San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 01/22/2026. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person 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 (President)]: Present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commission vice president Moore. Here. Commissioner Braun. Here. Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry. Here. And commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner) – time-bound override]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. Commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number 2023Hyphen009469DRP at 77 Broad Street. Discretionary review is proposed for continuance to 02/12/2026. Item two, case number 2020Five-seven500CUA, 2785 San Bruno Avenue. Conditional use authorization is proposed for an indefinite continuance. Further commissioners under commission matters, item six, the election of officers, is proposed for continuance to 01/29/2026, and under your discretionary review calendar, item 12 for case number 2020Five-six120DRP at 2620 20th Street discretionary review is proposed for continuance to 02/19/2026. I have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to adjust the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed. Commissioner Campbell. Aye. Commissioner commissioner McGarry. Aye.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner) – time-bound override]: Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye. Commissioner Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President) – time-bound override]: Aye. And Commission President So. Aye. So move. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Seven to zero. Placing us under your consent calendar. The only matter listed here under constitutes a consent calendar is considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of the item unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item three, case number 2025Hyphen009847CUA at 760 Bryant Street conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that this matter be pulled off of consent and considered under the regular calendar today. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Imperial

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: move to approve second

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: thank you commissioners on that motion to approve item three on consent commissioner Campbell Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commission President So. Aye. So move. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commission matters. Item four, the land acknowledgment.

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. Item five, commission comments and questions.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I just want to thank Ms. Sherry George for following up with the request that I asked back then during one of our hearings for the traffic analysis approach for autonomous vehicles, or AV. And I appreciated sharing that information from the SFCTA. I know it's not in the purview within the planning, but of course we see projects here where AV are being proposed as an accessory. And for me, the issue was that having enough data or how to analyze the data that we have to make sure that AV and the traffic congestion are part of the studies. And it seems like there are still some data challenges in terms of how to access the AV companies and sharing that data with the city. And I hope that these companies will provide more data to us because that could also help the planning department in terms of how AV or AV parking are going to be placed in a neighborhood or whether one neighborhood is better than the other. So I don't know what would be the next step. It sounds like that is the missing link, is more data. And I don't know if that would need to be a legislation, if something that probably whether the board or the mayor can do so that we have more data on the AV and how are they affecting our traffic congestion as well. So I just want highlight that and thank you for following up on that.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay, commissioners. If there's nothing further, we can move on to Department matters item seven directors announcements.

[Tom (Planning Director)]: Good afternoon commissioners. I don't think we as a department have a whole lot of announcements. I'll do a little bit of a precursor to our budget item just because that's a big thing to talk about. But I think Liz and I and our team nothing else to report this week.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Item eight review of past events at the board of supervisors board of appeals and historic preservation commission there is no report from the board of supervisors or the board of appeals but however the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday and considered its first batch of landmarks related to the family zoning plan. And there were a large number that were sponsored by Supervisor Mandelman. Two were continued out to the February hearing at the request of the property owner. And then the Historic Preservation Commission also initiated amendments to the landmark designation for Compton's Cafeteria. If there are no questions, we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. Members of the public, if you have general public comment, you need to come forward. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. And we can move on to the regular calendar for item nine, case number 2020Five-twelve172 CRV for fiscal years 2026 through 2028 proposed department budget and work program. This is an informational presentation. It will be coming back to you in February for your endorsement.

[Tom (Planning Director)]: Commissioners, before Deborah gets started, I just wanted to give a little bit of an introduction. Our budget team has this well under hand, they will give the bulk of the presentation. But a couple of things I just wanted to put at the outset. One, last week, I mentioned to you the mayor's announcement of the beginning of a process to unify Permit Center Planning Department, DBI. The budget you'll see today is a budget that reflects our revenue, our general funds, and our activities. And so that is what we knew up until a week ago in part. It is also what the planning portion of all that is going to work on. There has been a transfer function placed by the mayor's office to bring 20 positions from the permit center and 20 mainly IT positions from DBI into the planning department over the next thirty days. So that is something that will join to our budget that you're not going to see here today. That will come with its own revenue. All of this will be those folks are paid now, and they will be work ordered to be paid with us. So it isn't impactful to what we see today. But I did just want to acknowledge that because that is happening adjacent to the work you see today. The other thing that's worth noting and Deborah, I know you're going to cover this, but I feel like it's worth hitting some punch lines. We are this is not an exciting budget that we're presenting to you today. It is a responsible one. And we're looking at a scenario in front of us where we're not foreseeing any dramatic changes in development activity as much as we'd like to see more housing come forward. I think we're not looking at major changes over the next twelve months in terms of revenue coming in. We did have lower revenue than expected last year. We've made some smart moves, and Deborah will go over them about how we collect our fees that will offset some of that revenue loss so that we actually are getting paid when we're doing the work, which you guys have opined on before, which is great and actually does impact our budget in a very positive way and helps us cover some of those losses. We're also doing smaller moves like reducing our footprint physically so that we can collect sublet rent and not pay as much just per square foot for our employees. So we're being smart about the space we use. We have lower grant revenue, but we'll continue to look for grants. So it's just a rational budget that allows us to keep doing the work we've been doing. No major additions to the work, no major additions to the revenue, but also no impacts to the work that you've supported us in doing over the past year. So with that.

[Deborah (Budget Manager, Planning Department)]: Thank you so much for that introduction and for covering some of the topics that I'm sure people would have had questions about. I appreciate that. So I will now get on to the boring presentation that nobody really ever wants to hear that we come to you twice a year with. So we do have a few slides from the mayor's office. We're going to present those to you first. And then the background and highlights are how we prepare to prepare the budget. The volume trends feed into the revenue expectations. And then, our expenditures are based off of what revenue we anticipate to get. The work program you have in your memo, and then, you know, again, we go over the calendar, but we'll be back in a few weeks after going to historic preservation. So, the overview from the mayor's office is, yet again, more deficit. So, no surprise there. It's been a few years that we've been hearing that. And we are looking to be responsible and as we have tried to be the last few years so that we can help and offset any citywide pain that people might be feeling. The projections that you see here are that expenditures citywide are going to outpace the revenues that we're getting. So again, everybody's asking for all departments to be fiscally responsible. At this point in time, we don't have a specific general fund reduction target from the mayor's office. So if we get that before we come back to you and before we have to publish our memo, we will absolutely share that with you. But at this point in time, we don't have that number. So we are looking at growth, which is great. Love that. But again, even our revenue growth from the slide before is less than the expenditure growth that's projected for the city. So with that, we will move on to the planning department more specifically. So we are, as we have been for a very long time, primarily fee based. And so the fees that are coming into us are building permits and planning applications. And one of the changes, as our director just referenced a moment ago, is that we are now going to be collecting 100% of fees for most building permit reviews upfront, whereas previously it was 25% upfront and then 75% at issue. So that does help us in our budget for the upcoming budget cycles. So that change was legislated, I think it was November 2025. And as always, we keep track of our revenue, and we keep track of our expenditures. And we cut back on spending where we can, when we can, if that needs to happen. In terms of budget instructions, we are sharing all of the information that we have with you right now. And for us, it is going to be primarily a status quo from the last few years. So as I mentioned before, we look at volume first. And we go volume, revenue, and then expenditures. So our volume is going to be about the same as the current year as far as we can anticipate. There were very, very active years through the 'fifteen to twenty eighteen years mostly. And things, obviously, the pandemic declined. We increased. And we're seeing a little bit of softening. But it's pretty much the same. So that is the volume that we're looking at. In terms of our revenue, so the fee revenue we're looking at pretty consistent for the next few years. And I think the big change that you're going to see here is grants. So last budget cycle, we had a number of very high dollar grants that we are not seeing offered at this point in time. If anything comes up that we're not aware of, we obviously will apply for it. But right now, we are putting in our budget the Ocean Protection Council for $7.35, the HUD Pro Housing for 1,500,000.0, and National Park Service for 40,000 because those are the ones that we believe that we can count on. So anything else would have to come in through an accept and expend process that goes through the Board of Supervisors. We hope that we can see more opportunities in the coming year than we're seeing at the current moment. But again, this is the information that we have. So that's the major change. Once or if we get a general fund support target reduction, we will adjust the budget and come back to you with that information. At this point in time, we don't have one. So we are using the base budget number. So for anybody who's not remembering, because we only come to you infrequently, you know, two hearings a year. So, it's base budget, department budget, mayor's budget, board of supervisors budget. So the base budget is where all departments start. So we're using those numbers for right now because we have not yet gotten a target number for any reductions. And, you know, hopefully they come back with us and say, hey, let's give you an addition instead of a reduction. That would be nice. I'm not going to hold my breath. So on the expenditure side, as always, the people are the big costs, right? The salary and fringe. So we are always the majority. This cycle, it's looking at 74%, and the next year, 76%. So basically, 75% of our budget is us. It's the people, the work we do, the work programs, the projects. And then overhead is not really something that we control. The controller's office puts that in there. I would like to point out, though, that we have a request for equipment this year. Oh, sorry. So projects is the line where the reduction in grants is reflected on this expenditure side. The IT equipment that we're requesting was out of date for maintenance in 2018. We've requested it for several years now. We are requesting it again because we do think that it's necessary to keep our infrastructure running. And so that's why you're seeing that big number there and zeros on either side. We tend not to ever really put in equipment requests. I think maybe in the ten years that I've been at planning, we put in a request for a vehicle because people need to go out and see sites. And our vehicle wasn't working anymore. But this is a very rare kind of request. I did want to point it out because we do think it's necessary. And again, we have requested it a few times, but every year that passes, it's a little scarier. And then interdepartmental services, we get those numbers from the other departments. They say, here's what we're going to charge you. So that's where those come from. And interdepartmental services, in particular, will continue to change because a lot of things are loaded from central agencies during the Mayors phase. So as you know, with everything here, there will be change. But the overhead number and the interdepartmental services, I think, are probably the big two that we don't have control over. They're just going to put them into our budget, we'll see what happens. So for an overview for the work program, this is as you can see, we've changed a few titles for our divisions. So development review used to be current planning. Environmental planning is still environmental planning. Community planning used to be citywide planning. But it's just a name change. It's not any financial change or anything that, aside from on paper, makes a very big difference to the work that you do here at the commission. Yeah, overall, our FTE, we're predicting to remain stable. And we shall see with any other changes that might come from above in the next few years. There might be some FTE changes. But for this budget and for the planning department, we think that things are going to be fairly status quo, at least financially. So we will continue to keep you informed on anything that might change. But again, for now, this is what our plan is, and this is what we know. So if anyone has questions, we are here to answer.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you, Deborah. That concludes staff presentation. We should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this informational presentation. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you, Deborah, for representing. I can only say over the years, this department has shown a steady hand on the helm. And you are clearly leaving those questions which are pending open and conditioning your presentation on what you know, how the department operates, and I greatly appreciate that. I have confidence in what you're saying. I'm very sad to hear that the essential numbers which have kept you buoyant over the past few years are again diminishing, and, that is, unfortunately part of the reality of where we are. So I'm in full support of this very thorough overview, including the, additional comments you provided for me. Thank you.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes, I'd say, first of all, this is not at all a boring presentation every year because our budget and the priorities reflected in it really reflect the priorities of the buying department. So I think it, in some ways, goes beyond just being a budget document. I appreciate the really thorough presentation. And looking at the current state of the budget document, I mean, it's certainly very sobering to see the need to continue to address the slower growth in revenues. And also, it's very striking how much the grant funding didn't come through. In fact, I was comparing against this budget document against the one we adopted last year, which I know went through further amendments through the merits process. But still, we had such a high assumption for the grants we'd be receiving in that year. And this is a big decline, so that's unfortunate. I think generally the priorities identified for this budget and for crafting it seem right to me. And I was trying to pay a lot of attention to the priorities reflected in it just because the document sort of alludes to those priorities being part of how we're competing for the general fund or I should say competing for, but how we're sort of putting forward our perspective on sort of the general fund needs. So I appreciate that. I am a little curious. I mean, is there sort of a back and forth process now with the general fund? Kind of along those lines, I know that it's not going to be well, all options are on the table for instructions we receive from the mayor's office, right? But do you have a sense of when those instructions might come through at a department level? Or is this just really hard to predict?

[Deborah (Budget Manager, Planning Department)]: Unfortunately, I do not. I think at this point, it's hard to predict. There are a lot of moving parts for the entire city. And so I would anticipate that we would get the information that the mayor's office shares at the same time as they share it with other departments. But I really wouldn't want to give you, oh, we're going to get this by next Tuesday without having any certainty there. I really only want to share information that I know is solid. And I cannot predict right now when that might happen. So I apologize.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: No, that's Okay. I appreciate you not going out on a limb that you shouldn't go out on. That's Okay.

[Deborah (Budget Manager, Planning Department)]: But we will definitely, of course, get back to you once we have additional information.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I had maybe two other questions worth your other questions. So one is, one thing I noticed I was also looking at any organizational changes that are sort of implied in the budget. And again, comparing against last year, there's definitely a couple of changes. And one thing that stood out to me is that this budget document refers to a lot of the environmental review functions being kind of pulled into current planning. I might not have the or development review, I guess it's called now. And that kind of stood out to me just because I saw how many more full time equivalent positions were in environmental under environmental review last year when we looked at that budget. So I'm just curious if anyone could shed light on what types of environmental review sort of functions have been shifted into development review.

[Tom (Planning Director)]: Yeah. Maybe I'll start on a meta question. And then we're joined both by Lisa Gibson, our ERO, and Liz Wadi here, who can speak a little more to the details. But one thing to note, I do think it's important. It was not something Deborah dwelled on. But as you look at our work program overview, it does reflect the kind of changes we've talked about, the unification of our community equity team and our citywide planning team, now called community planning, which we're very excited about. And I just want to make sure you all understand that doesn't mean a change in work program. It just means those teams are doing it together. So the projects we were still working on and the focuses we still had are still there. So that's one thing that's reflected here. You will also see and I'm not going to get the FTEs right. So Liz and Lisa, I'm going to turn to you about some of the integration of our environmental planning team into current planning so that on the lower tiered environmental reviews, we have a more seamless system rather than it being a project over here and then a project over here. It's a little more unified. So they can speak to that. But it is only a part of environmental review. And then embedded environmental review and in our other divisions, we do have a component there where we are and I just want to make sure you all are aware of this because this is also how we're trying to guard against any potential future cuts that may come from the mayor's budget office. We've been very cautious over the past six months for any vacancies that we've gotten to only fill them if they are fundamentally required and there's no way we can operate otherwise. And that's important to me as a director. I know it's important to our team because that is our best way of guarding against layoffs. We still have those positions. We can still fill those positions. There's one on environmental review. For example, we just lost Liz White. We were very sad about that, not yet backfilling her on that. Hopefully, we will be able to backfill her on that. But we're going to hold on those backfills until we're sure that we don't have future cuts to get so that those cuts don't have to result in layoffs. And we can deal with them through vacancies. So I just wanted to clarify that as well. And then, Liz, maybe I'll turn

[Masha Geller (Public commenter, 301 Bryant resident)]: it over

[Tom (Planning Director)]: to you. And Lisa, you should join in.

[Liz Watty (Deputy Director, Development Review)]: Sure. So I'd say at a very high level how we've thought about bifurcating or sort of the not consolidation of our divisions, but rethinking about the work and how some aspects of the work of environmental review and development review can become one, we've really looked at breaking apart the environmental review process to some degree and what our current functions are. And so the folks that are moving over are folks that already work really hand in hand with the folks who are in our current planning division. So their day to day job doesn't really feel all that different because they were doing that kind of work. And it just made sense to sort of align them. So for example, part of our intake process right now involves doing a pretty robust environmental screening as part of the intake process. And so we already had two folks who were sitting in the environmental planning division previously who are now just joining our intake team in current planning. So we're more deeply embedding them in that team, but they're continuing to do that same screening process. Another example is we had dedicated cultural resources staff who are in our environmental review division. We specifically had three people who are sitting over there. We have and I'm going to completely butcher the exact number, but I would say in the high teens number of historic preservation staff who are sitting in current planning. They work really closely together. They already have combined cultural resources staff meetings regularly together. So those staff are joining. But again, still focusing on the environmental review side of cultural resource review, but embedding them more closely with the rest of that team who's already doing that. And then lastly, we have a couple folks moving over. And I would say this is part that's actually the more we're kind of feeling it. We're going to feel it out a little bit and see how this works. But for levels of environmental review that are below EIRs so exemptions, CPEs, GPEs, neg decks, things of that nature moving staff over and more so embedding them in our development review teams, where they will be the sort of environmental review expert on those teams for those projects, with the goal really being in the short term that we've got a planner who's working on a new office tower downtown that's maybe eligible for an egg deck or a GP or something of that nature, that you would have your colleague who sits on the same team who's an expert environmental review doing that part of it. The idea being that in time, maybe that entire project, the development review and the environmental review, could be done by the same person. We know we've got a long training road ahead of us to ever get to that stage. But starting by embedding the same people on the same team, even just the proximity of being in the next cube close to each other in the same team meetings, is sort of our goal on that. And so what remains then in the Environmental Planning division and Lisa can certainly speak to this is public projects. A huge portion of the work of our environmental planning team that often doesn't come to this commission is our public projects that still need environmental review. And if you think about it, really very, very few of those are housing projects. So those aren't ones that have really benefited from a lot of the streamlining. So there's still a lot of that work to be done, as well as EIRs that are just their own complicated beasts. And there's a lot of unique expertise in the Environmental Planning Division that it just made sense to keep those really there are few of them, but they're intense. They require a high level expertise. So that's sort of the bifurcation that we're looking at is the stuff that really feels more of sort of the churn and burn part of the routine development review projects. Let's try to integrate that more closely. And then the stuff that's a lot more complicated or unique or doesn't have that synergy or crossover with development review projects stays in environmental planning. Might have missed something there, Lisa, but jump on in.

[Lisa Gibson (Environmental Review Officer)]: Thank you, Liz. Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer. And I think that Liz and our director covered it very well. And so the only thing that I would just add is that we are, of course, still committed to implementing CEQA and ensuring that all of our work complies with CEQA. This is not about downsizing environmental review. It's just, as has been explained, reorganizing where it occurs. And I think that for the Environmental Planning Division, we will remain focused primarily then on our public projects. I should say focused in the sense of the balance of the projects at this point are largely public in nature, given the state of development applications. And over time, when there's an uptick, we know that will happen, we'll evaluate our staffing and determine where we will be doing the backfilling. But the changes that we're making are intended in part to enable us to be more flexible, to be able to pivot that staff who have expertise on ministerial projects can do that work. And if there's CEQA review that's required, that we can do that as well, but that people have more cross training. And that is reflective of the organization of most large cities planning departments in the state. So we're kind of moving towards that model.

[Liz Watty (Deputy Director, Development Review)]: And I would just say one other thing that I think is really important to us is we know a lot of the work of planners has really changed over the last several years. It's certainly a lot different than when I started as a current planner. And so we're also, as an organization, looking at ways that we can introduce professional growth opportunities for our staff and opportunities to learn. So we saw this as no one has to take on environmental review who didn't start. No one who started as environmental review has to take on development review. But we're creating kind of an ecosystem that for those planners who want to grow, who maybe have seen the type of work that they're working on change in a way that they want to do something different, it's a little more natural and easy to pivot and take on and learn a little bit more. So I just wanted to plug that we saw that as another really important part of this.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: All right. Thank you for that very thorough explanation. And it sounds very promising. It sounds like a process that could enhance our efficiency by aligning the staffing around the processes that it takes to actually get projects reviewed and approved. So I really appreciate that. The flexibility in having people cross trained makes perfect sense to me. So I hope we can just continue to hear some updates on how the reorganization is going. I'll just ask one other question, and that is I'm curious about the state of the equity team. I know that we have now moved into a phase of implementing our second phase equity plan across the department, and so we need to have folks working in all the divisions on that. But the three staff who are still assigned to equity, are those three specific people? Or is that more of a full time equivalence? And then also, do they kind of fit within the organization right now?

[Tom (Planning Director)]: Yeah. And this is what is so hard about breaking ourselves down into divisions. And I think we heard it a little bit when we were just talking about how do we do environmental review moving forward in the context state laws and how are we working as a team, I think our equity work is similar. There are parts of our work that break down cleanly into divisions. And then there's a whole lot of parts that really should work together. And so when we try to shove people into divisions, the blurring that I think we were just talking about in that aspect and in the aspect of our equity work isn't shown because you have to put it on one side or the other. So it always makes me a little uncomfortable, frankly. And it's

[Lydia So (President)]: hard to talk about.

[Tom (Planning Director)]: And I think it shows darker divisions than we want. So a couple of things, as I mentioned. And then I'm going to point to Lisa and to Claudia Flores, who are here today as well. So as I noted, our community equity team, when it existed in its own division, smaller division, retained a couple of components of work. Some of those were community projects and community liaisons work, where we're working directly with communities. Some of that was our racial and socially equity work for the department internally as our HR team and externally in terms of how we work with the world and communities and deal with our code. And then there's our Equity Council as well. And so in this blurring of lines that we've created where we've unified community equity and citywide planning, our liaison work, our community planning work is still happening through the team there. They're working directly with communities. And then we did retain a core team that we're calling our equity team here just for the purposes of explanation that really serves the entire department and isn't in a division. They're working with current planners, with community planners, with our admin team on our hiring and other processes that are really focused on specific equity actions internally in the department, externally as we work with communities in terms of how we work, and our Equity Council. And so we have a team of three planners. One of the amazing things as and I don't want to say that we've created capacity within Lisa Gibson but she has volunteered to do 120% of a job by adding leadership of that department wide serving equity work under her leadership with three staff there representing leadership from Ms. Flores, who's here to talk about that a little bit too. And so I don't know. I mean, if you guys have anything you want to add to that, please do. But Commissioner Braun or others, you may have specific questions just about the focus areas and the work they're doing that they can speak to.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Well, I think we've seen the plan and we've seen the efforts that we've been trying to implement. So I guess unless there's any major updates on that, I think I'm satisfied with the response. And Okay, so my takeaways from this are simply that I appreciate that we are trying to find an organization that works to have the department work more efficiently, especially given the budget difficulties. And I also want to make sure that we still have our eye on the equity plan implementation. It sounds like that is still happening, and there's a lot of thought going into that. So I appreciate that. Claudia

[Claudia Flores (Equity Team Lead, Planning Department)]: Flores. Yes, there aren't any major updates. We're just you adopted the phase two just in June. So as we've been realigning, we're just kind of figuring out what should we start in terms of prioritizing. But we can come back. The next update to the Office of Racial Equity is due later this spring. So we can come back and give you kind of a more comprehensive update on where we are with implementation at the time.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I'd appreciate that. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun, you always ask the questions I'm going to ask. But it's really actually, it's good to hear. I am actually proponent of cross collaborative functions, especially now that there is I mean, we have to accept it. I mean, the world is changing. Planning is changing. And we are in a world where multiuses are the kind of multiuses in land use are probably going to be the more effective one instead of having separate silos that really limits communication and how we work together. And so I appreciate that there is actually a move toward cross collaboration. I think for me, it's also making sure that when we're doing this cross collaboration, there is constant communication, and especially for me when it comes to the community planning and with the equity and the environmental. And it's nice to see also in the graph that overarching of this is equity. And so I hope that in the future hearings that we're going to have, I'd like to hear how the equity is really working in different departments and how is the staffing informing one another and how are they being coordinated. I think that is really important. One thing that I also have question on is around goals that from the last year that seems like it's going to be seemed in this year. And it seems like vacant positions may I I tried to be realistic. Vacant positions may stay vacant. And so that also worries me in terms of the equity. There were ones from last year that we talked about liaisons in some communities. And I'm afraid that that may stay vacant. And in these times, I'd like to hope the department can prioritize when it comes to delays on the be prioritized of this budget and not be especially that we may anticipate another cut. So that's one thing that I'd like to highlight on for the budget. And also from last year, had this conversation about, for us in the commission, tracking of really what's going on in terms of the plans. I think last year, Commissioner Braun was suggesting perhaps twice a year or perhaps toward the end of the year we get some updates on what's working on in terms of the priorities especially laid out in the budget plan and where we're at on that. Like when I was looking into the and housing element implementation, those are the things that we talked about last year. And also I'd like to hear what are we in terms of those implementation strategies. Kind of like what we've done in the family zoning plan where there is constant updates in the commission, I hope we can still have that constant updates about the housing element implementation. And I don't know if that would be through the community planning division at that point, right? So that's one thing that I hope that throughout becomes a practice that we actually track on where we're at perhaps toward the end of year so that for the budget is coming, we already have a sense of like, Okay, what's actually what's being continued and where we're at on this? I just want to

[Tom (Planning Director)]: Sure, Fiorella. I want to acknowledge all those comments and just maybe working backwards so we can talk about what we can do to respond to On the work program updates, think that's excellent. One of the really hard things about presenting a budget to you today is that we can't go through all of the various components that make up the work program of that budget. So we'll talk to our senior managers about how we do kind of a cadence of updates on the divisions portfolios and work programs and key projects just so you have a better sense of what we're working on. And then I really love the idea of kind of an end of year, what would we accomplish, what haven't we. So thank you very much for that suggestion. And I know we're not covering too much of that today because we're covering the numbers side of things. But I want to acknowledge, I think that's an excellent point. And then the other thing to know, I do just want to make a point. Thank you for understanding that I think hopefully we don't keep our vacancies vacant forever. There's a certain amount of vacancies we'll have to keep for attrition that is part of the budget process all the time. But we are being additionally extremely cautious just for this period in time when we don't have cuts from the mayor's office and we're worried we might get some. So that's hopefully a point in time that we'll be able to move past, will address some of your concerns. So our goal is not to keep them vacant forever. It's just to be prudent about when we fill them so that we don't put ourselves at a risk of layoffs just when we're about to face a budget and there may be more cuts coming from the mayor's office. And I think your point on liaisons and other work is well taken. We always have more work that we want to do than we can do, particularly the last couple of years as our budget has not been great. That said, we are trying to be strategic about how we do things with the class collaboration model. So we were really excited to be able to appoint and ramp up since the beginning of the year a Bayview liaison, which we have not had. And we're doing that through people we already have, which is fabulous. But it actually is a really great model because one of our great planners that is filling that role also has worked in current planning and understands how projects in that neighborhood are rolling out and is a really great explainer and conduit for the neighborhood about those changes. So all that is to say, hopefully, we'll fill them eventually. Until then, we'll try to be strategic because we share those goals.

[Lydia So (President)]: Well, there's a lot of questions and answers. And I actually wanted to just make a note to say that despite all the challenges that are actually out of anyone in this room's control. Looks like these revenues coming in, the biggest cut is federal grants and state grant. And that has tied into the shift of who is in the White House. And we really I hope San Franciscan, we're not gonna forget climate change is real. And it's really evident to show that these where the money and focus is going to somewhere else and that's kind of disheartening. But we are stay on course and I am the only thing that I'm hopeful is we will have a much more positive growth in the local tax growth, seeing our economies picking up. Everyone's having parties everywhere. Everyone is moving into these offices. So I am really hopeful that the market is a little bit more bullish this year. And that will help us a little bit more. But I do really want to say Deborah and Tom and also a what's her name again? Bianca. Bianca, right. Bianca. I really

[Deborah (Budget Manager, Planning Department)]: Bianca and I think, get all of the credit for this Well,

[Lydia So (President)]: and you took the hit. You have to stand here and tell us this presentation. I mean,

[Deborah (Budget Manager, Planning Department)]: I I put on a suit.

[Lydia So (President)]: Nice. Thank you. I really want to appreciate, despite these situations and also the evolutions of organizational changes that have been happening and will be happening more, you actually stay on the course and keep the mission of our planning department of holding on the same allocation on resources and funding to address our equity and community program, housing policy and housing element implementations. Those things are really important for just adjustable San Francisco. So I really appreciate that. And I am just looking forward to just continue to just stay on course. And I hope that our morale will continue to be positive in this. We're all in it together. And thank you for keeping the budget, making sure that we're not losing sight on what is really important to the core mission of our department.

[Deborah (Budget Manager, Planning Department)]: Thank you.

[Susana Rojas (Executive Director, Calle 24 Latino Cultural District)]: Thank you.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for all the hard work you guys do as department heads or I should say department heads in the planning. I'm glad thank you for the commissioners for asking so many great questions. A lot of the questions that I had rolling around in my head were along those lines. One of the things that I just wanted to bring up that I think is important I mean, it's important to me is the fact that our housing element, our current housing element, was centered on racial and social equity. And I'm glad that our commissioners are focused on that. It's important that the planning department center its work on racial and social equity. And so I'm not thrilled to understand that there's been some changes there. I understand that the reality is reality as far as funding and stuff like that and reorganization. But I just want to put it out there that it's important work. And I think once a year, maybe for me, I think, is too much time to let pass to understand what's being done and how everything is as far as our equity folks that are still available at the planning department, how they're integrating into other work, and how that's all I'm interested in that. And I'd like to hear it more than once a year. I think it requires more frequent understanding of how all of this is playing out. And so I just wanted to make that point. Thank you, again, for all your hard work. I know it's challenging, especially during these times where there's so many changes not specifically are doing as a city or as a planning department. A lot of the changes that have been made at the state level and federal level are affecting things. So anyway, those are my comments. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'd also like to thank you for your presentation. It's a tough one. This is a budget, but it's a very modest budget. The fact that 75% is people and basically equity can only come from people. And if it's if the equity is actually built in to the people who are doing and those individual silos are being broken down from a cross training point of view or construction from a cell structure point of view. One person is there, the other person slots in. It's a plug and play. It's the ideal system and what makes it's what ideally makes things work as efficiently as possible. We will come out of this construction. It was 2024. We'll stay alive till '25, and '25 was terrible. 2026 is teed up, and it's teed up for all the work that's being done here. And, basically, in the department, the hard work with the 75% that is all people who make up this budget, 2026 out there is is looking good. Everybody, every construction company I speak to basically are looking at 2026 like, wow, it's finally about to pop. So I think the thinking's built in. The work is being done. And I want to applaud you all for what you

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: do and how you're doing it. Thank you.

[Deborah (Budget Manager, Planning Department)]: I think we all hope that's true and that would be great news.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Stay optimistic.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay commissioners if there's nothing further we can move on to item 10 for case number twenty twenty Five-ten 671 PCA expansion of limited commercial uses planning code amendments

[Veronica Flores (Legislative/Policy Staff, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon commissioners Veronica Flores planning department staff the next item is the limited commercial uses expansions ordinance introduced by supervisor fielder and we are joined by miss Anna Herrera to introduce the item thank you

[Anna Herrera (Legislative Aide to Supervisor Jackie Fielder)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Anna Herrera, and I'm here on behalf can you still hear me? Do I have to do this? Okay. I'm here on behalf of district nine supervisor Jackie Fielder. This legislation was created out of circumstances that arose when a beloved small business in our district, Casa Maria, a neighborhood grocery store, attempted to legalize a rare yard structure that the business has relied on since its store opening twenty years ago. Casa Maria is located in the Mission District at 23rd And South Van Ness within the Calle Binti Cuatro Latino Cultural District. The store sells fresh produce, meat, and Latin American food staples at reasonable prices and is a longstanding neighborhood anchor. The store operates seven days a week and is rarely closed, as the store owner, Mr. Socorro Arana, known as Coco Tomost, takes very seriously his commitment to serve the local community, particularly low income families and seniors who rely on the store. The store's refrigerators are located in the rear yard structure. And without this expanded space, Mr. Arana has explained he would have to cease operations, which would be devastating to the community. Under current laws, there's no way to permit this rear yard structure for Casa Maria, despite how long it's been in use and the store's broad community support. In order to help Casa Maria and potentially other small businesses in similar circumstances, Supervisor Fielder introduced this ordinance to allow limited commercial use businesses, or LCUs, to make minor expansions provided that the expansion does not encroach or expand into residential use, which is key. We appreciate planning staff's recommendations to ensure the intent of this ordinance is met and are in support of all of them. Thank you to Veronica Flores for your support on this ordinance. Mr. Socorro Ariana, the store owner of Casa Maria, is here and will speak at public comment. And I am here to answer any other questions as well. Thank you.

[Veronica Flores (Legislative/Policy Staff, Planning Department)]: Again, the proposed ordinance in front of you supports our limited commercial uses or LCUs by providing them a little more flexibility to be able to expand. Today, LCUs are not allowed to be enlarged, expanded, intensified, but the proposed ordinance would allow PATH to do so. I do want to emphasize that the non residential use size limits would still apply. So there is that safeguard there. Many of these LCUs are also small businesses, so the proposed ordinance creates a path to expand their operations if needed and does so in as easy a manner as possible. The proposed ordinance emphasizes that the expansions should not include any residential conversions or residential demolitions as defined under three seventeen. Get a little bit more into this during the recommended modifications. The proposed ordinance also allows LCUs to expand into the required regard and do so through a zoo administrator review outside of the variance hearing process. And this allows the administrative review to review and approve exceptions from the rear yard requirements of section 134. The department supports the overall goals of this proposed ordinance. Again, it helps support our LCUs, many of which are small businesses. It strengthens the viability of the city's neighborhood serving small businesses, And, it allows these reasonable modifications and expansions to help these businesses, in some cases, really survive. The department recommends you adopt a recommendation of approval with three modifications. The first recommended modification is related to protecting tenants' rights and housing services. Housing services are defined under the administrative code as a service provided by the landlord in connection with the use of a rental unit. So there needs to be these need to be written within the lease or other contract agreement. Some examples typical examples include off street parking, laundry facilities, or storage areas. The recommended modification is to require that applicants and or the property owner submit an affidavit identifying any existing housing services and confirming that these that the tenants have been notified and that any proposed relocations have been made and or any just compensation has been provided if any of these housing services have been removed. We do have a similar process in place under our local ADU program currently, so you may be a little familiar with that process already. The second recommended modification is to establish clear criteria and thresholds for the zoning administrator to apply or consider when reviewing the request to expand into the required regard. As currently drafted, the proposed ordinance prevents these lcu expansions from triggering any residential conversions or demolitions through section three seventeen that does not account for perhaps some minor expansions that do not trigger the thresholds of three seventeen and in order to really meet the goals and the intent of the ordinance we want to safeguard

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: all of

[Veronica Flores (Legislative/Policy Staff, Planning Department)]: the residential space of the primary unit. So we will continue to work with the supervisor on this amendment And some potential items for consideration would be thinking about the loss of open space, if any, and evaluation of whether the waiver addresses a demonstrated practical difficulty for the LCU. We also want to make sure that we include additional flexibility for corner lots, which is similar to how we review rear yards or rear yard exceptions for non LCUs. Lastly, the department recommends that the ordinance be amended to prohibit LCUs from expanding into any portion of the residential use or the residential unit. Again as drafted the ordinance talks about residential demolitions or conversions as triggered under 03/17 oftentimes this involves either the complete removal or elimination of a residential use, but it does not really consider when there is the minor expansion that I mentioned earlier. And in those cases, it essentially results in a smaller residential unit. To be clear, we do not want any of these LCU expansions to have that impact or have that effect. So we will continue to work with the supervisor and the city attorney's office to really make sure that this is clear in the proposed legislation that expansions will not in any way reduce the square footage of that primary unit. Again, the recommendation is that you adopt a recommendation of approval with modifications and as you heard earlier the supervisor is amenable to all of the staff recommended modifications this concludes the staff presentation I'm available for any questions thank you

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: okay with that we should open up public comment Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward.

[Anna Herrera (Legislative Aide to Supervisor Jackie Fielder)]: Mr. Herradona is going to speak in Spanish. I'm going to translate for him. Good afternoon, Commission. My name is Socorro Arana, and I have owned Casa Maria Produce Market for twenty years. Casa Maria sells vegetables, fruit, and typical Latin American foods. With the support of organizations like Calle Benciquatro and MEDA, we sell foods such as fruits and vegetables to low income families at a significant discount so we can help the entire community maintain good health. At Casa Maria, I have watched customers grow from babies to adults. And we have customers of all ages, including seniors, who depend on our store. We are open seven days a week all year round. Since I opened the store twenty years ago, we have always used the backspace for our refrigerators that keep all our food fresh. Without being able to maintain the space for the business, I would have to close my store. I am here to ask for your support of this legislation, which benefits all small businesses in the neighborhood like Casa Maria. Thank you very much.

[Susana Rojas (Executive Director, Calle 24 Latino Cultural District)]: Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Susana Rojas and I am the executive director of Calle Venti Cuatro Latino Cultural District. And I am here to express our strong support for the legislation spending limited commercial use as presented today, and highlight why this matters through our real community rooted example, Casa Maria. Casa Maria has served the Mission District for decades and is a trusted neighborhood serving business that provides essential groceries and culturally relevant foods for working families, seniors, and longtime residents. It is not just a store, it is a part of daily life and a fabric of our community. Without the ability to expand its limited commercial use, Casa Maria faces serious operational constraints that put its long term viability at risk. This legislation gives businesses like Casa Maria the flexibility they need to remain open, compliant, and community serving. Supering this legislation is about protecting legacy small businesses, preventing displacement, and ensuring that cultural districts like Calle Benciquatro remain vibrant and accessible to communities that they were created to serve. We look forward to hearing from you guys, and we support Don Coco with all of our heart, we can't wait to hear your results. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Last call for public comment. Okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: SPEAKER Commissioner LeBron.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: SPEAKER I'd just like to thank the supervisor for bringing this legislation forward. I agree with the intent. And just kind of broadly speaking, I'm glad that we're moving as a city towards kind of a greater acknowledgment a greater acknowledgment of the reality that we have all these longstanding mixed use areas with commercial uses distributed among residential areas and that we are making it easier for the businesses in those spaces to remain open or for new businesses to open in them. And I also want to point to our that's not related to this legislation, but the legislation that was passed a few years ago about allowing limited commercial uses in residential districts, also known as the corner store legislation. So we're actually on sort of a path of really rebuilding and supporting what makes the urban fabric of the city great. And it's these walkable community anchors and destinations that are a big part of that. I fully support the legislation. I also fully support the staff recommended modifications, in particular the modification about needing clarification about the criteria for the zoning administrator was something that immediately stood out for me. And then once that's out and there's staff recommended modifications, I was glad to see it there. But this is my full support. Thank you.

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

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thank you. This also has my full support. I think cases like Casa Maria shine a light on well intended code that just has become outdated and really creates an opportunity for us to right a wrong, not just for Casa Maria, but for LCUs across the city. So thank you. And I thank also the supervisor for bringing it forward. He has my full support. I also support all of the recommendations to the modifications made by staff. And curious what other commissioners have to say, but I would make a motion to adopt a recommendation of approval with staff's recommended modifications. Second.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Yes, I too think this is a good piece of legislation. Obviously, I've been to Casa Maria, and we've shopped there. I think probably a lot of people, if you live in the city, probably have walked down 24th Street. And it's obvious that this is a neighborhood center. And so obviously, we want to make sure that places like Casa Maria are able to thrive and survive because they do a great service to the community. And so I'm in full support of the legislation. But I did have a question about the rear yard, thinking through how all that's going to work out. And so Corey Teague, do you have I didn't

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: mean to

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: put you on the spot. But you're going to work with the supervisor and figure out some parameters around this?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator)]: Thank you, commissioner Williams, the question. Corey Teague, zoning administrator. Yeah. As you mentioned, LCUs, by definition, are in our residential districts. So these are gonna be properties that have a required rear yard. So what this ordinance would do would be, right now, if you want to extend into your required rear yard, that requires a variance. This would say under these circumstances, there could be an administrative path to allow that extension to the required rear yard. As drafted, there's no real criteria for review for the zoning administrator to consider when determining whether to grant that exception or not. And so we identified that there need to be some criteria for review. And just like the common sense ones, some of the that they were basically already read out in terms of considering what are the impacts to housing services on the property, what would be the impacts to open space, You know, kind of assessing the need, like a want versus a need for the LCU. And then just in general, looking at are there any potential negative impacts on adjacent properties? That would kind of be the process, but it would be administrative as opposed to being a process like a variance that requires a public hearing, etcetera. So it wouldn't technically be a separate application and a separate process. It would be something that would be reviewed and considered and decided as part of just the project application.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I have 100% confidence in you as a zoning administrator that you will take all the delicate intricacies of business and residents into consideration when you make your decisions. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I think this is a good piece of legislation. I'm very supportive of the very detailed and sensitive modifications that planning has suggested. I have one question for Ms. Flores, if I may, that is also probably including our zoning administrator. Sometimes when a reel yard is small and directly on a corner lot influences units next on either side, the issue of noise, I think, is definitely a consideration. And I would like to see that that is being considered that, for example, in most of these places, the bedrooms face to the rear, that there is indeed, at odd hours, not any intrusion of noise or level of comfort for those people who live in the adjoining properties. That would be my biggest concern. It's not spelled out. I'm sure it will be considered. But I'd like to just raise a flag on that because noise travels incredibly loud, particularly in off hours, that is garbage can removal, people going to opening and closing wheel shed doors, etcetera. I would like that to be considered, but otherwise, I'm in full support. Had you discussed that? I see zoning administer Teague nod on the subject matter.

[Veronica Flores (Legislative/Policy Staff, Planning Department)]: Thank you, Commissioner Moore. So we have started brainstorming and thinking about the different items or topics for consideration. So certainly, it's really also thinking about what we already consider, too, and then adding that finer grain of detail for these LCUs. So I imagine noise has come up as a concern or consideration before. But as I mentioned before, we will continue to workshop this criterion or list. And then we'll be able to move forward in the next step of the legislation. We continue to working on this.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I appreciate your considering it. I would like to also add bright lights. When at sleeping hours bright lights go on, it disturbs tenants in bedrooms to the way of buildings as well. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. First, thank you, Supervisor Fielder's office, legislative coming here and explain the reason why. And it's because of one small businesses, but I think there's also many. I lived in this mission. Literally, a couple of days ago, I was walking down Folsom Street starting 26th and then 25th and just keep walking towards where my next Muni stop, just keep going to 16. And I was just looking at I was thinking, this is how vibrant Mission neighborhood is. If anyone can just rent a little tiny units and they can just go to every block, there's a corner grocery stores. They can just go get their veggies and milk and other things that they can sustain themselves. They don't have to even get on the bus and go to a Safeway. So I think it is the fabric that you created in your grocery store at kind of basically at the legacy and tapestry of that vibrancy of mission. And I am in full support of try to make anything we can to make your business thrive, continue to thrive, commending the tapestry of our mission district. And I also really thank you, staff. Our zoning administrator and our legislative liaison actually worked really closely with Supervisor Fielder to really hone into all the technicalities that makes it work. And one thing that you mentioned, Veronica, that is try to make it consistent with the ADU regulations. I think it might be helpful to kind of put some numeric square footages in terms of what are we talking about here when we allow the expansions because restrooms or refrigerator, depending on what the businesses are, could be small or could be rather big. So if that could be I trust that you know what to do taking it on further. Just because we have I mean, it's an evolution. Like our ADUs, I remember where Veronica started at. It was like a lot of different kinds of ADUs. And then now to the point where we have a two page, double sided, 11 by 17 big table, and everyone can clearly know that for a business owner or for homeowners, it's like, Okay, if I am this and this, I can do that. And I can expand to certain square footages or percentage or whatever the matrix is. And I think it just create that source of streamlining the understanding of the processes for both departmental review, administrative level review, and also for local businesses and supervisors way to help to I hope you will spread the message to all your friends who own other stores down the block, every block, that this is where you can do. And so there's no confusions. And hopefully, everyone feel more confident and continue to serve our much needed communities for milk, groceries, and broccoli. So thank you. I'm in support of it. And then I think two more commissioners would like to come in, then we're ready for a vote. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. Just briefly, I want to say I want to second Commissioner Moore's point about some of the criteria taking into consideration noise and bright lights. I'm really glad that you brought that up. Three of the four places I've lived in San Francisco were above, adjacent to, or across the rear yard from commercial uses. And I can attest to having had some challenges with all of those considerations. So yeah, I just want to say that. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Commissioner Campbell? I wanted to confirm if that's something I should add to my motion, the points that my fellow commissioners have made around ensuring that that gets added to the dialogue moving forward with the supervisor and concerns around tenant sensitivity to light and sounds? Is that something that we can incorporate in some way that that gets addressed?

[Veronica Flores (Legislative/Policy Staff, Planning Department)]: Thank you, Commissioner Campbell. Yes, you're always certainly able to do so. But I think sitting here and Ms. Herrera is here, we have had some of these conversations and will continue to do so. So I can assure you that we will have these in the discussions and whatever format it is. But certainly, if you feel the need to have that additional level of assurance, you're able to do so today.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I think just acknowledging the comments is sufficient because we are not legislators. You will figure out how to best integrate that into the criteria by which you will be reviewing future applications. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Perfect. Then the motion stands. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Very good, commissioners. If there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications. On that motion, Commissioner Campbell?

[Sue Bushnell (Public commenter, neighborhood resident)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner) – time-bound override]: Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commissioner President So.

[Lydia So (President) – time-bound override]: Aye. So moved. Commissioners that motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commissioners that will place us on the final item on your agenda today as item 12 has been continued. Item 11, case number 2020Five-eleven852 PPS for the property at 329 Bryant Street.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: This is an informational presentation as it relates to SB four twenty three. Project sponsor, have five minutes.

[Steve Allen (Stanton Architecture, Project Sponsor)]: I want to plug in for presentation. Sure. Can I do that?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: I think you have to pull out the mouse connection. It's on the other side. Or maybe not. I don't know.

[Steve Allen (Stanton Architecture, Project Sponsor)]: I'll try and make this quick. My name is Steve Allen. I'm from Stanton Art

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: right, Steve. We go to the presentation on the computer? Thank you. Go ahead.

[Steve Allen (Stanton Architecture, Project Sponsor)]: I'll most likely just leave it on this page unless anyone wants to see more. My name is Steve Allen. I'm with Stanton Architecture.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Could pull up your microphone, please? Thank you.

[Steve Allen (Stanton Architecture, Project Sponsor)]: Okay. If that works. How's that? I'm I'm Steve Allen. I'm with Stanton Architecture on behalf of ownership. Thank you for allowing me to present this project for 329 Bryan Street as a residential shower. This is being submitted under SB three thirty to lock in the planning code and also serves as a notice of intent to submit a housing development project pursuant to SB four twenty three. It's also using the state density bonus to have a 100% increase in the base building original units. It has 130 units, and so if we're asking for an additional 130 units for a total of two sixty units, The height would increase to 33 stories with an additional three stories below grade of Bryant Street with three stories of parking with 139 stalls. The building is surrounded by three streets. It's Bryant to the North and then Federal Street and Rincon. And then adjacent to the north is the bridge off ramp from Fremont Street as well as the bridge. The project will, of course, comply with density bonus requirements and inclusionary housing requirements. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: If that concludes your presentation, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward. Last call for public comment.

[Sue Bushnell (Public commenter, neighborhood resident)]: I'm Sue Bushnell, and I'm a resident in the area that was projected up there on the screen. This has come to the attention of the residents very quickly. There are many major concerns. But one of them is traffic. If, in fact, you've approached the Bay Bridge in the evening or after a baseball game, the Bryant Street entrance, the 2nd Street entrance, the 3rd Street entrance, and then all along Brannan is a nightmare. So to a certain extent, I don't know what evaluations your committee implements. But I would certainly think it is extremely important to evaluate the traffic that will be increased during the construction and just living in general. Also, it's mentioned here that they're going to have 139 parking units, which is approximately half of the number of units. Right now, residential parking in this area is a nightmare. And it's very densely occupied. But the concerns about the traffic and I don't know how those are addressed. This is my first ever one of these committees. So how do you keep the neighborhood informed? How do you address our concerns, AKA traffic, density, and the whole thing? So I have questions for you guys, too. That's it. I'm done.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you. Next speaker. Okay, if there are no other additional requests, come on up then, folks.

[Masha Geller (Public commenter, 301 Bryant resident)]: Hi. I'm Masha Geller. I live at 301 Bryant. So the building that is being proposed will be less than 15 feet from my kitchen window. In fact, it will be in my kitchen window by about 15 feet. There's just simply not enough room for a building of this size to go on a lot that is less than half an acre. Sue has mentioned traffic. The Federal Street and Rincon Alley is the de facto approach to the Bay Bridge. There is no left turn there to get onto the bridge, but everybody does it anyway. The Bryant Street is the approach for HOV vehicles only for the Bay Bridge. That is not enforced at all. The entire neighborhood, the entire corner of where this building is supposed to be going up, is the de facto approach to the Bay Bridge. So you add 139 new cars, three thirteen bicycles to that tiny little postage stamp. And that's just a recipe for disaster. Not to mention that when the speeding cameras went up in San Francisco, our camera on Bryant Street 4,000 more speeding tickets than anybody else in the city. That's ours. That's the corner that we're talking about. That's the two block radius that we're talking about. And that's on a normal day. We have Chase Center games. We have Oracle Park games. We have Embarcadero events. We have the Ferry Building. It's a busy neighborhood. Not to mention, as you were talking before, this is no corner store. There's no commercial level planned. There's no broccoli, no eggs, no milk. No dry cleaner. Everybody who's going to be occupying this building is going to be using those 139 extra cars and three thirteen extra bicycles to add to the traffic. And did I mention? 15 feet from my kitchen window. Not just our building, 200 Brannan, 1 Federal, Bayside Village. It does not fit the character of South Park. Federal Street is a historically paved I'm not sure of the exact terminology, but the paving of that street is on a historic registry, has been for thirty six years. Half an acre, where are they going to put the cranes, the building materials? How are they going to ensure that that street is not damaged? Would love answers to all of these questions. Would love to know where they're going to put the crane, how they're going to deal with the traffic. Why there? Why such a gigantic tower on such a tiny, tiny spot that the neighborhood does not need that adds nothing to the neighborhood except traffic, congestion, an eyesore, and some really angry neighbors? That's it.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Last call for public comment. Okay, last chance. Okay, seeing none, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners. Again, this is just an informational presentation.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Just for the public who has not been listening to four twenty three or three thirty presentations, the Planning Commission themselves, as we sit here, are not really approving or denying the project. We are only here to take comment under specific state legislation, that is SB four twenty three and SB three thirty. We are only advisory. However, we are dealing with a limited set of information on which we'll be basing our comments today. Just want to let you know, we hear you. I appreciate your comment, particularly subtle observations by people who live next door. But that is unfortunately not what we are taking in today. I looked at this project, and here are my few comments. And I compared it to five fifty five BLC Wallot three thirty that we just had two weeks ago. It is a project which is quite large. It sits right down the street from you at the Ambercadero. And would I regret that today's project, not only in its submittal but also in the presentation that was made by the architect, falls short of letting me fully understand the extent of what you're trying to do. And again, it is informational only for us. And I would just comment that the information that was given to me makes it very difficult to understand the project, particularly how it operates on the Ground Floor and particularly how it deals with the two adjoining historic buildings. The middle building will be demolished. It is not a contributory. However, the other two buildings are. So those are my comments, And I regret that there was not a little bit more meat on the bone. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner O'Brien?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. And just to add on to the clarifications for those who came and spoke today, The actual approvals process for this project doesn't ultimately fall to this commission. It's going to be a matter of whether or not the project complies with the applicable objective existing planning code requirements, and local and state laws. However, the opportunity with this pre application discussion is the opportunity for the project sponsor to hear thoughts and input and local perspective on concerns and issues. And it's an opportunity for the project sponsor to determine whether or not to adjust the project based on that. And I do hope that you'll continue to hone and refine the project based on the input you hear here. And maybe as part of continued I would encourage you to continue engagement with the community as well to hear any other concerns because it can certainly make for a better project in the end for everyone in the new building and the existing buildings. And then also at the same time, department staff has not reviewed this project yet. And so these comments from commissioners are also an opportunity for staff to maybe give a second look at the project in certain areas just to make sure that we really are thoroughly reviewing the project as staff, department staff is very good, always does. Are oh, and just a note, as part of that review, is the environmental analysis as well, which may or may not identify any issues with traffic circulation or congestion. But again, that review has to happen. I had two thoughts about this project. I guess to the product sponsor, I have one question. So I noticed in the packet that it doesn't look like there is a plan for any of the three bedroom units to be deed restricted affordable housing. Is that correct as it's planned right now?

[Steve Allen (Stanton Architecture, Project Sponsor)]: I think they would be deed restricted. I think we are required to spread that evenly or proportionally across each of the different kinds. So if that's not listed, that's an oversight. And that would absolutely be a requirement from planning.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for that. And that was also something I was going to point out to the planning department staff that we should be looking at the unit parity for the affordable units because the packet right now, it says that the three bedrooms wouldn't none of them would be affordable. And then my only other comment is one of the best ways to reduce single occupant vehicle travel is to make it kind of inconvenient to park at the origin or destination of that trip. And as folks have noted, your parking ratio is about 0.5 spaces per unit right now. I understand it looks like it's probably a condo project and that there's some marketability issues with needing some parking on-site. But even so, I'm always in favor, both from a sustainability perspective as well as some of the comments we heard, of reducing the parking ratio to the extent possible, which provides encouragement for residents to take alternative means of transportation and maybe more environmentally friendly means of transportation than driving solo. So thank you.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yes. I just wanted to thank you, commissioners, for your comments. Just want highlight again what Commissioner Moore stated. We're just hearing this as a planning commission. State law has basically taken our authority away. It's an unintended consequence of SB four twenty three and SB three thirty. I don't always agree with a lot of the unintended consequences, like not having a say in what happens in your community. That part of it, have a real hard time with. I want to make that known. I've said this before, I think. And unfortunately, this will go through a ministerial process. And if everything checks out, hopefully the project sponsor will be sensitive to some of the concerns of the community and will listen to your neighbors. I think that goes a long way to foster some goodwill, understanding the circumstance. And so those are my comments. Thank

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

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I wanted to just point out to you what most likely is a typo on your part. I'm not sure if you have a document in front of you. On the project and land use tables, you are listing that you have two twenty affordable dwelling units, which I kind of doubt that that is probably the case. And you have 40 market rate units. I just want to point that out for you. Perhaps somebody has already told you I called it in so it could be corrected. But in any case, it needs to be reversed as you'll be submitting. Thank you

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: okay commissioners if there's nothing further that concludes your hearing today

[Lydia So (President)]: meeting is adjourned