Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Commissioner Sell, motion to continue. Thank you.

Commissioner Chen? I would like to recuse myself from item three due to a potential conflict.

Well, as you pointed out, today is a big day at the Commission for a body of seven. We are welcoming three new commissioners. We have Michael Chen, Elizabeth McDonald, and Joel Koppel. I wanted to just take a moment to give you a warm welcome and also ask if maybe you could do a quick introduction of yourself to the audience and the public. Maybe we'll start with you commissioner couple sure.

It's great to be back a lot of familiar faces here Thanks for the public showing up. I think it's a great sign when there's so many familiar faces from staff still here Not not the biggest turnaround So it's gonna be refreshing to continue working with you all look forward to bringing the past eight years of experience Back to the hearing room, just a little bit of professional cleanup. I have since changed employers. I still have my 24-year background working in the building and construction trades for IBEW Local 6, but two years ago took an opportunity to stay within the same industry, and n

Thank you, President Campbell. Good afternoon. My name is Mike Chen. I've been honored to be nominated by Mayor Daniel Leary for the Planning Commission. I'm a longtime public commenter at this commission going back to 2017, mostly advocating for housing, shelter of many different kinds at many different income levels. And now I've had some advocacy with San Francisco YIMBY, And now on this side of the dais, something that is really energizing me is hearing about a friend who left his rent-controlled one-bedroom in Dubose Triangle to move in with his boyfriend. He rented it in 2022 for $3,100.

Thank you and welcome, Commissioner McDonald. Welcome.

Thank you, President Campbell. And I am honored to have been nominated by Board of Supervisors President Mendelman for this position. I come to it from a long career in various aspects of planning. The bulk of my career was spent at UC Berkeley as a professor of city and regional planning. My research has always been very much practice-oriented, looking particularly at streets and the public realm. I'm passionate about the opportunities in cities to create a really vibrant public realm that works really well for everyone. in concert with all the other goals that the community has and the aspir

Thank you and welcome, and thank you for doing that. I put them all on the spot, so that was really appreciated. I think everyone appreciates hearing more and learning more about you, so thank you. And of course, with these hellos comes one kind of heartfelt goodbye for us, former Commissioner Derek Braun, who is here today The other side of the diocese here, we weren't sure of the timing of the turnover. So we're really grateful he's here today. And we can just carve out a little time to acknowledge him and send him off with a proper goodbye. And I know there are several people that would lik

Derek served us his final meeting with us last week and I have to admit that it still feels really strange to look over and not see him sitting up here with us. I really appreciate working with you and I know you for many years even before I start serving on the Planning Commission. And for those who may not know, Derek brought a level of thoughtfulness and attention to detail to this work that has set a real standard. He reads every staff report closely. He asked the questions the rest of us hadn't thought of yet. And his depth of knowledge as a land use and economic professional caught issue

Derek, it was an honor working with you. You bring a level of not just thoughtfulness, but detail that is just fascinating. How you can get that far into the weeds is beyond me. I'm thoroughly impressed in what you do, and not just what you do, but how you actually do it and the level of detail you get to it. And I seriously wish you well and look forward to seeing you in the future. But wish you well in everything you do. Our paths will cross again many times. Any other comments?

I promise it will be really brief, but I can't have Lulu leave without me saying a proper thank you to Lulu. Lulu, , I'm here. I remember many years ago you greeted me and it's really nice and warm and you are setting a really good example of all the minority staff that is coming into work in the planning department for, I didn't realize it's like, you know, 40 something years. So I congratulate you being like a wonderful grandmother and you left a big shoe to fill. So I really personally deeply appreciate your influence and your support through all these generations of planners in our departm

Stan, it's been a problem for a long time. Everybody has to come basically one parcel at a time. This legislation, I think, is long overdue. It'll bring flexibility, uniformity, and scale that basically will work for everybody. I would make a motion to approve this.

I think I genuinely agree with this legislation amendment for planning code. I have one question I would like maybe Madison or Veronica can clarify in terms of lighting of the signage. The question is, is these illuminations to be in direct lighting or is this going to be a glowing light box? Just wanted to clarify.

It's like indirect illumination, basically back-lighting. Yes. Okay. That's great. Thank you. Well, with that regard, I support the motion of my colleagues.

So I have a question, hopefully a clarification. Under the way it would be where you say it could be up to 80 feet in height, does that mean that it could be 80 feet off the ground? So it could be high up on a building?

OK, thank you. So is it correct to assume that the idea is that probably a lot of these signs will actually be up high on buildings, maybe oriented towards the freeways or points of view that are up high? Just trying to understand what their thinking is here.

Thank you. I appreciate the code amendments. I think loosening what we have as generally restrictive signage controls in San Francisco is welcome. I think what I don't love about it is that it's limited, I think, essentially to one, and I know you mentioned this in your comments, but I think it's essentially limited to one building. Is that correct? Yeah. So while I can support it today, I would love to find a way that we can apply this. There's this great quote in the packet. This allows more sign flexibility than larger parcels within mixed-use districts to support the vitality of mixed-use

Those are all my comments. Commissioner Chen.

Thank you, President Campbell. Just a quick note. I think maybe seven years ago, remember, Supervisor Catherine Stephanie had some legislation that allowed retail stores to have both a wall sign and a projecting sign, because I think at some point in the 90s that had been forbidden, but largely flouted. And there are places, if you could go to Chinatown or the Mission Street or Valencia Street, people had two signs, three signs. It was signs everywhere. No one had ever enforced it except for in cases someone had called and reported Scopo di Vino in District 2 to the planning department. So I a

Hi. So converting vacant office buildings to residential will bring so much needed vitality to parts of San Francisco. It's a really exciting thing that we're doing. And I see the rationales for revising the planning regulations to take into account the existing conditions of commercial buildings that could be converted to residential. It makes so much sense to do that, and particularly to remove the really onerous regulations that exist. I do have one concern, and maybe it's really a question. about the interface between those converted buildings and the ground floor public realm. The propose

Yeah, I remember years past, one of the hindrances we had to recovering after COVID and the over-concentration of office downtown, we didn't have enough residents or customers to keep the businesses afloat. We talked about Union Square, for instance, just utilizing opportunities to put more residents with more businesses nearby to keep those businesses afloat. So glad to see that we're still revisiting this and getting ready getting rid of any of the hindrances to helping this happen Motion approved second

I'll just pile on to that sentiment that I do, and that public comment around commending the city. I do think that they've done a tremendous job lowering the barriers and incentivizing office conversion as best they can, especially in downtown. I think they've implemented every recommendation that SPUR made several years ago at this point. So this is just one more thing I think that's really going to help move the needle. And it's very exciting to hear that we have some finally moving forward. So I wish you best of luck with that project. And this also has my full support, obviously, because I

Mr. Teague, could you answer a few questions? I found it helpful during the briefing just to kind of help put the different tiers into perspective, kind of what quantity of projects we're talking about that are currently fall in each tier. Is it like two in tier one? It just sort of brings a little bit of perspective to, are we not talking about that?

And then in terms of policy three, when we talk about this three-year performance period and that it would be sort of this automatic revocation if construction has not commenced, sometimes projects get caught with all of the best intentions, they get caught in processes, some of which are some of them are just out of their control. If there's good effort going towards this, but it still hasn't commenced construction, does that get Does that get considered in this, or is it just an auto-revocation?

Yeah, the smartest thing I think we can do to set up downtown to be successful is create this predictability. So I think that's clearly been done here, and thank you for just being clear and transparent. A lot of these developers have outlying circumstances that can dictate if and when they can start construction, and a lot of that's out of their control. So I appreciate the thoughtful work.

I have been reading this for quite some time, and I have to say this is a situation where no one wants to be in. So not us, not anyone out there trying to get anything built, but we are in this situation of economy had a lot of few things that layer over it. There's COVID, and then there was now we have war. So I really want to emphasize that when we decided to revoke or encourage other previous project sponsor to give up their previous office allocation. We wanted to do it more fairly and I think that's identifying them, each project has its own story and history and then you have put it down

So a slight amendment to Prop M will still require voter?

I see. And how many years are you talking about here for the gradually drawn down our supply on allocation? Over like 10, 5, or a century later where all of us are not here?

Okay, thank you. One last question. So what will come in front of us after the summer recess is the Tier 1 projects. As of right now, I know everything's going to be moving, right, like depending on... what happened in the next 30 days. But just right now, I really appreciate your team, by the way, Sarah, you, and Nick Foster somewhere watching us here, do all these work. And I know it's been hard. It's really difficult. These conversations that you guys had with many stakeholders that are invested in the economic for our city, and those are our big... like, supporter for the city, and they ch

Well, thank you. Thank you for all the hard work, and we'll make it through. We definitely want to see more things to build, houses and also offices. So that concludes my comment.

Thank you. This feels very logical to me. I think this idea of kind of hoarding the office allocation, we just can't afford to do that. And I think if we do provide enough runway, which I feel like the tiered approach is going to accommodate, then I think I'm in full support. I know we have three or four very promising office projects in the city, so making room for those to materialize I think will be really good for the city. And I also appreciate the thoughtfulness of the reallocation prioritizing housing and projects that sort of have like a higher readiness. I do have one kind of maybe ne

Thank you. That does sound familiar now that you're walking us through it. Thank you for that. Commissioner Koppel?

So I'm a really big fan of this project. Basically, the city, we find ourselves in a pickle, everything from Prop M in the 80s to restrict to C to E. Basically, everything is restrictions. Then we find ourselves in what I call a savage recession, construction recession for the last five, six years. We're trying to reinvent ourselves downtown. I've been on panels. I've sat on panels, moderated panels. The only example of office to residential that has succeeded is 100 Van Ness. Everything else is wishful thinking. And it can only ever, any of it can only ever succeed if it's done nothing indivi

So this is a project that I've been seeing for these past years, and even back then when I was a Historic Preservation Commissioner. And I have to say, I'm absolutely delighted to speak in strong support for this 29 acres, just 29 acres of proposal today. Pretty tiny for San Francisco, isn't it? Hearing your project sponsor's clear commitment to an accelerated phasing plan is music to my ears. Quite frankly, in San Francisco, we need to hear more of this proactive, forward-thinking momentum, forward-moving momentum. So what impresses me most is that how a project of this scale creates a truly

Thank you, Commissioner So. Commissioner Koppel.

I don't think you can really appreciate the magnitude of this project until you've gone down and visited the site. Privileged to be a part of this since its inception, all the way through all of the processes. I don't know how many years ago you took me on a tour, and we were on what floor of that building looking over the site before anything had ever happened. So it's surreal being here today, first hearing back. you're in front of us for what is it's almost an indescribable project. What isn't happening here on the coastline? I mean, what projects have just even this much infrastructure, ju

Hi. So I would just like to say that I agree with all of the comments that my fellow commissioners have said. I'm in huge support of this project. There's so many good things about it. I won't reiterate everything that everybody's already said, but it's also true. And I have a maybe a special interest in this project. Because way back when, some years before, I worked with my students. We did a planning and design project for this part of the city and got to know it well and work with some folks at the city at that time. And I really enjoy seeing what is in the plan that was developed and how

I mean, this is just going to be a pile on here, but you've come all the way here, so I'm just going to take the opportunity. I completely agree. Going down to the site, I had the privilege of going down for the ULI in the fall, and it is mind-blowing. I encourage the public to go and see. It just gives you a sense of scale and the undertaking of what they're actually doing there. I would call this like a generational project, right? And it's taken a huge team and a huge collaboration, and Hats off to all of you for your endurance. It is a turbulent landscape out there and your perseverance is

Thank you for the added detail. I don't see any other requests to speak. And we have a motion that's been seconded.

Hi, so thank you for that presentation. And development impact fees really contribute so much to creating whole neighborhoods in this city, affordable housing, the public realm amenities, community open spaces, and the like. So I really commend the staff on the great work that was done to prepare this comprehensive financial report. on what has been collected and how it's been utilized to meet community goals. And I really liked what you did in the presentation here today, where you shared some of the images of what's actually been done. Because this is the heart of the matter. This is what ma

Wonderful. Thank you very much. Commissioner Koppel.

Great work, Mr. Schneider. I move to accept the report and adopt the findings.

I'll go. Thank you for the presentations. Our assignment here at the Commission for DRs is to find exceptional and extraordinary circumstances with your case. It's clear this project has been through a lot of hurdles. I think discovering you have a Cat A historic building in a project process is a lot, and there's been a lot of I don't know, contortionist moves that you've had to make to get to where we are now, some of which were voluntary, which I commend the project sponsor for. I find this addition to be very modest in nature. I think the impact from the expansion is very reasonable. It's

I can and I will make the motion. to approve and not take DR on this one. I find it weird just on the picture and on the plan view, the DR has taken total advantage of their property, more so than anyone else, right or left, and the same should be allowed for the applicant.

Thank you. Quickly for staff, so let me just make sure I understand. So the project sponsor at 648 Duncan, they did not know that it was a Category A historic resource until they submitted their plans?

Understood. And for my understanding, the requirement is by law or by guidance to reduce the height and to enforce the setback? Where does that come from?

And that is required by CEQA? Is that required by city guidelines?

And the requirement that the city reduces the impacts to the character defining features, that is a... Is that a department process? Is that a requirement in city ordinance? I'm still trying to, I'm sorry, I'm new. I'm still trying to understand.

Okay. So I agree with the motion from Commissioner McGarry, I believe. I think Maybe this is a process question, but I do find it a bit regrettable that many project sponsors may not know the historic status of their property before they spend thousands of dollars and submit. Then they find out, oh, well, this new thing's happened. Now I've got to submit again. I'm very new, so I do not know, but this seems This does not seem to be very friendly for people who do want to raise kids or bring in their parents or change their family situation. And I know this is not within the scope of the DR, bu

I suppose that makes sense by letter of the law, but in operation, I suppose it wouldn't change the decisions that they made, if that makes sense.

Yes, I understand that would be very expensive, very time consuming to try to analyze every single property. But I feel like the steps that we got here, it feels something could be better. But I will pause on that until a future policy discussion.