Remarks by Sean McGarry
32 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 2
- Play at 56:48
“I've worked in this building on and off since 1997. It used to be a very vibrant building, but San Francisco was just generally vibrant all the time anyway. To see Hills Plaza go from what it was to it's still a beautiful, beautiful building, but it doesn't have the activation it once had. And Google's a great tenant. The expansion, it'll only help to improve the area and maintenance of the area and the possibility of its upkeep. I get it. Love the retail there, but the retail is not there since 2019, 20. And that's just way too long for vacancy, way too long in any shape or form. So I would…”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 1:05:30
“I'd be amenable to that and add that recommendation.”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 1:45:58
“So this project seems to be, it's a residential project, but it's really an engineering project, you know. And it requires engineering controls. And the neighbors' concerns are all about engineering controls more than the engineering itself. I see the architect is here for the sponsors, the general contractor here. My day job is a union rep for the Carpenters Union. I need to get a feel of the contractor that's doing this because if I knew the contract, if it's one of my contractors, I just know that the engineering controls are built in and discussions would have been had with the neighbors…”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 1:51:03
“So motor runoff, you're relying, I'm sure, Surely you've done a preliminary, yes, you're at this stage, but you have done... Sorry, I didn't hear that. Sorry, the stormwater runoff? Yes. You're at this stage, but surely you've done a survey, so you do have a detailed idea of what you're doing. Are you relying on all stormwater runoff to... We run off the property? Or what are you doing on the property to accept?”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 1:52:12
“So you have taken into account and you've dropped, you've engineered it so it's just under what's required?”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 2:20:45
“I agree with everybody here, but we can't be everything to everybody. But the reality, the big concern I have is the back of the property, the lack of drainage, the fact that we're saying it's flat. The sponsor is saying it's flat, but the property owner in the back has a retaining wall, and that retaining wall has gone up four feet. That's the flat. or the portion of the flat we're talking about, and the fact that basically they're downhill or down cliff. And the reason it's gone up four feet is for the slippage and slidage of the property owner's property sliding down to the bottom. And…”
Planning Commission · Sep 17, 2026
- Play at 37:25
“This one I'm excited for. Construction back, new construction back in downtown San Francisco. It's been missing for a while. Residential units, basically retail, restaurant, laboratory, R&D, office. Basically, this project is, and then the local hire on top of it. I hope it's not just a... fleeting local hire. I hope there's teeth in it. Basically, I would like to see local people actually build the community. This one is great, and this could be the start of many more to come, and it's exciting to see it because basically we've been struggling on the outside construction-wise for the last…”
Planning Commission · Sep 10, 2026
- Play at 47:01
“Well, I understand tweaks and pivots are good along the way for this case. I think a lot of thought went into this, a lot of work went into this, and I think it should be moved as is, and I would make a motion to move this forward as is, minus the amendments.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:46:52
“Yeah. I made the motion because thank you for staff, and I didn't thank you when I made the motion. The amount of thoughtfulness in the work you put into this is phenomenal. You've worked with historic preservation. You've worked with the supervisor. And you came up with a document that actually works. It expedites the process. It involves everybody in the process. But why I don't want the amendments is because if we're saving five weeks and our amendment is going to add, that's on the current situation, and we're just going to add five weeks. That's an extra 10 weeks. Basically, it's the…”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 1:47:41
“They're looking across from the neighbor thinking that that person should not have the right to landmark my property as I wouldn't have the right. I don't believe I have the right to landmark. But the process is there. Everybody feels there's a democracy. Everybody feels like there is a portion where they can have a stake or a conversation. Yes, I do worry about the individual, basically homeowners, landowners, not having a stake or not being aware that their property is going to be landmarked. That is a concern. But I think it's all taken into account. If they're that far removed and they're…”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 2:06:46
“I'm going to go back to... Is this going to make the planning department, obviously it's going to make, you're going to have more work. Is the planning department going to be liable for every homeowner that calls up about their property and how it could be maximized to its potential and the planning department have to basically give a perfect answer to that with every option that's out there right now, and that calculation for every person, property owner that calls in asking for that. And if we get it wrong somehow, It's like, do you have the wherewithal to do that? Do you have the resources…”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 2:07:43
“So this work you've done right now is totally upended and you'll be back to the drawing board with a lot more work to actually do going forward. It is no longer what was presented in front of us here today. It no longer has the agreements, no longer has basically the checkmarks of the people that were behind it to get us here today. And now it's going to be totally, something totally different. And you don't have the resources to actually do it. Is that a fair assessment? Because it's not what was planned from the start. Now it's totally different requirements.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 2:08:52
“I love the can-do attitude, and I know we're going to pull it out of the bag at the end. But it's not what was originally in the bag. We've got something totally different here right now. Correct. It was not something that was part of our original recommendation. OK. So I'll have to vote no on that.”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 2:12:24
“Recommendation of approval with modifications and those modifications put in to basically staff's ability to work them out as they come up individually, that the department's discretion on that, to work on them and take into account the points, that would be one way. It would actually, my concern here is the feasibility and the workability and the possibility that it will actually get done or it doesn't get done. That's my concern. otherwise basically throw it out and get something else because that's what we have right now is something else but all the work has been done I don't want that…”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 3:01:46
“So this project totally has my support. If 1906 was a natural disaster, urban renewal was basically a conscious, ignorant, arrogant mistake that's a blight not just in this community, this area, but the 638 plus cities around the country. But the fact that those who survived in this community at that had the wherewithal to get to parse those four plus acres together and basically look after themselves and the fact that years later they are the ones who are going to lead the way and give an example to possibly the 638 other cities that were affected around this country. that there is a…”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 4:02:42
“We are a city. We're tightly packed. There is only one way to go, and that is up or down, but down is not feasible in this case. The zoning allows this to go through, and I find this modest compared to what it could be. I find it tasteful. Basically, compared to most fourth floor additions or additions on top, this one does blend in very well. On the front, it's perfect. I get, you know, people on the front or on the back. Somebody's going to be affected. We're tightly packed. We are a city. I see no reason to to obstruct this. And I'd make a motion to that we uphold this, move it forward and…”
Planning Commission · Sep 3, 2026
- Play at 13:05
“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?”
Planning Commission · Jul 30, 2026
- Play at 38:32
“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.”
Planning Commission · Jul 30, 2026
- Play at 1:56:30
“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…”
Planning Commission · Jul 30, 2026
- Play at 2:36:44
“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.”
Planning Commission · Jul 30, 2026
- Play at 1:04:40
“So point of clarification for the audience as well as myself. Notification, how is it deemed what form of notification is appropriate? for projects going forward.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:06:35
“Thank you. I think that the concern is notification for commercial versus residential versus open space. It can vary. So you're actually taking all of that into account, yes.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:07:19
“I believe that would be the concern. It's the other side. It's the people being notified or making sure that the vast amount of people that are everybody's impacted does get the notification. That's actually built into it. Got it.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:35:35
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026
- Play at 1:38:48
“Oh, yeah, definitely shade. And on wind, one hour is over a year period. I think moving that to nine hours is perfectly plausible. over a year's study, and we're not guns, as Commissioner Solge has pointed out. We're going to be living in a different world year by year, six month by six month. I just watched the news this morning, and we've got wildfires in the West of Ireland. The world's just changing. We have to adapt with it.”
Planning Commission · Jul 23, 2026