San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay, good afternoon and welcome sorry. Good afternoon, and welcome to to the the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 02/26/2026. When an item is called that you would like to submit testimony for, 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, there will be a second chime, and 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. I'd like to take role. Commission President Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Here.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner McGarry. Present. Commissioner So.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: And commissioner Williams. Here. Thank you commissioners. We expect commissioner Moore to be absent today at the time of issuance and at this time there are no items proposed for continuance so we can move to our consent calendar. All matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff so requests. In which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item one, case number 2020Five-five235 CUA at 1270 Mission Street Conditional Use Authorization. Item two, case number twenty twenty Five-three625 CUA at 660 Sutter Street Conditional Use Authorization. And item three for case number twenty twenty five-ten thousand five hundred fifty four CUA at 1557 Slope Boulevard conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to adjust the commission and request that any of these consent calendar items be pulled off and heard under the regular calendar today or at a future hearing, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. Your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Commissioner Imperial. Move to approve all items.

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you commissioners on that motion to approve items on consent. Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner So?

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell?

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramitu Shaloni, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Rometu Shaloni 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.

[Sue Hester (Public commenter, remote)]: As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: 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/Clerk)]: Item five, consideration of adoption draft minutes for January 29 and 02/12/2026. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Motion to adopt the draft minutes from January 29 and February 12.

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So. Aye. Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: And Commissioner President Campbell.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously six to zero item six commission comments and questions.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Seeing Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you. Just a question on I'm noticing on the calendar we're having a lot of canceled meetings. And so I'm wondering, is that a product of not having a lot of activities as far as things that come through the commission? Or is it something else, like some of the code changes that have happened, the policy changes that have happened regarding streamlining and stuff like that? So I'm just kind of wondering about that.

[Zehra Wahid (Deputy Director, SF Planning)]: Sure thing. Happy to answer that. I would say it's a combination of the two. I don't have the exact spread in front of me. But sort of anecdotally, volume is down over our peak years. So pre COVID years, we're definitely still at a lower workload period, regardless of what type, than previously. But also, of the large projects that we do have in, many of them no longer require discretionary actions from the Planning Commission. So particularly housing projects, many of those no longer they're ministerial now, and so that they don't require approval from the Commission. So I'd say it's a combination of the two right now. I would say I do think things are starting to pick up. I'm hearing that from our staff. So I do anticipate there is going to be sort of more on the volume side. And I do think it will be proportionate. So I think your calendars will not be as light at the end of the calendar year as they are now.

[Sue Hester (Public commenter, remote)]: And

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: just kind of for the public information, to me, it seems like it would be good to understand how many of these projects that the planning department I don't know if you have that information somewhere are being done administratively and not through the planning commission. I think it's something for the public to understand why all these projects aren't coming through. And just for us to understand how all these new bills that have come online and all this, how it's kind of affecting how it's impacting our city in We different

[Zehra Wahid (Deputy Director, SF Planning)]: can certainly get some information. I would say the other thing is we always think about it as the housing projects. We've also done a lot of local legislation so that small businesses don't have to come to the commission. It used to be that every time a small business wanted to change from a coffee shop to serve wine, they would have to come to the planning commission. And a lot of those rules have also changed over the last five, ten years. And so that's also really changed the volume on that end. So it's really kind of crossed the gamut from small businesses, small residential, and larger residential projects. But yeah, we've got some stats we can pull and bring you guys some of that information over the next

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: few months. Yeah. Thank you for bringing that up around the small businesses. Something came up onto my radar recently about a small business that came. It was an over the counter permit and it was administratively approved. But it was in a SUD in the 4, Calle 24 Cultural District. And so, I'm not exactly sure what happened there, the but the cultural district wasn't informed of this new business. And and I would just say that, you know, one thing that I do know about CAI twenty four cultural districts and the other cultural districts as they're there also to welcome new businesses into into their cultural districts as well as inform them about the history of the community. And so there's a lot of benefit that comes with going through the CU process. And so that was something I just recently heard about, this one business that came into I don't wanna get into too much detail about it right now, but it it did come on my radar and it it it's concerning only because our cultural districts are very important to San Francisco. And they've been able to maintain themselves because of these policies and rules that apply to small business their cultural districts in their community. And so, I would just say that I think we might want to take a second look if things have changed as far as the cultural district SUD. And organizations like IA24, which play a pivotal role in the community. While I'm all for, you know, streamlining and making it easier for businesses, I also think it's important for them that business to understand where they're moving into to make those connections with existing businesses and the cultural districts that that have been there for me for I forgot to turn my phone off. I apologize.

[Ms. Tanner (Planning Department leadership, Community/Citywide Planning)]: It's all right. I could say, Commissioner Williams, that's a great point. In my team, we have a couple of liaisons. And one of our liaisons is with the Mission neighborhood. And we can reach out just to see what happened with this particular instance. And I know we are working with them on some other ideas they have about their land uses so we can fold that conversation in with them and see what we can do.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I appreciate that. Again, you know, I just wanna, you know, point to the importance that our cultural districts play in San Francisco. Know? And they have a wonderful legacy. They they make San Francisco a very special place. And so we need to respect everything that they bring to the city. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Just in the interest of sharing existing resources that allow anyone, including members of the public, to track the housing projects that are coming through, I'll just give a plug for the great technology resources the department has put together with the housing dashboard and the streamlined housing projects dashboard. They're on the department's website. I'm sure they'll come up in a Google search or whatever search engine one wants to use. And they include quite a lot of information. It's not maybe as easily digestible as a report that summarizes that information, but there is really detailed and extensive and frequently updated information on the department's website.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you, Commissioner Braun.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay, commissioners. Seeing nothing further, we can move on to department matters. Item seven, director's announcements.

[Zehra Wahid (Deputy Director, SF Planning)]: Sure. I'm happy to step in. Sarah will be joining later in the hearing. But for now, just wanted to give a quick update as it relates to sort of the upcoming department mergers. Tomorrow is our first milestone, the transfer of function, which is the official step that concludes, that transfers both the IT and data teams from the Department of Building Inspection, as well as the entire Permit Center. Both of those two entities will be joining us effective tomorrow. So I wanted to let you guys know that that transfer function is happening tomorrow. In terms of what this means pragmatically speaking, it's basically two shifts within the department. The first is that the permit center's customer service staff. So the permit center currently has basically customer facing, front of house staff that basically are like air traffic control on the 2nd Floor of the permit center helping customers get their permits. And that group of staff will be joining current planning. And they will be reporting up through Rich Sucre. So Rich Sucre already manages our public counter team, which is on the 2nd Floor and works really closely with those staff already. And so given his already close working relationship with that group of people and sort of the customer centric nature of that side of our work, we felt like that was a natural joining and integration of teams. The second group that is joining is basically the second half of the permit centers team, which are more of what I would call their back of house staff. So we've got project managers, data analysts, engineers, more of that group of folks. Those folks, as well as the Department of Building Inspections, IT, and data folks are going to be joining with our IT and data folks at planning, so creating one new data and analytics and IT team. That team is going to be led by Rebecca Villarreal Mayer, who is currently the head of the Permit Center. So she's going to be joining and taking a leadership role of that combined team. I'd say over the next several months, and particularly over the next six months, she's going to be working closely at not just sort of a plug and play on their existing team structures, but how can we have these three groups of folks really integrate and work efficiently, serve again our driving missions of land use development and the other functions within the planning department, DBI, and the permit center charges. So anyhow, just wanted to give you guys that update that that first phase, which is the big phase, is happening tomorrow. And thanks to everyone who's put in all the hard work to make it happen. So we'll keep you posted.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Commissioner So? Well, I wanted to take this opportunity to thank for all the department staff. I'm pretty sure you guys worked tirelessly trying to figure it all out in this past month. So a huge thank you. One other question I was wondering, what about the code enforcement part of the you know, because DBI has their own, and then we have our own.

[Zehra Wahid (Deputy Director, SF Planning)]: Yep. So as I think Sarah mentioned a couple of weeks ago, this is the first phase of what will likely be three phases of sort of alignment or sort of integration of different teams. So the code enforcement functions will be the part of the third phase. They're sort of the core, sort of more chartered functions of the Department of Building Inspection. So those groups coming over are the last group of folks to come over. So that'll be late twenty twenty six, 2027, sometime more in that time frame. We don't have an exact date, but it will be after the November election. That's for sure.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[June Coleman (Representative for DR Requester, Doe Capital Inc.)]: Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you for that update, Ms. Wadi. Any is there a way that the public can kind of understand a little bit more about the changes and the schedule you have outlined and kind of let the public know? I mean, it's a pretty big deal that this is happening. And I'm sure that members of the public would like to understand a little bit more about the changes and how you're approaching them and all of that stuff.

[Zehra Wahid (Deputy Director, SF Planning)]: We're happy to talk to any member of the public who has more questions. If you have suggestions of a format, that might be great. Obviously, we've made announcements here. The mayor made the announcements at the state of the city. We're continuing to post updates either on our website through org structure changes. There is a quarterly forum that used to be exclusively for DBI, but now is sort of all permitting agencies together, where a lot of customers join in and get announcements. So we're trying to tackle that through sort of our typical communication channels, as well as our, we have email list serves and blasts and all of that. Certainly, we're open to other suggestions of how to communicate it. I would say for this first wave, no member of the public should necessarily experience any change or difference. Again, these are really back of house functions. These are people who maintain our databases. These are people who run data analytics for our teams. These are folks who are currently helping customers in a customer service way and will continue to help customers in in a customer service manner. So there isn't so much sort of a public facing GREEN: change that is being rolled out in this first phase. So hopefully

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: that kind of also helps to clarify.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just think it would be helpful for the public to understand if there was some kind of an outline or a kind of a rough idea of the process that is going to be taking place over the next several maybe, I don't know, several years?

[Zehra Wahid (Deputy Director, SF Planning)]: If you have a suggestion of what that deliverable looks like or what that process would be, we're certainly open to it. Again, I think we've been trying to communicate exactly what that plan is the best we can. But if we're missing the mark and you've got some suggestions, please share. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay, commissioners. Seeing nothing further, can move on to item eight, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors. I have no report from the Board of Appeals or the Historic Preservation Commission.

[Audrey Maloney (Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs, SF Planning)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Audrey Maloney, acting manager of legislative affairs. There were a host of landmark initiations at the Land Use and Transportation Committee this week. The proposed landmarks are all located within District 8 and were identified through the family zoning plan. Included in the 26 separate initiations were churches, private homes, a school, a fire station, and a historic brewery. Also at land use committee this week was the mayor's ordinance that would allow additional uses as either principally or conditionally permitted in historic buildings. You heard this item on October 23 and voted five to two to approve it. Several amendments were introduced at the hearing. Some were technical in nature and some were substantive. The substantive amendments limited the scope of the ordinance by retaining the current use controls for certain use types and in certain zoning districts. So these amendments were made by the sponsor of the legislation, who is the mayor, after feedback from both the public and, supervisors in certain districts. At the full board this week, the land swap ordinance for portions of Moraga And Noriega Avenues and parcels along Kensington Way passed its second read, as did the ordinance that would make it easier for movie theaters to sell alcohol. That concludes my report, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Seeing no questions for Ms. Maloney, we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

[Georgia Shutish (Public commenter)]: Great, thanks. Good afternoon, Georgia Shutish. I sent you an email about the whole roof deck issue with a bunch of attachments. Roof decks have always fascinated me in part because they were part of a lot of these major alterations that we've seen that should have been reviewed as demolitions over the past ten years. So I'm just going to read quickly from the executive summary from the August 3038 hearing about roof decks and informational. Roof decks are a popular means of providing an outdoor amenity area to augment open space in a dense urban setting. However, because of their elevated location, they also enable a potential intensification of uses that can negatively impact the quality of life of adjacent residents. And therefore, enhancements to such spaces need to be carefully considered in the design review process. As such, potential adverse impacts, such as noise, diminishment of privacy, and reduction of light to adjacent properties should be mitigated. Vertically projecting appurtenances that provide access to roof decks such as stair and elevator penthouses, as well as windscreens and solid parapets can also add unwelcome visual impacts onto adjacent properties. And at that hearing, the main issue really was the vertical pertinces. And there was a discussion of quality of life impacts, including privacy, noise, intensity of use programming, shadowing of vertical appurtences onto adjacent light walls and side setbacks, and visual clutter. So I watched that hearing. You're going to put a screen. The proposal was to put a screen. I'm five'four. This is a yardstick from my father in law's father. This is what the vertical appurtenance could be like, at least eight feet to screen

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: that what do call

[Georgia Shutish (Public commenter)]: it airstream and everywhere else up there. That's pretty big. That's quite a vertical appurtenance. And I mean, I'm not trying to be humorous, but I think it needed some context to what was going to go up on that little bit of roof. So if you read my email, you'll see all the attachments, and you'll see pictures of the roof deck as it is, or as it was when it's sold in 2024. So I know it's a novelty to put a airstream on a roof, But if you're going to screen it, this needs to be thought about. And I'll just say a couple more things about that hearing. I thought that was a very salient fact that trailers are not allowed on our streets anymore where people live. I I think that shouldn't be overlooked in terms of equity. There was a staircase from the street by the garage. And then I sent the things about the original unit, the unit building before it was done. Maybe there was a UDU there, if you look at the 2008, 2009 pictures. Pictures. But the vertical appurtenance on roof decks is a huge issue. Thank you very much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Last call for public comment. Again, you need to come forward. Let's go to our remote, our reasonable accommodation requester.

[Sue Hester (Public commenter, remote)]: This is Sue Hester. I would like to echo the comments by Commissioner Williams. It needs to be information presented publicly at the Planning Commission, not people referred to. Oh, it's on our website. You can find it. There has been a lot of work done by the public in the last ten years. There have been area plans that were adopted in the twenty twenty six year, in 2000s. And so if all of the work is not to be erased unilaterally by secret passage of laws, people need to be told about it, particularly the Mission, Hill, Southamarket, and all the others in market Octavia that have had area plans assume that they will get notice because there was no air fleet provided for. And so it's not acceptable to me anyway to just say, oh, it was just changed a lot. If people were expecting, with a lot of participation, the error plans were not adopted just in one week. They were adopted with months of work by the community and the planning department. Planning department is involved in everything. So I would echo what Commissioner Williams said. Please put this on the calendar. Planning department staff should have to do a presentation more than once. I'm assuming you can do everything you can't do everything at once. But take out the area plans and go through and remind people what have been made that don't, to that effect, non notice. Thank you very much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. Final last call for general public comment. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. And we can move on to your regular calendar. For items 9A and B, for case numbers 2020Five-eleven50Seven-eight PCA MAP and CRV for the Mission And 9th Street Special Use District Planning Code and Zoning Map Amendment and Mission And 9th Street Delegation Of Authority adoption of the delegation.

[Audrey Maloney (Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs, SF Planning)]: Afternoon, commissioners. Again, Audrey Maloney, acting manager of legislative affairs. Madison Tam from Supervisor Dorsey's office will be joining us after 12:30. So if I drone on, maybe she can give her presentation before a public comment. But if not, she will be here after 12:30 as well. So as mister Ionan said, there are two action items before you today. The first is an ordinance that would readopt and make changes to the Mission And 9th Street Special Use District. This SUD was originally adopted in 2017 but had a provision that would cause it to sunset if an eligible project had not received its first construction document within five years of the SUD's creation. The SUD was originally created to facilitate a market rate project that would provide more than the minimum required on-site affordable units in exchange for increased height and other planning code alleviations. The project received planning commission approval and obtained its site permit. However, due to unforeseen circumstances like the COVID pandemic, the project ultimately did not receive its first construction document, which caused the SUD to sunset in 2022. The project sponsor now seeks to build a 100% affordable project at the site utilizing the same code alleviations and added height that was in the original SUD. As such, the SUD needs to be readopted and amended so that its eligibility criteria require a 100% affordable project instead. For the purposes of the SUD, a 100% affordable project would require that all dwelling units be affordable to lower income households, which translates to all units offered at 80% of area median income or less. The units must also be income restricted for a minimum of fifty five years or the life of the project, whichever is longer. Under the proposed ordinance, projects that meet that criteria could use the SUDs less restrictive FAR, exposure, and open space requirements as well as added height. The proposed ordinance would also create a pathway for the commission to delegate their authority to the planning director to make amendments to the motion that authorized the original market rate project the authority would only allow the director to make amendments that are necessary for the construction of a 100% affordable project The motion needs to be amended because its findings and conditions were written specifically for the original market rate project. As such, many of the timelines, requirements, affordability terms, and fees don't apply the same way to a 100% affordable project, which brings us to your second action item. If you approve the ordinance, the next step is to memorialize your delegation of authority to the director through the resolution. Again, the approval of this resolution means that the planning director would have the authority to administratively amend the motion for the original market rate project so that it can instead be utilized to build a 100% affordable project. In addition to myself and Ms. Tam shortly, Carly Grove from our housing implementation team and the project sponsors representative are here to answer any questions you have. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay. We should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Again, you need to come forward. Last call, seeing none, public comment is closed. And these matters are now before you, commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: MARY Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I have a question for the project sponsor. And so I understand that it will be so the legislation will allow for 100% affordable housing. Just wondering what is your timeline in terms of construction of the 100% affordable housing? And what are the any financial logistics that are already in place in order to construct this?

[Nick Roosevelt (Land Use Counsel for project sponsor, Item 9)]: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Nick Roosevelt, Land Use Counsel. Commissioner Imperial, there I think at this point, it's a little I don't have an answer on the exact timeline for implementation of the project. I think the sponsor is very excited to be creating the shift, identifying a path forward for the project, which involves the 100% affordable pathway and the financing mechanisms that become available through the 100% affordable entitlement and build out. At this point, we don't have a specific timeline for construction.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And I would assume there is no in a way, there's no number of how many units are going to be built and the height that we'll anticipate for this SUD.

[Nick Roosevelt (Land Use Counsel for project sponsor, Item 9)]: The do you mean in terms of the so I think just to be clear, so the SUD proposal, we're not proposing I think it would be fair to characterize it as not proposing material amendments to the previous design controls in the SED that was adopted. And the delegated authority that the commission would be approving to the planning director is really, I think, again geared towards pretty technical changes to the prior motion relating to it being a market rate project as opposed to 100% affordable. The form, don't wouldn't be changing beyond what's been sort of approved through the site permit process to date within the 200 foot height limit. And I think worth noting, the SUD retains language that says specifically kind of as to this 100% affordable project, it is a grant of density bonus. So that language is in there to make clear that this is sort of the package of design control relief to facilitate the project and that the project wouldn't be able to refile with a density the 100% affordable project wouldn't be able to refile with density bonus on top of what's being granted by the reenactment of the SED.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. No, I'm supportive of the legislation too. That would also allow for delegation of the director. In a way, this legislation allows for the project to be constructed for 100% affordable housing. So I'm supportive of that. I'm just asking about the technicalities as we are as, again, in terms of the financing of it in the construction. But I'm in general support. So thank you. Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you, Commissioner Imperial. It so often happens. I had a lot of the similar kinds of questions and concerns. It looks to me like there's still enough flexibility within the envelope that's enabled through the SUD that this project could be designed to compete well for outside grants and funding sources so it's not restricting the project to a certain number or types of units as far as I can tell. So I'm really excited to see this project come back as a 100% affordable housing project. We have seen a lot of 100% affordable projects moving forward right now when financing is so tough for market rate projects. And I think this is the first time we've seen a project, or in this case, the SUD for the project come back to convert what was a market rate project to affordable. So that's good news in some ways. And either way, the outcome is great. It's phenomenal. So I definitely support this. We also, I would just point out, did just approve the continuation of the COA for the existing parking lot use for another five years. And I see that the SUD runs for five years. So hopefully that means there's some urgency, the clock is ticking, to get this project built. I'd rather not have to renew that parking lot use again after this. I'm going to make a motion to recommend legislation. Sorry, my wording is off today.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second. Commissioner So?

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: I would second the motion to on both item A and B, or we have to take it separately?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: They can be called together. I was going to ask to clarify if your motion included delegation of authority to the planning director.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes, that's right. Very good. So A and B.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Yeah, I would second that along with Commissioner Imperial. I just want to emphasize that this particular project had taken a decade long into its evolution. And I'm just personally really want to I think it's consistent with everybody in the city and department that we need to do whatever it takes to help this actually happen. I don't want to see another five years later, anyone coming back in here and ask for something else. I just want to see a ribbon cutting and people moved in in the next two or three years. So please go get this done. And it's also very nice to see how we address affordability of housing. And we really want to make sure that, for me, it's like we need to take care of the missing middle. So thank you, and go get it billed, please. Don't come back.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Williams. I

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: just had a question on the delegation of authority to the planning director. And what exactly are the decisions that need to be made by the planning director, just curiously. I'm for the project, obviously. It's changing from market rate to 100% affordable. And I think I wish more of these market rate housing would have the funding to become 100% affordable because it's very needed. Having said all that, do we have an idea of what some of those decisions might be just for us to know?

[Audrey Maloney (Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs, SF Planning)]: Absolutely. Thank you for the question, commissioner. So in your packets for the 9B item, it's the actual Mission And 9th Street delegation of authority. The original motion is attached as an exhibit B, I believe, to that. Originally, when we were crafting this legislation and what the director could actually approve administratively, we thought we would include just a specific list of exactly line item by line item what in the motion could be amended. And it turned into a very long list of technical amendments because that motion for the market rate project was very, very specific so that the affordability levels were broken down by number of units at affordability level percentages. Timelines were written out as dates rather than just five years from blank, three years from blank. There was specific no later than 02/14/2021, shall they have received blank permit or reached this step? So that needs to be amended. And then there's certain things here, like the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program on page 12 of the motion, obviously, they're going to be using a much different idea than what we required in 2017 or twenty eighteen twenty sixteen, apologies. When this motion was approved, our inclusionary affordable housing program is not applicable to a 100% affordable project. So that needs to be amended to apply to 100% affordable project. And then some of our impact fees don't apply to 100% affordable projects. And those were very specifically outlined in terms of being a requirement for this market rate project. So that's just to give you an idea. The way we crafted the language in the SUD, instead of listing all of these things out line item by line item also because we were worried we might miss one, and then all of a sudden one thing that's retained, even if it's a date that we missed in the original motion, throws off the ability for a project to utilize it now is to state the limit as the only things that the planning director can approve administratively are in service of being a requirement for the 100% affordable project to move forward. So they can't amend anything in this that is not in service of building that 100% affordable project.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Thank you for that. That was a pretty good explanation. And even I can understand that. Thank you. Yeah, that was my question.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: There's nothing further commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval as well as delegate authority to the planning director on that motion commissioner McGarry aye commissioner so aye Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: And Commissioner President Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So move. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. Six to zero. And we'll place us on item 10 for case number 2020Three-five516 CWP for the Yosemite Slough Neighborhood Adaptation Strategy. This is an informational presentation.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: And before we begin, sorry, I have a few disclosures to make. Sorry, these are all long. First of all, the project was funded by a grant the Planning Department received from the California Governor's Office of Land Use and Community Innovation, LCI. At my job at Strategic Economics, I'm currently the principal in charge for our work as part of a team working on a different project for and funded by LCI to update the state's general plan guidelines and specific plan guidelines. Second, the team that completed the Yosemite SLU neighborhood adaptation strategy report includes AECOM. I have a professional relationship with AECOM through my employer, Strategic Economics. My employer has not worked with AECOM in many years, but we occasionally hold discussions with them, their staff about potentially pursuing projects in which my employer would serve as a sub consultant to AECOM. Third, the team that completed the adaptation strategy report also includes the San Francisco Estuary Institute. I have a professional relationship with the Estuary Institute through my employer. The institute and my employer were both sub consultants to a third firm for work on the Moffett Park specific plan project for the city of Sunnyvale. That project concluded in 2023. None of these relationships impact my ability to be fair and impartial in hearing and commenting on this informational item. And I ask that these disclosures please be reflected in the meeting minutes. Thank you.

[Jeremy Shaw (Planning Staff, Urban Design & Resilience)]: Good afternoon commissioners. Jeremy Shaw, Planning Department staff with Urban Design and Resilience in our Community Planning Division. We've heard in the past about many of the city's sea level rise adaptation efforts, particularly from the Port Of San Francisco, as we anticipate anywhere from three to seven feet of sea level rise by the year 2,100. Today, I'm happy to introduce you to the team who delivered the Yosemite Slough neighborhood adaptation strategy. The strategy for the Bayview neighborhood around Yosemite Slough filled a key gap in adaptation planning for one of the city's most vulnerable environmental justice communities. The state grant funding this work enabled staff to deeply engage community members, build capacity around climate resilience, and better position the Bayview for future funding. I want to thank the consultant team, as mentioned, led by AECOM, and in particular, SFS Duery Institute, and community organizations, End to Action and Baycat, for their dedication and work. And among the many community members who have participated, you will see in a moment, I'd especially like to thank our eight community ambassadors and several individuals, including Linda Richardson in the audience, for guiding our project and informing it from the inception. We're incredibly lucky to have this team of staff, and we will be feeling the impacts of this study, I think, for years to come and bait you. So, quickly, just Danielle Ngo is the project manager. You may be familiar with her from the environmental justice framework and safety and resilience element. Sarah Richardson, I believe you met as well on our housing team. Been doing a lot of work during zoning, SB 79 climate action plan. So thank you, Sarah. And not joining us today, but on TV remotely are watching Jessica Look, who's our urban designer, informed our public realm strategies, as well as Melena Leon Ferrara, who played a key outreach role on the project. So, really want to thank this team.

[Danielle Ngo (Senior Planner, SF Planning)]: All right, thank you, Jeremy. Hello, commissioners and members of the public. I'm Danielle Ngo, and I'm a senior planner. Sarah and I will lead the presentation today. This is an informational presentation to report back on our two year planning effort. And our focus is long term resilience to sea level rise. As mentioned, this work was funded by a grant from the governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, dollars 649,000. Staff submitted the final document on 01/30/2026, a couple weeks ago. And the strategy will inform the forthcoming shoreline plan to be initiated later this year. So for the project overview, wanted to start with the basics of sea level rise. So our work is primarily focused on adaptation and resilience to sea level rise. On the screen, you can see five projected scenarios of sea level rise in the state. And this reflects the most up to date scientific understanding of the physical drivers of sea level rise. The state estimates that San Francisco will experience approximately 0.8 feet of sea level rise by 2050 and up to 6.6 feet of sea level rise by 2100. And so for our work, for the preliminary scenario for design elevation, we focused on 3.1 feet of sea level rise and its associated 1% annual chance coastal flood event, which is the intermediate projection for the state. It's also important to understand that higher water levels can be achieved not just with sea level rise, but also the combination of sea level rise to high tides and coastal storm surge. This graphic depicts sea level rise as a threat multiplier. So with this threat multiplier, there's increasing tidal inundation on the shoreline, worsening storm surge, and also worsening emergent groundwater. We know that sea level rise is already hurting the city. So here's some photos of flooding from the California King Tides Project. And these photos are taken a bit north of Yosemite Slough, but relatively close. So we know that without action, sea level rise can damage our shoreline, our streets, and our neighborhoods. So with that context, we worked and focused in Bayview Hunters Point. And our project area is anchored at Yosemite Slough. Yosemite Slough is a wetland. It's a shallow 1,600 foot long intertidal channel. And this part of Bayview Hunters Point is especially low lying and also built on porous Bay fill. So without action to reduce risks and vulnerabilities, this sea level rise will lead to permanent inundation of streets along the shoreline, as well as temporary flooding of buildings and bus routes and other community assets further inland during extreme storms. This project area is roughly bounded by Alice Griffith Apartments, the MLK Junior Pool, 3rd Street, as well as Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. When we focus our adaptation measures in this area, we're protecting all of Bayview Hunters Point as well as the city. The project goals that you see on the screen were developed in collaboration with community, briefly protecting and adapting the neighborhood, collaborating with remediation efforts, building community capacity, maintaining infrastructure, and improving open space access. All of these big high level goals are our North Star as our team worked for the past two years on estimating current and projected hazards, identifying neighbor assets at risk, and surfacing the community priorities to inform future investments. This work is one of many very big projects in this part of Bayview Hunters Point. So we want to acknowledge just a sample of the long history of planning, development, and engagement. So starting on the left hand side, locally, we wanted to acknowledge that OCII is leading the development agreements down there. And that DA is required to have setbacks that respond to up to 5.5 feet of sea level rise. In the middle, California State Parks, in partnership with their Foundation and Literacy for Environmental Justice, have completed wetlands restoration, native plantings, and park improvements on the north shore of the slough. They also recently completed a shoreline stabilization study to guide future adaptation for the entire park. And then lastly, with the right hand column, the US EPA has a projected cleanup plan for Yosemite Creek. Yosemite Creek is incorporating additional study at the moment, including projected sea level rise. And so this isn't comprehensive to all the work going on, but we wanted to highlight these major efforts to collaborate with. And as mentioned, there's a lot of similarities with work throughout the city, like the Waterfront Resilience Plan and the Ocean Beach Climate Change Adaptation Project. So with that overview, I'll pass the mic to Sarah to describe our community engagement process in full.

[Sarah Richardson (Senior Planner, SF Planning)]: Throughout engagement, principles from the city's environmental justice framework were used to elevate and incorporate community voices into the strategy. In the first phase of engagement, we set the context and built community capacity around sea level rise adaptation. In the second, we established community priorities and desired co benefits of adaptation measures. And in the third, we evaluated trade offs and identified implementation priorities. Across the three phases of engagement, we had six community ambassador meetings, five technical advisory committee meetings, tabled at eight public events, hosted two walking tours, three public workshops, and three focus groups, and presented at seven citizen advisory committees. We also canvassed at neighborhood businesses and did various forms of outreach online. Here are some highlights from our outreach. One of the cornerstones of our strategy was engagement with a group of community ambassadors. They represented eight different organizations and businesses. They provided feedback about the public outreach and engagement process, adaptation alternatives and strategies, and opportunities for community input and influence. We collaborated with Baycat, a media production company based in Bayview Hunters Point, to produce a story storytelling video as a call to action. The video was shared on social media and used in presentations, and it features local environmental justice advocates and technical experts who describe the history of Yosemite Slough, share community aspirations for environmental justice, and emphasize the need for action to protect the neighborhood from sea level rise. At each of our three public workshops, there were interactive small group activities and specific opportunities for input into the strategy. In our walking tours of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood and the Candlestick Point State Recreation shoreline, participants learned from several hosts about the history, historical ecology of Yosemite Slough, previous wetlands restoration projects, projected sea level rise, lived experiences in the neighborhoods, and both past and present planning efforts. Participants also shared their own experiences, priorities, and concerns. Our three focus groups reached stakeholders that we wanted to hear more from, including youth, residents from Alice Griffith apartments, which are adjacent to the SLU, and local business owners. So while we heard a range of opinions through our multiple formats and phases, some themes consistently emerged. People like adaptation measures that are nature based, meaning that they address the risks of sea level rise while also enhancing natural ecosystems. Similarly, people are supportive of measures that protect them from sea level rise, but also improve water, air, and soil quality, and thus public health, considering that the project area has a legacy of contamination and dumping. People see flooding as flooding, whether it comes from the coast or inland, so they want to be protected from both. And they wanna make sure that whatever measures are put in place are easily adaptable or can go higher if sea level rise projections change. And they wanna make sure that those measures are will be maintained even in a future where funding is tight. There was also specific feedback that went beyond the measures. In nearly every meeting, people shared concerns about the existing contamination in the neighborhood and the need to continue to involve and leverage the community's strengths. We also consistently heard that we should improve interagency coordination and collaboration because community members don't see these artificial lines. They just want government to work. People also differed in opinion in some areas, such as whether the investment that will come from implementation will lead to gentrification and cause indirect displacement of residents and businesses, or whether it will be positive and improve the quality of life and doing business in the area. Relatedly, people also question whether we should be planning for the types of businesses that exist there today or, for example, the high-tech manufacturing of the future. And now I'll pass it on to Danielle, who will talk about the specific adaptation measures that were identified for the strategy.

[Danielle Ngo (Senior Planner, SF Planning)]: Thanks, Sarah. So I'll briefly describe the punch line, the adaptation measures of our strategy. Please check out our full report. It has way more context, description, and details. So to orient everyone within our project area, we wanted to identify proposed locations of these potential measures. We have the Northwest shoreline, the head of the slough, the South shoreline, as well as the Southeast shoreline. At this point, the four conceptual adaptation measures are at this high level. They're used to embody all the community priorities that Sarah just mentioned, as well as document the potential approaches to address sea level rise expected by 2050 and 2100. So any future work, advanced planning, design, engineering, will be coordinated with state parks and other landowners, as well as solicit more community input. So the first one, in no particular order, is seawalls and living seawalls. This is proposed on the Northwest and South shorelines. And these are hardened vertical barriers to prevent the sea from flooding. It has the option of adding additional height in the future as sea level rise may change. And as a trade off, it may limit views of water from the adjacent areas. Compared to the other measures, this is relatively affordable. Second, we have ecotone levees, which is also proposed on the Northwest and south shoreline. This is a hardened levee or berm underneath a graded slope. And with this graded slope, this ecotone levee, it provides a gradual transition between the wetland and upland habitats. Because of this slope, it requires more horizontal space and land use changes down the line, and with that, providing more ecological, recreational, and aesthetic benefits. The third measure we have is an ecotone slope enhancement proposed at the head of the slough. And currently, there

[Nick Roosevelt (Land Use Counsel for project sponsor, Item 9)]: is

[Danielle Ngo (Senior Planner, SF Planning)]: already elevation that prevents the city from coastal floodwaters. And so as we enhance it, it'll support that transition from the wetland to upland, as well as providing additional habitat benefits and wetlands resilience. And lastly, we propose wetlands restoration on the Southeast Shoreline to complement the wetlands restoration already completed by state parks on the North Shoreline. With more wetlands restoration, it can improve the ecological conditions, provide more natural flood protection, and also fill gaps in the San Francisco Bay Trail. So with that, I'll wrap up with our next steps. Now that we have these adaptation measures in a documented strategy, We want to pursue funding for future outreach, engineering, and design so that these viable adaptation concepts can move into a long term adaptation plan in response to the remediation efforts, the updated sea level rise forecasts, and other shifts. And then lastly, I wanted to mention that we want to incorporate the findings of this strategy into the San Francisco shoreline adaptation plan. So this will be my last content slide as a teaser trailer of this shoreline adaptation plan. Again, we want to make sure that the findings of this strategy get put and amplified into this shoreline plan. The city is working to comply with SB two seventy two, that's illustrated on the left hand side, and follow guidance from two regulatory bodies on the ocean side, the California Coastal Commission, and on the right hand side, the Bay Conservation Development Commission. With this plan in place, the city will be eligible for priority funding from the state implementation dollars. And so staff will initiate this work soon, later this year. And we're happy to talk about the Yosemite slough work and the shoreline plan today. So thank you for your time.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: That concludes staff's presentation. If it does, then we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this informational matter. Again, you need to come forward.

[Linda Richardson (Community leader; former Planning Commissioner)]: Good afternoon, commissioners, Commissioner Campbell, staff. My name is Linda Richardson, a long time resident of Baby Hornets Point. I spearheaded the environmental justice. Also, I also helped with the planning and the land use revitalization of Baby Hunters Point. Actually, your commission guided us, including the San Francisco redevelopment agency and I was also I am former San Francisco planning commissioner. So, during your one hundred year anniversary, the only neighborhood plan that was in place was the Baby Hornets Point revitalization plan. It took us eighteen and a half years to do. The Yosemite SLU neighborhood adaptation strategy, for me, is the next major plan that we've come across in the last decade. It is extremely very important for us. And as your staff has eloquently and informatively outlined to you, we cannot move forward without resolving the adaptation plan. Baby Honor's point is really right now all our development activities are encumbered on you helping us. You help us to do the initial planning for the entire area. Now, under your tenure, you are helping us now move to the actual, the adaptation to to ensure that we can finally develop this area. It is a sensitive area in biodiversity. It's in the shoreline, and so we are going to be relying on you to do that. But I'm also here today to commend the excellent work that your staff yes, we expect the highest level of professionalism and knowledge from our planning of department. Danielle, Jeremy, Sarah, Jessica, Molina, they went beyond the call of duty. It was achieved. They understand listening to the residents that know we have an assignment here for our commission and also that this is the right opportunity for us to kind of elevate this project to the next level. They took that approach. I attended every meeting. It's a two year planning process. The presentation they gave today, they're just very modest. If you were there, you would see the excellent, the interaction, the engagement. And so, on behalf of the community, I wanna commend them and to also encourage and beg all of you during your tenure to kinda help us to put this matter on top of the city shoreline planning so that you helping us, we can begin then to redevelop that southeast section of Baby Hunters Point. Thank you, sir.

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

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: JUDY Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'd also like to through

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: the chair, we'll reopen public comment.

[Judith Keenan (Public commenter, Bayview resident)]: JUDITH Hi. Judith Keenan, Bayview resident. So I am a carpenter, but I am also a photographer. And I photographed Yosemite Slough going from MLK Park and then went down. And Yosemite Slough has actually been a dumping ground for a long time. And along with this, we're trying to lift it up and get to the top of the list. But in the meantime, maybe the city could pay some attention to that whole neighborhood. It's a garbage dump. There are people in campers living there. It's just a mess. And so in order to like, we don't want to wait a year to maybe get to the top of the list. We want stuff to happen now with San Francisco helping us out.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I work in Bayview for for the last thirty years. Thank you for staff. Phenomenal work. Thank you for the community. Miss Richardson, I'm in all of you, the work you do. I just wanna thank you all for for basically all the work you've done on this and the collaboration of everybody working together. And, yes, the city can do an awful lot more for the Bayview Hunters Point. I totally agree. And emphasize that. And I think we all have to take that into account every time anything comes up regarding the Bayview Hunters Point. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I also want to commend the staff in their work. And also, I follow SF Planning Department IG, and I see that the Yosemite's flu. I know Instagram is not just a form of outreach, but it's an informational tool as well. So I appreciate that kind of focus as well. And kudos to the kind of the outreach. It sounds like there has been thoughtful conversations that happened on those focus groups. I do have questions in terms of you mentioned in the presentation the concerns are still over the contamination of soil. And we understand that, I believe in the Hunters Point area that the Navy. So can someone can you explain in terms of the crossover of the contamination and then adaptation plan on this? And also, how is the Navy being part of this?

[Danielle Ngo (Senior Planner, SF Planning)]: Thank you, Commissioner Imperial. In our project area or in Bayview Hunters Point, many of us know that the former naval shipyard is a Superfund site. So that is adjacent to our project area and in Bayview Hunters Point. Within our project area, the Yosemite Creek, the wetland, that is a contaminated area as well that is not formally listed as a Superfund site, but the EPA is managing it so that a cleanup plan meets Superfund guidance and standards. So there's two contaminated sites. Hunters Point is being managed by the Navy. And then Yosemite Creek is managed by the EPA, two federal entities. For Yosemite Creek specifically, the EPA is coordinating with the Navy to make sure that these two contaminated sites are coordinating and avoiding recontamination of each other. Because as we know, water contamination, they don't follow these boundaries. But it's important for us to know these boundaries in terms of who's responsible. So that's one thing. How does that affect our adaptation strategies? Our adaptation strategies right now are at this conceptual level and taking into account the existing contamination and the future plans. And as we develop these concepts into specifics, that is just a lot more coordination for us to have with the EPA, with the Navy, and also the city staff working on those two projects. And then I think one thing to emphasize that I didn't mention in the presentation is that the remediation efforts need to complete before further adaptation strategies are done. So the work of the Navy, the work of the EPA, that needs to be completed so that the neighborhood is cleaned up, quote unquote, and then we continue to protect from projected sea level rise.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you for that explanation. So sounds like to me that the planning is going to be kind of like the coordinating agency with EPA and U. S. Navy at the same time. Are there also other agencies or city agencies that's going to be part of it as well? And Oh, I'm asking the staff.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: I'm I'm question and answer period for members of the public, okay? If a member of the commission has a question for you, they'll ask you, okay? Thank you. Ma'am, you're out of order. Ma'am, you're of order. You. Sue. Thank you, ma'am. You're out of order. Yeah. Thank you, ma'am.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: We're aware of that. Thank you, yeah.

[Jeremy Shaw (Planning Staff, Urban Design & Resilience)]: Okay, the second question was, are there other agencies involved? So, OCII is directly involved with the Hunters Point shipyard as it is OCII site. And so, they're the primary contact from the city. And they are working with specialists in the public health department to sort of inform and guide what the Navy does there. Can you clarify the first part of that question again, please?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: No, that's my question. It sounds like to me that the planning department is also working with the EPA and U. S. Navy in terms of remediation and other city agencies. And that's my question is like, what other city agencies is going to be collaborative of this? And sounds like OCII and Department of Public Health. Is that

[Jeremy Shaw (Planning Staff, Urban Design & Resilience)]: That's right. The PUC has some involvement as well, because there's wastewater infrastructures or infrastructure nearby.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. My other question is, in terms of funding, since it looks like planning department's going to coordinate with EPA and U. Navy, is there going to be funding coming from those federal agencies that we could is being promised?

[Jeremy Shaw (Planning Staff, Urban Design & Resilience)]: I would not anticipate that soon. However, we have a great working relationship with the Army Corps of Engineers. They've been very supportive of this effort, and there are a number of grant programs or technical assistance programs that they offer. They have rigorous technical requirements, but we are tracking many of them. We just renewed our sort of authorization that is sort of a prerequisite for those kinds of funding funds last month. So, we're definitely tracking federal sources, as well as state and regional grant opportunities.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Are there also because I believe in the regional level, there's also concerns on the sea adaptation sea rise level. Are there also anticipating some regional funds on this?

[Jeremy Shaw (Planning Staff, Urban Design & Resilience)]: Yeah, there are regional funds. There's Measure AA, which is granted out annually and is intended to last till 2037. There are you might recall the state approved Proposition four a couple years ago for primarily resilience and adaptation funding. So, and we anticipate that 40% of that funding will go to disadvantaged neighborhoods. So, there's a lot of there are a lot of categories and possibilities within that bucket of funding. And as well, OPC, the Ocean Protection Council, is another state agency. They provided a grant for the work that Danielle alluded to at the end of the slide show, the citywide, but that's a possible source for future funding as well.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Thank you for elaborating of those. I guess my last question is around the concerns that people have brought up during the meetings on the concerns whether gentrification or economic impact and how it may how in a way, it sounded like to me that should we plan in terms of anticipating impact, economic impact of this adaptation plan. So, And it's not necessarily a question, but it sounds like to me that there needs to still have more conversation with the community of how the adaptation plan, the Yosemite school adaptation plan impact of it in a way that it's economically that and is that something that there's more outreach, right? It sounds like there's going to be more outreach. Are there any plans on that for this year? Or what's the timeline?

[Danielle Ngo (Senior Planner, SF Planning)]: Yes, I think that we're all concerned about so many potential adverse impacts transportation, economic, as you mentioned, as well as housing and open space and so much more, like cultural benefit. So with this strategy, we're trying to say we have to protect against sea level rise to protect all of that the way it is now and the projections in the future. Part of our work is making sure that we're identifying these community assets. We're prioritizing them. And then we could say what's at risk if we don't do anything. And then to the end part of your question, as staff initiate and work on the shoreline plan for the next two years, that will have more additional outreach opportunities in Bayview Hunters Point and also throughout the city so that we can be really clear about what's at risk. And I would say that that is going to be at a greater scale because it is the whole city shoreline. And we want to make sure that we get that priority funding from the state to implement.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you so much. This is a big task. And yeah, you mentioned also transportation as well. Wow. Thank you. And I'm looking forward to hear more on this update. It sounds like this is going to be like 20 maybe more. Hopefully not 20, because the sea level rise is coming up pretty soon. But thank you. And again, I commend all the efforts on this. Thank you so much.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner So.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Well, thank you, Commissioner Imperial. I think she kind of touched a lot of things. So, I wanted to first thank you for all of our staff and the community. And thank you, Board of Directors, Tye Dye Linda Richardson, to coming here and give your really nice appreciation to our staff and the community. It really speaks volume. And thank you for Carpenter Photographer. I feel that you are very passionate. And it is an evidence that everyone really cares about this whole area. And I wanted to, one thing, continue to encourage our team to follow-up with the youth commissions. I know that you have been giving them an informational hearing sometime before. These are our future leaders. More likely, they will outlift all of us when the C level really rises above our CAR level. So, I really want you to, if you don't mind, if it's already in the plan, continue to raise the awareness to our future leaders. Also, perhaps, I think it seems like this whole area is a lot of kind of keeping tab on the federal and state level agencies. And then, ultimately, it will involve our local friends on the other departments, know, MTA, Park and Rec, and Office of the Environment. If there's anything we can do to help elevate the need for funding sources to have this effort to continue, please let us know sooner rather than later. And I really appreciate all the dedications. And it's really hard work, and it requires a lot of self paced rigor. So, I really appreciate everyone here and also all the other staff that have been working so hard on this and the community. Without the community, I don't think we can come up with such a robust, comprehensive report. And I look forward for this to continue. Thank you.

[Ms. Tanner (Planning Department leadership, Community/Citywide Planning)]: Maybe I'll just jump on that just just to commend the staff who've done really amazing work working with the community, very thoughtful, diligent, technically proficient, but also very sensitive to the many factors, not just water itself, but all the other things that come in out of that. We've also been very fortunate, and I think a credit to Danielle's work, built up a really strong network of colleagues and other agencies that have been right there along the way with us. And I think while sea level rise is certainly concerning, it's coming, right, whether we like it or not. The response of the city, the thoughtfulness that is happening and planning for it and getting us ready and thinking about those big questions of what kind of funding will we need to actually prepare our city, not just the Slough area, but other parts of our shoreline for what is coming. It really is a credit to the remarkable staff we have throughout the city. And I'm really glad that we have a good crew in community planning and in the planning department as well.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: First, I just want to echo the thanks everyone else has expressed for the community ambassadors, the committee members who came to all of the engagement events. Folks are in the room here today. Thank you. And also to the staff, both planning department staff and all the members of staff who are participating in the Technical Advisory committee, since that's how we bridge these sort of departmental silos and make sure we are kind of moving in the same direction. So I really appreciate all the work that's clearly gone into this. This is an area that between this area and then all the other surrounding areas of the shoreline have so much work to do. We've talked about some of the contamination remediation issues. I just recently was at Candlestick Point Recreation Area, walked out on Gilman. And there's a lot of infrastructure needs in that area, too, which is a variety of different state and local and regional agencies that need to be involved. So it's good to see this continuing process unfold of planning for some of the investments in the surrounding area. And I'm really glad that this process happens. We have the community priorities in mind, ready to go. The next steps of this are not going to be happening in a vacuum. But we have this plan. I have just one further question about how funding for the infrastructure improvements unfolds. I'm curious. I just might not be getting the full picture here. So we have the Yosemite Slough adaptation strategy. There's going to be this will be integrated into the shoreline adaptation planning effort at the citywide scale. Is there anything holding up sort of piecemeal funding of parts of these planning efforts that we for sea level rise that we already have completed? So what I mean is, if there was state grant funding to begin improvements in the Yosemite Slough area sooner than the shoreline adaptation plan is done, is that sort of piecemeal funding possible to move forward? Or is it more likely that we would sort of most likely a lot of these projects would have to wait for the shoreline adaptation plan to be more comprehensively figured out so that you could leverage funding that would maybe benefit multiple projects? It's a very complicated question. When

[Jeremy Shaw (Planning Staff, Urban Design & Resilience)]: you say most of these projects, do you mean the ones that Danielle identified today?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Or Well, what I'm thinking is there's a variety of planning efforts for sea level rise beyond just the Yosemite Slough Plan. And they also need to work together. And yet, it feels like this might be further ahead than some of the others.

[Nick Roosevelt (Land Use Counsel for project sponsor, Item 9)]: I'm just trying

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: to figure out how funding is getting phased between different projects that respond to sea level rise. Do we need to wait on some of the bigger picture pieces to come together?

[Jeremy Shaw (Planning Staff, Urban Design & Resilience)]: It's a really good question.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: It's a big question. Sorry.

[Jeremy Shaw (Planning Staff, Urban Design & Resilience)]: Thank you, Commissioner. And I think there's such a variety of funding sources and urgent needs that we have found that there's often opportunity to apply for funding. And I don't anticipate any specific let's just say there's additional design work and outreach work, I think, that could be done for the Yosemite Slough area because of this work. However, in this neighborhood, the unknowns related to the EPA site are really one of the critical factors on how we move forward. In terms of the rest of the city, I wouldn't say anything's holding anything else up. However, it is important to have that citywide strategy that Daniel mentioned at the end as that unlocks additional state funding for anything that might be in that plan. And so we're really focused on that to maximize the potential for state funding in San Francisco.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. I have one other question about the ongoing process. So now we have the SHOWN adaptation plan coming up. There's the remediation that needs to happen before we can move forward some of the components of maybe the Yosemite SLU plan. In the meantime, I'd hate to lose momentum that's been built with the community engagement with the Yosemite Sloop Plan. And so I'm curious if any department staff could give us a sense of how whether there are some ongoing planning and communication and coordination steps with the community, or is this likely to now fall under the umbrella of a little bit more of the shoreline adaptation citywide engagement strategies?

[Danielle Ngo (Senior Planner, SF Planning)]: Thanks for that question. The shoreline plan engagement will start later this year. So I think it's been just a handful of months where the communities had a break from us. And I think there's valid balance of the outreach fatigue because our work is just two years. But this work with the shipyard, this work with so many other environmental efforts in the Bayview have been going on for decades. And we are just building on top of that work. So I think that we're really proud of the relationships we have with some key leaders like Linda, like so many others in and outside of this room, that we have had just informal briefings, conversations with them, trying to make sure that while we can put this project to rest, we can have that reflective moment of what was beyond the scope of this project that we can feed into the Shoreline Plan and others. And in this moment, like today, there are still other city efforts that are going on in Bayview Hunters Point. And I'm glad that we have relationship with interagency staff as, say, SFMTA goes to talk about the Bayview shuttle, that they are catching feedback related to the shoreline and they convey it to us, just as one example. Or even other government entities like the Regional Air District, they have an ongoing effort for AB six seventeen air quality in Bayview Hunters Point, and same thing. So we try really hard to coordinate not just within city agencies, but across levels so that community members don't need to sort through all these projects and scopes and timelines. But we can just consolidate all that feedback. And it's our job to make sure it's relayed at the right time.

[Ms. Tanner (Planning Department leadership, Community/Citywide Planning)]: I would just add, I think part of this effort, even being here at the commission, is to also socialize with leaders like yourself in the community, to have in mind, hey, we need to be thinking about Yosemite Slough. We need to be thinking about sea level rise. We need to be preparing, because this is going to be, for the entire city, many, many years of work and building the knowledge of why do we need to do this and what are the complexities so that we can together advance these things. And we continue, as a department and a division, to have outreach and activities with Babies Hunters Point and in the Babies community. So we're not going to be losing touch with folks. We're going to continue to be accessible even if some of the projects aren't necessarily focused on sea level rise. Again, having the ongoing community relationships. And Danielle and her team have done such a fantastic job of really building trust. That takes time. It takes showing up consistently over and over and being able to demonstrate through how you treat people, how you run the project that you are worthy of trust. And so we want to continue to build on the goodwill that has been established and make sure that our other projects have this in mind and can continue to serve the community.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I think that speaks to the heart of what I was trying to get at, too, the need to sustain that relationship. So thank you.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I just want to echo everything that's been said. It's comforting for me, as someone who's grown up here, to see you guys, your professionalism, and everything that you bring to this really important project. And, you know, just to remind us the importance of sea sea level rise. And also, in the context of the Bayview Hunters Point and everything that this community has gone through, it's comforting to know that you guys are sensitive to the community. And I see it. And it's obvious. It's present. For me, I want to say I'm grateful. Thank you. And thank you, Ms. Richardson, and your service to the city as a commissioner and also as a concerned citizen in the Bayview Hunters Point community. But yeah, I just wanted to convey that it's a very comprehensive plan. It kind of highlights the importance of we need to look out for climate change. We need to understand sea level rise. You're relaying that message to the community. And we need to do more of that so that we can all get behind the efforts that are going to be needed to address climate change and prepare our city for it. And so thank you so much for all the important work you guys do.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Thank you. All of my questions have been answered. It's the benefit of going last sometimes. But I'll just pile on with the gratitude. And I'm hearing a really big commitment up here to do everything we can to help shepherd this forward. And I appreciate your comments, Ms. Tanner, on that as well. But yeah, it's, one of my big questions was how are we folding this into similar efforts that are going to have to happen all along our very long shoreline of San Francisco. So, you know, this is obviously I imagine there's a lot of lessons learned that we can continue to pay forward. So thank you for your hard work, and look forward to following this as it progresses.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: You, commissioners. If there's nothing further, that concludes your regular calendar so we can move on to your discretionary review calendar for the final item on your agenda today, number 11, case number 2025Hyphen005561DRP at 125 Maple Street. This is a discretionary review.

[Trent Greenan (Staff Architect, SF Planning)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Trent Greenan, staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of planning application 2020Five-fifty561PRJ to construct a new three story single family residence with basement to be built on existing empty lot with new driveway site work and landscaping. The site is approximately 40 feet wide by 88 feet deep on a lateral and upsloping lot. The existing lot located in the Presidio Heights Historic District lacks historic significance. Doctor. Coleman, on behalf of Doe Capital Incorporated, 3800 Washington Street, which is the immediate neighbor to the south, is primarily concerned with the potential for the collapse of the land on the requester's property due to the excavation that would be required for the three story building proposed. The project would block views from and sunlight to the house and garden, intrudes into the privacy of the applicant's property, and may cause drainage issues. Construction noise would cause substantial noise and nuisance to the requester, and the excavation may expose asbestos. Additionally, they state that the project exceeds the allowable height and should have a side setback. To date, the department has received no letters in opposition and no letters in support of the project. So the staff review and recommendation is that the project is compliant with the planning code, specifically with respect to height and side setbacks. The primary concerns of the requester involving geotechnical reports and structural review of the foundation, drainage, and retaining wall design are not in the purview of the planning department to review nor regulate. That review occurs after planning approval and the building design is finalized so that technical drawings can be prepared with a certainty of scope. The Department of Building Inspection will review the structural plans for adequacy when the project applies for a building permit. The project complies with the residential design guideline, articulate the building to minimize impacts to light and air. The proposed house is located at least 47 feet to the north and downhill of the Doctor requester's property, will have little to no impact on light or privacy to the Doctor requester's property. Views are not protected, nor is it reasonable to assume that they would have a significant impact, even if this was a legitimate issue. Therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review and to approve. Thank you. Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: If that concludes staff presentation, we should hear from the discretionary review requester.

[June Coleman (Representative for DR Requester, Doe Capital Inc.)]: And as I understand it, we put a flash drive in there, and it will project. And I project it. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is June Coleman. I represent the applicant who owns La Petite Trianon, which is the side door neighbor to my client's backyard. This is a picture of the backyard. And the property that we're talking about is to the right of this backyard and the back end. This is an iconic, historically irreplaceable building that is one of the world's most recognizable images. It is a duplicate from France and Marie Antoinette's chateau in Versailles. It's on Number 95 in the San Francisco Historic Landmark Registry. And it's registered in the National Historic Landmark. We put a lot of different things into our application, but most of those have been addressed. What we really want to focus on is the structural integrity and the building of the retaining wall that must happen. And so I have brought my engineer here to speak a little bit about that. But I did want to note that this is a 1902 to 1904 building that's considered one of the city's architectural masterpieces. And we're really concerned about how the project affects that building. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to my engineer.

[Rob Colosimo (Civil Engineer for DR Requester)]: Thank you, June. Rob ROB Colosimo, civil engineer. Thank you, commissioners, for hearing us today. My biggest concerns revolve around the structural wall, and we have an exhibit here. This wall appears to be on the order of 12 to 15 feet tall within the proposed building. So the prior slide was existing conditions, and the next slide is the proposed building. Our client and the patio that June shared was right here. Very steep slopes. If there is no setback and retaining wall is built right on the property line, my biggest concern and why it's important now is that discretionary review. If you do have to do an offset for the dune sand that exists out here, picture exactly what it sounds like, you peel back the vegetation and you have dune sand, you have beach sand essentially. So to build a structural wall on the property line is very, very challenging. So if an appropriate setback was designed, I'm sure it will be, this example here on the green line is a 10 foot setback, that dramatically affects the layout of the architecture, the the size of the footprint of of the building. The geotechnical feasibility report mentions using a soldier pile wall for the construction of this this tall wall. That involves a lot of expensive equipment, large construction equipment. Here's just an example of a soldier pile wall being installed. In this case, they have better soils. They have what appears to be more of a clay soil. You'll notice that they've laid back the slope significantly to allow this h pile to be driven into the into the soil. So that's even in good conditions, you have a flat site, these folks, responsible contractors, are using 15 feet roughly as like an offset or an easement for approximately, say, a 12 foot height. So the other concern is if they use this method, which is identified in the feasibility study, sand transmits vibration a lot better than other soils. So we have dune sand. If we're using this method, very concerning for the up uphill property, which is the historic property that June mentioned. So those are the main concerns. Think the reason it's important again now is due to the fact that it could affect the layout of the building and showing plans that accurate at the planning stage.

[June Coleman (Representative for DR Requester, Doe Capital Inc.)]: So essentially, what we'd like to point out is we believe that the project as planned, which goes from lot line to lot line with zero setback on the sides, is not an accurate reflection of what the project is. And it will require some offset from the one side of the lot line. And so if it's a 10 foot offset I mean, we've shown you a picture that we think is about 15. It might be a little less. It's our best estimate. But if it's 10 foot, that's 75% of the building that's planned, that's being presented to you. And we believe that your analysis and the planning department's analysis should be based on what the

[Sue Hester (Public commenter, remote)]: true GREEN:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: reflective building is. So we would ask that the court or not the court, but the Planning Commission allow for a discretionary Thank you. That is your time. Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Steven Sutro (Architect and Project Sponsor, Item 11)]: Great. Hello, commissioners. My name is Steven Sutro. I'm the architect and project sponsor for this project. As we was presented by staff, It includes a new three story residence, single family residence, including new driveway site work and landscaping. The project will utilize unused space on an exempt an existing empty lot. So we're pleased that this family is able plan a new single family home for this area and add a dwelling unit to San Francisco. We have a lot of slides that address the very many issues that were raised in the Doctor requester's report. Sunlight, for example. Well, we're clearly to the north, completely to the north of the Doctor requester. So we can go through any of those details if anyone would like. It seems like they would like to focus today on the engineering. So perhaps I'll just speak about that. And if anyone has any questions about any of the other issues raised, I think we've officially answered them in our response and in your packet. It's simply not true that you need a 10 foot setback to build a property, to build a retaining wall at the property line. This is done downtown all the time, certainly on big buildings that we all watch. We do it as well on single family residences. We build one, two, three stories underground. We don't have three stories underground here. But I'm using it as a point that we can do either through soldier piles or, actually what we're thinking is better here is hand dug piers. And what hand dug pier is is a four foot square hole that is carefully dug down six inches at a time. At each six inches increment, they put in another board similar to a mining shaft to keep the thing from falling in. And those boards are wedged against one another across the four feet. So that's slowly done carefully. And then that hole is filled with concrete and rebar on one side, eight inches, 10 inches, or 12 inches thick. And then you hopscotch to the next. None of this requires participation from the neighbor. No piece of equipment, no board, no single element is placed on the neighbor's property, nor is access required for that. And that has water management on the blind side, which is also on the subject property. So waterproofing and water collection in the form of a drainboard mat is on the property, the sponsor's side. So all of this can be done in a sequence that is tried and tested by many engineers, has been repeated with great success and very carefully. There's of course vibration monitoring if the soil is dense so that we can make sure that this is a sandy, silty mixture. It's in the soils report. It's stiff enough to hold up for six inches. That's all anything is asked of it. No one is making a big cut and then asking it to stand up on its own reconnaissance. So privacy, light and air, sunlight, those are all things in here. This is 50 feet away from that structure. So we recognize that it's a historical, beautiful building. It's a neat part of San Francisco's architectural history. It's a super cool thing. We think that this is very respectful because it's so far downhill, so far away from that historic structure. So we feel very good about this fitting into the residential design guidelines and to the context of this really beautiful historic resource. Also, it's just so far away that we feel very confident from an engineering standpoint. Of course, that stuff is not generally discussed in this format with the planning commission, but we have great engineers that do this all the time. This is very easy compared to most of those zero lot line conditions. I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: That concludes project sponsor's presentation. We should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Last call, seeing none, public comment is closed. Discretionary review requester, you have a two minute rebuttal.

[June Coleman (Representative for DR Requester, Doe Capital Inc.)]: I'm going cede most of my time to the engineer. I did just want to point out that the land is sloped. And so the picture you saw with the retaining wall, that was a temporary retaining wall that was 15 feet away from where the piers were being put. So there has to maintain that retaining wall in order to put those piers in. And that's the distance that we're talking about in terms of the width of the building, which is 40 feet. But I'm going to let my engineer speak.

[Rob Colosimo (Civil Engineer for DR Requester)]: Yeah. And I think my main concern with using a mine shaft method, it's not described in the feasibility study. So I think now is the time to figure out, is this even feasible? I'm sure these things happen in better soil conditions. These soil conditions are a little bit nerve racking because of the dune sand. So it's very loose sand. And so you hand dig a mine shaft down 15 feet, and you move over to the next mine shaft, is what I'm understanding. This is a very lengthy and costly process. So I think it's a good time to figure out what's the what does that trenching and excavation plan actually look like? Is it feasible in the sand that's described by the geotechnical report? Now's a good time to figure that out.

[June Coleman (Representative for DR Requester, Doe Capital Inc.)]: MARY And so I'd just like to stress again that we're suggesting that the Planning Commission consider the actual project that will end up being built if it's approved. And there has to be some offset on that lot line. So we would just think that they should submit plans for something that would actually be built and not something that's 40 feet wide from lot line to lot line. We'll take any questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: That concludes your rebuttal. We'll take the rebuttal from the project sponsor next.

[Rob Colosimo (Civil Engineer for DR Requester)]: Thank you.

[Steven Sutro (Architect and Project Sponsor, Item 11)]: Thank you very much. Steven Sutra, project sponsor. It's just simply not true. We don't need an offset. We've done this multiple times on projects that are very, very similar with great success and careful monitoring with surveyors and ground monitoring. I don't think there's anything else that I have to add, but I'm here to answer any type of questions about how it's been achieved in the past. Oh, I do wanna say that this really is not the the format. So, the discretionary review process certainly delays us by several months as we attempt to finish the site permit application process so we then can submit the shoring plan and engineering drawings so we're fully prepared to take that next step when we are you know allowed to proceed to that next step

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: okay if that concludes the sponsor's rebuttal, this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I find this one tough. This one bothered me the last time. I don't believe my neighbor is I'm an extension of my neighbor's guard, and this this is what I see here, is is basically somebody who sees somebody else's property as an extension of their of their garden. This is an engineered basic lagging system driven pile with six by going in four foot. Okay. A driven pile is a proven pile lagging the system on that. I don't think you will have a problem with that. It is your neighbor's property and it's downhill. I don't, I've gone through this, I can't see how the light is a problem to your property. I can't see how how any form of flooding can be. It's actually the opposite direction. Basically, any water that's coming from your client's property is going on to their property. Right now, there's nothing on it, so there hasn't been a problem. There might be a problem going forward if the engineering isn't done correctly and it would appear to me the engineering has is being taken into account because if anybody's going to be on the wrong end of this, it's the person downstream and that's this. So I have no problem the previous time we were here making a motion to basically deny the Doctor requester

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Second.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Get you get this project started. I'd make a motion on

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: that. Second. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I just want to say that I understand the concerns of the Doctor requester. Think, you know, given the fact that it is an historical building and all of that. And but I I kind of agree with Commissioner McGarry on this one as much as it is concerning to understand that all this huge retaining walls are going to be constructed in sand. I've had a little bit of experience dealing with sand. I mean, there's ways to deal with sand when you're having to dig into it to hold it in place. And so as much as I understand the concerns of the Doctor requester, I don't think there's enough here to deny, or I should say to approve the Doctor. And so I would just say to the project sponsor that you are working next to historical site. And it's probably a good idea to try to keep your neighbor informed about what you're doing and the process that you're taking. And I think that goes a long way when you're building next to somebody and they have really legitimate concerns. And so that's all I would have to say.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (President, San Francisco Planning Commission)]: Commissioner So.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: I recall seeing this architecture firm's work everywhere in the city and especially in this neighborhood for many years. And it is a pretty reputable company. And I do believe that he is not really going to do anything that will harm your client's property nor his credibility. It's a pretty credible architecture firm. I think what we see here is a very classic San Francisco issue. And I'm looking at every other block in that neighborhood. It's pretty densely packed. A lot of houses, fancy houses, built to lot line. And it's on pretty steep sill, same stun. And I understand you to pay you you are being paid to do this. And it's kind of a bit of a pickle here. But I do want to make sure that it is fair to everyone that wanted to continue to live in San Francisco. And I do believe that this architecture company had their own really good quality licensed professional to take care of not just only soil, but any step along the way through this construction so that everyone can live happily. So I'm in support with my fellow commissioners to not approve this Doctor.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: Okay commissioners if there's no further deliberation there is a motion that has been seconded to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed on that motion commissioner McGarry aye commissioner so

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: aye

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: commissioner Williams Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell.

[June Coleman (Representative for DR Requester, Doe Capital Inc.)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary/Clerk)]: So move, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously six to zero and concludes your hearing today. I will also note that we have nothing on your agenda next week. So you can expect a cancellation notice tomorrow.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you.