San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 03/12/2026. When the 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 is 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 watch your time tick down and to see how much time you have left. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you have and if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the Commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take roll. Commission President Campbell.

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

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

[Theresa Imperial (Planning Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. Here. And Commissioner Williams? Here. Thank you, commissioners. We expect commissioner Moore to be absent today and commissioner So to arrive shortly. First on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance item one, case number 2025Hyphen009257DRP at 2303 Filbert Street discretionary review is proposed for continuance to 03/26/2026. And item two, case number 2020Five-twelve151 PCA for the 100% affordable housing planning code amendment is proposed for indefinite continuance. I have no other items proposed for continuance, and so we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their consent calendar only on the matter of continuance excuse me, on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

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

[Sean McGarry (Planning Commissioner)]: Motion to continue.

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

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

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously five to zero. Placing us under your consent calendar For item three, which constitutes your consent calendar, is considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of the item unless a member of the commission, the public,

[Michael Nolte (public commenter)]: or staff so requests in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item three, case number 2020Five-nine706

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: CUA at 38 8th Street Conditional Use Authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that this matter be pulled off of consent and heard today under the regular calendar. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Move to approve item three on consent.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Second. Thank you. Commissioners on that motion to approve item three on consent. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell?

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

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

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: I'll be reading the land acknowledgment. The commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working under traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Rama to Shaloni community and by affirming their sovereign rights as for its peoples.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: CHIEF Item five, consideration of adoption draft minutes for 02/26/2026. 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. Your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: I'd like to make a motion to Motion to adopt the draft minutes. Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Commissioners, on that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell.

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

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

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner Williams?

[Michael Nolte (public commenter)]: Oh.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: No problem.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Seeing none, we can move on to department matters item seven, directors announcements.

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: I apologize, commissioners. I don't have

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: any great announcements or anything to share this week.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Okay. Quiet, quiet week. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Don't apologize. Item eight, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors. There is no report from the Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday.

[Audra Maloney (Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs, SF Planning)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Audra Maloney, acting manager of legislative affairs. Going back two weeks, the Land Use Committee did not consider any planning related items. However, at the full board, the adaptive reuse of historic buildings ordinance passed its first read. And then this week at the land use committee, members heard the ordinance that would establish the 2245 Post Street Special Use District. This is the ordinance that would facilitate the redevelopment of the holocaust center. Commissioners, you heard this item on January 29 and voted unanimously to approve it. At the land use committee hearing, supervisor Mahmoud voted the project and thanked chair Melgar for her cosponsorship. Supervisor Chen also spoke in support of the project before asking to be added as a cosponsor. The ordinance was amended to make technical changes regarding the environmental clearance language before being unanimously moved to the full board with a positive recommendation. And then finally at the full board this week the adaptive reuse of historic buildings ordinance passed its second read. And the appeal of the conditional use authorization at 524 Through 526 Vallejo Street was continued to April 7. I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Seeing no questions for Ms. Merloni, we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. Members of the public need to come forward. Last call. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. We can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners, for item nine, case number twenty twenty five-twelve thousand one forty nine PCA Public Works Administrative and Planning Code Amendments for Street Trees.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Commissioner Williams, you have something to share?

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Yes. Thank you. I just want to announce that I work for the Department of Public Works as a carpenter with the Bureau of Building Repair. This issue before us is regarding the Bureau of Urban Forestry. And so I don't have any this is not going to create a conflict for me to be impartial.

[David Moore (Superintendent, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: Jonas, if I may have the presentation. Perfect. Good afternoon, commissioners. Lisa Gluckstein, planning department staff. I'm joined here today by David Moore and Susan Knobbery from Public Works. I'll provide a presentation on this ordinance, and then we'll turn it over to David to speak about the work of the Bureau of Urban Forestry. The proposed ordinance would amend the public works code to allow development projects to satisfy street planting tree planting requirements through payment of an in lieu fee or providing alternative landscaping, exempt accessory dwelling units from street tree planting requirements, and update in lieu fee reporting requirements, and would amend the administrative code to create a separate account within the adopt a tree fund to receive in lieu fees for street tree requirements. Most relevant here, it amends the planning code to update street tree applicability requirements in line with the aforementioned amendments. As a note, the commission's charter jurisdiction is limited to the planning code components of the ordinance that reference these updated street tree applicability requirements. The ordinance as currently drafted eliminates appeals to the board of appeals for city initiated tree removals and hazard tree removals. The city intends to adopt amendments at land use committee that would maintain appeals for city initiated tree removals subject to certain procedural guardrails. Though these provisions related to appeals are outside of the planning code and the department's charter jurisdiction here, as changes to the public works and admin codes. I'm noting them here for your situational awareness. Currently, development projects must plant one street tree for every 20 feet of linear frontage. If that project constructs a new building, adds a dwelling unit, curb cut, or garage, or adds 500 gross square feet or more to an existing building. An in lieu fee payment of $2,590 per tree is only allowed if street tree planting is infeasible or inappropriate or if the project is constructing new accessory dwelling units or legalizing unauthorized dwelling units. Under this ordinance, projects subject to the same street tree planting criteria would have the option of either planting a tree under the existing requirements or paying an in lieu fee. All ADUs would be exempt from the tree planting requirement to bring our local code into alignment with recent changes to state law that prohibit the city from imposing street tree planting requirements on ADUs permitted under government code section six six three two three. These changes would also allow the planning department to notify project sponsors of their street tree obligations earlier on in the permitting process during the planning approval stage. And these requirements would be communicated to the sponsor through the planning approval letter. Fees collected through this in lieu fee program would be used solely for planting and watering trees, and the controller's office would issue reports on these fees. This legislation serves three primary goals. First, the in lieu fee provides flexibility for project sponsors, especially small scale projects who are disproportionately impacted in how they meet the street tree planting obligations. Second, more projects electing to pay an in lieu fee reduces permit review burden on public work staff for project specific street tree planting permits, allowing the same staff to process other permits faster, spend time in the fields doing inspections, and oversee city led tree planting efforts at scale. And third, related to this last point, having a dedicated pool of money for street tree planting allows public works to pursue more proactive street tree planting efforts with greater consideration to the city's urban canopy and environmental equity goals. I'll provide a little bit more background on each. In the past three years, over 3,500 projects have been subject to these street tree planting requirements. Only 167 paid an in lieu fee under the current structure. This means that BUF staff, Bureau of Urban Forestry staff, have reviewed an average of a thousand plus permits annually. The vast majority of these are for small scale residential projects. For example, rear additions or added units. Many of these projects would not otherwise propose modifications to the front of the property absent the current street tree planting requirement. The permitting process for street tree planting takes an average of thirty two days, often involving multiple rounds of review by Buff staff and considerable back and forth with the applicant. The legislation would allow such projects to choose to forego the permitting process by proceeding directly through fee payment and would significantly reduce the administrative burden on BUF. Total in lieu fee revenue in years past has averaged around $750,000 annually. Though we can't estimate how many projects would choose the in lieu fee option as it hasn't existed, except where physically infeasible, we expect that it would increase significantly under this program. This new pool of tree planting funds would allow the city to plant where there is need for trees, which could be on the subject property, to be clear, or on other low canopy corridors across the city. It would also allow the city to consider existing tree planting efforts, such as those led by the Friends of the Urban Forest and increase the scale of those projects. The city could also dedicate, would be able to dedicate funds outside of specific geographies where where city existing city grants are restricted. And that's what this map shows is some of the grant areas where proactive tree planting funds are limited, and so it would allow for planting outside of those shaded areas. This program also reflects the city's goal in the urban forest plan of shifting tree maintenance responsibility away from individual property owners and back to the city in order to improve the standard of care for street trees. Given these considerations, the department recommends approval of this ordinance. I'll now turn it over to david to speak a little bit more about buff and I'm happy to answer questions after his presentation thank you

[David Moore (Superintendent, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: thank you lisa and thank you commissioners for having us today my name is David Moore and I'm the superintendent for the bureau of urban forestry having a little microphone adjustment here okay so I'm gonna present this information as though it's new for the sake of the record. My apologies if you already know some of it. But just like it sounds, the Bureau of Urban Forestry takes care of San Francisco's urban forest. And then our first photo here is the work we do. That's Marquisha in the middle leading a group of volunteers to plant street trees in SoMa last November. And that young man all the way on the right is my son, Shepherd. He's seven and a half. And if you want to do something like this, please, it's not too late to sign up for Arbor Day, which we'll be hosting in District 3 this Saturday and planting 100 street trees and doing a lot of other family friendly or individual friendly activities having to do with urban forestry. So overall, we manage the street trees and the landscapes in the public right of way throughout San Francisco. We also manage the sidewalks directly underneath those trees because tree roots can cause issues with tree with the sidewalks and we wanna provide the whole package service. Tree maintenance funding comes through prop e which was passed by an overwhelming majority of voters I believe over 75% in 2017 our cement shop also takes on other cement projects like curb ramps because Public Works just has one cement shop. We take on other projects for client work as well. But I digress. But when you drive through the streets and you see beautiful landscapes in a median and trees around them on the sidewalks, those are our babies. And we do our absolute best to make San Francisco a greener, healthier place that's more environmentally conscious. Sometimes the average person, the greenery that they see on their way to work or on the way to visit their family might be the only greenery they see the whole week. We know all the benefits of trees that come with them. Not only do they look nice, but they provide shade and climate resilience. They help us deal with urban heat islands. The roots in the soil absorb storm water and, overall, make our lives more livable and make our commercial corridors more attractive for people to come to. And imagine living in the nineteen fifties or forties where there weren't trees on the sidewalks. That would be just a very different San Francisco. So we come to maybe just get used to them at this point. But before prop e was passed, the city actually didn't take responsibility for all the street trees. So that's a paradigm shift within the past ten years. So by holistically managing all the street trees, we are able to be more efficient and provide better services. The voters wanted to make sure that the sidewalks are also maintained, so we take part of that as well. Is Drew's right there. He manages our tree shop of arborists who climb the trees with buckets and ropes and chainsaws. Also do 20 fourseven emergency response because trees growing in sidewalks can be susceptible to wind throw and storms. They can come down. And we have heavy duty equipment to clear them out. We also issue tree permits, as Susan is in charge of, as the acting urban forestry manager. We proactively prune over 10,000 trees a year, and we're working on scaling that up to over 20,000 so that we can visit the trees more frequently. We have 125,000 of them. That's quite a lot for a city of our size. And we also repair 25,000 or more square feet of sidewalk damage per year. And we have contractors that supplement our in house staff. In house, we have over a 150 employees and are currently recruiting to expand capacity. These are links that I hope are part of the record if anyone wanted to refer to them, but they show where our authority is based through the Public Works Code chapter 16, the Urban Forest Plan, Climate Action Plan, our approved street tree list, and the director's order on tree planting. And maybe Susan, you'd be best to speak to the specifics of the Urban Forestry Inspection team that she manages. Susan, could you come up here? Thank you.

[Susan Knobbery (Acting Urban Forester, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: I'm Susan Knobbery. I'm the acting urban forester with the Bureau of Urban Forestry. Our inspection team inspects over 3,500 street trees and tree related sidewalk conditions annually. We respond and intake 4,100 requests annually. And like mentioned earlier, we perform about 1,100 to 1,500 plan checks per year at the San Francisco Permit Center. And we also strategize street tree planting and maintenance operations. We also perform quality control for street tree and sidewalk contractors, and we manage street tree inventory and data. All this is balanced with working with developers and also working with internal staff. So there's a lot of customer service that happens with the public, managing the street tree plantings, but also internal strategizing. So the hope is to streamline that with this legislation. So we have challenges and future goals. We do want to address backlogged sidewalk repairs. And we're trying to plan our routine maintenance cycle, our next cycle, because we just finished our first Street Tree SF pruning cycle. We'd like to expand staff and contracting capacity. And very importantly, grow the street tree population to 155,000 street trees by 2040, plant 3,500 new trees in low canopied areas. That will be primarily achieved through our IRA inflation reduction act grant. And we'd like to increase planting space beyond 1,500 to 2,000 trees per year. It takes a lot of staff labor to find these tree sites. And I agree that the overall efficiency would be improved if, as opposed to dealing with piecemeal projects on an individual basis, our capacity was focused on the efficiencies of finding street trees on a block by block planting maintenance strategy. Thanks.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Does that conclude staff presentation?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: Yes, this concludes the Thank staff's you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: You. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You can line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Come on up.

[Michael Rothman (Chair, Parks and Trees Committee, Telegraph Hill Dwellers)]: My name is Michael Rothman. I'm the chairman of the Parks and Trees Committee here on behalf of the Telegraph Hill dwellers to strongly oppose the proposed amendments to the planning code. Often under the guise of crisis and in the name of expediency, power is taken out of the hands of the public. If San Francisco's leadership intends to streamline development, it must do so thoughtfully and in a way that maintains and grows the city's urban forest and keeps the interest of the public represented. Allowing street trees to be replaced with sidewalk gardens or a $2,509 in lieu removal fee would not meet San Francisco's self proclaimed urban forestry goals. The urban forest plan adopted in 2014 called for 50,000 new street trees by 2034. This goal is far from being met. Substituting tree replacement requirements with a payment of 2,509 barely covers the cost of planting a replacement tree and doesn't take into account the cost of three years of required watering and maintenance during the establishment period. Eliminating the board of appeals from the review process disenfranchises the public will result in the removal of hundreds of trees, and invites corruption by the Department of Public Works and the Recreation and Parks Department. In January 2023, THC filed an appeal for a permit of a permit for the removal of three ficus trees in front of 69 Green Street that had been approved for removal by DPW. Based on our appeal, the health of the trees were was reassessed. The trees were ultimately deemed nonhazardous and remain standing today. Without that appeal, the public would have lost those three street trees solely to improve the view from a new construction project. This is just one of many examples. Another involves 78 fiscuses slated for removal on 24th Street. After a large community response that number was reduced to 33. Sustained neighborhood engagement following the appeal led to the formation of mission verde which ultimately replaced all of the removed trees and established the grassroots watering program. Under the proposed amendments, although the public would still be notified and permitted to protest tree removals, all final decisions would rest solely with the director of DPW without independent review and public oversight. When coupled with proposed zoning changes, these amendments have the potential to give outsized influence to developers and city departments while silencing communities. We would support changes to the amendments to increase the in lieu fee to $7,500, a figure that more accurately reflects the true cost of planting and maintaining a replacement tree maintain the jurisdiction of the board of appeals to hear appeals of tree removals expedite permits for tree planting and sidewalk gardens and expand grassroots and community based partnerships to support urban forestry we urge you to please reject the proposed amendments as written thank you

[Mark Malouf (Teamsters Local 853)]: Good afternoon commissioners my name is mark Malouf and I'm here representing the interests of teamsters local eight fifty three. We applaud the mayor's office and supervisor Wong for this legislative work around tree regulations. We have concerns with the tree trimming permit process and sent a letter requesting you to consider an amendment to include common sense rules around tree trimming today. Since submitting, we are in positive dialogue with the mayor's team and DPW to try to work on that permit process administratively. We will keep you updated on this progress and appreciate the mayor and the department's focus on this. Thank you.

[Sean Auchland (Founder, fairtrees.org; SOMA resident)]: Good afternoon commissioners my name is Sean and I' a South Of Market resident and also the founder of fairtrees.org I' urging you to reject or heavily amend file 251,211 you are required to apply strict land use and environmental standards in your approval today. This legislation fails on three distinct Planning Commission mandates. First, the CEQA exemption is legally absurd. The legislation claims it is not a project under CEQA because it would, quote, not result in a physical change in the environment. This is a bill that dictates whether a neighborhood gets mature canopy shade or a 75 foot, patch of alternative landscaping. Eliminating appeals for tree removals and allowing developers to buy their way out of planting guarantees a loss of canopy. Claiming a street tree ordinance does not alter the physical environment is an insult to this commission's intelligence. Second, it violates the general plans environmental justice framework under charter section 4.105 you as a commissioner mandated to disapprove any action that does not conform to the general plan. The alternative landscaping and the in lieu fee provision provisions prioritize concrete over canopy this bill allows developers to bypass planting the tree without strict metrics for canopy volume or carbon sequestration Furthermore, eliminating the in lieu fee without a geographic lock as has been claimed, folks have said this is for low canopy that appears nowhere in the text of the legislation, it breaks the legal nexus between a development's impact and its mitigation. You cannot legally extract a fee from a new tower in a developing area and spend it elsewhere. Because this robs our neighborhoods of actual environmental mitigation, you must formally find that it fails to conform to the general plan and reject it. Third and last, it fails the public welfare finding required under planning code section three zero two. Today, you have to legally find that this ordinance serves the public necessity and welfare. I analyze the public comment file for this legislation. Between the Action Network petition and individual and organizational letters, well over 900 individuals and organizations have submitted feedback. So I realize there are only three people here today. More than 900 have submitted feedback via the file. The sentiment is 100% opposed with the exception of the speaker before me. 100% opposed. There is not a single letter in support. The city has made no effort to improve this legislation in response. You cannot legally declare that an ordinance serves the public welfare when the public has universally rejected it, require strict canopy metrics, mandate geographic equity in line with our environmental justice framework that the planning commission and board of supervisors passed, and please do not let developers buy their way out of greening our city just before we upzone it and increase density. Thank you.

[Kathrin Howard (Landscape Architect; public commenter)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Make that four people. And I have read many of the hundreds of letters letters and talked to people who are totally opposed. Nobody wants this legislation. I don't know where it came from, but nobody wants it. My name is Kathrin Howard. I love the work of the Public Works Department. I appreciate that this will give them more funding to spend as they wish. But I think what we really need are trees planted right away. This legislation is deeply flawed and will result in fewer trees being planted. I'm a landscape architect. Standard architectural drawings layout infrastructure and landscape plans. Trees must be located away from water lines, sewer lines, and underground electrical connections. To ensure robust growth, irrigation lines should be laid and an automatic system installed. However, if a builder fees out of planting trees, then they also do not have to plan for infrastructure placement. If you're thinking, oh, trees can be planted in the future, please rethink them. It is very costly to retroactively open a sidewalk and a street to move utility lines and to install an irrigation system. In my experience, developers are willing to follow rules as long as there is a level playing field. If feeding out tree planting is financially beneficial for developers, all developers then may have to eliminate trees in order to compete financially with their competitors. Basically, by letting developers buy their way out of tree planting, we are essentially, literally paving the way for a majority of projects that will likely never have trees. And the department gave a figure of 3,500 for last year, permits. So multiply that by the next ten years, and you've got a whole lot of trees that will never ever be planted in the city if this legislation passes as written. Now I have an idea. Instead of feeing out, let's keep the trees in the building plan. Let's keep all the infrastructure and make an effort to mitigate the negative environmental impacts of all these tall buildings, block sunlight, wind, bird deaths, require developers to provide additional funding for more trees all over San Francisco, perhaps based on the number of stories and the footprint of the building. If this additional funding, which I'm sure the department would be happy to have, could make up for any inequity in planting and help to mitigate the environmental impacts of all the tall new buildings while increasing our now sparse urban forest. Thank you for your consideration.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for public comment. Seeing none in the chambers, we'll go to our reasonable accommodation requester. Mr. Nolte, you have three minutes.

[Michael Nolte (public commenter)]: JAMES Can you hear

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Mr. Nolte?

[Michael Nolte (public commenter)]: Yes, can you hear me?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: MICHAEL We can. Go ahead.

[Michael Nolte (public commenter)]: MICHAEL Oh, thank you. This is Michael Nolte. I'm a citizen planner and a tenderloin advocate in San Francisco native. I'm a lifelong citizen. Of our cities that's in most environmental neighborhoods. The Tenderloin is one of the lowest street tree canopies in San Francisco, often 4% of many are. I'm getting feedback. Far far below the citywide average, 13.7, are Cox Street's I'm opposed to this legislation, and it needs to be revamped before it should be passed by the city. And there needs to be a lot of changes to be up in the legislation. I'm having a hard time because there's good feedback. Thank you very much. I submitted my written proposal submitted it by email for review. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Okay, final last call for public comment on this matter. Come on up, ma'am.

[Raza Bell (District 1 resident; public commenter)]: This is on Street Trees. Is that correct?

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

[Raza Bell (District 1 resident; public commenter)]: K. Hi, all. Thanks for being here. My name is Raza Bell. I am a resident of D One. I'm here to ask that you not recommend the approval of changes of the street tree codes. We've all seen instances where individuals, developers, and even the city itself has followed the plan of better to ask for forgiveness than permission when it comes to the removal of street trees, instances where trees have been removed during the appeal process or even without asking for a removal permit. Sorry. The proposed changes to these rules normalizes this behavior because what's been in place for decades has attempted to keep people honest and accountable for their behavior. The removal of street trees is not something that you should just be able to throw money at. This is our living space. It's our environment. The existence of trees in our city is not an abstract concept. Yes, trees help clean the air that we breathe and give us shade when it's hot, but it's easy to forget that these trees are also for the nature around us, birds and bees and small rodents like squirrels, especially. And these creatures are crucial for human survival. Aside from the throwing money to get off the hook aspect of this amendment redesign, There's also the fact that it includes eradicating the right to appeal tree removals. This denies the community a democratic process, a process that has been the foundation of a number of wonderful community projects, Mission Verde, to name one. San Francisco has a climate action plan, which has failed so badly that we had to redesign it yet again, for the future. And this amendment seeks to, remove the guardrails to keep all of these things in place. We know that trees are crucial to our existence. Street trees, especially, are a very important part of San Francisco. And I think it's hard to believe that this amendment is being brought before you right now, quite frankly. I'm kind of shocked. So thank you so much for your time. I appreciate the chance to speak as I just walk into the room. Thank you.

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

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Planning Commissioner)]: I'd like to thank staff for all the work they've done on this. I'm also a d one resident, and it's abysmal, the lack of of tree canopy we actually have out there in the avenues. We've got the smallest tree canopy of major cities, 13.7%. That is pretty sad. We require tree planting and and maintenance at scale. That is definitely what's required here. I'm all about creating sustainable funding and a funding stream and accountability on that. Friends of Urban Forest putting us in the hands of one department with basically a 100 people plus right now, and hopefully, that can double can double 16 or 13.7 to 26, 27.7 in a short period of time.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Whatever we're doing, we're doing

[Sean McGarry (Planning Commissioner)]: it wrong because 13.7% is just not good enough right now. That's in allowing individuals to do it the way they're doing it, and they're obviously not doing it correctly. So I'm a big fan of actually putting it in the hands of one department, and that one department being accountable for it. For everybody here who, quite rightly, is either for or against it, But I think the people who are against it would be agreeable that basically accountability is what's required here. And accountability would basically over a period of time gives us metrics for improvement. As it stands right now, 13.7% is just terrible and we have to do better. Alternatives, I have I'm 10th And 10th Avenue in Richmond, but 12th Avenue, there is an alternative there where DPW did come. Our friends there at Urban Forest did come out and take some of the sidewalk and the whole way down the block, plant it, basically plants, and it looks phenomenal. The one thing about the avenues I hate is that concrete, you know, and the lack of of any kind of color other than that gray. So alternatives I meant I'm into as well. There's what we've done around the city with cactuses up and down. It took a few years, but they look phenomenal now. Guerrero as an example or down 19th Avenue as an example. Odd when they went in, but over the course of a few years, they do look amazing. So I'm all for anything that can make this work. And I'm I'm applaud the Friends of the Urban Urban Forest. And I actually wish you well on this. And I think if we can get more, my six year old out, to actually help on that too, there's an educational value that basically goes beyond. So I'm in favor of this today.

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: I'd like to just start by asking a few questions, really just kind of helping to confirm my understanding and maybe also emphasize points if I got it right. But first of all, I just want to bring up again, as was noted during the presentation, that the spy doesn't have the authority to review the removal appeals component of the legislation. So I encourage folks to keep on bringing that forward to the appropriate bodies. But I'm going to leave that aside. So have a question maybe for Bureau of Urban Forestry. Briefly, there was a mention of the grant funding and limited locations in which that could be used. But would you mind just expanding a little bit more on the relationship between our grant funding, where and how that can be used for tree planting urban canopy improvements versus our local unrestricted funding?

[David Moore (Superintendent, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: Absolutely. Thanks for asking that question. And I want to also say thank you, everybody, for your interest in the trees and expanding our urban forest. While the voters approved prop e in 2017 to fund tree maintenance and the maintenance of sidewalk beneath trees, when we say maintenance that means really pruning the mature trees. It's not necessarily watering a new tree or planting a tree in a new location. So the department does not have a fixed guaranteed source of income or funding to plant trees. So we go out of our way thanks, Lisa, for putting that slide up there. We go out of our way to apply for grants because there are grantors out there, including CAL FIRE. Even though they don't you think about CAL FIRE as like fighting forest fires. They have an urban forestry arm and they have funding to grant to the cities that meet certain equity criteria to plant trees. And they have a metric called CAL EnviroScreen and now it's up to three point zero because these an algorithm based off of like socioeconomic data and pollution data and climate change data to determine what's a good investment to achieve equity goals with through urban forestry. That's one example. The federal government may have a different tool. During the Biden administration, there was the Inflation Reduction Act, which in an unprecedented way had hundreds of millions of dollars available for urban forestry, which was granted to grant applicants. San Francisco had the most ambitious grant application in California and was awarded $12,000,000 in urban forestry grant funds for tree planting and canopy expansion in specific equity zones of San Francisco according to their equity tool, which is no longer available due to administration changes. But the to cut to the chase is that the slide we have here shows the different grant zones. The yellow one is our IRA grant, which is what we call it for through the US Forest Service. And they have their metric of what's an equity zone. By and large, they're on the East or the Southeast side of the city. Then there's the California Natural Resources Agency, which we're just wrapping up a grant from them. It's a state grant, not from CAL FIRE, but we've had CAL FIRE grants in the past that we're wrapping up. And that's the blue zone. So that's a very specific area that complements the orange area, but they're not the same. Now, San Francisco also has its own equity tool, and that evolves over time. And that's generally like the East Side of the city. So what I'm trying to say is when we apply for grants, 100% and that's for tree planting 100% of those funds are for an equity priority area of San Francisco. And we cannot spend it anywhere else. And the state has one set of metrics. The federal government has another set. The city has its own set, but the city doesn't grant us the funds in that same way with except for through Prop L. We have more flexibility through Prop L grants. But, what we're doing is creating a mosaic of fundable areas to plant trees, but they're very limited. And they're time oriented. So we'll have a grant and it might last a couple years and then it's over. And then we have to apply for a new one. So we are, though the scales are fully weighed for planting trees in equity priority areas for the reasons which are at this point I think common knowledge. We'd still have an obligation to provide services to the rest of San Francisco. And there could be literally a neighborhood cut in half by one of these borders of what's a census tract that is considered an equity priority neighborhood per a per a grantor and right across the street it's not and you and so okay well we can plant on these side of this of the line but we can't plant on that side so that's why we haven't applied specific equity language or would promote it to be part of this legislation because we're already focusing the vast majority of our tree planting in those areas but we lack opportunities to complement that with other funding sources. Thank

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: you. Thank you for that. And I understand, you know, it's helpful to have a local source. So I'll just say, you know, I'm thrilled, of course, when somebody undertaking a development project chooses to plant trees of their own accord, under a requirement or their own accord, in front of their property. But for me, it's also helpful to have a funding source that the city can use and deploy it's to sort of complement the picture of these very specific locations that we have outside funding for. And as you mentioned, we have priority equity geographies that largely cover the eastern half of the city that are quite a bit larger than where these grants have been targeted. And so I think there is an equity component to this with the ability to plant trees in specific parts of the city as well. But that also takes me to a separate point in question. So just want to this kind of cuts two different ways. But as I understand it, our in lieu fee that would be charged is, by law, it's supported by a nexus study that basically draws a connection between the actual cost of the department's efforts to plant and maintain a tree. So I don't know if there's anything more you can add. I mean, but we do have a nexus study, correct? It's fairly recently completed?

[David Moore (Superintendent, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: So I want to maybe speak to that. And I might ask for the help of some of my colleagues if they want to add. But, the fees are set through a nexus study that the department itself doesn't have control over. It's based off of an evaluation of averages of tree planting costs. And, that constitutes about was it $2,400 $500 and that's adjusted for consumer price index year after year there are going to be because of the laws of averages there's going to be more expensive and less expensive tree planting locations based off of how much concrete you cut or excavate or some of those details. The NEXUS study fee also covers the tree watering and establishment for the first three years after planting, which is necessary especially because it doesn't rain for about half the years and it's I'm wearing a linen suit because it's 75 degrees in March, we're dealing with a lot of factors that work against these little miracles growing in our sidewalks. So we can't overcharge people. And we shouldn't be undercharging them either. We shouldn't leave money on the table. Though maybe But my personal opinion would be, we should get more and more funding for trees. We can't legitimately overcharge people for a cost that doesn't align with the neXus study itself.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Thank you for that. Yeah. And I just wanted to bring that forward that this has both been studied. And there's also a legal sort of maximum that we can charge based on the nexus study. In my professional life, I prepare nexus studies related to affordable housing. And so I just wanted to make sure that was clear. My last question is, I see in the legislation that these fees would be deposited into a separate account that's used for tree planting and watering. Is that correct? Is it a separate account? Yes.

[David Moore (Superintendent, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: The fees go into a fund that can only be used for tree planting in their establishment, correct. It cannot be used for any other purpose.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for that. So with that, I just wanted to kind of get that in the record and make sure I was understanding some of this properly, too. My take on this is that I don't well, again, it's helpful if developers plant the trees themselves in the interticket project. But I don't fully understand this idea that somehow the city getting money to deploy in a way that is supported by the community, but that is supported by elected officials and the laws that are passed and the rules that are set, I don't see how that's a bad thing. There's plenty of things that we take fee revenue for in order to support our city services and use it to fund those services rather than asking developers to fund every little service themselves or piece of infrastructure remaining themselves. And there's a benefit to that. And I think those benefits have been talked about extensively during the presentation today. Now, sounds I also hear a slightly troubling sort of implication maybe that there's not a great level of trust the city's going to follow through on planting these trees. And I know your team, David, is very focused on doing this. And so I just hope that we prove the naysayers wrong on that and that we really do have a lot of trees planted and a lot of success.

[David Moore (Superintendent, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: Yeah? Yes. Thank you for the confidence. That is our mission goal. And we cannot fail on achieving the common goal that we share with our constituents and stakeholders. We are working ferociously to increase capacity, implement these planting grants, expand public private partnerships, and getting the trees to survive after planting is even harder than planting them. So we need the community to also keep an eye on them. You know, after we plant trees, establish public private partnerships at a grassroots level of like, hey, let us know if something happens with these trees. Because we do community engagement before we plant. Because though the people in this meeting seem to be fully aware of the needs for trees, it's unfortunately not common knowledge to 100% of the people in San Francisco. So someone walking by it could accidentally brush it. They might pull their truck up too close to it and damage the roots. There's so many things that can happen to these very vulnerable trees when they're planted because they're so small. So we have success when we engage people and ask them about their values about trees. Would they want them in their neighborhood? If so, yes. We'll say, Okay, this is the realities of what they're vulnerable to and what would hurt them. And if you're interested in reporting back on us of like, oh, the stakes came out. Hey, public works, can you come by? It really does take a village to try to succeed in something like this. So we welcome continued constructive dialogue on how we can band together and play to our strengths and achieve these common goals.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Thank you. And just as my last comment on this, I'll say that I also generally appreciate some of the equity benefits that come with the department when it does get revenues from projects. Just thinking through how a lot of projects, especially small single family home projects, are planted in neighborhoods that are already they have strong markets. They're already fairly wealthy neighborhoods in many instances that have good tree canopy. And this gives an opportunity to maybe kind of spread around some of the benefits to the neighborhoods that don't have that sort of momentum of development and therefore the tree plantings in them. And so with that, I'm curious to hear what other commissioners have to say. But I am going to go ahead and adopt a recommendation for approval make a motion, rather, to adopt a recommendation for approval.

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Second. I actually have something I wanted to add on to it. But I'll wait for my turn for comments. Commissioner Imperial.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Thank you. And thank you, commissioners, for your comments. And thank you for the presentation. And also appreciate the public speaking passionately. And we received so many emails about this. One thing I appreciate about the legislation, it actually brought up the issues and concerns. And also, many people really care about street trees. And it just makes me think that really and I appreciate Mr. Moore and you mentioning how the committee can be more engaged in this. And I think there needs probably, perhaps I can only say that this legislation will probably probably one of the few that will probably need to be come up in order to really support the urban forest plan and also the Bureau of Urban Forestry objectives. But one thing that I appreciate from one of the public comment was that if the situation is that if a developer decided to pay an in lieu fee, and then retroactively the Bureau of Urban Forestry would retroactive plan for that, How will that procedure go? Because usually right now, a developer would submit a tree application, and the BOF will review the tree site. So if that's the case, if they're doing the in lieu fee first, and then you do the tree permit after development stand, can you walk me through how will that go?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: Is the question kind of about the sequencing of the fee payment and then the street tree planting permit?

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Yes.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: Interrupt me if I'm not answering your question. But the intention behind this legislation is that someone could entirely fee out, and so they would not need to seek a street tree permit approval from BUF. So the payment of that in lieu fee would be due upon issuance of the building permit, which is the same timeline for the street tree permit to be approved through BUF. But the process would be much simpler because they just need to issue payment to the city as opposed to seeking the permit approval.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Yeah. But if, let's say, that development is in the equity area, where the BOF is more active in tree planting there, through the grants or what, but how will that if the development stands already, then how would they go back and make a plan? So I guess my question is, how do you do the tree planting site through the BOF if the in lieu fee is really going to be the option for main developers. So what is the tree planting plan, I guess? That's or yeah.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: Got it. It's about how Buff uses the funds that are gathered from the in lieu fee and what that planting looks like as initiated by the city? Is that the heart of the question?

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Yeah. How would that affect infrastructure on the sidewalk? Mean, when a developer would it comes to the planning commission, they would have the public realm plans as well sometimes, if it's a big developer. But if it's not, they don't really need that. But if it's like again, if we're talking about especially for these developments are in the equity side, that's what I'm kind of like and even if they're not in the equity part of the city, how is the urban forestry plan being implemented? I guess that's my question. How is the urban forestry plan going to be implemented if there is really a set aside money for tree planting?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: Yeah, I think I'm tracking I mean, I'll take a crack, but interrupt me if I'm not answering your question. So for a project that pays the in lieu fee, there's no guarantee that Buff will plant in front of that project.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Okay.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: They can if that's an appropriate site based on the factors that the bureau considers. And the for example, if a project wanted to fee out and thought that they wouldn't get street trees in front of their property, there's no way that they could prevent Buff from planting in front of their property. So Buff has discretion to plant wherever is appropriate, which could be in front of the property, it could be across the street, it could be on an adjacent corridor or other areas of the city. And that's where Buff's kind of proactive strategy around determining, you know, where are the corridors that have some of the fewer of the physical constraints that you were referencing around utilities or transformer vaults or bus stops that are ripe locations for tree planting at scale? And so that's some of the thinking behind this and in line with the equity goals that you're referencing is instead of just limiting the tree to that specific to one specific property that happens to be seeking a development permit, to pooling those permit that permit fee revenue, and then looking at kind of the corridor level or the block level to do some of this proactive tree planting where there are fewer barriers, where it serves our equity goals, where it might complement some of those grant areas, where there are already tree planting efforts underway, and so we could augment those tree planting areas, etcetera. So it gives Buff more ability to work within its equity goals and some of its proactive tree planting goals instead of operating on the project specific basis. Does that answer the question? Yeah.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Did answer the question. My other question is in terms of the and I appreciate one of the commenter mentioned about the CEQA exemption and how we're with a family zoning plan also in particular, How will this affect? And what are the predictions on the family zoning plan with the tree planting requirement? And we know that for even if the small developers, they would probably prefer to do the in lieu fee because of the cost of development even for small developers. But again, how would that, is there any kind of analysis have made for the family zoning plan together with this?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: Yeah, I mean, I think it remains to be seen. I think we've received a few applications for housing under the family zoning plan, which under this proposed legislation could fee out. So that could generate some fee revenue. Typically, I am not a developer, but my understanding from conversations is that for mid to large scale projects, those are subject to our Better Streets Plan requirements, which involve a significant amount infrastructure improvements around the project site. So they're already doing a lot of sidewalk level work associated with a development project. And in those cases, the developer probably wants to add trees because it's good for the project, and they're already doing that work in the sidewalk area. It's really these smaller projects that unit additions or rear yard additions that this might be a very appealing option, just because it's such a departure from the nature of the project. And we could see some fee revenue coming through that, although those aren't the types of projects that are really enabled under the family zoning plan. It's really the mid to larger scale projects that we'll see through the family zoning plan. And so some of them might elect to fee out, but many of them will probably plant trees as well. So it could increase fee revenue, or it could facts on the ground could remain the same. It kind of remains to be seen, depending on how many applications we get and where.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Okay. Thank you for It's you know, I really understand in terms of the needs for funding. And, you know, and thank you, Mr. Moore, again, for at least educating me in terms of, like, the state fundings and the federal fundings. And usually, these government fundings have requirements, and truly appreciate that. And sometimes the fees, special fees if they're not restricted, then it's unrestricted. You can use it anywhere. However, my little bit hesitation on this is the urban forest plan, the big picture of it. We need the funding, and then in order to plant and to also to maintain. And so when these in lieu fees are being put out as in a way as an option, many developers will take the email fee. Just let's be honest with that. And I can see that for many, perhaps small developers and perhaps large developers may prefer it that way. So if there is the option fee for to fee out, then my is how do we really implement the urban forest plan together with this? And so that is kind of like my hesitation with DPW in terms of the implementation, how it's really going to dance with this fee out option.

[David Moore (Superintendent, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: Yes.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: I feel like this legislation can be improved, that there probably needs to be reformed to happen, especially in large developments. But yeah, I'm just trying to think as well in terms of the urban forest plan. What is the timeline for that? When the developer fee out and all of these fees have collected, what is the timeline for the urban forest plan?

[David Moore (Superintendent, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: Good questions. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. And I want to maybe provide context. Susan did speak to the team she manages of urban forestry inspectors and their roles and responsibilities. About 75 I'd estimate 70% or more of their time is focused on reviewing plans right now. They're also responsible for finding the planting sites that the rest of the bureau would plant or would sub grant to another a third party, a nonprofit or a contractor. They're in charge of doing quality control on the contracts, including tree maintenance and tree planting. And they're in charge of packaging our data for our Hundred 25000 Street trees and other assets. So what we're trying to portray is that we have high effort, low outcome tree planting efforts that are managed by our staff because of the cumbersome I think I won't say cumbersome. Let me take that back. But because of the thorough The thorough plan review process, which is according to codes and specific timelines that we were held to as part of the permitting, which we believe in. We believe in permitting. But what we want to do is if we can turn that into funding to implement, then the the staff who are focused on reviewing these plans that which might have one or two tree plantings on them, they could on mass strategize where to plant trees in in using economies of scale to increase the return on investment of their time for tree outcomes. How many years will it take? People have expectations for us to implement. Staffing is one of our limiting factors right now. Our inspection team it should be known, there should be eight inspectors on our team, and there's four. One of them, Susan, is acting as the manager who just retired. We are currently strategizing and prioritizing as a bureau how to add capacity. We have at least one recruitment in process and we're looking at ways to use that candidate pool to expand beyond that because they play a role in not only tree planting but also tree maintenance and actually inspecting service requests having to do with sidewalks everyone in public works in the bureau of urban forestry's job in some way comes back to them their work being they're like the visionary the the quarterback of the plays we're not only responding to service requests but making plans on how to deploy services. So, we need to expand that team, and we're actively trying to do that.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Thank Commissioner you so So. Oh, sure.

[Susan Knobbery (Acting Urban Forester, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: MARY JO The plan review work we're doing is not funded. It's being heavily subsidized by other revenue streams that shouldn't be really effectively used. But we're mandated by law to review these plans under AB eleven fourteen, so we don't really have a choice. And the hours it takes to review one plan set could be used to strategize block planting for several blocks. So, as David said, it's a low outcome, high effort amount of work to get two street trees out of a developer when we could be canvassing several blocks at one time. And because the street tree planting permit, by law, cannot have a fee for review. All those reviews are free. So the in lieu fee effectively would start funding the work to find street tree plantings, as opposed to only paying for tree plantings when it's deposited in an adopted tree. And every tree we get that's planted by a developer, effectively costs review time that's just not paid for. Yeah.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Thank you.

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner So. Thank you. I like urban forestry. I remember those trees in front of my apartments always sort of needed to get replant, because we're right by the animal shelters. So these things, I don't know how you guys come up with money to help just regular neighbors try to like, what's wrong with these trees? Why do they keep on dying? And what can we do better with it? So I really appreciate all this effort. And I think it was one of the many things that a lot of the San Franciscan residents think about. How can we get help? We want tree, but how we don't know about trees. And you guys are filling the much needed services for a lot of the San Franciscans. So, really appreciate that. And with that, I also know that funding source is always a challenge. And with the Reduction Act, it's going to expire soon. And it's a lot of agency or nonprofit hitting many cliffs of, like, how can we sustain in already really lean operating organization. And thank you for your passion and continue to do so. We talk a lot about assuming these are just like large developers and we can't get them to get away from just basically, what is it, a feeder out. And so they would never plant trees. And I think we kind of discussed a lot of this aspect about both sides. I wanted to shed some lights to my experience talking to local small businesses and homeowners, regular people, just trying to, like many of us, live in the city and do the right thing, right? Some of them, maybe they can save up enough to build an ADU, which I later find out it cost a mid range of 1,000,000 just to add an ADU. And the ADU, I think the largest one is about 800 square foot, just so anyone understand the magnitude of cost that any given small single family homeowners had to bear. In addition to all these, trying to understand what they need to comply with all the different planning code and building code. And then there is this tree thing. So people I talk to, they sometime, more than you think of or presume, I just want to share this kind of experience as a real life experience that they really want some trees. They understand trees are good. But the process to get to whether to prove that whether they want a tree, whether their sidewalk DPW say it does require you to have a tree, but then they got to have to spend enormous amount of time and money for engineers and architects to try to prove if it's even possible to put a tree there. There's PG and E lines, whatever all the other things on the sidewalk that regular homeowners or a small business that will have no idea how to even find all these stuff. So then that's like at a cost and then you have to prove back and forth about whether we want this tree and how can anyone help us to do a tree in there. So what I'm trying to say is that that's it's I hear the urban forestry is also you have to do this for free for reviewing. But then, we're asking these homeowners and small businesses to also continue to pay more money to private sector to try to prove if they can put a tree there if it's required. But if they cannot, because it's literally, you can't put the tree where the PG and E gas line is. So with all of that, and then you just keep adding on to the timeline of how long it takes for a business to actually get that building permit or house or homeowners to get a building permit to fix whatever they want to fix. I think this legislation come in front of us for a planning code amendment is a very good alternative. And, it's actually more like a proactive instead of a reactive approach on addressing the dire need of making San Francisco greener. And we can do that more in a of have the expert to do this and tell, inform everybody, not just one piece at a time. I really like that approach and I wanted to speak on behalf of regular homeowners, small businesses. And, some of those also actually hit this thing called notice of violation that they need to legalize their units. Within a certain amount of time, they have to do that. They have to get a new set of plan and get it approved and get a permit to prove that they're addressing the violation. And I do believe if I read it correctly here that we are not addressing what are we doing in terms of requiring them to have a tree. So I would like to add this into the planning code amendment to exempt unit legalizations in addition to the ADU under state and local program for this amendment. I do believe this overall, we can leverage more economies of scales. We can have more resources to back support the Bureau of Urban Forestry to do more equity priority geography focus, way to make our neighborhood greener and addressing our health and well-being for the long run. So, I want to second the motion, but I want to add with an addition modification is to include unit legalization as an exam, as one of the exemption.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: Thank you, commissioner. So that would align with the department's goals of supporting legalizations of UDUs. Currently, a lot of legalizations proceed as ADUs. But there are a small subset that are just straight up UDU legalizations under a separate process. And so those under the current ordinance would not technically be exempt. And so the department would be supportive of that proposed additions if the commission so decided.

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner Braun, do you want to sit on that? Are you prepared to modify your motion?

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: I just want one second to think about it.

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: No problem. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Thank you. I want to thank everyone who commented on this. Thank you, the Department of Public Works, for all the work you guys do. You definitely give residents something to admire as far as all your work on this tree issue and everything else you do, the cement work and everything else. You guys are a really hard worker in the department. So I just wanted to give you that little prop there. You know, for me, this issue just exposes the importance of our tree canopy and the lack of it in some areas of our city. For me, I look at this legislation, it's obvious to me and to a lot of other people that I have written in through letters, hundreds of letters that we received. It's about funding. It's about money. And this legislation, basically, there's some funding attached to it, but we're not doing anything to keep the trees going, keep planting the trees. And so, I mean, that's just one observation right off the bat. And so we're giving developers an option to not plant a tree when we need to plant more trees. So that doesn't really make sense to me. But when you look at this through an equity lens, start to understand that the city has done a real unfair job, I should say. And I'm not going to I don't want to point any fingers. But you know, we we don't have these tree issues in in places like Pacific Heights. They're they're mostly in South The Market and in the Bayview Hunters Point. There's there's a lot of trees in the Mission District, but there's several others, like like, you know, out there in in the sunset. And and so if if you look at this through that that lens, an equity lens, you start it's to a it's a different picture that I see. I I see that there needs to be more funding, not less. And we shouldn't be giving people or developers, especially big developers that can pay or that can plant a tree. It's not like they can't plant a tree. We shouldn't be giving them the option not to plant a tree when you know, there's such a deficit, especially in the South Of Market and the Bayview Hunters Point and other areas where there's a lot of development going on. So I don't I don't This doesn't make a lot of sense to me as far as tackling our need to plant more trees. What makes more sense to me is addressing the funding issue. We actually need to expand public works and tree planning, not give people options to take it away. Now, in terms of ADUs and people that don't have the funds to plant a tree, yes, we should probably give them the option. But to give the option to not plant trees to developers that have the means to plant the trees and help San Francisco achieve the canopy that we need to to achieve. That doesn't make sense. That's why so many people are against this legislation. And I I wanna just highlight, you know, in our packet, we got a couple of letters that that I think, you know, I'd like to bring up. One is from assemblyman Matt Haney, and he's requesting an inquiry into San Francisco's compliance with SB 1,000 and the environmental justice protections. And so he's he's actually, you know, asking the attorney general of California to look in to see if San Francisco is in compliance with their environmental justice statutes. And then there's the Matt Dorsey letter, supervisor Matt Dorsey from that oversees South Of Market. And he has a lot of questions. It's a letter of inquiry, tree canopy equity and resource allocation in District 6. And he's asking for he just asked a lot of questions around and this doesn't have anything to do with the Department of Public Works. I'm just saying I just want to make public what I'm looking at here because it hasn't been mentioned. And there's questions around funding equity, allocation, discretionary guidelines, empty tree well backlog. I mean, this is something that's come up recently where people have been getting injured because there's no tree in the well. I I just saw something on on the news the other night where some lady cracked her head open, and she she accidentally stepped in a tree well, where there should have been a tree there, and there's not a tree. So my, you know, my point is is that I I think this legislation goes in exactly the wrong direction. You know, I I've heard a lot of talk here to to differ with that opinion, but that's my opinion. My my opinion is is that this doesn't solve the problem of funding. It doesn't solve the problem that we don't have enough trees in our city. It doesn't solve the problem of equity, racial equity in our priority geography, equity neighborhoods. And so it doesn't really do much. And so basically, it just gives a break to a lot of the big developers that got money that can't plant trees. So I think this is not a good piece of legislation. I agree with the hundreds of people that have submitted letters to this commission. And I think they need to go back to the drawing board and really address the issues hand. And that is funding, planning our canopy in the areas where they're needed. And let me just say something about trees, and I'll end here. I mean, without trees, we couldn't live on this earth. I mean, think about that. The trees are directly connected to our being. I think the city can, you know, do a have a little bit more priority on planting these trees and and making investments in something that is crucial to our very existence. Thank you.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: I just want to follow-up on the suggestion by commissioners about exempt so as I understand it, the suggestion is to exempt unauthorized dwelling units that are being legalized from paying the in lieu fee. Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding?

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: No, the word exam might be confusing. I would like to amend the motion by adding the legalizing those UDU, legalizing UDU to be the same treatment as all these state and local ADU so then they can have the option to pay the fees.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: In the legislation, wouldn't everyone have the ability to pay the fee? Nobody would be required to provide the tree regardless of

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: the EU? That's correct. Commissioner So, if I may, I suspect that your proposed modification might relate to this would be subsection D1, the applicability, where it talks about accessory dwelling unit except for the construction. It says, this subsection shall apply to development projects that involved any of the following except the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. And would the proposed modification just to be add to to add unauthorized dwelling unit legalization to that list?

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Yes.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: Okay. So it's eight zero six d one would be this, the specific section where that would most likely be added.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Can I

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: propose a slight amendment to that? My concern is that so I see the logic in saying, so right now, as I understand it, the fee would apply where? I'm sorry. A new construction ADU would be exempt from the fee. Okay. And so then I'm hearing that the idea is maybe unauthorized dwelling unit should also be exempt from

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Right.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: I'm sorry, not

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: That's the intent of it, because I believe that if we lower these barriers for people that actually just try to do the right thing small, family they should not be penalized with all these hurdles.

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: JULIE And maybe if I can just jump in. One point that I think is worth noting when we get these unauthorized dwelling unit applications in, our first approach is to see if we can legalize them through some program. And so some of those spaces get legalized through the state ADU program, in which case, if this were to go through, they would not have to pay. But there are other instances for whatever eligibility criteria they're not able to utilize the state ADU program, which is usually people's first desired path. If they're not able to use that, they often look at our local dwelling unit legalization program. And so I think the idea is because those programs are often used for the same types of projects, that to align some of the rules, Again, we don't necessarily want to also create a disincentive. We like our local programs in San Francisco. We want to create the framework where people are not disincentivized from using local programs. I mean, this came up a lot as part of the family zoning plan. And so if there are different rules and costs between the state ADU program and our legalization program, it's just one more reason people are going to choose the state program. So I think by treating them similarly, we probably have a greater likelihood of somebody leveraging the local Dwelling Unit Legalization Program instead of the state ADU program.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: JAMES But if it's a local ADU or JADU or maybe JADU sits in state legislation. Either way, even if it's a local program for an ADU, the exception would still apply to that ADU under our local program, too. Isn't that right?

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: JULIE Yes. But again, we have a third option, right? State ADU, local ADU, JADU legalization program. So it's a separate program. It's just one more program that's very analogous to these other programs. And so we were hoping I think the ask is that we kind of treat them the same as it relates to the street tree obligation.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: JAMES Can I ask just a take on this? I see the value of incentivizing legalization of the unauthorized dwelling units that might not qualify as ADUs. But at the same time, it sort of creates, what I'm struggling with a little bit is that somebody who creates a UDU that is not an ADU has now gotten out of a requirement that had they chosen the legal path in the first place, they would have been subject to this requirement. So I understand what it's like the second buyer of a property or third buyer of a property that came with the UDU. And now they have to they want to legalize it. They want to do the right thing. And we don't want to penalize them for that. I'm struggling with the person who just is the one who built the UDU and gets caught, which so I guess what would give me comfort is we see a lot of UDUs here. It does seem like a lot of them are projects that it is a subsequent buyer. Is that from staff's perspective? Mean, that really what you do see, though? I mean, we don't see a lot of it's the original builder of the UDU? This is what kind

[Sean Auchland (Founder, fairtrees.org; SOMA resident)]: of pushed

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: think me there's a mix. Will say the UDUs, I would think and I think I'm looking at some staff probably agree with me are some of the toughest projects we have, even though they're the simplest in nature. Because we are often requiring people to do things that cost money that they may not have. These are not people coming in proactively asking to do a development project. They usually have gotten caught through our complaint system. And that often is a significant amount of time after the construction happens. So whether it's the same owner or a different owner, it's usually not right after it happens. There usually is some duration of time that's years or decades that have spanned. I know some of the rules have tried to tighten that up a bit. But it's tough when you're asking an applicant that they're going to need to invest tens of thousands of dollars. If not, we've seen some that are hundreds of thousands of dollars for cost to legalize. And an applicant is telling us they just simply don't have the means to do that. And it makes it tough to have that conversation. So I think, again, giving as many options where we can keep the unit online but make it more financially feasible to do so, these are not usually developers where we're seeing this. I mean, I can tell you that much. Whether it's the property owner or not, these are usually single folks who are not necessarily frequent flyers doing business in the city. So anyhow, they're just UDUs are always very tough conversations. And they usually deal with people's personal finances, which is not what we as planners are used to having to talk to people about.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: I remain hesitant to include this in the recommendation. And I apologize for sure. So I just again, I don't want to reward the people who might build a UDU by letting them get out of a requirement that had they just followed the legal pathway, would have I

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: think that what Liz was mentioning, it's also really often that those are not the one that actually build those UDU to start with. It's just right now, I'm looking at how can we bring more units that are legitimate units in a housing stock. Incentivizing people to actually do the right thing instead of penalizing them. Continue to penalizing them, they're just going to go dark. Kind of like how the federal government is doing right now is make every immigrant going dark. I'm going to go off detention here. But I just felt like here, there are just so many families and maybe even just a legacy inherent of when they bought this place, they didn't realize these things are not legalized. And then a lot of them basically kicked this can down the road kind of thing until maybe someone complained about it. And some of them actually wanted to do the right thing until they realized how much it cost them to, and they can't even afford it. I think there was a case that come in front of us with an old couple that he is actually about to basically had to the end of his life. And there was two units. Do remember that one? And they're living in the Bayview Hunters Point. And then they were forced to legalize that room behind the garage. And then they were asking us to give them a conditional I forgot what did we do. We ended up actually approving and have him not needed to do that. And I'm just trying to look at we are thinking about these big developers doing a lot of things that we should hold them accountable. But I'm also thinking about what can we do to incentivize our normal people that, like a fourth generation San Franciscan, try to do the right thing and stay here and make their unit legit. And the leasing, they don't have the means to try to find people to prove it to DPW, where is the best way to put this tree? They just don't even have the means to even finish getting through all these requirement that we need to require them to do. Because like Liz was mentioning, a unit legalization, all of a sudden, had to comply to the current planning code and the current building code on a building that probably was built in the turn of the century. And then, after all of that, and they go, oh, you also, also have to add a few trees, or you have to prove where you can add these trees. So that's the kind of fee that they will have to hire a consultant to prove where those trees will be located.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Well, right.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: And so

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: it's just like, I'm just trying to, if we're looking at this plan amendment, I just want to have this opportunity to make our local regulations consistent so then we are not incentivized or inevitably make all our residents to only can choose the state ADU version. And I'm just trying to make things a little more fair to a lot of people. I know that we always wanted to maybe punish people when they were not doing things with the permit. But a lot of the cases that come in front of us recently aren't actually they're not the one doing it. They're the previous people that kind of did it. And we need to talk about how we shall find ways to hold those people accountable, but to penalize the people who are left with a bag. That's kind of where I wanted to add this into our modification, modifying this planical amendment so then we are consistent.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: JOSHUA I'm waffling on it just because I'm trying to think through the incentives. Allowing the exception to the fee for UDU legalization could create a minor incentive for creating UDUs. But by accepting UDU legalization from the fee, you also create an incentive to legalize the UDUs. So then I think where I'm trying to think this through is the quantity of UDU legalization that comes to us where it is maybe a subsequent owner of the property or some of the more unique situations we've seen where we actually said, Okay, that UDU actually doesn't need to be legalized. It's a terrible hardship. I'm sold. So I'd like to include in the motion that legalized UTUs would also be included in the exceptions to the fee payment. I'm doing this just because I think it's more valuable. We see more of those UTUs coming forward that are a subsequent property owner or some terrible stories that have come forward. And I don't see a whole lot that seem to come forward. Let me put it this way. I don't think people build a UDU mostly because they're trying to get out of a $2,900 fee. So Okay, I do include that in the motion.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: I'll second.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Okay, thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Commissioner Imperial. I have a question. Just curious, for state density bonus projects, do they still need the local tree requirement?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: Liz, correct me if I'm wrong, but yes, they would be subject to that requirement.

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: Yeah. In lieu fees can't be waived. Fees can't be waived. That's not generally something that is a waivable aspect of a state density bonus. So physical code requirements, like setbacks and things like that and height, obviously, can be waived because it's about accommodating the density. That's what the waivers are for, is to accommodate building volume. A requirement that is a tree on the street has no direct correlation to physical capacity to build housing. So those are not things that can be waived.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Okay. Thank you. I don't know if it would Commissioner Braun, but I would just ask. But if not, if you're not granting it, it's fine. One thing that Commissioner Williams actually mentioned kind of also made me thought that perhaps one thing that and since the staff also mentioned about usually large scale development prefer to plant trees. I think it's even though that's a great observation and we have but I think for this legislation, it's still good to be explicit to exempt large scale development for the option of fee out. I would like to ask that Commissioner Braun if you would like to exempt that. But if not, I'd like to put that in the findings for our motion.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I'm sorry. Could you repeat what the finding is?

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: First, I'm going to ask Commissioner Braun if you would indulge to also exempt large scale developments for in lieu fee option.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: This is actually something that I thought about and asked Steph about as well. And I came down the side of preferring not to include that.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Okay. So yeah, that's something I would like to be added on the findings in terms of exempting large scale developments.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: On that note, I guess I would be curious. How often do large scale projects have to implement better street become better street projects? And because it's impacting the sidewalk, and they're having to is that safe to assume that Better Streets gets applied to large development projects, typically? Yes. And that involves planting trees and

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: all of

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: the Yep. There are triggers of when the Better Streets plan is triggered, for a better word. So all large projects. Any project that you could think of that is a large project would absolutely trigger a Better Streets plan.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: So in a way, there's a safeguard there for large developments.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Yes. I no, that's something that actually the staff mentioned. And there are usually a bare streets plan in public realms. But in terms of the language of this legislation, it does not have I think I would like to be explicit in that for this part of this legislation. That's all.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams. Yes.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Thank you. One thing I think is missing from the conversation I brought it up. But I'd like to give one of the gentlemen that spoke on the environmental review and that the sequel guidelines and how this is going to impact or not impact our city. And also, I'd like to just bring back the environmental justice part of this issue. Could you come back up here and kind of speak to the environmental review that the planning department and in terms of looking at it through environmental justice lens? You did that pretty

[Sean Auchland (Founder, fairtrees.org; SOMA resident)]: JOSHUA Yeah, I'm happy to. Again, my name is Sean Auchland. I've written this commission before as the founder of fairtrees.org. I'm also a board member of SOMA West Neighborhood Association. We're very concerned in general that the environmental justice plan, which you all know is a binding introduction to the general plan, is not being followed by public works at all. I have personally had discussions with members of the planning department who have told me that, in theory, every departmental action, including public works, should be abiding by the environmental justice framework. And in practice, who I will not name the employees, have said that is not happening. Our group, fairtrees.org, shared that with Assembly Member Haney and with Supervisor Dorsey. Both were extremely concerned. I see Director Sarah Dennis Phillips is here. Her and Director Carla Short of Public Works responded to the attorney general within the last couple of weeks. I don't know if that letter has been provided to this commission. But their first response said that, yes, we do have an environmental justice framework. We passed it in 2023. And it is non binding. So I don't want to paraphrase too much. I would encourage you to look at that letter. But the Planning Department's official response to the attorney general just within the last thirty days was that we have an EJ framework. It is compliant with state law. And it is also not binding. It does not enact any policies. And so there is actually no proof that public works is applying the EJ framework in their work. So second part of your question is about CEQA. There are many ways in which CEQA has been abused, applied to non environmental concerns for projects. I would just reiterate, I could think of nothing more central to environment than our trees in the city that provide shade, carbon sequestration. By the way, our canopy is not 13.7. That number is from 2013 and is often cited by the city as the last time San Francisco did a lidar survey. The last lidar survey was conducted in 2022 by a partnership between US Forestry and Cal Fire, and that found that our canopy in the last ten years has declined. It is 12.8%, and so it continues to decline. The budget and legislative analyst did a report in 2021 that said that the street tree count, public works included empty tree wells and stumps in that count. And so just to say that within the communities themselves, I live in SoMa. I'm not an activist from outside the neighborhood. My personal census tract has less than 2% tree canopy cover. And our city also does not have any equity plan. Oakland has one. Sacramento has one. LA has the LA Urban Forest Equity Collective. We do not have an equity plan. Yes, we apply to individual grants with piecemeal methodologies. But as a city, there is actually no requirement for us to plant other than the EJ framework that's not being followed. And again, I would just reiterate that as much language has been used in these conversations about it is a good thing to allow developers to fee out so that we can use those fees where they're needed. I just remind you to read legislation. There is no restriction on where these funds get used. As a resident of SOMA or my friends in Chinatown or in Bayview Hunters Point, if somebody develops there, it is legal under this legislation to fee out in a low canopy place, and then public works can use it wherever they want. Now, I believe that they have intentions to plant in low canopy places. A lot of our research shows that that's not happening. Last July, I sent this commission a 14 page report called Concrete Over Canopy that I'm happy to show again, but it essentially showed that there is no correlation. We looked at the planting locations from the street tree list of every tree planted since the EJ framework was passed, And there was zero correlation we are planting equally right now in places that don't have environmental need. You know, EJ scores less than 10, as well as EJ scores higher than 20. So there's deep community concern not only in what's happening, but how this legislation, while our press releases say it's well intentioned, the text of the law does not include it. Thank you.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Thank you so much for enlightening us and educating us on this. And thank you for your work and paying attention and all your advocation on this issue. We need more folks that care about our canopy and that are willing to put themselves out there like you did today. Thank you. Doing a great public service. I appreciate you. Thank you, Commissioner. I'd like to just reiterate all the issues that were just brought up. I think it's important to pay attention to the facts on the ground as they are, the fact that we're not enforcing our environmental justice framework. These are all things that, to me, matter as a person of color. Think that environmental justice is tied to racial justice and economic justice. And so if we're not enforcing our environmental justice, then we probably don't care much about racial justice or any other justice. I'll just leave it there.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Miss Gluckstein?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: I I just wanted to correct the record on something that was mentioned, vis a vis the letter that was sent by director Short and director Dennis Phillips, to assembly member Haney's office. The letter does not state that the EJ framework is nonbinding. It instead articulates that framework as the guiding policy framework adopted by the Board of Supervisors that serves as the guiding policy for city decision making and prioritization. So there's no statement that that articulates that as nonbinding. Thank you.

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

[Sean McGarry (Planning Commissioner)]: I'm going to bring it back to the trees for a minute because that's what we're here for today and expectations on that. Individuals, individual property owners and even a large development. How many trees are we actually talking about? Are they required to actually have on say a fifth of a block or a quarter of a block? The ability to fee out and the ability to cap and capture as many people who can fee out or will fee out or possibly can fee out and put that into a pot and that pot of money basically is designated just to fill those empty wells that are there. But I also know what DPW can do. I want to see a crew three blocks long. I want it all teared up. I want basically three concrete cutters on to answer commissioner Imperial. You can you can have three concrete cutters basically going on each block and you can grid out with a beautiful map here. I assume that it's been gridded out or it can be gridded out if you take everybody out of plan review and they're actually out in the field because for me, I wanna see people out in the field. I wanna see them basically gridding out each block, seeing what the possibilities is, seeing what we have on one side of the block, what we don't have on the other side block using what this fund these funds to actually bridge the gaps that we have in all these areas. But at the end of the day, trees in the ground. Boots on the ground, trees on the ground. And eventually five years from now, we're dealing with basically boots and buckets because we're trimming those trees. That's the expectations. I can see that happening by the Bureau of Forestry as a whole, well funded, well accountable to basically and a good call center. So instead of people calling 311 to complain about their neighbor, they're actually calling the person who can actually come out and fix the situation. That to me is a great a great possibility. I think only time can tell. But as it is right now, it's not working. And thank you. Twelve point eight is absolutely, you know, horrendous to find out that we're shaving off another percentage of free canopy over a period of years, you know, and I'm sure it's only getting worse. But I see a solution here to actually fix it. I know what DPW can do when they put their mind to it, when they actually get up and out and they're actually on the street with those concrete cutters followed behind with basically whatever o e three has to dig out in order to mix the soil, put the soil in there, get the right soil in there so that tree can actually grow. And three years, it'll thrive by itself. But it's quite easily done if we have a well funded, robust, motivated, and a single department that base an umbrella where it can all be run from. All the rest is basically, me to me, is noise because it doesn't get a tree planted. So that's my thoughts on that. That's my expectations on that. So started off with that. I'm not too sure I got it got it across, but I want to end with it. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Thank you. Well, I I've learned so much about trees in this whole process. I think we all have. So thank you. And I don't think there's any doubt that we don't all meet on common ground around valuing trees. I think we all want to see as many trees in our city as possible. And for me, it was very sobering to learn that we're at 13.7% of tree canopy, and now even worse, that we're actually at 12.8%, which to me says that what we're doing now is not working. So we've got to try. We've got to fix the system. And think, really, the biggest concern here is how do we avoid losing trees, and how do we maximize gaining trees, right? I think that's sort of like we all fundamentally want that. And so, I've heard some commentary around needing more funds. And I think what this really does is translates directly into funds that can then be distributed in a more thoughtful way around the city. I also wondered about big projects. This, by the way, I really appreciated this in your presentation. I thought these were just very handy and helpful and informative data points for us to remember that so many of these projects are the small little guys and not these big projects. The big development projects are likely going to get caught in those requirements around better streets. So that gives me a lot of comfort. And then just to think that this sets up BUF to be more impactful and that we can make broader sweeping changes that I think are and be more selective about where those go in the city rather than maybe neighborhoods that need it a little bit less. So I really like how this creates efficiency and that it really is going to make BUF more impactful. So I'm in full support. I think the one thing that maybe would be interesting that maybe someone could speak to is there's obviously going to be this dedicated fund, which we all really like, this idea that there's going to be Okay, we've got this kitty of money. Can someone talk a little bit about accountability for how we'll know in a year that this was successful? There was mention in the brief about controllers office reporting. Is there some mechanism for us to understand what success looks like a year from now or two years from now?

[Susan Knobbery (Acting Urban Forester, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: We can run reports for street tree plantings by date. It's very simple. Simple, yeah. And affiliated with street tree plantings are service orders. And each service order gets billed to a specific fund. And we would bill them to the adopted tree. So it is very transparent and trackable. And one thing that I just wanted to mention is the quality of work of public works gardeners versus and no offense to single family homeowners desperate sometimes, and they're buying a tree from Home Depot. That's root bound, poor quality. They don't understand the tree care needs. And going back to that empty basin, sometimes a developer might even say, well, I've sold the building. That's not my problem anymore. And the onus goes back to the urban forestry inspection team to go and enforce and spend more staff time trying to, A, get the tree planted B, restart the maintenance period and C, issue fines. So instead of just saying, that's a tree basin. We can plant that. It ends up being this giant mountain of enforcement because a developer left that basin empty and no longer cares about the project because they got sign off. It's it's a lot of work to go enforce those trees. And, also, even if you get your building permit, you still have to plant the tree and get final sign off, and they often do it wrong. And they have to replant the tree, dig the tree back up. So the the quality of work that public works does versus what an individual does who has no idea what a tree planting should look like is significantly different. Yeah.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: I appreciate you pointing that out, right? This is setting it up for more success, not just maybe broader canopy installations, but actually, like, trees that are going to really survive and thrive and Yeah, versus onesie twosies in select locations.

[Susan Knobbery (Acting Urban Forester, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: And it's just to emphasize that it's a high amount of effort for a low output to go through all this, like, development related plan review.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: I just want to say again how important the funding issue is. And, you know, I don't want to seem like I'm picking on anybody. Everyone's doing what they can given what they have. And so I would just say if if, assemblyman Haney is is watching, that he try to get some additional funding, so that we could, so that we could take care of this. Again, I don't agree with what's in front of me. I don't think that's the solution. But also, Supervisor Dorsey, maybe he could talk to the mayor or somebody and get some additional funding so that we could plant some more trees. That's all.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: SPEAKER Okay. Commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, I am going to seek clarity if the maker of the motion, the seconder, are amenable to include the finding recommended by Commissioner Imperial. And then I'm going to seek clarity on that finding. I

[Sean McGarry (Planning Commissioner)]: think

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: that we had the discussion primarily, right?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: Yeah.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: My proposal is to include that large scale developments as exempt. It's not part of the motion, but be considered as exempt for this legislation, for in lieu fee.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Okay. That is, they would still be required to plant the trees on-site. And I think it comes forward just as a note from staff as this moves forward, that this was discussed at the Planning Commission,

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Yes. That's my intent is to make it a note.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So just a recommendation to the board in a finding that they consider exempting large scale development now. So then my next question is, do you want to define what a large scale development is in your mind? Like, what scale would then be that threshold?

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Usually we have don't we have a definition for a large scale development?

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: We do not have an official definition.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Oh, we don't. The way most

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: of our large scale development happen, which I think you are thinking of, Commissioner Imperial, are subject to development agreements. They're called our DA projects, if that's what you're thinking Mission Rock, Pier 70, Candlestick Point, etcetera, whether it's through OCII or through this commission. I will also note that contractual all of them, if they're a DA project, are subject to contractual agreements, which, again, will spell out these. So they are not subject to normal code provisions. They are subject to the provisions of the contract and the development agreement that you approve.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Yeah. No, that's something that was also noted by the staff as well. But the one thing that I would like to refer is to the kind of office development, which is like 50,000 square feet or more. I believe that's the

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: CHRISTIAN 55,000?

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Or 50,000.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: CHRISTIAN 50,000.

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: CHRISTIAN So 50,000 is just what triggers a large cap office allocation. So that's specifically for an office project and one that has to come before the Planning Commission. But it's not otherwise a definition in any other context.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Okay. But I would

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If it's just a recommendation, we don't need to have a threshold or definition then.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Okay. Thanks.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. So is that amenable to the maker of the motion and the seconder to include that as a finding recommending to the Board of Supervisors to consider?

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: Commissioners, I just want to point out that I think there is something before you. There are two ways to go about this, and I think they are different based on your intent. One way would be simply for Commissioner Imperial to recommend to our staff, Lisa, that in our case report that continues to go and in her presentation to the committee on this report, she can note that this was discussed by a commissioner. And that is the path I would recommend, if this is your point of view, that you want to make sure is carried forward. If it is the point of view of the entire commission, which I believe the discussion is maybe not, it would not be a part of the motion. It would rather be carried through Lisa's input to the Land Use Committee

[Susan Knobbery (Acting Urban Forester, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: or Correct Committee, sorry.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Yeah, I can sense that it may not be all in the commissioner's approval as well. But I would like it to be as a note instead. Thank you.

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

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: We can do that. Thank you, Commissioner.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: I just want to say, as I mentioned when it was first raised, it is something I had thought about, too. And I discussed it a little bit with staff. And part of the reason I don't want to include it as part of the motion and as a recommendation is because of some of those implementation challenges and finding that line and needing to create new definitions potentially. I just had some concerns about that.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good then, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with modification to include UDU legalization under section eight zero six(one) And a note that staff will convey Commissioner Imperial's concern over large scale development. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Nay. Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Imperial. No. And Commission President Campbell. Aye. So move commissioners that motion passes four to two with commissioners Williams and Imperial voting against. Commissioners that will now place us on items 10 a and b for case numbers twenty twenty five hyphen zero one two one five zero p c a and c r v modifying conditional use authorizations and nonconforming uses planning code amendment, and adoption of delegation of authority.

[Dakota Speicher (SF Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. That was quite a robust conversation about street trees. I was definitely learning a lot. I'm Dakota Speicher with the Planning Department. There are two action items before you today, both stemming from an ordinance proposed by Mayor Lurie as part of the Permit SF initiative. The first item included in the ordinance clarifies when enlargements or intensifications of conditional uses or nonconforming uses in neighborhood commercial districts do not require a new conditional use authorization. Currently, such changes rely on a 1988 zoning administrator interpretation, which may allow for expansions of the use by up to 500 square feet or 25% of the existing floor area, whichever is less. This longstanding interpretation would be codified if the ordinance were approved. The ordinance also further clarifies that the following modifications to nonresidential uses do not require new conditional use authorization as they would not be considered an intensification or enlargement. First, converting one residential use into two or more commercial spaces consistent with the applicable zoning, adding an additional nonresidential use, again subject to the applicable zoning controls, expanding a use by up to 500 square feet or 25% of the existing floor area, whichever is less, adding or exchanging an ABC license type. The department recommends two modifications, first requiring tenant notification when an expansion reduces housing services, aligning with other planning code provisions, and second, exempting cannabis retail and formula retail from administrative modifications due to their heightened regulatory and neighborhood impacts. The ordinance, also subject to commission delegation, grants the planning director limited administrative authority in two areas. First, the director may review and act on request to remove conditions of approval for nonresidential uses that were approved with conditional use but no longer require such conditional use authorization. Second, the department may or sorry, the director may approve minor modifications to an existing conditional use authorization, including extensions of performance periods and changes to residential projects affecting unit count or floor area by less than 20%, provided such changes do not reduce required affordable housing units by more than 10%. The director may not approve modifications tied to code enforcement actions or conditional uses previously appealed to the Board of Supervisors. In regards to that aspect of the ordinance, the department recommends exempting cannabis retail and formula retail to remain consistent with the aforementioned recommendations. And second, removing the prohibition on administrative approvals of performance period extensions related to violations. This change provides a more equitable path for small businesses to gain compliance while retaining safeguards that protect sensitive neighborhoods and promotes housing stability. The department finds the proposed ordinance with these recommended modifications will allow existing businesses to expand operations without requiring new conditional use authorizations. By enabling modest changes through the streamlined administrative process, the ordinance reduces regulatory burdens and supports reinvesting in staff and day to day operations rather than lengthy approvals. These efficiencies help sustain a diverse and robust commercial environment contributing positively to San Francisco's social and cultural vitality. A simplified review process also lowers overhead costs for neighborhood serving retail and service providers creating a more supportive environment for small businesses. Lastly, by permitting modest changes to residential projects, the ordinance brings the planning code into alignment with state law while ensuring, that the required affordable units are maintained. For these reasons, the department recommends adoption of the draft resolutions before you with the changes presented today. Myself, our legislative team, and the zoning administrator are all here if you have any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: CHIEF Thank you, members of the public. This is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward. Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Commissioner Imperial. Hi. I have a question for the recommendation by the staff for, number one, modified ordinance to require tenant notification. So when there is notification to tenant, how will that let's say there is an issue with that. How would that go? So that means that would be the planning director or the planning department would mitigate the issue? How would that be the process?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: There's an established tenant notification process under, I believe, Supervisor Mandelman's ADU legislation that required notification for a reduction in housing services where a new ADU is established. And it would mirror that process. And I believe there's a signed affidavit that the applicant needs to complete, that they have notified the tenant of their rights and provided contact information to the rent board and allows them to appeal to the rent board to enter into negotiations with the project sponsor for the reduction in rent that might ensue from the reduction in housing services. So there's an established process in the code that we would mirror here.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: So just to kind of like because there has been I mean, not often, but there has been cases that comes here in the Planning Commission where there is a reduction of square foot, sometimes a garage. And usually the case is they come here to the Planning Commission because it was a CUA. And so that, in a way, composed the commission in a way to understand as well the needs for the tenants. And also, it gave the tenants a voice as well to raise those concerns. So I feel like it may not be enough to do tenant notification. If anything, I would probably compel it as kind of like the same as number two to exempt from administrative, like modified exempt. But yeah, I mean, I'm trying to just to give you an idea of what happened here. Sometimes it's not often, but those are kind of like actually compelling cases that we have seen in terms of even if it's like and I understand these are less than 20% of the change. But if there is a reduction of storage or something like that, sometime it would come here. So that's something that I perhaps, although there is a good intent of requiring tenant notification, it still gives an impact to the Planning Commission whether how it's going to be the use of it by the tenant. So I just want to give you that idea. So that's something that's probably not enough for the planning recommendation number one.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: If I may just provide a little more context on recommendation one, the goal is to both align it with the ADU existing program that exists. And this was also the recommendation that was attached to Supervisor Fielder's recent legislation to allow for LCU expansions that came out of the case of, I believe, Casa Maria and the mission wanting to expand some of its footprint. And so we would mirror that language under those two programs. And that's the intent of this modification to to continue under the framework that has been supported by the city in the past and by some of the Board of Supervisors. But I just want to provide that context.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for providing that context.

[Dakota Speicher (SF Planning Department)]: And just to provide a little bit more context. So the zoning administrator interpretation does allow for these expansions in NC districts already. What this ordinance is doing is codifying that. And then in addition to what's currently common practice with the department is adding that notification process. So Okay.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Yeah. That's something for me to think about still. One thing, another question, are we also combining the 10A and 10B on the or can I pose a question for 10B? Okay. That's Okay. Sure. So one of the question that I have is on regarding on the 10B regarding the delegation authority. And one of the proposal is the alter the number of residential units or project square footage by 20% unless and not reduce required affordable housing by more than 10% and to delegate that kind of that authority to the planning director. So in a situal case, let's say, a 10 unit development and then they reduce their unit to nine. In a way, that would reduce affordable housing requirement. Does that mean that that would also follow the delegation on the planning director at this point?

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: Maybe I could just jump in. Mean, a loss of dwelling unit will always require a 03:17 hearing. So the loss of dwelling units is not something that needs to be worried about. That's not touched at all as part of this ordinance. So we're really more so focused on this. There are a lot of projects that over history have required a restaurant might have required a CU in a commercial corridor. And over the course of the last five plus years, maybe even longer than that, we've made a lot of changes, especially in our NC corridors, that make those as of right. And now those are principally permitted. But that one business that had to get the CU is now held to all of the conditions of approval that their next door neighbor who could come in and get a restaurant today would have none of those conditions. So that's really the genesis of it, nothing to do with dwelling unit impact.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: No, that's one thing that I totally support. The ones that are already approved and they're just trying to enlarge. And many of the times we just easily approve them because and especially during the pandemic times. I guess I'm trying to understand what does 20% less mean for residential units mean? And I'm concerned about the residential units and what it would one is for the tenant, and one is how would it impact affordable housing requirement. But you already answered that, Ms. Wadi, in terms of the not concerned about that.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: But yeah, that's all. If I may address the point about the reduction in residential units and impacts on inclusionary, I think that was one of the questions that you had, commissioner. And for example, a 10 unit project is subject to our inclusionary program. At 10 units is where it kicks in, would be responsible for functionally one unit. And so this ordinance, part of the thinking was we want a higher standard for the inclusionary units that would still be required to be included. So if you reduce by 20%, you can only reduce your inclusionary burden by 10%. So you're held to a functionally higher standard of inclusionary that you would otherwise be held to. Just out of sensitivity to the fact that a lot of these projects are entitled with consideration for the inclusionary units provided, and so we wanna be extra sensitive about a potential reduction to inclusionary that might result from a modification to one of these projects. And so that's one of the provisions in this ordinance that's it's a little confusing to read, but the if you reduce by 20% of your overall unit count or square footage, you can only reduce your inclusionary burden by up to 10%. So you're actually held to a a slightly higher standard in order to benefit from this program.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Thanks for those questions. You knocked out two on my list. But I satisfied with the responses. Was helpful to better understand the notification to tenants about potential housing services loss. And with that explanation I'm getting, it's a positive. It sounds like without that modification, essentially those tenants wouldn't be notified and have the awareness of the potential housing services loss. It was helpful to see that this is just bringing this into line with the limited commercial use flexibility that's also been pursued recently and we approved. So that was helpful. And then I was also concerned about the inclusionary requirement reduction. The explanation was helpful, too, because I thought maybe the 10 would limit how much you could reduce the rest of the building. But it sounds like that's not the case. But either way, knowing the inclusionary requirements potential change is no more than 10%, that's helpful to know and satisfies me with one of my concerns. I have a question about the staff recommendation about removing I'm going to get all the phrasing wrong. Sorry, I don't have it right here. But the recommendation about the extension of the performance period for code violation corrections. And so is that delegation to the director really only about extending performance periods for code violation corrections?

[Dakota Speicher (SF Planning Department)]: Yes.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Okay. So it's just that?

[Dakota Speicher (SF Planning Department)]: Yes. Yeah, just for the extension of the performance period.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Okay. Okay. That's helpful. And then I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this, but just to double check. So when a previously approved CUA holder sponsor comes forward and wants to enjoy the benefits of the existing code, if that use is now principally permitted, they do have to put in an application, right? Okay. That sounds pretty straightforward. Okay. So I just want to make sure it's not as if there's some sort of weird administrative thing or an incentive where now people can say, oh, we're no longer held to those conditions because the planning code changed. Now we're principally permitted use. But it sounds like they actually do have to come forward and apply in order to have the conditions of approval changed at the director level with this change. So I think that's helped. Those are my questions and concerns. I am satisfied with those responses. And I'm generally comfortable with the idea that the conditions of approvals and COAs could be updated for whatever our current principally permitted uses are. On the whole, this legislation makes sense to me. But at the same time, I really appreciate staff's recommended modifications because it sounds like there are a few things caught here that are important for the tenant notification, for controversial issues that we see around cannabis and formula retail. And so with that, I'm supportive of the legislation. And actually, I will make a motion to recommend approval with staff modifications. I don't know if we need separate motions for A and B.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: You just include it in your motion.

[Derek W. Braun (Planning Commissioner)]: Okay. So on both A and B, approval with staff recommended modifications.

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: I second it.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Yeah. Thank you for all the questions, fellow commissioners. I have a few questions. Hopefully, we can get through them as fast as we can. Not as fast as we can, but as thoroughly as we can. My first question is to planning. So how does this ordinance dovetail with the planning work with communities on the objective design standards process? Community organizations in the Mission, SOMA, and Chinatown were in discussion with the planning department about this process. And it would be good to know if and how it will be impacted.

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: I can take that to go. There's no impact. So there's bright line between objective design standards and conditional uses. Anything that is conditional is not objective, right? And we just had a meeting last week with some of the Filipinas, the cultural district there, on objective design standards for their group. So totally separate thing, totally different path, no relation to this legislation before you.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: JOSHUA Okay. That's helpful to know. And I'm sure they'll follow-up with you. And thank you for having those conversations. Second question is, you know, there there's a list of unintended consequences that seems serious to me, especially reduction in housing services. And I know that there was some discussion around that. But how does planning meaningfully propose to carefully and to evaluate where appropriate address issues? For example, tenant notifications is the bare minimum. But what's the process for tenants to provide input? And what's the procedure to ensure that there's actually a process for the department to evaluate these unintended consequences and take action, if necessary, to modify the project changes?

[Dakota Speicher (SF Planning Department)]: So I think, as Lisa mentioned, there is an established process similar to our limited commercial uses. Even local ADUs have a notification process that the property owner notifies existing tenants in the building of what the proposed changes are. I think that conversation in terms of adjustments to rent, that conversation has had with the rent board, whether rent needs to be adjusted.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: So I'm asking because I want to put it up to the process. Do tenants still have a voice in this process? And is planning thinking about that? Because it wasn't clear to me when I read through it.

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: Yeah. So I think, again, we're trying to model it off of some existing protocols and processes that we have. So instead of reinventing the wheel, we want to make sure that tenants and tenants rights groups who represent a lot of tenants know what their options are and that we're not creating a whole new program that's different that they have to learn. So most folks who are involved in a lot of the tenancy issues understand what those existing protocols are, their paths for escalation, and what kind of recourse that presents. So we wanted to make sure we created an option that was familiar for folks. And so through that, it does two things. As Dakota mentioned, it's both, I think, alerting tenants so that they can make sure to avail themselves of their rights under the rent ordinance and working with the rent board. So we are giving them the alert early on. Those conversations don't happen with the planning department. They happen with the rent board. But we want to make sure that we're giving tenants adequate notice and time before that activity happens. So that's one piece. The second piece is these are discretionary projects. For the most part, we're talking about commercial prod I think exclusively, we're talking really about commercial projects here. Commercial projects are discretionary. It means that if those conversations if there's still some serious concerns, people can file a discretionary review. These are appealable permits. These are things that a tenant could appeal if it got to that point. I don't think we're forecasting that it would. But that is there for people in the same way that all of our the original ones had that same type of recourse.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Yeah. No, I appreciate that, Mr. Wadi. I just kind of want to go on record with planning and just say, Okay, we should leave the door open, right? If there's issues that tenants have around these changes, planning leaves that door open in a way and you mentioned the discretionary review. But that's a process that not all tenants are probably going to take. I was thinking more in the lines of just keeping communications open and being open because this is new. We don't know how it's going to what the impacts And are going to so I just want to put it out there. You don't have to answer me now. But just know that it's something that's a concern.

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: Sure. Other really important part that I think is part of this, the delegation to the planning director, it's a discretionary delegation. And so as noted on the first page of that delegation, second paragraph, basically the last line says, the director may determine whether the request meets the criteria set out in the code and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny. So obviously, that's where feedback comes into play. If there is something that truly is something we didn't anticipate here that's an unintended impact that really negatively impacts residential tenants again, not the goal of what we're trying to achieve through this the planning director has the authority to say, this is not what the intent is and take course accordingly.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Yeah, I understand. I understand. I know this isn't the intent. I get it. I'm just looking out for the tenants because we are taking away a venue for them to speak or, you know, this to see you is kind of opens up avenues where where the public has a has a even though, you know, they don't even if they don't take the chance And planning's put out there that out 42 hearings, ok'd 40. But it's the two, right? It's the two that can be of concern, especially if it's something that's very impactful. But let me move on.

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: Commissioner Williams,

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: just

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: as the director who is subject to this, just want to confirm that I hear that. And we'll operate accordingly.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Thank you. At the bottom of page three and top of four, it describes that the new program will harmonize local standards with state mandated procedures and will eliminate potential disincentive for using local bonuses or incentivize programs such as the family zoning plan. Staff concluded by aligning the planning code with the state density bonus law, projects are incentivized to utilize local programs. All this sounds interesting, but there's no detail provided about why this would be the case. Number one, how do these changes eliminate potential disincentives? How are those disincentives? What are those disincentives? And why are they only potential disincentives? Two, I know it's a lot. How will these changes make it more likely that a developer will select our local program instead of the state density bonus? And is this assessment different for different types of scales of development?

[Dakota Speicher (SF Planning Department)]: JOSHUA Yeah, it's a great question. So I mean, I think in terms of aligning with state law, the state law city attorney, please correct me if I'm wrong but the state law allows for modifications of state density bonus projects up to that 20%. So that's really where this ordinance is aligning to. Currently, if you are a residential development and you are exceeding you want to make modifications up to 15%, you were approved under a discretionary process, you would currently need to come back to the commission for re approval. So that timeline, in terms of figuring out how long it's going to take to get to commission, whether or not you're going to be approved, public notice, all of those things factor into a decision that might lead somebody to opt into a state density bonus program, which is disincentivizing them from using family zoning plan or any of the other local programs that we have.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Okay. Gotcha. Thank you for that. So, at the bottom of page four, planning summarizes 40 out of 42 projects that are similar were approved by the commission and two were rejected. Those two might have presented significant impacts if they had been approved. Part of the reason the planning commission reevaluates the CUEs is to vet and raise issues that may have considerable impacts to the surrounding community. Even if there are only a few projects that have these impacts, how is the planning director going to understand community concerns?

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: I I can jump in a little bit on that. So for example, if it's those two, we have video of those two at hearing. So we have a very clear record of what the issues were. What staff do in part the planning director is not doing all the lead up and the legwork for presenting these cases. So when we have staff like Dakota who might be project managing that request, one of the things they do is they were good at doing some history and some research on projects. So they're going to do a deep dive on watching video from those commission hearings, pulling the old file from those hearings. So when we look at if those two were to come in and ask for some of these changes without having to go back to the planning commission, and the question is, does the planning director, what kind of criteria is Sarah looking at? Our staff are going to present all of that information and talk through, hey, the public comments during the commission's hearing in 1998 really were relating to x, y, and z issues. Here's the documentation. Here are the notes. So we'll build a little portfolio of what the issues were related to that project.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: JOSHUA Yeah. Appreciate that. I'm raising these issues because they are of concern. And so I'll move on. Let's see. Can planning give an example of what is principally permitted in NC districts? What kind of businesses are principally permitted?

[Dakota Speicher (SF Planning Department)]: I don't have the code in front of me. There are a plethora of uses that are principally permitted in NC districts. Every zoning district is different and has nuances. Some uses may be principally permitted in one district, where they might be not permitted or conditionally permitted in another. I don't have the list in front of me.

[Sean Auchland (Founder, fairtrees.org; SOMA resident)]: That's Okay.

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: But and maybe if I can jump in. Mean, I think one of the most prevalent are restaurants. Because restaurants when I was at say, when I was a baby planner back in the day, almost every restaurant in almost every NC needed a conditional use. And now, flash forward, in most districts that I can think of, principally permitted. So I'd say that's probably our highest volume one that has had a change. And that's really what we're talking about here, right? It's the ones that have gone through that change, not necessarily everything that is principally permitted from the get go, but everything that used to be a CU and is now principally. It's the food and beverage stuff for the most part.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Okay. Because I think people are asking the question, like, is principally permitted now that we've had these changes occur? And so thank you for that. Let's see. So I am concerned about how these changes will affect our cultural districts throughout our city. Current zoning considers issues surrounding our cultural districts and cultural sensitivity, as well as preserving cultural identity in our small business community. These cultural districts play a significant and important job in ensuring the survival of cultural identity and representation. How is planning working with the cultural districts to ensure the continuity with existing zoning provisions that protect our cultural heritage?

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: JULIE Maybe if I can just jump in on that one. I mean, think what this does is actually exactly in alignment with that. So I think the principle here is that every district is different. Every district, whether it's an NC district, cultural district overlap, if the zoning rules are to change, they need to go through a legislative process that involves the communities. And so if the rules have changed, the cultural district is aware of whether their rules have changed or not recently. They would be engaged. And so we're not changing those rules. We're just saying if that legislative and that public process has taken place and led to a change that everyone is well aware of, that those should really be the governing rules, not a case by case project set of rules that somehow trump that public process. And I think that's sort of the disconnect is if there was a project that happened twenty years ago based on zoning rules that were our policy at the time, but our policy has now changed. And our policies have changed through a very public open process with working with communities. That should be the new baseline for which the standards to which people are held, not rules from a different era.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: I I I totally

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: And so the cultural districts are part of the legislative process. And so that's how this is there's a correlation there.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: So I I I understand that those those conversations are happening. But I would just you know, I wanna just put an emphasis on how important our cultural districts are. And their input

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: is Well, I think to that point, a lot of these businesses that we're talking about were approved before there were cultural districts. And so those approvals happened in a vacuum outside of the cultural district conversation, whereas the rules that have more recently changed have been done in that context.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Okay. Very good. In the recommendation section, there should be a time period, maybe six months or so, when staff has to report back to the commission about progress of the new program and a full report on whether these unintended consequences were really averted. And should there be any consequences that arose that staff didn't anticipate, there should be the ability for the commission to recommend further amendments to the program. And I'm just I'm just saying that out there because, you know, this is something new that we're we're going into. For for some some people, it may not be a big deal. But for others, is. So I just want to put that out there that are you guys tracking? Is there going to be you already kind of mentioned that you're going to be tracking some of the issues that I raised, which is good. I'm glad that planning is going to be tracking that. But we are giving away some of our authority as a planning commission. And so I just want

[David Moore (Superintendent, Bureau of Urban Forestry, Public Works)]: to know

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: that if we give this authority away that is granted to us through the charter and through us being planning commissioners, that there's some kind of there's a way that we can figure out if that was a good decision.

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: And I think a great feedback loop I mean, a couple of them that come off the bat that are probably the most prompt feedback loops in the way that Audrey, now from our legislative team, weekly gives you an update from the Board of Appeals, for example. So the Board of Appeals report sorry, who does the Board sorry, Corey does the Board of Appeals report. I'm sorry, didn't give him credit there. But you get these weekly updates of what's happened at the Board of Appeals and what permits have happened. And obviously, that can present trends. If we're getting it wrong and those are getting appealed by members of the public, I think that's a really quick, good indicator. Obviously, folks coming here under general public comment, they certainly share with you when they think we're getting things wrong and should take on things in a different way. So I think those are two really quick ways. In addition to that, that's sort of from the angle of if you don't trust what we're doing also. But we're obviously in a constant state of reflecting on our own rules and what's working and what isn't. At our standing management meetings within current planning, we check-in with everyone around where are we getting where are there pinch points? Where are we getting opposition? Where are we seeing trends that are not in a positive direction? And so that's part of our frequent conversation and thinking about how we can do things differently in sort of a constant state of self reflection and adjustment. But then there are sort of these more public, let's call it, checks and balances from those two report backs that you guys get weekly. So all of that is happening. We're happy to if you guys have suggestions of other approaches, happy to hear from you on that and take that into consideration, too.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Thank you, Ms. Swati. And finally, I'll just end with the planning department's recommendation number one for tenant notification. In my view, it's clearly not enough for a reduction or elimination of housing services. So I just want to put out there that there should be some more work done just to ensure that on that particular recommendation that the conversation continues. It doesn't have to happen here because it's going to go to the Board of Supervisors. But I just want to put that a flag, that recommendation. And as far as I'm concerned, I think there needs to be a little bit more work in that area.

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: JULIE Yeah. And we're happy to continue those conversations. I think what we're often trying to balance on this is we do also hear from tenant groups that all of the different choose your own adventures is often hard for, especially nonprofit organizations, to keep track of what the different processes are. And so wherever possible, if we can make the processes the same, it makes it easier for people to help advise tenants. Because folks like you work with Commissioner Imperial. They know what that protocol is. You're supposed to do x, y, and z, and they can help advise. If we start getting too bifurcated with too many variations depending on, well, if you do this kind of project, here's the process. But if it's that project, it's this process. It makes it really hard for some of our more vulnerable populations to get the right type of feedback and representation, sort of that confusion. And so I think that's just what that's the balance that we're trying to strike here is we hear you. We're happy to continue those conversations. But we also don't want to make it so confusing that it actually has the inverse impact.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: Yeah. No, I get that. And I would just say that the importance of tenants having an individual voice, that's where I think it's a very important issue. And I just want to highlight that. And I appreciate you pointing out. We don't want to make anything complicated, right? But we don't want to silence the voices either of people. And so anyway.

[Dakota Speicher (SF Planning Department)]: JOSHUA Yeah. If could just reiterate, the current practice right now in NC districts, folks can do these expansions without notifications. So this really is providing an opportunity for tenants to connect with the rent board when these changes are proposed.

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: Yeah, that's a good point. This is actually a bigger protection than status quo. So this is adding in protections that don't currently exist.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: You know, since you brought up the rep board, what what's that process? Like like, if a tenant has do do you do you know what the process is?

[Liz Watty (Director of Current Planning, SF Planning)]: I am probably not the best person to articulate this.

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: I I agree. I I don't wanna open up a can of worms here. But you brought it up, and I don't know the process MACHT: myself. Do you

[Dakota Speicher (SF Planning Department)]: Yeah. I mean, I can speak for local ADUs. So for local ADUs, project sponsors are required to post notice on the building. They might be required to mail it. I'm not too certain about that. But effectively, they give notice to the current tenants with contact information. I believe rent board contact information. At least when they submit an application for an ADU to the department, we see that. We see that the notification was given. Whether or not they had conversations with the rent board, personally, anecdotally, I don't know what that process looks like.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: I can chime in. So in terms of the rent board, so yeah, there will be notification to tenants. There will also be notification to the landlord. Usually, the rent board will respond in about thirty days at most thirty days to have a hearing. And it depends on what the tenant is trying to petition. If that is the reduction of services or unlawful increased rent, those will be arranged. And then you will have administrative judge from the rent board that will listen to that will look into the evidence. The tenant has to submit evidence in terms of, let's say, if in this case a storage, let's say, is going to be reduced from the tenant property, then again, the tenant will have to appeal in a way that I've been using this, and this has been my rent for the last ten years. It's been part of my lease. And whether it's informal lease, but they've been paying the rent. So there needs to have some due diligence of work by the tenant as well. And the landlord will also need to be there or their representative. And then there will be a calculation by the rent board depending on how the storage, for example, has been used. And that's going to be the amount use the amount of how much is the reduction of the rent. So usually, it would take about thirty days for that process. And so that would be usually the case for it. The rent board will not judge, though, whether the storage is feasible. That's not their purview. Their purview is around tenants' issues. But in terms of the physicality of the building, that is not their purview.

[Dakota Speicher (SF Planning Department)]: Thank

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: you so much, Commissioner Imperial.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Yeah. Are you still ongoing?

[Gilbert Williams (Planning Commissioner)]: No, I'm done. Thank you.

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Commissioner Imperial. Yeah.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Yeah. No, I appreciate this conversation. I appreciate this, Commissioner Williams and Ms. Wadi, and also in terms of looking into this. I guess, just to my point, whatever that comes here to the Planning Commission is around the physicality of the building and how it would impact the people that were in there. The rent board only focuses on the tenants issue. And I appreciate that it follows the supervisor fielders legislation, but that is on the business part. And even though the local ADU also does the same, but if there's an expansion, that's one thing that I'm kind of like that there is still a role for the Planning Commission to look into that in terms of the expansion and how it affect the user. And that is in the discretion of the Planning Commission whether to grant that expansion that would affect the tenant. And so that is kind of like again, you can say it's an ideological perceptive whether Planning Commission should really be just about expansion and how it affects the people that has a history of living there. But yeah, that's something that is actually a place for tenants to be

[Dakota Speicher (SF Planning Department)]: able Yeah. I'll also point out that any expansion, if somebody were enlarging a business outside of the existing envelope of the building, it would still need to comply with all planning code provisions. If it's a mixed use building, it couldn't be taking away required usable open space for those units, things like that. So the underlying controls of the planning code would still apply. And then obviously, anything outside of that 500 square feet, 25%, would be considered an intensification or expansion and then subject to commission approval?

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: I think my only perhaps suggestion for this because again, it rarely comes into the Planning Commission when we have this. And perhaps it can be part of a director's report in terms the expansion to cases of expansion in the residential units, or whether that would be part of the staff report. I think it's important for the commission to understand as well how the expansion, especially in the residential units, affect whether there are tenants there. And for us to whether to have some planning code changes or some meaningful conversations about it, I think it's important for the commission to hear about this kind of trends. Maybe that's yeah. I mean, that's something that I would just put that as a note.

[Amy Campbell (Planning Commission President)]: Great. I'll just quickly commend you. I was delighted to see this come forward. Specifically, the thing that really caught my eye was how this will reduce processing times by six to nine months, which is enormous. Anecdotally, we had something along the lines that came before I haven't been on the commission long, but there was something that came before us just in the last few months that it was a condition associated with a conditional use authorization. And if that same project had come forward today, it would have been principally permitted. They could have done it over the counter. And I thought, ugh, this is broken. So thank you for bringing this forward. It feels really thoughtful. And I really appreciated, like many of my fellow commissioners, the unexpected consequences and trying to get ahead of those and all the recommendations put forward. And it does feel very it seems like it's lowering the cost to do business here and being much more business friendly for our neighborhood retailers and professional services. So thank you so much for this. And I'm in full support. And I think I'm the last person that has any comments on this. So Jonas, I think we're ready for a vote.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Indeed. If there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications and to adopt the delegation of authority on that motion. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean Auchland (Founder, fairtrees.org; SOMA resident)]: Aye.

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

[Lydia So (Planning Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

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

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously, six to zero, and concludes your hearing today.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning Department staff)]: Thank you.