of because again, I'm concerned about closing out the proposed forever after five years. And I know that we laid out conditions as well that there needs an annual reporting of this. But after five years, that's what I'm still concerned about in terms of the even though kind of knowing that this is a historical building as well, the importance of that weighs heavily as well on this to me. And it's part I mean, the building itself, when it was a bank, it's such a beautiful building. So I weighed heavily on that. So yes, I'm still kind of like in the edge. I'm not it does make me feel a bit uncomfortable that there is something, a condition in here, that after five years, it can be purchased and it can be taken off.

[Sarah (Planning Department leadership)]: Directive force. To be clear, I just want to clarify.

[Ghazi Shami (Founder & CEO, Empire)]: I didn't mean to interrupt. Can I I speak on have no desire to ever fee out?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay.

[Ghazi Shami (Founder & CEO, Empire)]: That's just I'm also almost 50 years old. You just never know what happens from a if something physically happens to me or something ever happens. I have no desire to ever leave the city. I have desire to make that my headquarters, permanently. And it's a company for the community, by the community, for as long as the community is there to work there. So, I have no desire to fee out. That was something that was requested of me to have a trade off, if I stopped performing my duties and producing the events. Every year, we've been producing more and more events. But, like Shadi said, it's just a significant undertaking because I'm technically not an events company. I'm a record label and a publisher. I employ people on the executive side of the business. Event production is a whole another arm of business. And I've been fortunate to find partners in the city that have partnered with me to help me produce these events. But I have no desire to ever fee out or leave this space. So, I don't think that's ever going to be an issue. I just wanted to stare you in the eye and tell you that I was asked to have a solution for this. I don't care about that solution. I want to stay here forever. I hope my children's children's children can help be stewards of this building and stewards of the city. I live in downtown. I'm raising my children in downtown. I made a conscious decision to stay in downtown when no one was in downtown. I was the only person living in my building. And, everybody told me to leave downtown when I stayed. And, not only did I stay at Double Down, so I have no desire to leave the building. I have no desire to fee out. I only have a desire to stay, produce these events, and produce as much culture and arts in the city as I humanly can. When I started, Empire was one employee fifteen years ago. It's 200 people in downtown now. 50% women, people from all walks of life. We probably speak 30 or 40 languages. The diversity is at an all time high. This is not DEI because of policy. This is DEI by design. This is who I am. I promised to build a company where nobody felt invisible and everybody had a voice. So I want to be a voice for the city and a voice for the community and show people that when something is done right in the city, this is what it looks like so other people can emulate. And hopefully, imitation is flattery. I hope a lot of people imitate what I've done because it's as authentic and as impactful as possible.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I just want to make sure I just want to let you know, to Mr. Ghazi, sympathize with your vision and what the vision for your company and also in terms of what you want to contribute to the city as well. I want to let you know. But at the same time, also want to as a commissioner, I also want to protect the integrity of the programs that we have here. And it's not you. Again, it's about the youth. But I'm fully aware of I am not trying to dismiss your project. I just want to make sure. But think for us in the department, we want to make sure, too, as well that this is more for us in the department to talk about the proposition that's what's in front of us right now.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Do you mind if we should just clarify a little bit about the program? Can you define it a little bit?

[Sarah (Planning Department leadership)]: Yeah. Just to clarify on the record and I really appreciate thank you, Gazzi, for speaking on that. In the unlikely and terrible opportunity that we lose Ghazi, and that commitment can't be upheld and I think he just said it to you in person the way this is written is not that they pay the fee after five years. It is that that opportunity, that option, only becomes available after five years. So I just want to make clear, the way this option that we're presenting before you is proposed is they produce events on an annual basis. And we verify that they prevent those events on an annual basis. If they don't, on any annual basis, we go back to the way things are, right, opening up the rooftop. After five years of successfully doing this, and only after five years of successfully doing this event, the option to pay the fee becomes available, just like other projects have downtown through our public open spaces. And that would come back before you again with that option. So you're not granting anything today other than the ability for Empire to do these events on an annual basis for a year and for us to make sure it works. And if it doesn't, all of those other triggers come into play.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. And

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: we'll have another heated debate here again. And you will have the control over

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Well, I'm you know. Yeah. Those are my comments for now. I'm also willing to hear what others say. And

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you, Gazi, for your inspiring story. You've galvanized a lot of folks who believe in you and your vision and your company and what you do. It's noticeable. There was a lot of people here today. And so that's a testament to you, who you are. And so I just want to highlight that observation. I, too, am from San Francisco, born and raised. And so I really appreciate someone that is homegrown and is really being successful and bringing people with him. And so I have a lot of respect for that. So I just wanted to let you know that The thing about what's in front of us today as a commissioner, I have to look at a lot of other things other than what you bring to the space as far as a public benefit. Unfortunately, since I've been here on the commission, I've seen a lot of trending towards we've given back a lot of the benefits to downtown that I'm not always in agreement with, but benefits for developers and stuff and to get downtown going. And so a lot of those benefits, unfortunately, impact lower income communities, like child care and stuff like that. That has nothing to do with this. But when I think about a public benefit, all those things come to mind. So this is just bigger than one Montgomery. The other thing that I think about is what kind of precedent this could send to other folks that own buildings that may not be wanting to continue to have them public be a part of that. And I know there's been a lot of folks saying otherwise that this is just a one off. But as a commissioner, I have to seriously think about that. Because I value the POPOS, the public private spaces. I think they serve a good purpose. And they're a public benefit. It's just like a street, a park. It's not mine. It's not anybody here's. It's the public's. It's everybody's. So that carries a lot of weight. And so think also I'm very aware of the benefits to the community that you have put forth. You have a lot of community support from a lot of great organizations. And that's, again, a testament to yourself. I'm conflicted. Right now, I'm more concerned with the public interest. And it has nothing to do with you personally. But I just feel that this could set some kind of a precedent. And I'm concerned about that. I don't want this to be something that kind of starts this whole effort to start closing these public spaces that a lot of people care about. So anyway, did you want to say something? I see you're jumping up in your seat.

[Andrew Junius (Land Use Counsel for Empire)]: Free commissioner, I appreciate that. Andrew Junius on behalf of Empire. The precedent question, I think, is really interesting. It's impossible for this to set a legal precedent because we are outside of what the planning code currently requires. If this POPOS was subject under section one thirty eight, we wouldn't even be here because that's a code requirement. The only reason that this is before you is because the planning commission forty five years ago created a special proposed I'm sorry, rooftop open space before the downtown plan was even completed. So, you know, rest assured, there is no precedent here. There is not gonna be a bunch of people lining up to make changes to section one thirty eight because that's just not possible at the planning commission.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay.

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

[Andrew Junius (Land Use Counsel for Empire)]: appreciate that.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank thank you for that. I see you're anxious to get to say something, so I wanted to to let you speak. The city attorney, do you have anything to add as far as what was just the information that was given to us? What's your take on it from one attorney to another?

[Deputy City Attorney Yang]: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. So if I'm understanding your question, you're asking whether or not the decision today will have any precedential effect. And I believe Mr. Junius clarified that, well, his view is that this is a condition that was initially imposed as part of a 1979 approval. Today, have a code requirement that requires something similar. So, it's very, very, very unlikely that you'll see something similar. That's probably true. I would say that in general, the commission, there's no like legally binding precedent. These are policy decisions that the commission gets to weigh and determine. So to that extent, if a similar project were to come forward in the future, there are projects out there that have pre-nineteen pre proposed section 138 requirements that may come forward, you wouldn't be bound to get to the same outcome. As a legal matter, it would be a policy decision.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Thank you for that. That's it for right now. I want to hear from Commissioner Moore.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Okay. I fall into the category of people who were around when this started. And I am delighted to see downtown moving away from a single use, just being lawyers, offices and bankers and people in suite piece suits, etcetera. And I'm really excited about that because that is ultimately the vitality of a city and one that can accommodate that shift in users. So that's a wonderful thing to see. I'm delighted to see the support of the community you have. You seem to be totally ingrained in every part of that community. The only thing that was a little bit strange for me is that many people came today who supported you based on a project that I have not seen. I have read about something. However, the real nature of what you're intending to do with the building is totally unclear to me. And I think it's good. I'll ask you. Thank you. I have heard descriptions. I have talked with David and heard things. But until you see it, you don't quite know what what you are going to approve. Talking about and thank you. Thank you for taking this bold step and trying to do this. I want to put a couple of corrections into the narrative. The rooftop garden on top of the banking hall was actually the brainchild for what later on became the purpose. And when you read the exchange between city planning and the development expectations on the Kwaku Tower, together the commitments the Kwaku family, who at that time, I think, still owned that building, made, they're very clearly indicating to the public private benefits of making this rooftop a public private open space. And that idea then ultimately became policy and laid the foundation what now is the proper legislation. In that sense, it should be grandfathered in. And I think the descriptions, when you look at them closely, create a clear understanding of what the intent is and that this is indeed the prototype for POPOs. That said one second, please. It is only with COVID that all of a sudden a break occurred where literally every relationship we had with any open space started to cease. We couldn't go downtown. We couldn't sit in any open space. We couldn't walk anywhere. We were literally confined to perhaps the length of the street on which we walked our dog. And with that, something died. And that is indeed the collective feeling that originally at least existed in this open space that I have been frequenting for the entire time that I worked downtown, was almost thirty years. And that open space, just to remind you, I think has on its door only an occupancy capacity of about 90 to 92 people because of exiting requirements. And so it was one of those sunny, quiet living rooms where people who wanted to be outside, not at street level, but bussing buses, cars, and people were walking by, but wanted to sit in a quiet space, meet their friends, actually quietly converse with a colleague perhaps, or perhaps ever congratulate somebody to the birth of their child or a promotion. But it was always a very kind of settled open space. Some people went there for suntans. Some people took their suit jacket off, rolled up their sleeves, and just enjoyed, as an office worker, to be able to sit outside and just do what you want to do. Just kick back, let an hour go by, and then go back to your office and do what you do. This particular theme was picked up in a very pro pro pro article in the San Francisco Business Times in 2019, actually a day before the summer solstice. And I'm tempted to read one sentence to you because I would like to correct some of the narrative, which was kind of quite negative. And experienced since it as a very positive, very powerful open space because of its quiet, we moved from city life, but it was publicly accessible. I want to read that sentence to you. Again, this was the one day before the solstice. With Somerset to officially begin with tomorrow's solstice, the rooftop pupils offer a chance to see that often elusive sun, not to mention grand views of San Francisco Bay and some close-up of that ever changing skyline. And that particular sentence, other than seeing San Francisco Bay, totally applies to this space. If you're a photographer, and for professional reason, that's a little part of what they do, I'm not a photographer. You can see the most amazing overlays of historic and new buildings from that roof, and it just creates the most amazing imagery you ever saw. That was one of the reasons why many architects went up. They're just sitting there and just looking around, etcetera, etcetera. I am very torn about this. And I picked up on two comments during today's public comment. The gentleman one of the gentlemen sits there. I don't see the young woman who spoke about, is there a middle ground? Is there some kind of a philanthropic overlay by which this open space, this public private open space, can still remain open independent of what may what you may consider after five years. The reason why I'm saying this, underneath this roof deck, there was a bank, and probably one of the more powerful banks in San Francisco and probably one of the oldest, San Francisco founded bank, Wells Fargo. Their million dollars and their safes and whatever they else had in the basement, there was never an issue that there was a threat to the safety of that bank any time that I know of. The access pass is very controlled. The area on which you circulate is very defined. There is an elevator. Few people used it. The majority the majority of people came through the ascending galleries of Crocker Galleria and then came to the rooftop. So there was never a feeling that there is a physical threat to anybody in the building, which was the banking portion of the office was right underneath. And then there was the banking hall. But there was never a feeling that the bank would be broken in coming from the rooftop because the open space closed at five and the gates of the Galleria closed at six or seven or 06:30, whatever it was. So that thing was a closed, secure building on its own. And it's really my concern that exchanging a public asset, public real estate, so to speak, or publicly shared real estate, which is a definition of POPO, would be taken away in perpetuity. And I am looking for a philanthropic interface between public and private to continue, even if it's modified from its existing current use. I'm looking at mister Shoaff at the Transamerica permit. He totally renovated the permit and made it a spectacular contemporary building. He actually took on Kiddie Corner, a historic building, and added a modern addition to it, never asking that the use of the entire Redwood Park would be modified. But what he did, by by making the connection through the buildings, he he recreated a meaning of the public private use of the Redwood Redwood Park in a manner that it makes it a fantastic public gathering space that I believe will ultimately revitalize and already is that particular quadrant of the financial district. I'm kind of trying to find a middle ground. I'm a strong believer of public private open spaces and their absolute necessity to exist in San Francisco. San Francisco invented the idea of public private open spaces. And the rest of the world kept looking of what a great idea that was. They had already built so much they couldn't retrofit. Can we think differently about them? Yes, we can. Does it have to be giving them up completely? I'm not sure. I want to leave you with that question. I'm really struggling with this project, and I love the idea of you coming into this building, but I like to see a slightly different solution of how ultimately the rooftop park is being used.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Do you want I have actually a

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Please go ahead. If you have any comment in response to what I'm saying, I would like to go ahead.

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: GREGORY Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. We value public private partnership very much. And yes, we're trying to secure this rooftop. We're not trying to secure a bank's money backed by the FDIC that's in the drawer behind the teller counter. We're trying to secure the safety and the lives of our employees and our artists and our guests. And while bank robberies may never have happened at Wells Fargo Bank, there are well documented instances of violence against our employees and our artists. Respectfully, we care very much about that. It's impossible to operate a business where we cannot guarantee the safety of the people that support this company. We're not SHPO. We're not an international development company who can station three guards in the Redwood Park to protect property. Again, these the lives of our employees. The last time we had an incident at our offices on 235 Pine Street, we had to staff police at our building for three weeks, and employees wouldn't come in. We care deeply about public private partnership, which is why we are inviting people into the Historic Banking Hall. We've already made agreements with nonprofits to use that space to host our exhibits there. We told the Victorian alliance they could continue doing their historic tours there. In fact, Shelley I don't know if she's still here the woman who objected against the project works for city guides. I met with her at the building. She used to give tours of 1 Montgomery, she used to take her tours and sit on top of 1 Montgomery. And I spoke with her colleague, Dawn McLaurin, who hadn't had a chance to meet with Dimitri, the head of city guides. But we already told them, I wish we had spoken a week sooner. We are happy to let you continue your nonprofit work and take tours of

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: 1

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Montgomery. We haven't put the cart before the horse. We are trying to ensure that we can safely operate within this space before we iron out every single detail. And it would be impossible to codify every single public private benefit that we already do and that we would be unable to do even further in this building. But we are committed to that. We think inviting people into our space, while not nine to five every day for the office workers, is going to allow people from all backgrounds to enjoy the space in a manner that another operator of the building would not have allowed. And just lastly, our company is unique. We're not a nine to five company. We're a 20 fourseven company. We have to secure this space at all times. And we can't predict when somebody is going to come and try to get a hold of one of our artists or our employees. Thank you.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you. I do not have any other comments. I think the security requirements seem very strict, put other issues relative to the reuse of the building. So I'm completed with my comments. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. I do have some I really want to emphasize that I really always concern about my safety anywhere I go in San Francisco. And lately, in these recent years, not just COVID, but it just when you're up there in the middle of somebody's roof, I don't know if I'm really comfortable being there. So let's just leave it like that. I felt like public safety is a big concern. And our mayor actually wanted to make sure that no one needs to be worried and afraid to go anywhere publicly. And by doing that, we need to encourage people to really use our street. And we actually have this activity. And what was worked before forty five years ago might not be always a perfect solution for what is coming ahead of us forty five years now and ever. But I actually had a question. It's kind of technical since we have the lawyer in the room. I think it's you. Thank you. Don't really

[Andrew Junius (Land Use Counsel for Empire)]: know President, PRESIDENT so happy to help. Yes. Can I help you with?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Can you elaborate and clarify a little bit about the POPOS or conditional approval processes a bit? I think not just us, but for all general public who are interested in this matter, just explain it to us a little bit more about what are we here for today.

[Andrew Junius (Land Use Counsel for Empire)]: Of course. Again, it's very, very important to keep in mind that the planning code requirements for POPOs, for buildings that have been built since those requirements have been in effect for the last twenty, twenty five years, Those are governed by the planning code. There's nothing that this commission could ever do to eliminate one of those. If there was any changes in that, it would, of course, have to come from the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors would have to pass an ordinance to make any changes to how the POPOS legislation works. But this open space is not governed by those rules, which is why we can come here and have a conversation about a much different benefit to the city. And I couldn't agree more with Commissioner Moore. A lot of history here. Has been around for a long time, but times do change. And this is an open space rooftop terrace that has not been used for many years. You've got a very unique building owner that has a very unique need with respect to the security that we just heard about. But this is not this is about this building and about this request and about the history of this building. And it really isn't about code, The Planning Code Section 138 and the requirements for new developments to create new POPOS are not this. And we're not there's no way those two things connect each other. Does

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: that help? So in other words, that's why Salesforce Tower designed the way it is, because Salesforce Tower has a component for public access. That's why they were able to create an elevated garden. Absolutely. But this is a ground up kind of they can design from

[Andrew Junius (Land Use Counsel for Empire)]: clean And that's an interesting observation because between Salesforce Tower and some of the other larger indoor POPOs that are much more consistent with the way the planning department and the planning policies have been moving forward in the last couple of decades, Those POPOs are, again, they're not going away. They're required by code. They're fantastic. They're indoor. They're protected from the weather. They're going to be around forever. And this one's different. And this one creates an awesome opportunity for the commission, I think, to step in and allow for some different ways to approach this. Very much not.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: So in other words, what you just tell us, and also with the general public here, is that what we decide today, it doesn't open up like a huge floodgate for everybody to come in and say, let's get rid of my proposed.

[Andrew Junius (Land Use Counsel for Empire)]: That's absolutely correct. Okay. Only the board of supervisors could open that question through different process, different ordinances. Those that would not be before you. This is a very unique situation for a very unique building.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay. Thank you very much. And Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah, have a question. Again, I'm trying to find middle ground here. Will the project sponsor you mentioned earlier that your office will not be 9AM to 6PM. And it's a twenty four hour type kind of facility or building. Will you ever be open in having the rooftop terrace be open in the weekends?

[Ghazi Shami (Founder & CEO, Empire)]: I mean, I work in the record industry. It's seven days a week. Like, this is not the arts are not a conventional nine to five operation, you know. People are in the office seven days a week working. We have artists coming from all over the world, from Indonesia, The Philippines, Vietnam, Nigeria, South Africa, North Africa. There's artists here seven days a week. So we're on twenty four hours a day. Just case in point, I wanted to sign an artist that I saw Instagram the day before Thanksgiving. I flew him in Thanksgiving evening. He flew in his wife. And we were at the office working on a deal on Thanksgiving. So we're 20 fourseven operation.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. And I have a question to the ZA, Mr. Teague. With the notice of violations they're having, what's going to happen if, let's say, this is approved?

[Cory Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Sure. Happy to answer that. Good afternoon again, Presidents, and commissioners. So the notice of violation is very specific to the original conditions of approval that created the requirement for this rooftop terrace. So if those conditions of approval change, then the basis of that violation kind of goes away, Because it's resetting the requirements, essentially, if that's what is approved. So the violation right now is active because under those conditions, it's required to be open to the public. But I think it was called out in the staff report. But any action on that violation is on hold and no penalties have been assessed because there was an understanding this is a single tenant building. It's a very unique building. Until there's a tenant inside that building, you can't even actually provide access to this. So I hope that helps answer your question. But the bottom line is if we change the requirements of how that rooftop terrace is used to from what they were originally, then the basis for the violation would go away.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you, Mr. Tig. Those are my questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioners, I see no other request to speak. And if there is no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve with conditions. On that motion, commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Williams? Nay. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? No. Commissioner Moore? No. Commissioner President So?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Commissioner LeBron, you have a comment.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: We could finish the vote first.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I believe we could finish

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: the vote first. Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Aye. Okay, commissioners, that motion fails. Three to three. Is there an alternate motion?

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I would like to move to continue. I'm personally, given my own concerns about the closure of the space, although I find that there's a reasonable alternative community benefit that's been proposed, I understand other commissioners don't feel that way. So I would like to make a motion to continue. But as part of that, I'm hoping we can have a discussion about what well, there's two pathways. I mean, I'll make that motion. And if we do, then I want to make sure that it's worth everyone's while, that there is some sort of guidance that can be provided by commissioners who voted no for what the sponsor should work on. Alternatively, I'm also open to, if we figure this out somehow today, that's fine too.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Only suggest one thing. Should we take a ten minute recess?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Sure. Yeah.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Okay.

[Sarah (Planning Department leadership)]: SFGov TV, San Francisco government television.

[Colin Johnson (Bricklayers and Allied Crafts Local 3)]: SFGov TV, San Francisco government television.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome back to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 12/18/2025. Commissioners, we left off on item 10 for case number 2020Five-seven116 DRM at 1 Montgomery Street mandatory discretionary review. Commissioner Braun, I believe you were in the middle of a motion.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: JOSHUA Yes. Yes. I go ahead and complete the motion to continue the item. But like I was saying, if there's anything that's fairly straightforward and in the vein of what's already on the table that could get this approved today, I'm open to that. But for now, I'm putting in the motion to continue. And we can have a discussion about what should be worked on with that motion to continue if that's the direction we go.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Our next hearing is January 8.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Sure. If we think we have room in the agenda for it, then Plenty of room. Plenty of room. Okay. Yeah, January

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: I think there might be unavailability on some of my commissioners in that week.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: On January 8, Okay. We should certainly have a full complement of commissioners. January 15 is the next hearing.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: don't have any no one's let me know that they're out on the eighth.

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

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I would ask that if there was some way we could actually get to an agreement here today, it would be preferable. I find it kind of embarrassing that we're at this stage. I believe this is a story of a hometown kid who did really good, came back and bought the bank in the middle of of town. And, basically, we have got to sort this out, and we have to have decision because if we care about revitalizing, activating San Francisco, Basically, we should be able to make this decision here today in a in a profound way that well, not profound in a very direct simple simplified manner. If there is an ask or, you know, or something that basically the project sponsor could do or something that basically would adhere to making commissioners' decisions or opinions a little at ease, I think we should basically explore and ask them, ask those questions, because this it's leaving here today, be it continued or basically it not being approved, defeats the purpose of us being here in the first place, I believe. So I would ask if we all stay here for the evening. If we have to stay here for the evening, we can debate it out. I think this pope post here was basically technically, I believe this this building may have inspired populace, the pope modern what we think of modern day populace situation, but it certainly wasn't built and designed to have one. The ones that came afterwards had specific, entrances, elevators, and access and exit to it, to the to their port bus. This one doesn't. 21 people spoke in favor of this. One person spoke against. And the person who spoke against this, basically, I find out later on that she is she has a business that utilizes this purpose. I think we have a duty to actually make sure we go home here today with a positive situation on this.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I have something a question came to me, and I wanted to check-in with the project sponsor. As far as developing the inside, the bank, and all of that, you own the building. Is that is that something that's in the works? I mean, I I know a a lot of the the building trades came out for you. And so I'm just that wasn't really talked about. And I'm just curious about that.

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Williams. Fair question. This is the key that unlocks this project for us. We cannot and I said this a couple of times now if we cannot guarantee the safety and the operational control in order to keep safe our employees, our artists, and our guests, we can't invest, not to mention the tens of millions of dollars, but the years' worth of design and construction and entitlements required to operationalize this building. We have done some design work, but because this matter before us is its own individual matter, which lets us know if we can actually operationalize this building, before we went and expended all of those resources and spent all of that time, we needed to know whether this building actually made sense for us.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you answering that question. I'm not exactly sure. I mean, I still feel a little conflicted. But I'm I'm kinda curious to see what my other commissioners there was some conversations. And so I'd like to see what else is happening. I mean, to me, it's not really it's about the public space for me, personally, and losing that space. I'll just be honest with you. As much as I have a high regard for what you guys do and everything that your company is about, I just feel like there could have been some compromise around that space, given the importance of it. And so I haven't felt like that compromise has been met. And so anyway, yeah.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: JULIE: Like I said in my comments, it seems like there's a little bit of an issue of the balance and judgment of what's being lost as a community benefit versus what's being gained as a community benefit. And my fellow commissioners are making those own judgments for themselves. And I think the two areas that came up during discussion that I was tracking were the idea, first of all, of having partial or part time public access or a certain level of public access to the rooftop. And the other issue that came up was the number of annual events and whether it was a reasonable trade off, three events a year up to a minimum of 10,000 people total at those events. There was a question about that. So I'm curious if the project sponsors team could speak to those two areas where there was a desire to see maybe some movement from commissioners. So it's the yeah, allowing some partial or part time access, not completely eliminating public access to the roof, and then also number of events as well.

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Thank you, Commissioner Braun. And while we will be opening our space to the public periodically, we've said we need to be able to control safety 20 fourseven. If an artist lands to do a concert at Chase Center on Saturday and he's flying out to New York on Sunday, that's when the artist is in our building. We always need to secure our building. With that said, we've discussed that despite the financial and operational burden that these events already take, we will offer a fourth additional large scale event. And we're happy to remove the in lieu fee from our proposal. GREENEZ:

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. So a fourth large scale event. And then with the elimination of the in lieu fee option, I mean, just to be clear, that means that if the events are not held, then the space would revert back to being a public open space.

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Yep, that's correct.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate you putting that out there. And I'm curious to hear other commissioners' reactions. For me, that's even better. And so, yeah, if we do land there, I'm grateful for that being put on the table. Thank you.

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

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Public space. Can we go through basically what you're doing on the Ground Floor? Because you are having art exhibitions because that is access to the public, the Ground Floor lobby.

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner McGarry. The left side of the historic banking Hall is contemplated to be restaurant or retail, something culturally driven, which will be open to the public. The right side banking Hall is going to be lounge space, employee lounge space during the day. But it will be flexible event space. We have already offered it to Urban Land Institute to host the Market Street Reimagined event. We've offered it to BayFC to soon do their jersey reveals. We've made verbal commitments, as I mentioned in my sponsor presentation earlier, to allow nonprofit groups to utilize this space. We'll be hosting local art exhibits within the space. And then we will also be hosting a slew of other events, whether it be civic events, private events, conferences, and the like. There's going be a tremendous amount of opportunity to activate that right side banking hall so that people can actually enjoy the designated historic features of that building.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Thank you. So on that, if we could entertain a motion with the adjustments that have been made, would that be acceptable to fellow commissioners?

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: And also, it might be more like to hear what Commissioner Imperial

[Searle Hackett (Project Sponsor/Builder)]: Yes. Yeah.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Wow. I never thought that would. But Okay. I appreciate what the project sponsor is trying to propose. Actually, I was also thinking in that way as well. The main concern for me is again, the, the option to opt out. That's the main concern for me. And so I'm always thinking long ahead, even if, let's say, you're not the owner anymore. That's, for me, is the important part. And for me, that would still somehow preserve what has been in the city or what is this code has been in place. So in that, and you're also proposing fourth community event that will happen citywide or mainly in that stretch of that map, right?

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: As mentioned, if you give us more operational room to host these events, we would love to host them citywide. We've been asked to provide them the specific downtown geography. But if you would like to expand that geographic map of where you'd like to see these events, we're super happy to do that.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I that I am Okay with what the map is, has been located, because the idea is, in a way, revitalize the downtown.

[Shadi Kayway (Counsel, Empire)]: Thank you.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And also having community being part of the downtown. That's also where I'm going at as well. I will be Okay in proposing a motion of taking a discretionary review, removing the in lieu fee option, and adding a fourth committee event within the map that is described.

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

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: That's great. And Commissioner Mori, would you like to have some more comments?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: If for whatever unforeseen reasons, not projecting any negative future, what would happen if under certain circumstances an empire would sell the building because something else changed in the operation? What would remain as the opportunities for the next owner to either continue on with the obligations or would the entire roof space would revert again to be public open space?

[Andrew Junius (Land Use Counsel for Empire)]: That's exactly right. It sounds like by removing the in lieu fee option, there's only two other ways forward, either Empire or a future owner provides the events or the rooftop open spaces reopened. That's it. It becomes very just binary. There's no other one or the other will be happening. You'll either begin in the events or the space will be open to the public again.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: The conditions of approval and staff report, as you know, and wrote an overriding letter were not particularly clear to anybody. We had to all ask what does it really mean, and it's a very complicated intertwined matter. On your letter, on your second point, there was something that I would personally like to see said differently. If Empire does not hold these events, the Planning Commission may revoke this approval. I would rather like to see if events are not held, it would be an automatic revocation instead of maybe. I believe I have a little hard time with a hard line in the sand about the number of people and events. I'd rather see events, good events to happen without saying it has to be 1,000 or 10,000, which is hardly measurable given how people sneak in without tickets anyway. We all know that. We're sitting in their living room window, opening the window, and listening from there. But I'm interested in, if the events, the number of events, would not evolve, that the condition does not, we may revoke this approval. I think it's not a matter of the commission. I think by that time, I think it would be an automatic reversal.

[Andrew Junius (Land Use Counsel for Empire)]: I appreciate that. Let me respond. I think the staff's going to like would like to respond to this as well. What you're getting into is the enforcement mechanisms that the planning department has. And I don't really think there is such a thing as an automatic revocation. This commission gives it. This commission must take it away. So you need to make that decision. And you need to make that decision during an open public hearing where, you know, frankly, there may be a dispute as to whether we provided the events or not. Maybe it's a close call. Maybe maybe there's something to discuss. The the there just isn't an on off switch in that way, and I'm pretty sure the staff will agree with me on that. So I think I don't think we can do that.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I need to direct this question to have City Attorney Yang also confirm the automatic reversal versus commission reversal.

[Deputy City Attorney Yang]: So Commissioner Moore, if I understand your question, you're asking whether or not the commission could create some sort of springing condition that would revoke the rights that you might allow pursuant to this approval. And the issue there is one of due process. The applicant should have an opportunity to make a presentation about their the circumstances surrounding their noncompliance. So typically, the commission would hold a hearing before it would revoke the rights under this motion.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Okay. I appreciate your confirming what Mr. Junior said. So we are on the same page. I just wanted to ask that clarified. Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: That was an excellent clarification. I guess I just have one question about the addition of the fourth event. So currently, we have the minimum attendance of 1,000 people per event. That seems pretty straightforward. The fourth event should also have 1,000 people minimum. I do feel like maybe we need to bump up the number. I know I'm getting into semantics almost here. But the total attendance per year is 10,000. If we're adding a fourth event, I feel like that number should also increase. I've been doing the math. The old number total attendance was 3,300 some people per event. But I'm just curious what kind of makes sense for a new average or a new total.

[Ghazi Shami (Founder & CEO, Empire)]: It's a little difficult to do.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: And I'm

[Ghazi Shami (Founder & CEO, Empire)]: going tell you why. I run a company that's a brand. And if you dilute your brand, people will stop showing up. And so it has to be done with care and with impact. And just forcing it to be a metric with a number is not always quantifiable of the impact. And if I do it incorrectly, I'll dilute my brand and no one will show up. And so, I've spent thirty five years of my life getting to the point where people will show up for me because they believe in it and not because I'm just throwing things to fill a quota. I always want to remain impactful and authentic. So, I don't want to mislead you and say anything. But I also don't want to put myself in a position where I hurt everything that I've worked for just to adhere to a metric. I don't think that's fair to the brand that I've built.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I appreciate that. I just think, with all due respect, we need the numbers. We're in a different universe that

[Ghazi Shami (Founder & CEO, Empire)]: hope that I can crush those numbers. You just never know what people show up for or don't show up And a lot of that is also attached to the artists that I can get to say yes or no. And that gets very complicated with a lot of other things. Does this artist have a radius clause for outside lands? Now, can't do an event for me, even though they're signed to my label. There's a lot of nuance to it, I have to work through all these nuances. And so I don't want to over promise something that I can't deliver. I'd rather under promise, over deliver.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. So I am just the one thing I can think of is to bump up the 10,000 a year number to 11,000 unless Commissioner Ichel, it's your motion, so I don't know if you want to

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I don't have actually, I want to make things also mutable by the or condition met by the project sponsor. I mean, setting up events are not easy. I recognize that. So I want to put him also in success. So setting up four events, and I'm Okay with minimal of 1,000 to 10,000. Because again, it depends on the artist. It can be a local artist that does again, if we're talking about cultural events, mainly San Franciscan, and if it's international, I mean, So I also DIONNE: want to set up the metrics where it's going to be met. Okay. That That sounds

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: sounds think fine

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: at 10,000, it's 10,000. Don't know how when you throw a party and you kind of wish everyone show up. But usually, not everyone show up. So I think we want to make sure that it's kind of sustainable for people. I'm pretty sure if there's more people, they probably will come back and say, can we make it bigger? Right now, 2025 is such a really, really historical year, not in a very positive way. We just want to get out of this year. And hopefully, interest rate get better and people feel more having extra money to well, this thing is free, so it's going to be great too. But it just in general, yeah, I'm pretty happy with what Theresa had motioned. Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Moore have more to say. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: It sounds like some conditions were met. And I've been wanting an excuse to say that I want to support, obviously, the great work that you're doing. And so I'm feeling a lot more comfortable with what I'm hearing. It seems like again, I you know, feel strongly about the community spaces. And but I I think there's a trade off here. And my hope is that everything goes well with what's proposed and the community benefits. And so I wish you luck. And that's all I wanted to say.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I'm tempted to ask for a continuance. I think we are on a good path to have a better understanding of what is possible. But none of the documentation that is in front of us really reflects what we are talking about. There are lots of things being said here. And I would like to actually have you have a week or two to distill of what was said, of what you gave back and are prepared to change in what is written here in front of us. And we can have a meeting on whenever relatively soon to finalize of where the chips fall. I think there's significant progress been made. I'm really encouraged about a better understanding of each other's position. And so I'm just throwing that out because we're still struggling here. And I feel kind of pressured. I feel uncomfortably pressured to do something, which I may consider doing, but I don't feel comfortable that is yet in black and white in front of me because that is where ultimately the rubber will hit the road. It's just an honest comment. I say that with anything, including architects sitting in front of us and talking that there were changes and that, etcetera. And I think that is a reasonable commission a reasonable question for me as a commissioner. So I just throw that out for you to think about.

[Rich Sucre (Deputy Director of Current Planning)]: Commissioner, would it be helpful if the staff rereads the current understanding of the motion and or put up on the projection the

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: commissioner No, I that I would prefer hearing from Empire and Mr. Junior's. And I like to see it in black and white. I do not want to hear it. The subtlety of anything is in the specific position of words and what your words are being used.

[Andrew Junius (Land Use Counsel for Empire)]: JAMES Commissioner, thank you for the question. I actually do think this is pretty straightforward at this point. I believe what we're talking about is removing the in lieu fee. So we're down to the two conditions, and the two conditions have been discussed extensively. And one of the conditions would go from three events to four events. The reporting doesn't change. The event geography doesn't change. There's no architecture involved here. We're happy to answer questions. And I think we've done a little bit of discussion about what the future holds at the ground floor of the building and the future of the building. But this is the key moment. This is the key question that we need an answer to. Sooner the better. And so, I mean, I appreciate some of the commissioners here that would like to just move this along. I don't think we need more time because the issue is very narrow. And we hope we can get an answer tonight. So thank you.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Thank you. And I really don't think that we should linger this all the way to 2026. It's very clear. It is an issue asking in front of us as a looking at what a previous development agreement was forty five years ago and is asking us to evaluate what it is for today. It has been confusing about what later on twenty five years ago, there is a new program for the similar purposes. And let's set urban planning ideology aside. Let's look at what is ahead of us, How many mouth we need to feed for all of our labor unions? And what is the reality of our street right now? And we need to activate every space. A lot of urban planning talk about having storefront. I'm looking at all the storefront. I want them to be filled. I want everyone to use our street. San Francisco got to come back. And I am asking my fellow commissioners to do the right thing today. It is very clear what is being asked to do. And we have a motion on the floor. We would be happy to ready to vote. And I see that two more fellow commissioners would like to chime in more. So indulge us again for a few more minutes. Commissioner McGarry and then Commissioner Williams.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I got to go back to it. You know? Basically, you're it for me, it's not about the metrics. It's and it's not about your brand. Basically, you came here today, and I've been sitting up here quite some time. And you are a San Franciscan. You're the real thing, and I believe you. You know? You if you say four events, you're gonna do four events, and those four events, you're gonna blow them out of the park. Why? Because, basically, it's who you are. You have the entire entirety of San Francisco behind you. I've I've not seen it. I'm in the labor business, and Rudy will tell you there. He's smirking. You know, we haven't seen unity on a situation, anything like this in a few years now. You've also got Olga in here. She brought Olga brings down the house. She is a born union organizer, and she scares me more than all the my fellow tradespeople. Rudy's friend really knows I'm right. I think we have to get this moving, and I would like to call the question.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: You can't.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Call the question on the vote.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: There is also Commissioner Williams, and now Commissioner Moore also wants to speak. Yes. Yeah, I hope that we are being really sensible here. Our city and county are really for equity. And we really embrace immigrant who actually come here and create businesses. I really hope that we really are being really fair today here to enabling someone who is Palestinian American to actually continue their business here. And he uplifted everyone women, people of color, artists off the street, creatives. And I honestly don't understand why is this so difficult. But it's Okay. I respect everybody's position. And I agree. We have a motion on the floor. And I am committed to sit here till we got to the end of this. I will clear my schedule for the rest of this evening. So commissioner, you've done right? You're going to get all

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Sorry. Called the question, but I need a second on that, if it's possible.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Gonna make this brief. I just want to reiterate the importance of these public spaces. We had a good discussion today. There were some points that were brought up that this is a unique space. But in general, these public spaces are for everyone. And being part of the community is honoring that as well, honoring what came before and understanding what what public spaces are. They're for everyone. And that's why I feel strongly about them. And so I just I just wanna make that point. And and so that's it.

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: A famous last word. We're sitting here to decide on use, not on users. And there has been a lot of laudatory and deserved comments about Empire and its people and its founder. But I need to make sure that whichever way I vote, my vote doesn't have anything to do with the individual who I greatly respect and be impressed by his activism and his role in the community. I'm sitting here because of you. And I would like to relieve myself from my commissioner's pressures to repeat their laudatory comments about the user because the decision we are making is about use. I have to say that because that is why we're sitting here. So I'm saying that with a certain degree of frustration because I do not like to be pushed into a corner. I like to speak with an honesty and understanding of the subject matter I am supposed to decide on, not ultimately be accused of being anti people, anti this, or anti that. I am not.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: Great. Are we ready for a vote?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to take discretionary review and approve this with conditions as have been amended to eliminate the in lieu fee option in adding a fourth public event. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? No. And Commission President So? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes five to one with Commissioner Moore voting against.

[Lydia So (Commission President)]: The meeting adjourns.