San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 03/26/2026. When we reach the item you are interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, there is a second chime. And I will announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take role. Commission President Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commission Vice President Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Here.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. Present. Commissioner So. Present. And Commissioner Williams? Here. Thank you, Commissioners. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance item one case number 202020CUA at 2089 Ingalls Street conditional use authorization is proposed for an indefinite continuance. And item two for case number 2020651DRP at 16 Cuvier Street discretionary review has been withdrawn. I have no other items proposed for continuance. And so with that, should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar, only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward. Seeing none. Public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner McGarry.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Motion to continue. Second. Thank you commissioners on that motion to continue items as proposed commissioner McGarry. Commissioner So.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So move. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. Seven to zero. Commission matters item three, land acknowledgment.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: I'll read 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 the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramatush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: CHRISTIAN Item four, consideration of adoption. Draft minutes for 03/12/2026. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to adopt the minutes.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Commissioners on that motion to adopt your minutes. Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: Aye.

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

[Amy Campbell (President)]: I have a quick announcement, which is to acknowledge that part of the I guess it's I don't know what requires us to do it. But the Arts Commission meets every month. And there is a representative from our commission that attends that meeting. And Commissioner So has been attending that meeting and has kindly and generously stepped up to continue representing in that capacity. And we appreciate that. And she and I chatted a bit a few weeks ago, and we thought it could be really helpful for anything that she hears at that meeting to be shared with us, especially anything related to matters that are part of our purview on the commission. So I just wanted to acknowledge that and thank you for your service because it's an extra meeting every month and we really appreciate that. Well, thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay commissioners, if there's nothing further item five excuse me department matters item six directors announcements.

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: Good afternoon commissioners, Sarah Dennis Phillips, planning director.

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: I don't have a whole

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: lot to report today, I did want to let you all know that our planning staff is working on our annual progress report called the APR, which is part of our housing element implementation. It's our annual report to the state on how we were progressing on all of our housing implementation measures. So we've already been in touch with you via memo about a week and a half ago on our housing production. We have a hearing coming up on April 19 to discuss our production and other goals. And we'll have our full bulk of our submittal to HCD, to the State Department of Housing and Community Development on that APR available at that hearing as well.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, Commissioners. Item seven, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors. I have no report from the Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday.

[Veronica Flores (Legislative Affairs)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Veronica VERONICA Flores with Legislative Affairs. There were a host of landmark initiations at the Land Use and Transportation Committee this week. These were all located within District 2 and identified as part of the family zoning plan and also through the cultural historic context statements. Included in these 18 separate initiations were some churches, private homes, as well as a couple of theaters. These were recommended as a committee report and adopted at the full board this past Tuesday. Also at the full board the 2245 Post Street Su D as well as the admission and 9th Street Su D were both adopted this concludes my report I'm available for any questions thank you

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, commissioners. If there are no questions from Ms. Flores, 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.

[Tim Johnston (Senior Planner, Environmental Review)]: Go ahead, sir.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I'm going start your time now. They're not going to read through this before you start.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Your

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: time's running, sir.

[Michael Turon (Public Commenter)]: Okay. Good afternoon, President Campbell and commissioners. My name is Michael Turon. I own 2722 Folsom Street with my family. I'm here about one pending item, my request to withdraw PRJ twenty twenty four-eleven thousand six hundred fifty seven. On January 28, I asked the commission for consent to withdraw the application under commission rules, article four, section six, little c. That was fifty seven days ago. The secretary confirmed receipt on February 4 and wrote, your request has been received and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. On fourth, the secretary wrote back, I have not received any request nor direction to place this on a future agenda. Those emails are in your packet on pages four and eleven. I submitted a full packet for your review on March 18 by hand delivery to the 14th Floor by email and by certified mail, eight days before the hearing. It's 140 pages. My cover letter is on page one. The declaration of service is on page 139. I want to explain briefly why this withdrawal matters. The prior application started as a CUA for merger. That is all I filed. The planning department staff expanded it to include a state ADU under government code section 66,317, which must be processed ministerially without a hearing. The commission held a hearing anyway. The scope expanded its documents in the packet. The withdrawal clears the path for a new clean application, BPA twenty twenty six zero two two four six three six seven, which I have already filed with the permit center. The new application is limited to the CUA for the merger only exactly as the settlement agreement requires. The structural problem is on page two of your cover letter. The secretary cannot calendar this item without your direction. Under the Brown Act, you can't discuss it unless it's calendared. That is the loop only the commission can break. Your own agenda today under section D general public comment says that it responds to public comment. You may, quote unquote, direct staff to place 100 an item

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: on a future agenda. This is under government code section 54,054.2,

[Michael Turon (Public Commenter)]: little a. That is my request. Ordinance two ninety one-twenty four, which the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed in December 2024, directs city officials to take all actions reasonable necessary to perform the city's obligations under the settlement agreement. The federal court that approved the agreement found in February that I had acted in good faith throughout this process. I'm doing the same here. Calendaring this item is the minimum reasonable necessity action. I respectfully ask the commission direct the secretary to calendar the withdrawal request at the next available hearing. Thank you all for your time.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: I sent sent an email this morning because I knew you had a huge packet, and I didn't want you have to be bothered with it beforehand. You have two weeks off. You can read it then if you choose. Good morning or afternoon, Georgia Shootish. Housing prices and rents are skyrocketing with large percentage jumps in sales prices even since late last year, per the recent article in the Chronicle. Noe Valley, the epicenter of de facto demolition where projects took advantage of unadjusted demo calcs for more than a decade or had a second approved unit that never hit a market. Now single family home sales of more than $1,000,000 over asking are happening. Please scroll through the PDFs and the commissioners. You will see that I'm attempting to make the following points. Second units if there is an existing second unit, whether a flat or UDU, there needs to be a thorough screening during review to preserve or expand this housing. When a second unit or ADU is added, there needs to be some way that developers do not absorb this unit into the main unit. This is very tough to do, but a second unit absorption is a loophole created in so much legislation, whether it's SB four twenty three, two to nine units the commission has no oversight or inclusionary housing, or the CNLR SUD, or the constraints reduction ordinance, or the family zoning plan. Perhaps the staff can define a way to close these loopholes to ensure that second units are truly available for housing. Or if not, then this invitation to skirt the rules should be rescinded by amending SB four twenty three. Flats. Although the residential flat policy is now codified under the FCP in sections one hundred two and three seventeen of the code, it might be good to have proactive enforcement. I suggested to staff recently that when a permit for work on a project that involves flats, like expansion or adding a roof deck, that the planning approval letter have a boilerplate paragraph reminding the applicant of the planning code now governing flats. Finally, I understand that planning and DBI enforcement will be merged sometime later this year. While that may be more efficient than the current system, it would also be good if the enforcement mindset was always at work while these projects in the residential neighborhoods are under review by the city, particularly now that we are in this new frenzy and human nature isn't always about doing the right and legal thing. So here's my 150 words for the minutes. Today, I remembered to give it to you. And that's it. Have a nice spring break. And do consider things and I hope you do, since you have two weeks, take a scroll through the PDFs I sent in the email. Thanks a lot.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: Have a good day.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for general public comment. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. And we can move on to your regular calendar commissioners for item eight case number 2023Hyphen005928APL for the West Side potable emergency firefighting water system project this is an appeal of a preliminary mitigated negative declaration.

[Tim Johnston (Senior Planner, Environmental Review)]: Good afternoon, President Campbell, members of the commission. My name is Tim Johnston, senior planner with the Planning Department. The item before you today is the appeal of a preliminary mitigated negative declaration or PMND for the West Side potable emergency firefighting water system project proposed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. You should have before you a packet containing a draft motion, the appeal letters, our responses to the appeal, concerns raised, and an amended PMND.

[Lisa Gibson (Environmental Review Officer)]: While Tim is pausing there, I'm Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer, President Campbell, and members of the commission. If I can, I'd like to just briefly provide some context for this item, which is that this is an appeal of a preliminary mitigated negative declaration. And for some of you, this is your first time hearing such an item. And just to note that our local implementing code for the California Environmental Quality Act, chapter 31 of our administrative code, provides for an appeal of this type of a document to this commission. And so this is a function where this body will serve as the decision making body on an appeal of the adequacy of the environmental determination, as opposed to other actions where, related to environmental impact reports, you're the certifying body. So there are grounds for this appeal that Tim will note in his presentation. And there's also another point I'd like to make, which is that this is a project that is not before this commission for approval. So where issues relate to the merits of the project and otherwise, they may be there for information, but they're not pertinent to this appeal. That's all. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Thank you.

[Tim Johnston (Senior Planner, Environmental Review)]: Thank you, Lisa. The decision before the commission today is whether to adopt a motion to affirm the PMND if you find that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, or refer the PMND back to the planning department for specified revisions. Specify, you may also overrule the PMND and require staff to prepare an environmental impact report if you find that there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. However, the project itself does not require commission approval. Project approval will be considered by the SFPUC. The department issued a PMND for the project in October 2025, determining that with the implementation of specified mitigation measures agreed to by the SFPUC, the project would not result in significant impacts. On 12/01/2025, an appeal was filed by the Sunset Parkside Action Committee Parkside Education and Action Committee, known as SPEAK, who submitted supplemental appeal comments in February and March. Comments submitted by other parties in support of the appeal were submitted last week. The appellant has not met the legal burden of proof to demonstrate sorry. The appeal the department has carefully reviewed these materials, and they do not alter our conclusion that a PMND is the appropriate level of environmental review for the project. The PMND documents the department's determination that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, the impacts would be less than significant because of feasible mitigation measures. The appellant has not met the legal burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise, as we will describe more in this presentation. Staff therefore recommends that the commission affirm the department's determination to issue a PMND for this project. In a moment, I will present a summary of the key responses to the appeal. But first, I will provide a brief overview of the project. The proposed project aims to provide enhanced fire protection and redundancy for potable water conveyance to Western San Francisco. It includes installation of approximately 16 miles of earthquake resilient high pressure water pipelines, construction of two new emergency pump stations, and upgrades to an existing pump station at Lake Merced. Construction would occur from 2026 to 2040, primarily within public streets. The amended m n d reflects minor routing adjustments through Golden Gate Park. Representatives from the SFPUC and and the fire department are also here today. Later in the hearing, they will present more project details. This slide summarizes the ground rules for this document and this appeal. Specifically, the CEQA guidelines state that a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared when substantial evidence shows that impacts will be less than significant with mitigation. Grounds for an appeal shall be limited to whether the MND conforms with CEQA and whether the mitigation measures are feasible and adequate. Lastly, speculative scenarios do not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA. The appeal raises three main issues, including objections that project alternatives and merits were not evaluated, concerns about the proposed project's likelihood of failure during an earthquake as compared to the auxiliary water supply system, which they claim to be more robust, and assertions that the PUC that the PMND understates or overlooks potentially significant impacts related to 12 different CEQA topics. Next, I will summarize our responses to the main aspects of these claims. A more detailed response to each of the appeal claims appears in your packet. Regarding project merits and alternatives, the MND evaluates the project as proposed by the SFPUC. Consideration of project merits as framed by the appellant is not part of CEQA review. Alternatives analysis is not required for an MND, and all impacts are shown to be less than significant or can be mitigated to less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, an MND is the appropriate level of environmental review. Regarding project performance, CEQA does not require an analysis of how well a project would perform. Therefore, the appellant's unsupported claims that the project would have a greater likelihood of failure compared to another possible project are not pertinent to our CEQA analysis. Meanwhile, the scenarios raised by the appellant regarding post earthquake fires are speculative. In any case, the project would not exacerbate the risk of urban fires, which is an existing condition. Lastly, CEQA requires that we focus on reasonably foreseeable effects of the project on the environment based on substantial evidence. Regarding project consistency and completeness, the project description adequately covers both normal and emergency operations to the extent required by CEQA. Analyzing detailed emergency mode scenarios as requested by the appellant would pertain to project merits, because those scenarios are used to determine the preferred project proposal. Meanwhile, not every possible detail is necessary for CEQA analysis. Project merits will be considered by the SFPUC at the project approval hearing. Next, I will cover some of the main environmental topics raised by the appeal. Regarding growth inducement and population and housing, the high pressure pipeline would not induce population growth because although the project seeks to improve emergency resilience, it would not expand the supply of potable water. Meanwhile, claims linking the proposed project to future development or displacement are speculative and unsupported. Regarding aesthetics, a 27 foot tall pump station at Sunset Reservoir near the corner of Ortega Street and 28th Avenue would not block scenic vistas, given its proposed height. Scenic highways and viewpoints would be unaffected by permanent aboveground appurtenances. Light and glare effects from nighttime security lighting would be minimized due to compliance with the green building code. Regarding cultural and tribal cultural resources, mitigation measures adequately address inadvertent discovery, archaeological monitoring, testing, data recovery, and tribal consultation. These are standard feasible practices that include appropriate performance standards consistent with CEQA requirements. Regarding transportation, CEQA does not require congestion analysis. The PMDD correctly evaluates potential construction related hazards, access limitations, and transit delays. Required coordination with SFMTA would ensure adequate traffic control, signage, and detours. A new pump station at 28th And Ortega would not create a new traffic hazard because a new pump station at that location would maintain adequate setbacks. And that intersection already has a four way stop. Regarding utilities and public services, as previously noted, the project would not increase water capacity and would therefore not be growth inducing. Claims about water supply depletion due to firefighting are speculative. The SFPUC can speak more about this later. Broader regional vulnerabilities are existing conditions, not impacts that would be caused by the project. At Sunset Reservoir, the pump station variant at Ortega And Twenty Eighth would not affect dam inundation risk mapping nor alter dam integrity. Dam inundation maps are not FEMA flood hazard zones, which these are zones that occur that where flooding occurs on a regular basis. And therefore, that scenario is not speculative. Whether a dam might fail, in this case, is speculative given that there's no evidence in the record to suggest that the dam lacks integrity. Permeation grouting is not proposed. If soil improvements that involve grouting are needed, low toxicity grouts are available that can prevent groundwater impacts. The availability of Lake Merced water for firefighting use is an existing condition, not an impact of the project. In conclusion, the amended PMND fully supports the findings that the project, with implementation of mitigation measures, would not result in significant impacts that could not be reduced to a less than significant level. These findings are based on substantial evidence in the record. The appellant has not provided a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that an EIR would be required. We therefore recommend that you uphold the PMND and not require further analysis nor an EIR because such efforts would not provide any meaningful analysis beyond what was already conducted for the PMND. For these reasons, the planning department respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the PMND and reject the appeal. Thank you very much for your attention. I'm joined here by my colleague Julie Moore. We are available to answer your questions. Thank you again.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. If that concludes staff presentation, we should hear from the appellant and then the project sponsor. And each party will receive ten minutes.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I have a handout.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Sir, you can just hand them out. I'll hand them out.

[Eileen Boakin (President, SPEAK)]: SFGov TV, I'll be using the overhead. Eileen Boakin, president of SPEAK Sunset Parkside Education and Action Committee. I'm here with experts John Crabtree, an environmental advocacy professional, and Heather Davies, a civil engineer, most recently the disaster recovery program manager for Western National Parks, and formerly a water engineer for the state of California. Together, we will demonstrate that SPEAK's appeal makes a fair argument refuting Planning's claim that revisions have eliminated the significant environmental impacts. This is the most significant environmental and fire safety issue in the last century. The image you're seeing is beachfront homes in Pacific Palisades burned to the ground after last year's fire. These beachfront homes burned to the ground because LA fire didn't have a dedicated high pressure, high volume emergency firefighting water system that could use ocean water to extinguish catastrophic fires. There have been massive environmental impacts from these fires. Does San Francisco want to be the next Pacific Palisades? The project descriptions fails to accurately characterize these projects, the projects from a long list of issues, replacement versus redundancy, pipe alignment, and placement of pumps. And there would be significant and unavoidable impacts that could not be mitigated to both drinking water quantity and drinking water quality. Sunset Reservoir's North Basin would be the initial source for catastrophic firefighting. Sunset Reservoir, as a whole, provides 48% of the city's drinking water. Utilizing Sunset Reservoir would de facto impact water quality water quantity. After Sunset Reservoir utilizing Lake Merced as the primary source of water to fight catastrophic fires would have significant and unavoidable impacts on drinking water quality, which could not be mitigated. Lake Merced is not drinking water quality as defined by the SFPUC. Any use of Lake Merced in drinking water pipes would mandate that the Department of Public Health issue a boil water alert. That boil water alert would remain in effect for weeks or months while the Lake Merced water is being flushed out of drinking water pipes as planning states on page 15 of the revised PMND.

[John Crabtree (Appellant Expert)]: Good afternoon. The matter before you today is the most significant environmental issue to come before a city commission in at least a generation. San Francisco will once again face the devastation of a massive earthquake and the post earthquake firestorm that will result. Every San Francisco resident knows this. Every one of us fears the city will not be prepared. In nineteen o six, the firestorms after the earthquake burned for three days. 80% of the devastation, homes, businesses, infrastructure, and eighty percent of the human lives lost, thousands of lives, resulted from the fire. Neighborhoods spanning two thirds of the city currently lack adequate post earthquake, high pressure firefighting water infrastructure. Each unprotected neighborhood has an interest in the outcome of today's hearing. Hunters Point, Bayview Heights, Excelsior, Crocker Amazon, the Outer Mission, Little Hollywood, Seacliff, Parkside, Portola, Ingleside, Merced Manor, Oceanview, Stonestown, Sunnyside, the Outer Richmond, and the Outer Sunset. Each and every one of these neighborhoods has an extreme interest in the outcome of this review and this appeal. The standard of review per the California Code of Regulation section 15,064 states simply where there is substantial evidence in light of the entire record before the agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. A full environmental impact review must be prepared if any substantial evidence exists that a project may have a significant environmental impact, even if opposing evidence exists. Appellants have made a fair argument that this environmental review does not sufficiently consider the potential for unmitigated environmental impacts in a post earthquake firestorm scenario. Planning's review considered only potable water operations and not the environmental firefighting or the emergency firefighting water operational phase of this dual purpose project. The commission should remand this project review back to planning and order a full environmental impact review. Thank you.

[Heather Davies (Civil Engineer; Appellant Expert)]: Planning commissioners, Heather Davies. Our appeal to Mendels described many environmental impacts that have not been adequately evaluated by SF Planning. I will focus on one circulated handout addresses two others. The Sunset Reservoir is a dam, an earthen dam regulated to protect public safety. An internal pipe failure or a seismic event can cause a dam to rupture. USGS projects a 7.8 magnitude earthquake in the next thirty years with a 72% probability. That'd be 20 times stronger than Loma Prieta. Federal and state regulations guidelines classify dams by downstream hazard. The Sunset North Reservoir Dam has been classified by the state as extremely hazardous, meaning expected to cause considerable loss of life or would result in an indentation area with a population of 1,000 or more. Hydraulic modeling is required to map the inundation area, flood wave arrival time, and for maximum depth and velocity of a release. Before I brought my house in 1996, I reviewed maps to ensure that I would not be living in such a hazard, as these are not included in FEMA flood maps. This is the current map of the inundation, the bottled breach from the Sunset Dam. Maximum water depth would be 30 feet, flowing at an initial velocity of 22 feet per second. Flooding would extend to the North to Golden Gate Park and West to the ocean. The relevant secret criteria here is exposure of people and structures to potential increases in seismic hazards. Planning did not address this impact. They misconstrued our argument as a water quality or hydraulic impact. The proposed dam includes a large pump station at the base of this dam, 150 foot by 75 by 20 foot high earthquake resilient structure. California code titled 20 3335160 says inundation maps are to be updated every ten years or sooner if a significant change to downstream development exists. That is a newly placed structure that could change dynamics of the release if it's positioned in the spillway, particularly at the base of the dam. Initial flow could focus with velocity black mark is the structure towards the north rather than northeast. And that could dramatically change the path of destruction. Planning's response is invalid. An email from a state dam regulator saying the structure is part of a later phase, and therefore, they could update the map on the normal cycle. That does not change the fact that if you approve this CEQA document, you have accepted an environmental impact without having understood the scope and magnitude of changes that would result in the loss of life and property destruction, particularly with this next earthquake. Abolence have presented substantial evidence of potential environmental impacts from this project not characterized adequately by SF planning. We have met our fair argument standard. Thank you very much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Does that conclude the appellant's presentation?

[Heather Davies (Civil Engineer; Appellant Expert)]: That concludes the appellant's presentation.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. In that case, we should hear from the project sponsor.

[Gareth Miller (Assistant Deputy Chief, SFFD)]: Good afternoon, president Campbell, members of the planning commission. My name is Gareth Miller, San Francisco fire department, assistant deputy chief for earthquake safety emergency response projects, and liaison to the PUC. Brief introduction to this project, I'd to address the mission of the San Francisco fire department, which is to protect lives and property. And after an earthquake, an adequate water supply is essential to suppress fires and successfully carry out that mission. Thanks to the support of voters and the work of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, there is now a plan to strengthen fire protection in San Francisco by constructing a high pressure emergency firefighting water system on the West side of the city. The plan includes access to the more than 1,000,000,000 gallons of water in Lake Merced as a backup water supply. The fire department has been an engaged participant in the planning and design process and is confident that the new system will meet the operational needs of the SFFD both day to day and when the need is greatest.

[Josh Andreessen (Senior Project Manager, SFPUC)]: Thank you chief pillar good afternoon my name is Josh Andreessen I joined the PUC two years ago I'm the senior project manager for this project I specifically joined for my passion and expertise to bring it to this project And we can take a look at our slides. So today, we're going to go over the background, some of the rejected alternatives we looked at, the proposed project, and the project benefits. Before we get started, I just want to express appreciation to the community members here today and their concerns and their passion to make this project right. We certainly share those interests as chief Miller mentioned, the goal to protect people, property, and the environment. We have a large team passionately working on this project. Working towards this goal, we have worldwide expertise with fire science protection, earthquakes, emergency management, resiliency, hydraulics, pump stations, and pipelines. As chief Miller mentioned, work team consistently and closely coordinates. We meet biweekly. We go through the details. They review every deliverable. We talk regularly, and we are fully aligned on this project. We also understand the appellant's concerns, and we have previously considered them. We previously studied 12 different options for the West Side emergency firefighting water system. And based on these studies, SFPD and SFPUC issued a joint letter to the board of supervisors in 2018 selecting the current project. In 2018 and consistent through today, we have determined other options remain unrealistic. There's been a public process upon selection of the preferred projects. We've had regular updates to the board of supervisors on an annual basis. We've regularly engaged with citizens advisory committee and regularly updated the Fire Commission. We've also presented to the neighborhood groups, including those here today. And the takeaway is that we've thoroughly considered options with a deep bench of experts and a public process for almost a decade. And we remain confident in the proposed project. So a little background on these slides. The left shows that every city block has a low pressure hydrant. The right side shows that we have high pressure hydrants and pipelines up to 19th Avenue and Park Presidio. Beyond that, we have cisterns throughout the West Side. This project proposes new high pressure pipelines and hydrants throughout the the entire West Side to increase fire protection. So our takeaway is the West Side has great fire protection, and we're going to make it better. The question that's that has come up in the past is why not build a salt seawater or saltwater system? We did study this. We found it would take five to 10 pump stations on along Ocean Beach. Each pump station would need building, parking, diesel tanks, electrical power, and slant wells through liquefiable soils to the ocean. Constructing this in the sensitive ocean beach habitat would lead to complex environmental impacts, permitting issues, land availability constraints, significant costs, and really challenging operational conditions. Due to these complexities, it would take us more than a decade to achieve any fire protection with the seawater system. The takeaway is we've definitively concluded seawater option is not realistic for the West Side. Another question comes up. Why not extend, the existing emergency fire water system? We have also studied this. You see a picture here of the Twin Peaks Reservoir. This currently serves the East Side of the city. Unfortunately, there's insufficient water storage in the current emergency fire water system to serve an expansion to the West Side, and there's no land readily available to construct new storage. So as we have also determined, this option is not realistic. So Tim summarized the proposed project earlier. The only thing I wanna say on this slide is that SFPUC has reviewed all mitigation measures, and we find them feasible. And we will implement them. In terms of project benefits, this project has been carefully designed to provide multiple water sources to protect from the risk of fire. The blue water drops show up to six water sources. Several of these sources provide significant pressure and flow to the west side by gravity flow before the pump stations are constructed. This allows each segment a pipeline that is constructed to provide immediate benefit once it's constructed, and it allows it facilitates construction gradually over more than a decade as funding is available. The system's designed for very large flows, high pressure, large earthquakes, and it has abundant water supply, including four to seven days with drinking water. As the appellant mentioned, the nineteen o six fire took three days. And in a worst case scenario, we have four to six weeks of water in Lake Merced. We already have the ability to pump Lake Merced water into the entire West Side system in an unlikely and catastrophic emergency. This project makes this option safer by only pumping that water into the new pipelines, isolating those pipelines from the rest of the system while the rest of the system can continue to deliver clean drinking water. The takeaway is we have abundant water supplies. And upon completion of CEQUA, we're ready to start construction of the initial portions of the system to make the West Side safer. I'd like to turn it over to chief Miller for final remarks.

[Gareth Miller (Assistant Deputy Chief, SFFD)]: I just want to emphasize that the fire department and the SFPUC have been working together closely. And that collaboration and the PUC's focus on understanding the needs of the fire department have been the foundation to the planning and the design of the emergency firefighting and water system. I'd like to express my and the fire department's appreciation for their work. The San Francisco fire department is confident that the current plan, deliver high pressure firefighting water on the West Side Of San Francisco, is an efficient and effective means to meet the operational needs of the department and to protect San Francisco. Thank you for your time. Happy to answer any questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: E. Thank you. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. You need to come forward.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: How much

[Lisa Arges (Public Commenter; Equal Fire Protection for All)]: time do I have?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Three minutes. Can

[Lisa Arges (Public Commenter; Equal Fire Protection for All)]: I, is it possible to get a bit more to rebuff some of what was just said? Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, my name is Lisa Arges. I'm a community activist, resident of District 4, an engineer and a principal officer on the equal fire protection for all, a committee to oppose prop a. Every day we don't have the big one. We are one day closer to the big one. As one of the appellants, John Crabtree, pointed out, over 80% of the loss of life and property was due to the post earthquake firestorm in nineteen o six. Why? Because the municipal water infrastructure in nineteen o six failed. Surviving San Franciscans were motivated to fund and build an earthquake resistant, resilient, independent high pressure water system so that what happened in 1906 never happened again. The system was designed, if I might say, brilliantly and elegantly. Yes, for engineers, that is such a thing. Factoring it factored in redundancy to account for potential failures, simplicity. This system that I'm talking about is the auxiliary water supply system. It has been tested. It uses non potable water. It can draw upon salt water, which is abundantly available in San Francisco. And the most important resource to have when putting out a fire is water. This is a shot of nineteen o six. The building you see in the far ground is the building we're in right now. In sixteen years, and armed with $1,440,000,000 $312,000,000 in ear tag to expand AWSS, how many hydrants or high pressure mains have been installed in the unprotected neighborhoods? Nearly two thirds of San Francisco. Any guesses? Double zero. The answer is double zero. I'm glad to say that Gareth Miller, Assistant Deputy Chief Gareth Miller, thinks that now SFPEC has a plan. But they've had sixteen years, over 5,844. And we are no closer implementing equal fire protection for all. Yet with each day, we are closer one day closer to the big one. I want to address a couple of other comments regarding the proposed system. It's not brilliant. It's not elegant by any standard. It is overly complex. It's prone to failure. It's untested. It is ungodly expensive to build. Josh Andreessen was minuted in the PUC Citizens Advisory Committee last October. He stated that the project could cost 8,000,000,000 to $10,000,000,000 Estimate, they have no idea. You might ask yourself if you're especially if you live in one of in one of the neighborhoods in the two thirds of the city that's unprotected, when might you expect to get emergency firefighting water? Definitely after 2040. But based on the the track record of PUC, maybe never. Thank you. Thank back to for a full environmental review.

[Unidentified Public Commenter]: All I can say is thank goodness for the appellants. The appellants and their experts have certainly made a fair argument that this project may have some significant effect on the environment. May is a very low bar. It's pretty obvious from the facts and reasonable assumptions based on the facts that planning must prepare a full environmental report. All of us who live in San Francisco should want that for our safety. Think about it. Do we really want to be another Pacific Palisades? I have a master's degree in geography and environmental studies from San Francisco State, and I've studied water resources. And the appellate's experts, including water engineer Ms. Davies, are absolutely correct. They have provided facts and data showing the dam, which is Sunset Reservoir, could rupture easily. Mr. Crabtree has demonstrated that planning operational review considered only drinking water options and not emergency firefighting water operations. Ms. Spoken has highlighted the environmental impact of the boil water alerts necessary in this proposed dual drinking water and firefighting system. And two thirds of the city's neighborhoods are unprotected from a major earthquake and the resulting fire is based in a half baked plan. Now, I would assume that maybe twothree of this board live that you currently live in the twothree of the neighborhood unprotected, because I don't think everybody lives in the protected neighborhood. The only solution at this point is to uphold the appeal and require the planning provide a full environmental impact report. And we can't get this wrong. The stakes are too high. Every resident of San Francisco is affected. It isn't your typical appeal that you may see in front of this board that affects a neighbor, a neighborhood, or maybe even the district. This affects the entire city. You can say twothree of the city. But really, if the entire city is not adequately protected, it will affect the entire city. And it will affect each of this member's boards, your home, your neighbors, your family. So let's get it right. Further analysis is your fire insurance. Since everyone wants to get this right, please vote for an environmental impact report. Thank you.

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

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. I'd like to thank the public for coming out. Thank Deputy Chief Fire Miller, Tim Johnston, Josh Anderson. I think the system that's in front of us is needed just in case there's an earthquake, a serious catastrophic situation. I just want to say that I want to appreciate the folks that did the appeal. I think even though I'm not sure you made your case, as far as I'm concerned. But I think just the process itself is something that is important for San Franciscans. It's important for us to shine a light on this process, on the project. And so I just wanted to mention that. I'm going to let some of my other commissioners talk. Hopefully, they'll have something to say. This is pretty intense. There's a lot of information here for us to consider. I think the planning department did a really good job answering and addressing all of the issues that came up in the appeal. The one thing I will say outside of that that sticks out, and that's just the transportation part. And I think just living in the city and having to endure a lot of the street changes that have happened over the few years. I would just say that I think if the more that the community knows about what's going to happen, the the better they are, the more trust you're gonna build. This is a huge project. It's gonna encompass a lot of streets, a lot of streets that are important streets. Like Clement has businesses on it and others. And so I would just say that I think it's really important to focus on community awareness, letting folks know what's going to happen. This is something that's necessary. And so that would just be one thing that stands out to me. I think folks really appreciate that pre awareness that all this stuff is happening in their neighborhoods. And so that would be my initial comment. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I would have to agree with everything Commissioner Williams has said. I think I'm very fortunate to live in the Inner Richmond where the coverage is very good. But as soon as you get to nineteenth, that coverage seems to drop off and there seems to be a way of mitigating that. God forbid, we are going to have an earthquake. And when we do, we need the infrastructure there to actually take care of it, and that is water. And that's what we're talking about here. And not just water, but direct access to water as quickly as possible. So I totally appreciate the apparent. And basically, their points of view, but I have to get down to the nuts and bolts. And it's down to firefighters' access to water and that water to be deployed as quickly as possible in the event or the inevitability of basically our next earthquake. So I would like to, well, listen to the rest of my colleagues.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I also appreciate everyone coming out and bringing so much attention to the project. As Commissioner McGarry said, obviously mitigating fire risk is important throughout the city, given the major disaster we could have with an earthquake and fire. However, a lot of the arguments and concerns about that fire risk seem to come down to debating the merits of the project itself and not debating the adequacy of the analysis that was used to prepare the preliminary mitigated negative declaration for the project. This is not a project that is reasonably foreseeable to cause the fire risk to worsen. The potential for a catastrophic fire already exists. And so it's hard to argue that there's a downstream environmental impact that's sort of speculative, and that is somehow that this project is going to sort of worsen fire risk. The idea of whether a project could have significant impacts on the environment and the idea of it may have a significant impact on that standard, it's also based on legal standards and not whatever we want it to mean or to get into speculation about a project. And so I just don't think that this is the right sort of analytical tool and forum for, again, debating the merits of the project as opposed to the analysis that I do believe was definitely adequate. And so I see there's a few more commissioners who wish to speak, but I would on the side of upholding the negative declaration.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Thank you. Vice President Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you for everybody who came to voice their concerns. Thank you for environmental review of planning, and thank you for Chief Miller and project manager, PUC Anderson, to present in detail a subject matter that is extremely difficult to grasp if you are not really an expert in the subject matter. I believe that we have been given an adequate presentation of the issues involved. They are complex, and I do fully understand the public's concern and the well researched comments they made today. I suggest that these particular comments are also taking forward to the approving body the PUC Commission, who will ultimately be responsible to approve the project. What we are doing today is really only using our experience with CEQA and environmental review as it pertains to an appeal to the project. And I believe that the department has done not just an adequate but a very thorough and sufficient job to really highlight every issue that this particular project, as it is coming to the department, has to address. There may be other issues, but the approving body should hear you as well. I can only testify to the fact that I believe that the appeal has been and the negative mitigated negative deck has been thoroughly examining all issues that we are required to consider. I would, in this particular case, I'm sorry. I would basically not uphold the appeal and approve the negative and mitigate negative declaration as it is in front of us.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Commissioner Imperial. Thank you. Commissioner, are you or vice president, are you making a motion to uphold the

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I kind of sense that Commissioner Brown was trying to do that. And I would have seconded it. Perhaps we make a motion to indeed

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Uphold. Okay.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: And I'd appeal.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Well, I just want to make a comment, and I agree with other commissioners, that in terms of the study of the mitigated negative declaration, that all of these studies is aimed within the guidelines of the CEQA. And so in that merit, you know, I mean, I think that the department has done a complete analysis of these based on the sequent guidelines as well. I do appreciate as well the public in terms of the putting their concerns in terms of why not build a salt water system. And I also appreciate in terms of what at least an overview analysis of what SFP you see of the salt what would it take to do that. But I think those are the things that also needs to be heard by PUC for the appellants as well. But in the merit of this, I think this M and D, the department has done its job. So I will make a formal motion to uphold the mitigated negative declaration.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to uphold the preliminary mitigated negative declaration on that motion. Commissioner McGarry?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye.

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

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, seven to zero. And we'll place this on item nine for case number 2020378CUA at 66 Bishop Street. This is a conditional use authorization.

[Laura Aiello (Planning Department Staff)]: Good afternoon, President Campbell, members of the commission, Laura Iello for department staff. This project seeks conditional use authorization to demolish an existing two story single family home and construct a new two story single family residence with an attached accessory dwelling unit. The property is located in an R H 1 zoning district. The site is a standard 25 by 100 foot lot situated on the West Side of Bishop Street in a cul de sac between Acanny Street and Harkness Avenue. The surrounding neighborhood is also zoned RH1. The building proposed for demolition is approximately four eighty square feet, contains one bedroom, and was built in 1922. Preservation staff reviewed the structure back in 2007 and determined that it is not a historic resource. The proposed replacement building will include a roughly fourteen sixty seven square foot two bedroom home, along with a six ninety nine square foot ADU with one bedroom located on the Ground Floor. The project proposes two off street parking spaces, two class one bicycle spaces, and approximately twelve seventy two square feet of usable open space via private decks and a common rear yard. The project also proposes reducing the curb cut to standard width and installing one new street tree. The existing home is currently unoccupied. As noted in the executive summary, there is no evidence of an eviction occurring on the property. However, rent board records show that a tenant submitted a wrongful eviction complaint. This was later rescinded, and the rent board subsequently closed the petition. The department has not received any letters, either in support or opposing the project. I need to note a correction. The draft motion contains errors on pages eight and nine. It mistakenly references an undocumented dwelling unit. There is no history of such a unit, and the final motion will correct this error. After the packet was distributed, there has been a discussion regarding the shared entry design. This has been discussed with the applicant, and a change to an unconditioned front entry has been agreed upon. This change will be made on the revised plans. This will result in both entry doors being exterior doors. Should the commission agree, this can be made a condition of approval in the final motion. The department recommends approval. The project meets all applicable planning code requirements and will maximize the allowed dwelling unit density, add one new family size dwelling, and an ADU to the city's housing stock. This concludes my presentation, and I will be available to answer any questions. The property owner and her contractor are here to address the commission. Thank you.

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

[Project Sponsor (66 Bishop Street) — Name Not Stated]: Good afternoon. We appreciate the time to hear our case. And just to let you know that we're going to accept the conditional changes that they are proposing, and we're going to submit it to our architect to be addressed.

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

[Project Sponsor (66 Bishop Street) — Name Not Stated]: Yeah, that concludes my presentation.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, very good. With that, we should take public comment and the commissioners may have questions for you afterwards. But if there's anyone here to comment, please come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Vice President Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I believe that the project is a reasonable project, a very, very small for today's standards, undersized home of 900 something rather 400 something rather square feet is being demolished to make place for definitely a single family home of 1,400 something other square feet. I'm in support of that. However, the questions I raised is when I looked at the plans, I was concerned that the common entryway leading to an extended corridor from which two units are accessed could potentially be misconstrued or used as a single family home. That is something which the Planning Commission in the past was very, very conscientious about, particularly the creation of an additional dwelling unit is really what we really need to guard and be aware of. So I called Ms. Agallo, and I talked this through with her because the rules from what we previously did have changed. So the entrance, as it is proposed, says that this could be okay for an ADU. In the past, it wasn't because an ADU need to independently be addressed from the street. And while I think an entry corridor has a neutral area where mail can be collected, etcetera, is important, adding a gate rather than a solid door to the street is an equally productive idea because from the gate or through the gate, you could still see that there are two entrances. It's basically an equitable way of getting to your unit. I'm delighted to hear that Ms. Aiello was successful speaking with the applicant, and the applicant isn't accepting it. So I'm making a motion to approve this project with the added condition that there will be a gate instead of a solid door. In addition, I would like to ask and this goes beyond the discussion of this particular CU I would like to ask that the department perhaps consider expanding our guidelines to include that this recognition of an ADU as a separate entrance is recognized. Our current guidelines do not do that, but it would help us to prevent the potential unintended use of an approved ADU or second unit to be basically used as a mega mansion. That is only a comment, but my support for the motion, I'm looking for a second on this. People do not agree with what I'm observing.

[Tim Johnston (Senior Planner, Environmental Review)]: Second.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes, I agree with Commissioner Moore's analysis of this. The house that's being replaced, it's a one bedroom, very small house. In fact, the ADU in the new project is, I believe, larger than the existing home. So in a way, we have a one bedroom replacement of the original house at the ADU. And then there's also the additional larger, more modern house that could be better accommodating of a family that's also being added. So I think there's a lot to like in this project. I do appreciate Commissioner Moore bringing up the issue of having the entryway in a conditioned space where it would be much easier for somebody, a bad actor, to choose to just kind of functionally integrate the whole home instead of treating the ADU as a second unit. And I thank the project sponsor for agreeing to the changes that have been requested. And so this has my full support. Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Thank you. I concur with both Vice President Moore and Commissioner Braun. I think this is the perfect candidate for a demolition for what we're getting in exchange. I think the one question I had is just around goes back to the residential guidelines of we typically recommend a three to five foot setback for roof decks. And I was curious if and I don't know if this is for staff or someone up here, but along the Bishop Street side, it appears we don't have any setback. And I wondered if that's because there's already the face of the building is already set back a few feet, or if we typically recommend a setback from the building edge?

[Laura Aiello (Planning Department Staff)]: I think our recommendations vary depending This on the is merely a two story home. The deck is within the buildable area of what could be enclosed space. And because the homes on either side are similar in size and could be four stories by code, We didn't feel that, in this case, we needed to make that setback requirement.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Thank you. That's all my comments. Did you have something to add to that?

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Actually sorry. I might want to clarify that. So did their roof deck, wherever they wanted to be, the total area still comply with the maximum maximum allowed roof deck they can do according to our latest greatest design guideline in the planning code?

[Laura Aiello (Planning Department Staff)]: Pardon me while I find that page on the plans. I don't recall the size of the roof It deck by the

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: appears that it's like the entire roof. I think I appreciate that Commissioner President Campbell brought that up.

[Laura Aiello (Planning Department Staff)]: I would have to defer to some other staff to look up the exact size requirements, but I would like to remind the commission that this is an older case. Was submitted back in 2021 prior to the 2025 design standards. Other than having to defer to someone who can look this up for me while I'm standing here at the podium, the project does meet the design standards otherwise, as far as I know.

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

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Just wanted to follow-up. I agree with everything that's been said. That was a good catch. Commissioner, both you and Commissioner Moore and the President and the Vice President. Wanted to can anybody explain to me a little bit more about the entryway and the new standards? Because I think Commissioner Moore pointed out a good case in that this has easily turned into one big family home. And so for the public and for my own information, I'd just like to try to understand more how this all came about, this design.

[Kate Connor (Planning Department Staff)]: Absolutely. Thank you, Commissioner. Kate Connor with Planning Department staff. This isn't something that's explicitly addressed in our design standards. And as Ms. O'Lell mentioned, this is an older project that isn't subject to our newest version. That being said, for state ADUs, they do need to maintain that exterior access. So by providing that gate and having it be unconditioned space, it is meeting that requirement. But that is something that we can further clarify in our design standards when we're making that update, just so it's as explicit as possible. It is something that we do have in our ADU bulletin.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: And so the gate significant how is that? I'm just trying to look to understand it. So the gate represents what? A separation of the two units?

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: The gate would provide kind of the barrier between the street and the two units. But it will also, as Commissioner Moore was alluding to, provide that transparency so that you understand there are two units. So it wouldn't function as a single family home with only an interior access

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Got you. You can actually see the doors Exactly. Through the gate and know that it's two units.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Yes. And exposed to the elements. Right? So it feels more outdoor.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I appreciate that.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner So. Okay.

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: That's it.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioners, if there are there is no more deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions as amended by staff. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So. Aye. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial. Aye. Commissioner Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Aye.

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

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So move. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. Seven to zero, placing us on item 10 for case number twenty twenty six-one thousand seven hundred eighty seven PPS for the property at 1053 Through 1055 Texas Street. This is an informational presentation required by SB four twenty three. Is the sponsor here for Texas Street or architect or representative? Not seeing anyone coming forward, commissioners, maybe we can take the discretionary review calendar out of order and see if anyone arrives. Commissioners, that'll place us under your discretionary review calendar for item 11, case number 2025Hyphen009257. DRP for the property at 2303 Filbert Street, a discretionary review. Mister Winslow.

[David Winslow (Staff Architect, Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, President Campbell and commissioners David Winslow, the staff architect. This project was you may remember, this project was heard and continued from February 12. At that time, the project proposed vertical addition in the form of an Airstream trailer with a spiral staircase and deck on top of it, on top of an existing two story single family building. Based on the direction from the Planning Commission at that hearing, the project sponsor has revised the design as a 10 foot high, 166 square foot sitting room and bathroom at the roof level. The project sponsor has also removed the existing glass deck guardrail that had been set back a few feet from the building edge, and replaced it with a solid parapet in plain with the existing building, and clad it with siding to match the Filbert Building facade. The addition is clad in horizontal wood siding, complementary with the materiality of the existing building. The scale of the addition is modest and minimally visible with these modifications from the public right of way and maintains the matching light wells between the neighboring property. Hence, the project complies not only with the planning code, but with the residential design guidelines related to sensitively screening and locating rooftop features so they do not dominate the appearance of building. And the type, finish, and quality of a building's materials must be compatible with those used in the surrounding areas, as well as articulating the building to minimize impacts on light and privacy to adjacent properties. Because these changes are substantially different than what was included in the original public notice and the previous hearing. Staff recommends taking discretionary review to accept and approve the project with these modifications. Thank you. That concludes my presentation.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. With that, we should hear from the discretionary review requester. You have five minutes.

[Joshua (Discretionary Review Requester; last name not stated)]: JOSHUA So I've reviewed the plans. And I find them reasonable and acceptable in accordance with what Mr. Winslow has stated. And he's facilitated the changes all up to now. And there is no further comment I have.

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

[Georgia Schuttish (Public Commenter)]: Oh, yes.

[Josh Andreessen (Senior Project Manager, SFPUC)]: Indeed. I

[Project Sponsor (66 Bishop Street) — Name Not Stated]: know you've seen the plans before, but I don't know if I can I just wanted to show rendering of the

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: there we go?

[Project Sponsor (66 Bishop Street) — Name Not Stated]: And this moves up.

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

[Project Sponsor (66 Bishop Street) — Name Not Stated]: Yeah, I just wanted to show I don't if you've seen the three d views before, but the changes that we've made. We conceded the Airstream, the catwalk, the spiral staircase, the sauna, the outdoor shower, and changed the materiality of everything, of course, to match. It was Mr. Winslow's idea to raise the side facing forward Street up of the existing building and get rid of the glass and metal catwalk since there was objection to that from the previous design. So we also reduced or got rid of the trellis

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I should say to the gazebo if there are

[Project Sponsor (66 Bishop Street) — Name Not Stated]: any questions about the changes

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: We should go through the process and then if they have questions. If there's nothing further from the project sponsors team, we should hear from members of the public. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. Last call, seeing none, Public comment is closed and the Doctor requester has a two minute rebuttal. Seeing none, project sponsor, two minute rebuttal, none. This matters out before you commissioners.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Vice President Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Delighted that this has been approved to a manner that is indeed acceptable and way in line with the neighborhood where it will be occurring. I make a motion to take Doctor and approve as modified.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Second. Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'm sorry you didn't get your Airstream. It was totally San Francisco. I don't care what anybody says. It's why people come to San Francisco because this is the type of stuff that happens in San Francisco first and then it goes somewhere else twenty years later. What you have right now is a grown up version, the respectable version, the comfortable version, the.com version as we'd say, you know, as opposed to your Airstream. But I'm so sorry you didn't get it.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner Williams. Yes.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: You I'm glad to see this before us the way it is. I know there was quite a stir the last time you guys were here. But I appreciate you working with your community, with the residents of the neighborhood. And so I just wanted to say thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to take discretionary review and approve the project as modified on that motion. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So?

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Aye.

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

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously, seven to zero. So we will move back to our regular calendar for item 10, again, Texas Street. I haven't seen anyone enter the room so last call for Texas Street.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: What does that

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: mean? I'm not sure what that means as far as SB 23. It's been put on an agenda. I don't know if the legislation actually requires that there's a presentation, an actual hearing. I don't know if the city attorney wants to chime in on that, if we need to reschedule this, or if this satisfies the legal requirement.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I don't recall SB four twenty three having a specific requirement that somebody present at the hearing. You need to hold a hearing. But I would want to think about it and get back to the Department and Commission before we agree that agendizing and failing to show for your hearing constitutes holding the hearing.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So why don't we do this, just in case? Item number 10, case number 202087 PPS ten fifty three through 1055TexasStreet. Informational presentation without a project sponsor present, we'll open up public comment. Does any member of the public wish to speak to this matter? Seeing none, public comment is closed. And that concludes your hearing today, commissioners. Or is there any deliberation by the commissioner?

[Amy Campbell (President)]: It sounds like would you like to comment on this?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yes, I can.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes, I just I think my one comment is simply that constructing this project is going to require a pretty significant improvement of the frontage of the street in front of it. And although I believe that is covered by the development requirements of the city, it is something to point out because currently there really is no improved street at this location.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'd just like to be on the record saying I'm not a fan of 423 being used for anything less than 10 units. Basically it's just fast track for profit. 423 was actually small it was it's basically the the next step to s p 35, I believe, which was basically required prevailing wage, apprenticeship, health care, affordability for for the money units there, and access to apprenticeships for the people who act and local hire within the community that could actually benefit from it, not profit driven. So four twenty three, I don't believe was intended for anything less than 10 units because to do so is just for profit.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Vice president Moore

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I have expressed my concerns about SB four twenty three before that is not anything I would say to the app the non existing applicant but we're here to give any applicant under four twenty three some reasonable comments about what we, given the limited information that's provided, would ask him to consider as he or she moves forward. The comment I would like to add is that the context in which this building occurs, particularly looking to the East, is very poorly described. And I think there needs to be a larger understanding how these buildings, significantly larger in size than what's going on to the East, will ultimately create a setting that contributes to the neighborhood. Again, you could say there's no materials, are no colors, there's no discussion about further details. And while the department will take it further, there may be other issues. But this package is very kind of standard, the shortcomings of what SB four twenty three allows the commission to at least make as a constructive comment.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I was going to thank you for that. I was just going

[Amy Campbell (President)]: to comment, given the limited information we had. I think it's a great infill project, and it brings some much needed housing to our city. Commissioner So.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: I agree with a lot of my fellow commissioners' comment about this project. I wanted to follow-up with how we procedurally handle and address applicant that chose to utilize a few legislations to avoid having disclosed their set of drawings publicly and then do a no show. I'm really trying to have a good goodness to everybody's heart that I think that maybe it was just something that happened. But I do think that if there's an emergency, it is pretty easy to reach any of us, and especially the secretary office, to tell us some reasonable excuses why they don't show. And especially this project is pretty substantial. A lot of my fellow commissioner have pointed out that it is a split lot and it's on a hilly site. And, I really appreciating adding the housing stock. But in the spirit of adding housing stock, we had streamlined a lot of these processes. I do appreciate everyone actually upheld their part, their share of their responsibilities to show up and also show their drawings to the public. But should they exercise their right to do so, they still need to show up. I actually would highly recommend, if we ever had anything happen like that again, we will table this hearing the next calendar available time.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If I may quickly respond to that. The legislation requires specific timing associated with conducting a hearing. But as far as the public disclosure of the plans, I just wanted to make sure that the Commission has understood that invoking SB twelve fourteen does not prevent members of the public from viewing the plans. It simply prevents them from copying the plans. So, they are available to the public. I have a full set here. They're available at the commission. They're just not

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: disclosing understand. The it's not that easy. It's another barrier I to fully understand the true intent of that legislation. I really appreciate it. And the state of California to protect my fellow architects. And also, what I'm stating here is that with respect to all this new legislation to help streamline and encourage housing, and I really encourage other parts of the industry trade to hold up their share of their duty and responsibility to show up and do their part. I wanted to see how my commissioners are open to my suggestion of should this ever happen again, we will table this item to the next available calendar. It's considered sort of a semi quasi hearing. It's not complete.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Thank you, Commissioner So. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes, I wanted to make follow-up comments along those same lines to say, well, first of all, appreciate Commissioner So's point that we should try to assume good intentions. But it is also a little strange that the project sponsor is not here. And so I would first say that if it is determined that this hearing doesn't really count because the sponsor is not here, I would be happy to have the sponsor here at a future hearing to present and for us to be able to comment with them in the room. And then otherwise, besides that, just more broadly, I would be very curious to hear, once it's figured out from the city attorney's office, what the sort of expectations are or standards are for people showing up to these SB four twenty three hearings? Or is this something that could end up becoming a trend where maybe it's determined that they don't need to. And then it's just on us to have a hearing. And that's that. I hope that's not the case. So either way, it would be helpful to know that one way or another. But yeah, thank you.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Commissioner Imperial? Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner So and Commissioner Braun. I completely agree. If we can get some guidance in terms of the timeline of SB four twenty three and again, it sounds like there is a timing for projects, right? So if we are tabling this, then we should have some guidance on when should we be able to do that. So thank you.

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: Commissioners, if I may, Kate Connor, Planning Department staff. The planner did contact the applicant, and it was purely an oversight. The applicant is watching the hearing right now, but also agrees to being able to have it reheard at a later date for more interaction.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Cancel that for me.

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: DANIELLE I would highly recommend, let's have them come over and rehear it again. I think public needs to know.

[Lisa Arges (Public Commenter; Equal Fire Protection for All)]: DANIELLE Yes.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: WILLIAMS: Really quick. Just want to agree with everyone. And just concerned that this may set some kind of a precedent. I think we could all agree that SB four twenty three has streamlined the timeline for approved projects. There's a lot of oversight or at least community input that is not there anymore. And so, at the very minimum, they could come here and come before this commission and show us the project. So that those are my comments.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Totally agree on that. It does set precedent because we're doing it here today regardless of whether they're on their way or not. But there is timelines on s p four twenty three. So it's kind of a scheduling. Do we get them here as quickly as possible so we can actually hold off for at least two weeks because there might be a week we might be not in session. So but it's putting pressure on the department to push that through and I don't want to I want to put the pressure on the applicant not the department. So I'm just wondering how we could actually figure that out.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: In this particular case, it sounds like the sponsor is amenable to coming back and making So a maybe, even though this doesn't require an action, and it doesn't require notice, maybe a continuance is appropriate to the next available hearing date on April 16.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I think that would be fantastic, because it nullifies this precedent that we're all seem to be worried about here today.

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Is motion? That We need a motion for that, right,

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Jonas? WOOD: I'll JANE make a motion. Motion to continue.

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

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Sorry, Jonas. Commissioner So. JANE Oh,

[Lydia So (Commissioner)]: I just agree with everybody saying that I'm looking forward to hear we got some clarity from how to address people coming up like doing things like this from our city attorney's office.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If Great. There's nothing further, is a motion that has been seconded to continue this matter to April 20 excuse me, 04/16/2026. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell?

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

[Amy Campbell (President)]: Thank you.