Remarks by Mike Chen
46 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 2
- Play at 1:03:53
“Thank you, President. Just one, going back to the POPOs, sorry, there's a lot of questions about the POPOs. So there is one section that is, and this, I don't know if this is a staff or a project sponsor architect question, but there's a, the section that is Jesse Street, it's a public right-of-way, so that is going to be public access 24 hours. Is that correct? Okay, I see nods. The section that is on the property, the section that is on the property, are there any conditions on the hours for that POPOs?”
Planning Commission · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:04:57
“Thank you. And what are those, just for the record?”
Planning Commission · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:05:04
“OK. Thank you. Great. For the item, I don't know if there's anybody on staff who can talk about the office allocation currently. I know that the commission recently approved changes to the process. And so I think trying to forecast what that allocation will be coming up and and also giving staff some time to maybe explain like their reasoning for for their recommendation for the 555 sorry the 555 000 and um and just the and looking ahead because i think also in the staff report it says that there are there are currently applications requesting more than two million what exactly is that how…”
Planning Commission · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:09:07
“Thank you. This is very enlightening. And I think as a reminder, and I'm sorry I didn't request this beforehand, because of the changes to Prop M in 2020, I think this year's Prop M allocation was somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 square feet.”
Planning Commission · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:09:26
“It was less. And so by asking for 800, by asking to increase the allocation from 555 to 800,000, then that is essentially one to two years of probably future allocation that we'd be authorizing and we would not have available to us in the future.”
Planning Commission · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:11:58
“Thank you. Yes, so I think in my head what I'm trying to think of is if we, so the staff recommendation is just rounding 555,000. If the motion by Commissioner Koppel is 813,000, so if we draw down all of our office allocation, it would take It would take some time to refill it back to where, if we took the staff recommendation, we would have 260, roughly. And if we drew it all the way down to zero, it would take us at least one year, maybe much longer to even get back to that same level of of square footage, right? Plus revocations, plus whatever else might happen. Is that?”
Planning Commission · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:15:02
“if that makes sense. So to repeat what I've heard, I think in terms of net new allocation, I think one number I heard was this fall, October, we will get somewhere around $200,000. But actually, because of these prior commitments, it's actually more like net new $20,000.”
Planning Commission · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:15:41
“Understood. Thank you. Sure. Thank you to staff. My one question about the POPOs, I'm inclined to support the staff recommendation. The motion, I think, currently by Commissioner Koppel is to modify it with the $800,000. I am disinclined to support that at this time, but I'm open to hearing the rest of the commission.”
Planning Commission · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:21:56
“I'll move to a move for the staff recommendation. Do I need to say all the downtown project, all the stuff? No. Okay. Move to approve the staff recommendation. Is there a second?”
Planning Commission · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 1:15:42
“THANK YOU, PRESIDENT CAMPBELL. THAT'S THE PRESIDENT, RIGHT? OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. I MOSTLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SO'S REMARKS AND I JUST WANTED TO DIAL IN AND JUST MAKE SURE IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE MAYBE TO KIND OF PROPOSE LANGUAGE AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER MCGARY'S CURRENT MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND WITHOUT I BELIEVE IS TO RECOMMEND WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW HOW THE PROCEDURES ARE HERE, BUT I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER SO AND TRYING TO PUT THIS INTO LANGUAGE, I THINK IS TO RECOMMEND WITH MODIFICATIONS. SO INSTEAD OF THE LANGUAGE THAT'S NOW ADDING THE ORGANIZATION…”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:17:38
“Director Sucre is, I think, kind of talking about challenges from staff about really sort of really understanding all the development capacity, right? But I think adding, I don't know what the right word is, you know, the objective of”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:17:54
“Yeah, sort of like the objective information that we know about the development potential of this property. And again, like, I defer, I think, to staff or to the president or fellow commissioners about whether that should be a recommendation, whether that should be a directive from the commission to the department that doesn't have to go into the code, whether that should be something that is codified. You know, I don't know, but that's sort of like point three, if that makes sense. So, I'm just trying to summarize, I think, what I've heard. And then I have a novel point four, and so I just,…”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:23:19
“RIGHT. SO I THINK I AM ON SO BECAUSE IF IT'S INITIATED BY THE BOARD, IT'S ALREADY INITIATED SO IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A FIRST HEARING. IF IT'S INITIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT, RIGHT, THEN I THINK THERE'S SOME VETTING. IF IT'S INITIATED BY THE COMMUNITY, I THINK MY SENSE, I HAVE NOT ACTUALLY OBSERVED THESE HEARINGS, BUT MY SENSE IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT STAFF DO NEED EXTRA TIME, I THINK, AND HAVING Even if this language were to pass, I think to say that you could consolidate. We could.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:25:24
“So I think, well, the number of community, the relative mix of community initiated, especially in the next few years with the family zoning plan, right? I think there will be, it sounds like there will be over a thousand”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:26:33
“I THINK I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW HOW IT WORKS HERE BUT THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE FROM COMMISSIONER MCGARRY SO I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE MAKE ONE MOTION TO AMEND THAT COMMISSIONER MCGARRY'S MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE MODIFICATIONS POINT ONE, TWO AND THREE ABOUT WHICH IS TO RECAP TO SAY IT'S A DEPARTMENT OR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY REQUEST A NOMINATION. POINT TWO IS ABOUT ADDING OBJECTIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SITE, THE ZONING, THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND THEN THE THIRD ABOUT SEEKING COMMUNICATION AND CONSENT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AS RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS.…”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:28:32
“I'M KIND OF WILD CARDING IT HERE. I'M AFRAID THAT IF SOME PEOPLE AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SO'S THINGS BUT NOT WITH MY THINGS, THEN I DON'T WANT TO TANK THE ENTIRE THING. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:37:54
“YES, SO I THINK IN THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IT'S AT THE TOP OF SECTION 10.2, IT SAYS THAT THE HBC MAY INITIATE AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL IN THE SAME HEARING AND THEN I THINK MY PROPOSED LANGUAGE WOULD DESPECIFY TO NARROW THAT TO ONLY FOUR DESIGNATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OR THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:50:01
“I'm sorry, I missed it. So this is currently the motion from Commissioner McGarry? Correct.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:51:18
“And one last procedural question is that if this motion does not pass, it's still live, right, that we can still discuss? Yes. If this motion fails, there will be additional deliberation, another motion that can be put forward, and we'll vote on that. Okay. Got it. All right. So on the vote, no.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:51:55
“I move to approve with With recommendations as discussed in the record, and I actually, I don't even know who has support, but with points, as discussed earlier, points one, modifying section 1004.1a to specify, to clarify that it is the department or any member of the public who may request designation. Point two, to require information about the development, objective information about the development potential of the property in the hearing information. Point three, to seek consent of the property owner including possibilities of a supermajority if the owner, without the owner's consent.…”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:53:16
“Point four is a recommendation, recommend that the Board of Supervisors consider transfer development rights. I WILL LEAVE MY DEPARTMENT ONLY THING. I'LL LEAVE THAT ALONE. I THINK THERE'S FOUR POINTS.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:53:54
“I THINK THE CURRENT LANGUAGE HAS PROPERTY OWNER IN THERE.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:54:43
“Yes, so staff had two recommendations, and so I think the second one is moot, right, because of this first one. Correct, correct. That's clear. That's clear enough. So the first one is adding cultural, and I think we are not, I think it is not taking that. Right, just to be clear. Yes, yes.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:55:56
“I'M NOT. THE FOURTH ONE FROM PRESIDENT CAMPBELL WAS TO CONSIDER A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 2:10:00
“I THINK MY INTENTION IS WE WOULD LIKE TO SEND THIS WITH A RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD LIKE TO SEND IT WITH A RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD LIKE TO SEND IT WITH A POSITIVE, I DON'T KNOW, TO SEND IT WITH APPROVAL OR WHATEVER THE POSITIVE.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026