Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

OK, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, July 23, 2026. When an item is called that you would like to submit testimony for, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, there is a second chime, and I will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can 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 roll. Commission President Campbell.

Here.

Commissioner Braun? Here. Commissioner McGarry? Present. And Commissioner So?

Present.

Thank you, Commissioners. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance. And to date, there are no items proposed for continuance. So we can move on to your consent calendar. All matters listed here under constituted consent calendar are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar. and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item 1, case number 2026-002693, CUA, and 580 Hayes Street, conditional use authorization. Item 2, case number 2026-003545, CUA, 2101 Chestnut Street, conditional use authorization. Excuse me. And item three for case number 2026-002920-CU8-1780, Fulton Street, conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request any of these items be pulled off of consent and considered under the regular calendar today or at a future hearing. You need to come forward. Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry.

Move to approve.

Second.

Thank you, commissioners, on that motion to approve items 1, 2, and 3 on consent. Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell.

Aye.

So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 4 to 0, placing us under Commission Matters for item 4, Consideration of Adoption Draft Minutes for July 9, 2026. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. You need to come forward. Seeing none, last call. Public comment is closed. And your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Braun.

Move to adopt the minutes.

Second.

Thank you, commissioners, on that motion to adopt your minutes. Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell. Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously four to zero. Item five, commission comments and questions.

Not seeing any.

Very good. With that, we can move on to department matters. Item six, director's announcements.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Good to see you again. In our summer tradition of welcoming youth interested in land use and other issues, we're excited today to have with us the Presidio Bay scholars. So these are all a team of folks looking at the real estate industry supported by one of our local developers, Presidio Bay, through a summer program in real estate. So we'll all be on our best behavior so they see good. Good progress in how land use works in San Francisco. Thanks for being here, guys. Also, just a short one to note. Yesterday, we had one of something we try to do on a regular basis, lunch and learn for our team on communications, outreach, and engagement. And it was open to all of Planning and DBI members. We have built up, through our ongoing merge with DBI, a really great joint communications team that now spans Planning and DBI, and a really great community engagement team. Right now, kind of led by Carla DeMesa, one of our community planners. who's been working really hard with our teams to show everyone from our current planners to our historic preservationists to our customer service professionals at the permit center how different levels of engagement with the community can really support in not only building trust but increasing understanding of our processes and building a pipeline so that when we have projects like the shoreline adaptation project that you'll hear today, we already have a deep history of working with the community and understanding. So just really proud that we're continuing to deepen that bench of folks working on that and hopefully deepen our participation with communities on the ground. Thanks.

Thank you. Welcome Presidio Bay scholars.

If there are no questions for the director, Item seven, review of past events of the Board of Supervisors. There is no report from the Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday. Last week, the Land Use and Transportation Committee forwarded the hotels and RH districts ordinance to the full board with a positive recommendation, and the full board passed it on first read this week. Also last week, the full board passed both the relocation and reestablishment of liquor establishments and Cannabis Cafe items on second read. This week, the Land Use Transportation Committee heard about 20 landmark designations and forwarded them all to the board with a positive recommendation. One of these items, the House of Latin Rock, was forwarded as a committee report and passed on first read this week. Also this week, the full board passed the Streamlining Reporting Requirements and Procedures Ordinance as well as the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance on second read. Please note that the project application for 1200 Larkin Street was withdrawn by the project sponsor, and the planning department has rescinded the associated planning approval letter for the project. Therefore, the CEQA appeal for the proposed 1200 Larkin Street project that was scheduled for this week at the full board is now moot. That item was tabled and no action was taken. Lastly, the full board approved Commissioner Soh reappointment. If there are no questions, 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 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

YES, HELLO. MY NAME IS ACE WASHINGTON.

MR. WASHINGTON, IF YOU COULD SPEAK IN THE MICROPHONE.

MY NAME IS ACE WASHINGTON. I'M THE PHILMORE CORRIDOR AMBASSADOR FOR THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW ME. I'VE BEEN AT CITY HALL OVER 27 YEARS, AND SOME OF Y'ALL ARE NEW TO THIS COMMISSION, SOME I DO KNOW. BUT I'M HERE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS ISSUE, IF I COULD HAVE over here so I can see the overboard there, of this new program that they're putting in my community, the Fillmore Community Action Plan. The Action Plan. So I got history of the San Francisco Planning Commission going way back to the inception of creating the Fillmore Urban Renewal. We know it as the Negro Removal. So none of y'all was around then, but I got plenty of history on the planning commission. And I hear y'all coming back in my community in 2026 with some of this BS that I ain't going to say. Now, you guys have put this commission together. You got your planning action subcommittee together and didn't even include most of our community, not even me, Ace Washington, the Fillmore Corridor ambassador. Damn it. So how in the hell are you guys going to bring the Fillmore Community Action Plan to my community again after all these years after urban renewal and talking about you've got all the city departments here and this is what we're going to do? And you haven't talked to nobody in the community. So I'm saying you need to stop it. Just stop it and reorganize it again and call back the community. Because I'm going to tell you right now, I've been quiet for ever since y'all started it. But how can you have a select action committee? Who selected that committee, first of all? And who selected the committee and turned down some of the names? My name wasn't even submitted to it. So I'm going to ask the Planning Commission to hold up, cease everything, bring it back to the table again. All these meetings y'all had back then, hold up.

It was scheduled.

We had four of them. in May and then June, and now you're going to have a meeting on the 30th of this month to tell us what y'all did. Well, I can tell you what y'all did. You're undermining us. You're undermining us bringing all these city departments to our community without even explaining what's going on. You may say, well, we had these little meetings where you can take off the porch and find out what's going on. It's a bunch of BS. I'm really tired of it. So I'm asking y'all to cease and desist right now. You planning one on the 30th? No. We need community input. We got Ella Hill Hutch. We got the Heritage Center. We got Buchanan Mall. We got coming that big old project, Freedom West, billion dollar project. What in the hell do y'all think you're doing? You didn't expect us to be. I'm 72 years old, damn it. I was around years ago with L. Hill Hutch, but we're not taking it no more. You need to cease and desist and sit down and talk to the damn community, particularly with Ace on the case, the Fillmore Corridor ambassador. I'm not the mayor. I'm not the supervisor, but I am the ambassador, damn it. Mr. Washington, that is your time. Thank you. My time, your time is over with. Now, you don't want me coming up here every week to talk to you. Pay attention to what I'm saying. Cease it and desist.

Any additional general public comment for items not on today's agenda?

Well, good afternoon. My name is Aris Edgley, also from the Fillmore. As you can hear, the deep frustration has been so many years, you know. As a young man now, a little older, I've been doing this work for 25 years in the community. It's been a promise to rebuild the Fillmore before I got involved. We've had so many meetings over the years, so many dots on the wall, so many post-it notes, you know, and this action committee, you know, just when I went to the first couple ones, it was the same thing. What do you want? What do you want to see? You know, we have the unfinished agenda was the first start of the Fillmore plan through the Human Rights Commission, and that was over 25 years ago. We had the immigration report that was done with Fred Blackwell and Mayor Gavin Newsom, which is now governor. We got all these plans. We just had the reparations plan that came out. So somehow we have to fast track this thing and figure out exactly where we're going and no more meetings. We're asking for the community to have businesses back, those that were displaced, certificate holders. We need help and understanding with the management companies that own homes. THE PROPERTIES NOW IN THE STOREFRONTS, WE'RE HAVING A PROBLEM ALL OVER SAN FRANCISCO, YOU KNOW, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF, YOU KNOW, THE RENT AND THE LEASE AGREEMENTS IS A LOT MORE THAN WHEN WE HAD IT BEFORE. YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN YEARS. SO, YOU KNOW, THEN LIKE I SAID, THE CHILDREN, YOU KNOW, FAMILY MEMBERS AND CERTIFICATE HOLDERS, WE DID IT WITH THE HOUSING. YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO PASS DOWN THE CERTIFICATES DOWN TO THE CHILDREN, THE GRANDCHILDREN, SEE IF THEY WANT TO OPEN UP A BUSINESS. And we've got so many storefronts that's empty, that's been empty, especially in the Fillmore Center. They haven't been a good community partner for years. But I just think we need to revisit this whole thing. And bringing all these departments together is good. But you've left out one department. You left out the redevelopment, the successor agency. you left them out somehow we have to get them back to the table to finish their job while they're still over in baby hunter's point they're building down here at the um you know the the center down the downtown the the muni station um you know so somehow we have to leverage and get them back to the table because they're the ultimate responsibility then everybody else in the city and county of san francisco but the state you know redevelopment needs to get back to the table so they can finish their job so thank you okay last call for general public comment

Seeing none, general public comment is closed. And we can move on, commissioners, to your regular calendar for items A and B. For case numbers 2026-004685, PCA for the Shade Act legislation, local implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, an administrative code amendment. In case number 2026-003496CRV for the wind threshold of significance for environmental impact analysis consideration of a resolution. You will hear both presentations from staff. We'll take one public comment period and then we ask that you act separately as these are two distinctly different items.

Good afternoon, President Campbell and members of the Commission, Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer. We appreciate the opportunity to bring forward two important items today, a proposed ordinance from District 5 Supervisor Bilal Mahmood to amend Administrative Code Chapter 31, our local CEQA procedures, and a proposed resolution establishing a wind significance threshold for CEQA wind impact analysis. Staff undertook this work with care and rigor, closely examining where our local CEQA policies and practices exceed state requirements and where they can be made more efficient. Their analysis is grounded in law and solid science and reflects collaboration with Supervisor Mahmoud to develop thoughtful updates to our CEQA implementation, including the removal of shadow from local CEQA review. Throughout this effort, we've remained committed to the city's core principles of environmental protection and meaningful public engagement, principles at the heart of CEQA. Before staff present, you'll hear from Director of Community Planning, Rachel Tanner, followed by Raynell Cooper from Supervisor Mahmoud's office.

Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. Good afternoon, commissioners. Really good to be with you here today. We're about to head into your recess, so your agenda's pretty full today. But you know the past few months, your agendas have been pretty light. And that reflects both new state laws that have streamlined housing, but it also reflects the slower pace overall of projects, whether it's housing or commercial development in the city. And the policies that are before you today are really important steps that we're taking to make it easier to build housing and really to also reach our economic development goals. And so it's really critical that we have your support today. These two items that are updates to our environmental review practices, they reduce constraints on housing. And that's something we've been doing over the last several years with the Board of Supervisors. And this is another key step in that effort. And what's important about these reforms is they really do strike a balance between maintaining our public engagement, protecting our environmental resources, and also meeting our housing and our economic development goals. So just a little context, because you don't normally hear me talking about CEQA. That's certainly the purview of our ERO. But you hear me talking a lot about housing. And in our housing element, the city committed to identifying and to adjusting our local CEQA requirements that go beyond the state law. And we even put a date on it that we would do it before January 31, 2028. So we're happy to be coming to you a little bit earlier than that deadline. But in addition, the California Department of Housing and Community Development, they also reinforced this in their 2023 policy and practices review, which was kind of like our report card telling us how we were doing on our housing production goals and permitting. And we weren't doing great. But they gave us some direction on how we can improve. And these policies are ways that we can improve. They specifically actually asked us to look at wind, to look at shadow, because these are two topics that are pretty unique to San Francisco in terms of our environmental review here compared to other cities. And so we're making these changes not because environmental review isn't important, because we all know protecting our resources is incredibly important. But often over the years, CEQA has been used to delay projects and delay housing. which is ironic because infill housing is one of the best ways to protect our environment, to keep our wild places wild, and to make sure that we're reducing our reliance on cars and GHG emissions, which itself is driving a lot of the climate change. So with these policies that are being brought forward today, I'm really grateful for the supervisors' support. We're able to meet our own commitments that we've made as a city to do reforms that help to reduce constraints on housing, but we're also meeting our state obligations. And so we look forward to the discussion today.

Thank you. Yeah, and thank you, Lisa. Thank you, Rachel. And thank you, President Campbell and the rest of the commissioners. My name is Raynell Cooper. I'm a legislative aide for District 5 Supervisor Bilal Mahmoud, the lead sponsor of the Shade Act. I'll let the planning department staff get into the specifics of the legislation, but I want to highlight a few points you'll hear about a little bit later and talk a little bit more in detail about why Supervisor Mahmoud partnered with the environmental planning staff to bring this legislation forward. San Francisco's story is the story of diverse communities who have come here and created a culture of inclusion, invention, and imagination. However, we cannot continue to be a diverse and welcoming city if we do not build more housing. And we cannot build more housing if we continue to have a system that slows housing down and creates uncertainty in our planning and approval processes. As Rachel alluded to, we also cannot protect our region's environment or our planet's climate if we force population growth out from the city into the suburbs. The California Environmental Quality Act is already one of the most comprehensive environmental laws in the country, yet the city has layered on extra hearings, new appeal routes, and extended timelines that do more to keep new housing and new residents out of our city than to protect our state's environment. By bringing city processes closer in line with state law, especially around timelines and appealable documents, these changes can shave months off of projects, which means homes being built more quickly and at a lower cost. CEQA environmental impact reports will still be appealable, and documents will still be publicly accessible. The procedures that are being modified will save department time and accelerate projects while still guaranteeing transparency. It's still a major priority for this department and for the supervisor. The most high-profile change here involves shadows. San Francisco has included shade as part of its environmental review process, despite shade not being part of CEQA at the state level. Since 2017, CEQA appeals involving shadow analysis have led to delaying or stalling over 2,000 housing units citywide across over a dozen projects. This legislation would render such appeals invalid. Notably, the Shade Act does not affect the voter mandate in 1984's Prop K, now codified in Planning Code Section 295. Shadow analyses will still be required to assess the shadow impacts on rec and park jurisdiction. Supervisor Mahmoud believes that this is a commonsense step to maintaining engagement around our environmental process while addressing some of the red tape around our housing shortage. Our own housing element is approved by this body, and guidance from the California Department of Housing and Community Development agree it's time to peel back the layers of local process in our local implementation of CEQA. If we want to fix this housing crisis, as a city, we can no longer be afraid of our own shadow. Thank you to all of the staff that worked on this, many of whom you will hear from a little bit later today. And thank you to the commission for hearing this item. I'll now turn it over to Keizushi and Ryan Shum, who will go over the details of legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Reynold. Good afternoon, President Campbell and commissioners. I am Kei Zushi, Senior Planner with the Planning Department. The item before you is a proposed ordinance sponsored by Supervisor Mahmoud that would amend Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. The legislation, also known as the SHADE Act, is co-sponsored by Supervisor Dorsey and Sutter. Administrative Code Chapter 31 establishes local process for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. CEQA is a state law requiring public agencies to analyze and disclose the significant environmental impacts of proposed projects and to adopt feasible measures to mitigate those impacts before approving them. On July 8, we sent you a report that includes a summary of the proposed ordinance and our detailed analysis of issues and considerations. Today, we'll cover the key provisions of the ordinance. I'll make the first part of the presentation and then hand it over to my colleague, Ryan Shum. As Director Tanner mentioned, the legislation arose in response to actions in the housing element and the State Department Housing and Community Development's policy and practice review. The actions require the city to eliminate local CEQA processes that exceed state CEQA requirements. Consistent with these directives, the proposed ordinance would remove local environmental review requirements that go beyond state requirements while maintaining compliance with CEQA. By eliminating procedural requirements that exceed CEQA, the proposed ordinance would enable the department to conduct environmental review more efficiently without diminishing the quality and rigor of environmental analysis. The amendments are expected to reduce the time and cost associated with housing development projects in San Francisco. In a moment, I'll describe what would change under the proposed ordinance. Before I do that, I'd like to call out several things that would not change. These are important because they ensure that the city continues to meet all applicable CEQA requirements while maintaining a robust environmental review process. The ordinance would not change the city's continued compliance with CEQA, including maintaining appeal rights established by state law. The ordinance would not alter Planning Code Section 295's independent sunlight protection requirements. Similarly, it would not change priority policy review in compliance with Proposition M as part of the permit review process. Finally, the ordinance would in no way affect ministerial project review, given that ministerial projects are not subject to CEQA. The proposed ordinance would reduce appeal periods for the three types of CEQA determinations that are appealable to the Board of Supervisors. Under the current code, exemptions, final negative declarations, and mitigated negative declarations, or negative declarations for short, and final environmental impact reports are subject to a 30-day appeal period. The proposed ordinance would reduce this period to 15 days. Appellants would continue to have the same amount of time to submit additional comments before the appeal hearing. CEQA does not specify appeal periods. The proposed 15-day appeal periods would be in keeping with CEQA appeal periods that are common across the state, as well as with the city's existing non-CEQA appeal periods. Overall, the amendment is expected to reduce costs and timelines required for environmental review while continuing to preserve meaningful opportunities for the public to appeal CEQA determinations. The proposed ordinance would also eliminate three types of appeals that are not required under CEQA. First, the ordinance would remove appeals of preliminary negative declarations to the Planning Commission. Second, the ordinance would eliminate appeals of no substantial modification determinations, which the code requires when the department determines that a modified project does not need a new exemption determination. The last appeal that would be eliminated is updates to the published list of actions that are not a project under CEQA. Under the current code, this list itself is appealable to the Planning Commission. The ordinance would eliminate appeals of that list. Please note that the underlying CEQA rules that determine what is considered not a project would not change. The proposed ordinance would just alter appeals of that list itself. Overall, these amendments would align the city's appeal process with state law. Importantly, the ability of the public to appeal exemptions, final negative declarations, and environmental impact reports to the board of supervisors would not change. The proposed ordinance would also modify the appeal review timelines applicable to the Board of Supervisors to comply with Assembly Bill 1633. AB 1633 amended the Housing Accountability Act to include in the definition of approval a jurisdiction's failure to complete CEQA review within certain timeframes. The current code generally requires the Board of Supervisors to act on a CEQA appeal within certain timeframes. Under the proposed ordinance, that time frame would be shortened to 14 days. Chapter 31 currently does not specify a timeline for the board to issue the findings when the board reverses a CEQA decision. Under the proposed ordinance, the board generally would be required to issue findings within 14 days of its reversal. The ordinance would eliminate draft EIR hearings at the Planning Commission. A draft EIR is the draft version of an environmental impact report that's prepared for public review and comment before the Planning Commission considers whether to certify the final EIR. This amendment would reduce the cost and time associated with EIR review process. The actual cost of a draft EIR hearing varies depending on factors such as the level of public interest or controversy, as well as the length and complexity of the EIR. However, the department estimates, based on recent EIRs, that the combined costs of the EIR consultant and department staff to prepare for and attend a draft EIR hearing can range from approximately $15,000 to $25,000. Costs may be even higher when a hearing requires extensive coordination among the department staff, other city agency staff, environmental consultants, and other participants. The amendment would align the city's EIR process with common statewide practices. The Planning Commission and members of the public would continue to have the opportunity to submit written comments on draft EIRs during the public review period. In addition, the Historic Preservation Commission would continue to review EIRs with significant and unavoidable impacts on cultural resources. The ordinance would amend public notifications for CEQA determinations to align them with state law. While our current code requires exemptions to be sent to decision makers, CEQA does not include this requirement. So the ordinance would eliminate this requirement. In practice, however, the department would continue to distribute exemptions to decision makers, such as the Planning Commission and HPC, through materials routinely provided in our case reports. In addition, the department would continue to post exemptions on our website and provide them upon request, and they would be available through our subscriber-based permit notification system. For mitigated negative declarations and EIRs, the current code requires that the department post notices on our website and provide three types of notices, whereas CEQA only require one type of notice out of the three options. The ordinance would continue requiring website posting and only require one of these three options. In practice, however, this would not represent a major change in how we provide notices. The department would select one or more appropriate notification methods based on the scope and nature of the project, as well as community interest. The department would continue to distribute MNDs and EIRs to decision makers. Overall, the proposed ordinance would provide greater flexibility to tailor environmental review notification practices to individual projects and as technology advances. With that, I'll now turn the presentation over to Ryan Shum. Thank you.

Thank you, and good afternoon, commissioners, Ryan Shum, department staff. The proposed ordinance would eliminate the requirement to analyze shadow impacts as part of the local CEQA review. While Chapter 31 currently requires shadow as a topic in our environmental evaluation, Proposition K does not require shadow analysis to be incorporated in the CEQA process, and the topic was not officially adopted into the local process until 2006 by the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, shadow is not required by the state, and San Francisco is one of two major cities that still analyzes shadow under CEQA. Other major cities, including Oakland and Los Angeles, previously analyzed shadow impacts but have since removed it from their environmental review process. In response to HCD and housing element policy directives, the ordinance proposes to remove shadow from local CEQA analysis because shadow on balance does not create adverse physical changes to humans or the environment as CEQA defines it. Both sun exposure and shade have varying effects on human health and there is no evidence to suggest that shade is inherently harmful as there are negative health impacts associated with both overexposure and underexposure to direct sunlight. In cases where shadow may have an impact in the context of CEQA topics such as cultural resources, biological resources, or energy, shadow would continue to be addressed under those respective analyses. I would like to be clear that the ordinance is not proposing to eliminate shadow studies. Shadow studies would still be prepared and reviewed by Planning and Recreation and Park Department staff, and the public would maintain the same opportunity to comment on shadow studies at Rec and Park Commission hearings as they do now. While the ordinance would remove shadow as a topic under CEQA, it would not make any changes to Proposition K and Section 295 of the Planning Code. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance would not violate Proposition M and its requirement for projects to analyze their consistency with the city's priority policies, specifically regarding access to sunlight in our parks and open spaces. The department's current practice for determining consistency with priority policies occurs through the entitlement review process, and this process would remain unchanged. Proposition M does not require that the findings need to be made as part of environmental review. CEQA defines in its significant impact on the environment as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment. Based on CEQA's definition of an environmental impact in the facts presented, the department concluded that shadow should no longer be considered in the local environmental review process. And that shadow is ultimately a planning and urban design issue, not an environmental issue under CEQA. By removing shadow analysis from the local CEQA process, the city would help reduce the overall cost and time required to approve and construct projects in San Francisco, remove a topic that does not meet CEQA's definition of a significant adverse environmental impact, and comply with HCD and the housing element actions. Finally, I'd like to summarize how the proposed ordinance would affect the Planning Commission and comments made by the Historic Preservation Commission. For the Planning Commission, draft EIRs at the Planning Commission would be eliminated, but draft EIRs would be distributed to the Commission and the public for the same public comment period. Comments would also be continued to be received in writing. Number two, there would be no change to the final EIR certification hearings at the Planning Commission. Three, there would be no appeals and appeal hearings of preliminary mitigated negative declarations at Planning Commission. Four, there would be no change to the distribution of secret documents to this body. And number five, the NADA project list would no longer be appealable to the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance was heard at the Historic Planning Commission on July 15, 2026, and HPC adopted a recommendation to adopt the proposed ordinance with the following comments. One, maintain the existing requirement to conduct a public hearing on draft EIRs. Two, maintain the existing 30-day appeal period. And number three, evaluate methods to improve public notification for environmental review aligned with racial and social equity plan and report the findings to HPC within three months of the ordinance's effective date. Before we conclude, staff would like to note that 42 comment letters opposing the ordinance were submitted by individual members of the public and organizations, including the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Neighborhoods United SF, Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance, and the Golden Gate Preservation Park Alliance. Apologies. Additionally, one comment letter in support of the ordinance was submitted by the Housing Action Coalition. In summary, the proposed ordinance would help facilitate the production of housing and other projects in San Francisco and further align the city's local process with state requirements without compromising the analysis. The department respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission recommends the proposed ordinance for approval. Thank you very much for your attention. My colleagues and I are available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

We have the presentation up on the screen, please. Thank you. Good afternoon, President Campbell and Commissioners Rachel Schutt, Planning Department staff. The item before you is the adoption of a wind threshold of significance for the purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. A threshold of significance is simply the level at which the lead agency has determined that an environmental impact is significant. Under CEQA, significant impacts require mitigation. For wind impacts, this means the inclusion of wind-reducing features. Wind-reducing features may include modifications to building massing, facade articulation, the addition of attached or freestanding wind canopies or screens, and additional landscaping, including tree planting. the proposed wind threshold of significance would formalize the basis for determining when such measures are required. On July 9th, we sent you a staff report that includes a summary of the research that led to our proposed resolution and our detailed analysis of issues and considerations. Today, we'll provide you with a high-level overview of that research, a brief history of wind analysis in San Francisco, and the key takeaways that led to our proposed resolution. Please note, you will hear me refer to the one-hour standard and the nine-hour standard throughout this brief presentation. I will explain that in detail when we get to the description of wind tunnel testing, so please stay tuned. Wind analysis for new high-rise buildings in San Francisco has actually been part of environmental review since 1974. In the early 1980s, the department worked with consultants to develop standard wind controls as part of the downtown plan. Section 148 was added to the planning code in 1985 as part of the adoption of the downtown plan. This memorialized a wind threshold of significance we called the one-hour standard, which was then used as the CEQA threshold. In 2023, Housing Element Action 8.5.6 and the State Housing Department's Policy and Practice Review Action 2.2 both required the city to eliminate local CEQA procedures that exceed state CEQA requirements. In addition, Housing Element Action 8.4.12 directed the department to update planning code wind standards. that last action has been completed. The questions these actions raised are, is wind impact analysis an appropriate topic for environmental review? And do our analysis procedures exceed state requirements? which led us to another question. So why do we study wind impacts in San Francisco? The short answer is that once high-rise buildings began to go up, the increase in ground-level wind speeds became quite noticeable. This is because winds coming off the Pacific Ocean through the mouth of the Golden Gate that had once flowed over relatively uniform and low-slung development were now encountering tall buildings and downdrafting, resulting in strong winds at the ground level. The strongest effects were felt along the Market Street and Banas Avenue corridors due to the proliferation of tall buildings. Now, increasing effects are also felt in the south of Market area, where the alignment of the street grid results in large portions of tall building facades being oriented towards the prevailing winds. I want to pause to note that in San Francisco, a hazardous wind speed is defined as a 26 mile an hour average or greater, which accounts for 36 mile an hour gusts, which is quite a strong wind and enough to destabilize pedestrians. So based on decades of wind studies, the department has concluded that hazardous wind speeds that regularly occur in San Francisco adversely affect human beings, particularly vulnerable people such as children and the elderly. Therefore, wind impacts should continue to be analyzed as part of environmental review. So once we determined that wind analysis continues to be necessary under CEQA, we did take the opportunity to thoroughly review our methodologies. A similar effort was undertaken in 2016 as part of the environmental review for the central SOMA area plan. At that time, a roundtable of academics and industry experts was convened to examine the wind challenges that were expected in central SOMA based on the proposed height limits and the orientation of the street grid. That effort culminated in three major recommendations. To develop updated weather data, to expand the number of analyzed wind directions, and to change the threshold from one hour to a 10-hour standard. To date, the department has implemented all of these recommendations, including partially implementing a slightly more conservative nine-hour standard that was only applied to projects in the central SOMA area. Our more recent effort involved interviews with industry experts, review of other jurisdictions' policies and practices, and analysis of wind studies for San Francisco projects, again, spanning decades. The only recommendation that came out of this effort was to change from the one-hour standard to the nine-hour standard for all projects citywide that are subject to CEQA. I will explain why, but first let me explain how wind analysis works. In San Francisco, projects above 85 feet in height that are subject to CEQA require a qualitative screening analysis to determine if the project could result in hazardous winds. If the answer is yes, then a more detailed wind tunnel test is required. In that case, a physical scale model of the project and its surrounds is created and placed into a machine called a wind tunnel. Wind is simulated over a one-year period using local meteorological data. Data is collected by small sensors which register the wind speeds. If the wind speeds reach or exceed the 26 mile an hour hazard level, the number of hours of exceedance is recorded. Currently, even one hour of exceedance in a year is considered a significant impact, wind reducing features are required, and the project must be retested in the tunnel until all wind hazard exceedances are eliminated. Under the proposed resolution, we are asking to increase this threshold to a nine hour standard. So up to eight hours of exceedance would be allowed in a year. Nine hours or more would require wind reducing features. I also want to mention that the planning code already reflects the nine-hour hazard standard. Based on the research that I described, the department concluded that the nine-hour standard is the correct standard to use. The planning code was updated accordingly as part of the family zoning plan implementing housing element action 8.4.12. As such, adopting the nine-hour standard for environmental review would be consistent with the wind controls in the planning code section 148. In conclusion, the department respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution before you to adopt the nine-hour standard as the wind threshold of significance for the purposes of environmental review under CEQA. Thank you very much for your attention to my presentation and to this matter. My colleague Deborah Dwyer and I are available to answer any questions that you might have. Thanks again.

Thank you. If that concludes staff presentations, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on both items 8A and B. You need to come forward. Where do you line up? Just on the screen side.

Right along the side here. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm here and speaking about keeping Prop K as is. Public notification of potential shade impacts under Prop K is essential because San Francisco is one of the densest major cities in the country. where every square foot of open space serves as an irreplaceable role in supporting community health and well-being. In a city where residents already compete for limited parks and playgrounds, keeping the public informed about new shadows ensures that decisions about these shared spaces remain transparent and accountable to the people who use them most. San Francisco's naturally cool and overcast climate makes sunlight itself a precious resource. When a new building casts its additional shadow across a park, it can reduce the limited hours of warmth and light that make those spaces truly inviting and usable. Preserving the opportunity for public review honors the original voter intent of Prop K to protect the quality of our parks so that they remain places where people want to gather. This protection matters especially for families who rely on our public parks in practical, everyday ways. In Chinatown, daycares, for example, fulfill their state licensing requirements for outdoor space by taking children to the nearby parks. These visits depend on safe, sunny conditions that allow kids to run, explore, and get the fresh air they need. Removing public notification would silence the very voices, parents, caregivers, and neighborhood residents who can best speak to how shadow changes might affect these assistive routines. In short, keeping this notification process in place is not about opposing development. It's about giving San Francisco's a fair chance to weigh in on changes that directly touch open space and gives a good balance to the quality of life. I forgot to mention my name. I'm Terry Owling, and I'm a former co-chair of the Committee for Better Parks and Recreation in Chinatown. I volunteered for over 20 years. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Jenny Liu. I'm also a former co-chair of the Better Park and Rec Committee in Chinatown in the 1980s. Before that, I was the chief planner at the Chinatown Community Resource Center, now known as CCDC. I think by virtue that you have 42 letters opposing this amendment and also you got one letter in support, that should speak volumes as to everybody here on the staff and everybody assuring you from the supervisor's office that this is not going to cut back on public comment and that you actually believe that SHADOWS IS NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO I JUST WANT TO ASK AND YOU HAVE MY WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO THE AUDIENCE. I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT MY WRITTEN STATEMENTS BECAUSE I ONLY HAVE TWO MINUTES. BUT WHAT I WILL FOCUS ON IS THAT THIS IS TAKING AWAY PUBLIC comment it's a bunch of agencies talking to other agencies you can challenges neg deck and so forth at the final eir hearing not at the draft you can have written comments or what about verbal comments public comments given by people that maybe don't have access to typewriters and computers and you know ai speeches and all that kind of sort of stuff Only adjacent property owners would be notified. You take away the 300-foot notice. All these little things that probably were brought up in the 42 opposition letters. I also want to point out that I'm not an Asian tree hugger. I am the person that actually brokered the Levi Plaza project with Gerson Baker to build the first affordable housing project as a concession to private development. It's called Wharf Park now. It houses seniors at the foot of Telegraph Hill. I also was the project manager for a first in market project, which was one of the first projects that paid into St. Francis Square housing and also child care concessions even before they were required as part of the EIR process. I also assisted the Dominican Sisters in building intergenerational housing on Rose Court. And also, as a Kaiser Permanente project manager, I worked with the Tabernacle Community Development Corporation to build multiple housing. So I know a little bit about affordable housing, and I'm very supportive of affordable housing, but also not at the sacrifice of shadows. The Better Park and Rec Committee numerous relentless battles with high-rise developers. And also, our first fight on Chinese playground was actually on a housing project proposed by a Chinese family association that was going to permanently cast massive shadows on Chinese playground. So I just want you to take all of this into consideration of the commissioners that came before you, the planning directors from Ray Akamoto to Dean Macris to the eight supervisors out of 11 that supported Prop K. We crafted this very carefully to be rigorous, and we recognize shadow is an environmental impact.

Thank you, ma'am. That is your time.

Please do not pass this. Thank you.

I'm Alice Barclay. I have a question for your staff. The ordinance before you, the current one, have a lot of the public notification requirements in them. And they are very important from early notification of new shadows on the park to all the various process. Will those notification requirements be changed? Because they're really important, especially in Chinatown, where we have a lot of people and very, very few public parks.

I think we can make sure that question gets answered when the commissioners discuss this matter. We will get that question clarified for you when we discuss the matters. OK.

Thank you. This is not a question and answer period.

Not yet. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Lance Carton. I'm a member of Telegraph Hill Dwellers. I live in North Beach. I've lived there for over 30 years. What brought me here today was a proposal by our supervisor, Denny Sauter, to put in a... Sir, I need you to speak into the microphone.

Sorry?

Oh, okay. Proposal by Denny Sauter to put in a new building right here on the edge of Washington. This is Washington Square Park, one of the major attractions of San Francisco, due to the number of tourists that go there. And this is on a sunny day. And as you can see, it's filled. They want to put in a new building in place of 659 Union Street, which will go up 100 feet. And here's what's called the shadow fan. And it shows that it covers up nearly all of it. This is not going to be used anymore, apparently. And this is for a 92-foot building. So for a 100-foot building, it's going to cover 90% of the park. And the problem here is that This building would cast a huge shadow. Right next to it, just up the street, is called 1000 Green Street, which is practically empty. It's where Charles Schultz used to live. If we need new housing, put it in that building. This building here is absolutely not needed. And then we want to preserve the park for visitors and the locals. And Danny Sutter recently had a new member of his family join him, his little daughter. When she wants to go out and play, I hope Denny's listening in the TV feed, where are you going to take her? If you build this building and take her to the park, she'll freeze to death if you take her down there. There'd be shadows. So we want to keep this pristine. It's one of the oldest parks in San Francisco and one of the most biggest tourist draws. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners. I'm Apollo, a North Beach resident, and I urge you to reject the Shade Act. This was never just about shadow analysis. This ordinance is using shadow analysis to further the ongoing elimination of the public voice at City Hall. It makes 28 separate changes to San Francisco's environmental review process. It guts CEQA, limits planning commission oversight, reduces public notice, cuts public comment, and strips away appeal rights. Shadow is an environmental impact. The planning department has said so for decades in its own CEQA checklist. Suddenly calling it something else doesn't change reality. This is also an equity issue. The people who depend most on sunlight in parks, sidewalks, and public spaces are often those living in the smallest homes with the fewest alternatives. They're the people this legislation will hurt the most. That doesn't sound very inclusive to me. Please reject the Shade Act in its entirety. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioners. I'm Romalyn Schmaltz, a 20-year resident of North Beach, and I urge you to reject the Shade Act. While it's pretty cruel to reduce our precious public spaces and our access to sunlight, shade is really about silencing the public. Buried inside it are 28 separate changes to San Francisco's environmental review process. Together, they gut CEQA, our local CEQA, weaken planning commission oversight, reduce public notice, limit public comment, and strip away appeal rights, regardless of what we've heard today. That is the truth. This is not streamlining. It is the systematic dismantling of public accountability. The Planning Department has recognized environmental impacts of shadows for decades in its own local CEQA checklist. San Francisco has established laws stronger than the state requirements because we are San Francisco, not Modesto or Fresno or anywhere else in California. We're not LA. We're not Oakland. We're San Francisco, and we have unique needs, unique architecture, unique topography, unique climates, and unique communities. And this isn't just an environmental issue. It's an equity issue. The people who depend most upon sunlight in parks, sidewalks, and public spaces are the very people who have the fewest alternatives. Renters, seniors, families in small apartments, and lower income San Franciscans. That's a remarkable outcome for legislation sponsored by supervisors of the city's densest and poorest neighborhoods. To the thousands of such residents in Mahmood's Tenderloin, Dorsey's Soma, or Danny Souder's Chinatown in North Beach, how do you feel about your elected officials removing that from your daily life? Your planning laws exist to protect the public, not to make development approvals more convenient. Citizen oversight is a fundamental San Francisco right. Please reject the Shade Act. Do it for all San Franciscans. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Whit Turner on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. I'm going to try to keep it brief, but I'm very passionate on this topic. So I apologize if I go a little long. I feel like we're really forgetting the one thing that this seems to be about, which is efficiency and affordability in housing. And that we're talking all about the right to sunlight, which I agree is important in open space, but the fact that We're talking about the poorest families and people like myself who live in a tiny box apartment and can barely afford to live here. It is because we don't have enough housing. We do not have enough housing for people to afford to live in it. That is the problem. And what this is doing is speeding up the rate at which we can build housing and helping to get rid of a bunch of non-important oversight and systems of abuse, like using shadows to block housing, that have long prevented people from living in the city and being able to afford to live here. because we are not building enough housing. I live next to Washington Square Park. I don't know why we're looking at a diagram that shows there's going to be a shadow from this building. And that's a separate issue when there's no sun that goes next to that building. It's not how shadows work. And I trust the work that Environmental planning is done on this. I really thank their leadership on this. They've done a great job. Thank you to Supervisor Mahmoud for his leadership on this. But I want to get back to the issue at hand, which is housing and affordability and a bunch of nonsense rules in tandem with CEQA that have long been used to abuse blocking housing. Thank you.

Hello, Commissioners. David Wu with Soma Filipinas, the Filipino Cultural Heritage District. We are glad that the Shade Act legislation recognizes the importance of Prop K in Section 295 of the Planning Code and intentionally leaves it intact. However, due to state laws such as SB 423 and the State Density Bonus, projects are now able to bypass and waive the requirements of Section 295. We saw this in SOMA with the 1025 Howard Street project that will cast a shadow on Jean Friend Rec Center, which under Prop K has a 0% limit for net new shadow and is supposed to be a protected open space. But because 1025 Howard Street was using SB 423 and the state density bonus, it was able to waive these local requirements. The south of Market has one of the lowest amounts of open space per capita in the city, and it is also a park star of neighborhood. With this removal of CEQA shadow analysis and the ability for projects to bypass Prop K, we will effectively be ignoring the city's general plan and recreation and open space element, which specifically calls for preserving sunlight in public open spaces, especially neighborhoods near downtown. For this reason, we are asking for two amendments to this legislation. One, to have the Planning Department do a study on what measures can be taken to protect access to sunlight for public open spaces and SFUSD schoolyards in SOMA. And two, have the planning department do a shadow impact study analysis for any new project that would cast a shadow on a rec and park property or an SFUSD schoolyard in SOMA if the project sponsor does not provide one. And these amendments would help us to ensure that we continue to study and analyze potential impacts and continue to prioritize access to sunlight for SOMA's open spaces. Thank you.

Good afternoon, honorable commissioners. My name is Bevette Brackett, and I currently live in Portola District. I live really close to McLaren Park, and I'm here to specifically speak on the Shadow Act. I think that there needs to be more time dedicated to reviewing a lot of the issues that a lot of the previous speakers spoke about. And I'd also like to include that a lot of the housing that's being built right now, if we continue to build enough housing that there's not enough open space, that also makes a challenge. So as the previous speaker mentioned, that he lives in such a tiny apartment, that's what the city has been building a lot recently, a lot of really small units and not enough open space for people to enjoy. So shadow is a real issue. It's not just an environmental issue. It's also a health issue. We saw that during COVID when people had lack of access to vitamin D in open space and green space. People were more likely to go through depression and other health symptoms for not being able to get outside and to enjoy enough sunshine. SO WE ARE SAN FRANCISCO, WE ARE A CITY THAT PRIORITIZES AND CELEBRATES OUR OUTDOOR SPACE AND OUR SUNSHINE AND ACCESS TO IT, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS DOING THE BEST THAT IT CAN TO PRESERVE THOSE TWO KEY POINTS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, LAST CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. AGAIN, YOU NEED TO COME FORWARD. SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENT.

This is from Julie sue you've already spoke. Oh, can she speak on someone else? You've already spoken No, I can't read somebody else's statement.

Okay, she can go okay But someone else in the audience someone else in the audience could use their time and your phone to somebody else not yet spoken.

Oh OK, final last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now, or both of these matters are now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry.

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.

Hi, Tonya Shainer. Planning Department staff, thank you for your question. I would like to confirm that all notification required by CEQA, which is robust and depends on the level of CEQA document, will be maintained if this legislative amendment is passed. CEQA establishes different notification requirements based on the level of review. And so for all documents, we would continue to post all of our documents on our website, provide them upon request to members of the public and decision makers, and anyone would be able to subscribe to our electronic notification system. All of those methods would be available. For higher levels of CEQA review, such as MNDs and EIRs, CEQA says that you can choose one of the three methods to notify the public, posting at the site, distributing via mail to a radius list, or posting in a newspaper. The department will continue to post on the site, on and around the site, and mail notice to the radius list. For some projects, such as those at SFO or in our Hetch Hetchy watershed, it may not always make sense to do that. You know, those sites may not be easily accessible or have any residents in the area. So for those, we may opt to instead do the newspaper notice. But just to confirm, CEQA's robust requirements for public noticing will be, we will be in full compliance with them with no exceptions.

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.

Commissioner McGarry, Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer. CEQA doesn't establish different requirements for notification based on the type of use. So we wouldn't be discerning in that regard. What we would be focusing on is the site conditions and the vicinity in terms of where are the surrounding occupants, whether they're residential or commercial or otherwise.

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.

And the existing practice that we have and with the RADIUS list, it is building owners and occupants that are, yeah, building owners and occupants. So whether that's residential or commercial, those individuals would be notified.

Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

I think this is a very tricky topic because there's so many details to the sequence and flow of environmental analysis and when documents are published and what types of determinations are made. And so there's a lot of detail in the weeds. And I think one could spend, well, one literally does spend an entire class trying to figure this stuff out. I'm going to try to get into a few topic areas and seek some clarifications, too. One thing I just want to say right up front, being very clear about this, there was varying comments about whether or not we are getting rid of Proposition K. as part of this. That is not happening. That's a voter-approved requirement. Proposition K does require that, well, actually, staff should check me on this, but I believe it's buildings over 40 feet tall need to have an analysis done for potential shadow on properties under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Parks Department. I'm seeing nods. Wow, I got that right. Okay. But just to say it again, Prop K and its requirements is not being changed by this. And so, you know, I guess that leads to the question. I'm going to jump around with kind of the flow I had for myself here. But that inherently leads to the question of, so what are we talking about when we say that shadow is not going to be part of the CEQA analysis? And so to just make that clear too, we really are, this change is solely about our local sort of add-on implementation measures related to the California Environmental Quality Act. and that is a separate matter from Proposition K. With that, I'll get into some thoughts on shadow. uh you know i think historically we identified that we analyzed shadow but i see the department's really robust analysis of whether it's relevant under sequa as a practice and i i think the department staff did a really good job of looking at this and i i agree that we don't need to address shadow under our sequa analysis again prop k still exists we have that analysis for reckon park properties And I think also, you know, this addresses our SQL related requirements, but maybe just putting it out there, I would hope that possibly if there are some issues with shadow impacts that need to be addressed more as a design and planning matter, that if that comes up, then our legislators could take that up as a separate matter related to planning and design. And it's probably more applicable to commercial properties and any residential properties that might still have some discretionary decisions to be made. And I do want to raise that point just because I think the one gap or the one change that does happen with shadow analysis with this legislation is that the shadow analysis under our SQL requirements or our local implementation SQL does look at some public spaces that are not covered by Proposition K. So it does look at things like school district properties or other public open spaces And so, you know, if we determine in the future or it's determined there's kind of a gap in assessing impacts on non-recreation in parks, public open spaces, then that's something that could be taken up separately and I think should be considered. And I also want to say a lot of this is being described as supporting housing development. I'm very much in favor of that. But of course, this is neutral on a matter of the use. And so it's possible that commercial projects or more discretionary projects could still have some sort of different local implementation. But that being said, I'm in alignment with the changes being made to the shadow requirements under this legislation, again saying Prop K is not affected. So getting a little bit into some other topic areas that kind of came up, I want to just clarify or put it out there on one thing. So on the change in the appeals timeline, which has to do with appeals for CEQA exemptions, final negative declarations, and the final environmental impact report, So we're shortening the appeals window from 30 days to 15 days if this legislation goes through. But just to be clear, that's just to put in place an appeal and further documentation can then follow? Or is that all the time that's available?

Thank you for that question, Commissioner Braun. This would just shorten the duration of time after an approval or certification to file the appeal. So the initial appeal filing would state the basis for the appeal to the extent that the appellant is able. And if they would like to submit supplemental information to expand upon their appeal, they're able to do that as they can now. So that would not change.

And regardless of that, so we would still need to respond as a department to material submitted that comes in all the way up to the appeal hearing, basically? Is that how it works? That's correct.

That is pursuant to state law.

Okay, so it's just the timeline for filing the appeal. Okay, that's helpful. One of the other changes that's being made here is the elimination of a planning commission hearing on the draft EIR, so that catches my attention since it's the planning commission. I had to think about that one. I'm in favor of it just because At the Planning Commission hearing, we really tend to get some pretty higher level comments that are typically followed up with or preceded by much more detailed input. And all those pathways for providing input on draft EIRs would still exist. And so I think it's a reasonable change. But it actually leads me to a question that has more to do with what Commissioner McGarry was asking about with public notifications. One advantage of having the draft DIR Planning Commission hearing is that it ends up on our agenda and raises awareness of a project through a different pathway than just the standard kind of posting and sending out the existence of the DIR notifications about it. And so I am just... I'm wondering if it's possible to walk through kind of how the draft EIR is communicated when one is made available for public comment right now, just as a starting point. And then I'd like to get into a little bit more about our broader public notification processes after that.

Tanya Shaner again. Thank you for your question. When we publish a draft EIR, we send out a notice of availability of that draft EIR by the three methods that I described, posting at the site, newspaper notice, and mailing to a radius list. In addition to that, we post all of our CEQA documents on our website, provide them for anyone who's on our list for that specific project. So we keep lists of interested parties. And we also have an electronic notification system that anyone can send out to receive any CEQA document. So actively, we would send out by those three methods and post on our website. And actually, there's also a requirement to include a hard copy of the document at planning department offices currently.

OK, thank you for that.

And if I may, Commissioner Bond, I'd just like to add to that that at the start of the environmental review process, we issue a notice of preparation to let the public know that we're preparing an environmental impact report. So that same notice happens at that early stage before we prepare the draft EIR.

okay thank you um i think where this this leads me and kind of following on to commissioner mcgary's questions about the notice for um those are broader notice questions i we have some recommendations from the historic preservation commission that were referenced during this presentation And although I'm not supportive of two of the three of them, I would say on the third recommendation that they had, it's to evaluate the methods of public notification for environmental review to assess their impact and identify opportunities for improvement. And then there's some additional details there. That's a reasonable recommendation. I think that as we sort of reduce a few of these appeal windows and if we're not having the draft DAR hearing, and I'm in favor of and I'm OK with eliminating that, I do think, again, we need to more broadly communicate when there is a draft EIR that is available for comment. So I would support that recommendation in any motion about this. And then let's see. Lastly, I'll just say, just big picture, got in the weeds there. You know, broadly, these seem like pretty common sense changes given our urban environment and the prior policy commitments that we've made as a city and under state law. I think that CEQA still is a powerful tool with these changes for ensuring environmental protection. And there's still quite a lot of maintenance of notifications and appeals and hearing processes. We can always do better on the notifications part, as I said. And, you know, generally it's in the city's best interest to ensure that our environmental analyses are really robustly done. And that's been sort of my metric for this. And that's why it is important to get this feedback to make sure that's the case, because that to me, protects us. Doing this right the first time and getting all the right information is what, in a way, that's its own form of streamlining. That is a way to ensure that we are really covering the project robustly and our analysis is done well. At the same time, I recognize that these environmental analyses are technical efforts to identify and mitigate specifically defined categories of environmental impacts. And so there are lots of other impacts one could consider as part of a project, and those could maybe be dealt with outside of the administrative code that's being changed here, such as if we want to look at shade separately, then that makes sense to me. But otherwise, I'm generally in favor of the legislation but with the notes about potentially revisiting and our overall notification processes for environmental review.

President Campbell, may I respond to one point? Thank you so much for your remarks, Commissioner Braun. I wanted to address the point you made about the type of open spaces that are evaluated under Section 295, which is properties under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Parks Department versus those that are evaluated under our local SECA review under the current Chapter 31. It is the case that in the past we had had some scope expansion on the type of properties that had gone beyond properties under rec park jurisdiction as part of our secret review. When we conducted this review of our local practice to see does shadow belong as a CEQA topic, and we concluded that it did not, we didn't scale back. We had started to scale back to just align with Section 295. So our current practice is to be looking under CEQA at Section 295 rec park properties only. So I just wanted to correct that with regard to our current practice.

So current practice is just to translate that section 295 essentially the prop K sunlight ordinance We have been basically doing the analysis in the same way as that.

Yeah in terms of the type of properties.

That's correct Yes, okay. Thank you Commissioner so

Thank you. I just wonder, just first and foremost, I wonder if what my fellow commissioners have brought up, these questions about notifications, has satisfied Ms. Alice Barclay's question, one of the public comment question about all the different notifications? You good? OK, thank you. All right, so I think that there's a lot that my colleague had covered. And I am looking at, there's a lot of people coming in today and talked about the evolution of the special San Francisco procedure chapter 21, the local procedures on CEQA, the evolution of it. I really appreciate the history. And a lot of you are clearly community advocates for dedicated your entire life to serving our community and to bring housing to our community and We would like to take that also continue to bring housing to all San Franciscan moving forward Right now is 2026 a lot of things have evolved and we clearly have housing crisis and that's really not a what we think is actually something given to us with the data, both from the government, from nonprofit sector, and from just private businesses. So what we're simply doing right here I personally don't think is out of reach here. It is quite more consistent to other cities within California, whether they actually require shadow impact analysis. And I'm seeing a whole list of... 10 counties that are in the similar size of San Francisco metropolitan area. San Francisco appear to be the only one that require shadow analysis in our current CEQA document. That's a very interesting and helpful data referencing point for me to come up with what I'm thinking today. Why are we the way we are right now? I do respect Prop K. I do believe that the process that we have with the Park and Rec Department, we actually served together with them in one of our hearings. That's a joint hearing for one of the projects right at the waterfront across from the Ferry Building. And that process will not disappear. That process is robust. We saw a full shadow study report from summer and winter solstice and to every single hour of the day. Those still exist. We stack our room like really packed that day with seven of us and seven of our fellow parking and rec commissioners and all the department heads. We hear everybody who talked about all their concerns. And then we also make our determination. And I wanted to make sure that my understanding is correct. And I'd like to staff to confirm that that process still exists. Yeah, everybody's nodding. So on the record, it's yes. I think that might be also, we might need more community outreach to make sure that the correct version of the understanding of the intent and the finite details of what come in front of us today has been thoroughly understand directly coming from the departments. from the experts who are trained to do environmental impact report, CEQA analysis, to actually explain to our really passionate San Franciscan of what this is about. I really think that it is consistent with what Sarah Dennis-Phillips earlier talking in her director's report, talking about investing more in our community outreach effort. Because when in doubt, we should look for the source that is coming from the community. the people actually know how to write CEQA and do these things. So instead of listening to other different types of news avenues or not news avenues. So I think that what I'm looking at here, we're not abandoning the entire shadow studies. We are actually putting ourselves inconsistent with pretty much everybody else in California. But we still have something special to us. We still have the Prop K. We still have the joint commission hearings on some of these projects. So I would like to ask my staff from the planning department to take some time to work with Supervisor Balazs' office to do more community outreach to make sure that the real action version that actually really truly understand by everybody. Because it is decades long of the local chapter 21, local procedures. understand what has been done in the past 20 years, it needs some more time to really get to the same level of understanding of what we're about to do. I do think, though, in terms of number of days of notifications, I am also in line with Commissioner Braun about not taking the recommendation from the HPC because I am looking at Our department, in all the majority of our notifications, it's mostly around 10 to 20 days. So the only thing that is 30 days is the CU appeal. That's the only one anomaly. All the other ones are 10 to 20 days. So putting this to 15 days notification but has not changed the number of days before they can actually send in all the written comments is consistent with aligning Again, to me, it's like, what can we do to get our planning commission, all these, well, planning department about these grace period of time of expectation. I think I would prefer to have them in a similar range than having two off, 30, and then maybe some other supervisor coming the next day would say, I want another one for 70 days. So I want it to be more consistent. I think right now we need to streamline the understanding of how the process works and also make sure that we encourage people to invest back in San Francisco, county of San Francisco, not our neighboring county, to build more housing. Because I do really want to have invest interest of really having everybody's children and everybody's aunties and uncles and grandmother and grandfather to be able to age with dignity and keep coming back and graduate from wherever they are and come back and be our workforce. And that's how we can grow our city. So with this, let me see if I miss anything. Enough about the shuttle. I think the next thing I wanted to talk about is the wind. Oh, we're going to take this to the second item, or we can take them together. We just will do them separately, so I can make comment to that. Well, I've done a lot of wind tunnel studies in my previous time working for corporate architecture firm on skyscrapers, and I did not realize that San Francisco is quite unique, that we are really looking at the ground level, which is great. I really appreciate that. But then making the threshold to be only that one hour within the 1,400 hours to make the threshold like that. I don't know when that threshold was created, honestly, because I do know that the world is warming up. We have global warming. Sea level is rising. And then we do have a lot more, unfortunately, extreme weather conditions that did not happen when I was born. So when I walk around Bacadero, I keep being reminded by the port that by the time if I am still healthy enough to retire, I will be below sea level. So I'm like, OK, well, then wind comes to come hand in hand with this. So I personally believe professionally as a trained architect proposing to make the threshold to nine hours over 400 hours. A wind tunnel study is really reasonable. We've got to adapt to our environment, unfortunately. Everything is rising. warming. So I am in supportive of that. And I am really proud that we as a city, San Francisco, still have an adequate wind tunnel study in our CEQA process, especially looking at places that has heavier pedestrian activity. So appreciate our environmental staff. Yes. And that kind of concludes my comment.

Thank you, Commissioner Tso. Sequa is incredibly complicated. I'm an architect. I'm in the orbit of talking about Sequa. And even I had to spend a ton of time with these amendments. I spent a lot of time with staff. Thank you. So it's easy to get confused. You need a glossary, a cheat sheet, just to understand what a lot of this means. And it's clear to me, even from a lot of the public commentary, that there's a lot of confusion. So I really appreciate a lot of the time we're taking here to get that clarification and really get on the same page about what these changes are and are not. I really appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into these amendments. This is like surgery, right? We're not getting rid of things. We're just getting rid of redundancies and trying to find opportunities to get things done a little bit faster. But by no means, in my analysis and from what I understand, are we losing opportunities for the public to be engaged, for the public to be informed, and really just finding opportunities to shave time. And I think we all are in agreement that we want to see projects happen quickly. And we want to get things built. We want to be a city that's growing. And I really feel confident that the thoughtfulness and this surgical-like approach to these amendments is going to get us there. I don't want to repeat everything. I have a lot of alignment with my fellow commissioners here. I'm really glad we took some time to get some clarity. Let me look through my notes here to see if there's anything I can say that hasn't been said already. I do appreciate that this really fulfills an obligation we have in terms of HCD and housing element. It was good enough for that that it's time to get alignment there. So that's a little bit overdue, because I think we have a ticking time. We have a deadline on that as well, correct? Yeah. I think most of my questions have been addressed. But I did have, I think for me, you know, the issue around public notification, and I do agree that HBC's recommendation around making sure that we're doing the best we can in terms of, and I recognize that notifications vary depending on what it is in terms of the CEQA outcome, but making sure that we're giving that the We're giving it a closer look. So I would just pile on and second that comment and recommendation. And those are all my comments. Commissioner McGarry.

There's no doubt that in my career here, my lifetime in San Francisco, it's in 95, in construction, put people to work on a daily basis. Shadows have been weaponized to basically kill, delay, abort, get rid of, and just slow down the cog in the wheel that things just don't happen. The picture we saw earlier on, that was 1750 Taylor. I worked on that project for years. maybe almost two years of my construction. Above that is 999 Green Street. 1000 is basically the other side of the road. And building a question there that something's going to go up was the Verde, and that's a burnt-out building that basically is laid in disrepair for quite some time. It's actually a danger to the occupants of Verde. basically Washington Square on Grant Avenue there. We are special. So my mother says, San Francisco, you're special. But the trick is not to be too special. Getting in alignment with basically the state of California is not a bad thing. San Francisco, it's extra, it's extra, it's extra. Basically, nothing's going to change here. Everybody who wants to lodge a complaint on any project is going to do it within 14 days. So bringing it from 30 days down to 15 is not going to make any difference there. But what we do have to do is basically we have to clear clutter to try and we have a deficit of A year ago, 82,000 units that we have to build. That's basically my 7-year-old, my 10-year-old, my 13-year-old. They have to live somewhere. As much as I want to keep them forever, there's just not enough space, and they're getting bigger, and the space is going out. So where we are, it's just untenable. So we have to find... the one solution to do something or fix a problem, not find 10 reasons not to do it. And we seem to be perfectly capable of finding 10 reasons not to do something because The one thing we have in mind is we don't want it in the first place. So we kind of have to get out of our own way on that. I think we have to realize that we're getting out of our way. Nothing's been taken away here. The timelines have been brought down. Nobody's going to be affected. Everybody who basically is in the game of wanting to slow something down is basically not going to be held up, just their timelines. They're going to do it straight away. They're just not going to sit on it for two weeks before they do it going forward. So on that happy note, I'm happy to recommend approval of this going forward. That would be a motion. Thank you.

And that was for item 8A, the Shade Act legislation.

Sorry, the shade and wind.

We're asking that we take these matters separately.

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.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

Commissioner Braun?

I do note that the HPC recommendation of approval of the ordinance included a direction to the department to report back within three months on the methods of public notification. Since that was already adopted by that commission, I would just say I think it would be helpful for the planning commission to also see the results of that effort under their direction.

If there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval on item 8A for the Shade Act. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, commissioners. The motion passes unanimously 4 to 0. And if I understood correctly, Mr. McGarry, you made a motion as well for the wind. Correct. And then Commissioner Braun. Commissioner So will second that. Very good. So if there is no further deliberation on that matter, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a resolution for item 8B. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously four to zero. Commissioners, that'll place us on item nine for case number 2026-006263-OTH for the OpenGov contract resolution. This is, again, a consideration of a resolution.

All right. Good afternoon, commissioners. Liz Waddy today wearing the hat of director of Permit SF. We're here today for two reasons. One, we realize as we're approaching our first year of Permit SF accomplishments that we haven't actually come to you guys with a full comprehensive overview of Permit SF. I know the commission has seen a lot of individual, especially pieces of legislation that you guys have taken action on over the last year, year and a half. But we haven't done the whole kit and caboodle for you. And we felt it was timely given that Permit SF, as of July 1, is officially in the planning department's budget. From a personnel and a program perspective, we thought this was a good time to both give you that overview, but also it's timely because we are also looking forward to what we're calling our phase two contract on the technology side of Permit SF and are before you today to seek a resolution of support. So first, I'm going to kick off an overview of PERMA.SF, if we can have the slideshow.

Great.

All right. So first up, I wanted to get into a little bit of background on what is Permit SF. I think a lot of folks are familiar with the term. Anyone who follows the mayor's Instagram has been seeing a lot of the posts. But basically, Permit SF was Mayor Lurie's first initiative in office, in great part in response to issues he'd heard on the campaign about how broken the permitting process was for folks trying to build housing, open small businesses, or just renovate their homes. So we initiated a multi-departmental effort with the planning department. At that time, it was Director Rich Hillis being the director of Permit SF. but really a convening process of sort of executive level or deputy levels across every single agency that touches permitting. And so the agencies on this slide, I believe, are the comprehensive list of agencies that touch permitting. And so as you can see, these are a lot of separate disparate agencies. These are agencies with their own department heads, many of whom have their own commissions, their own set of codes, their own regulations, their own staffs, their own applications, their own technologies. As you can imagine from a customer's perspective, that is a very daunting process to navigate, especially if it's not your full-time job to do so. And so we really embarked on an effort to think differently about permitting and how we can focus on permitting from the customer's perspective. So we have built out, as shown sort of on the left-hand side here, really, and this has been a work in progress and something that has really evolved over the last year and a half, but an org structure that starts to tackle this very issue. So Permit SF, again, now is living with the planning department. Big thank you to all of you on that so that we can have stability and growth from a personnel perspective. I'll just take this moment for a quick plug for several members of our core team who are here today that are some faces you've probably never seen, but we have Kevin Lowe, who is the Permit SF project manager. We have JP, Jessica Posey, who is our new Permit SF portal program manager. And we have our intern who has been doing an amazing job, including helping me on this presentation today, Jordan King. So anyhow, we've built out this structure and reporting up to this core team where this is what we are living and breathing every day. We also have a lot of engagement within departments of other agencies who clearly have their full-time day jobs doing the work, doing the permit processing, but really having that engagement and buy-in that we need to think about things differently. And I think it's important, and I think this is something that really the Planning Commission especially can appreciate, but what is our why? Why does improving the permitting process matter other than people have just complained about it? As you all remember, HCD identified San Francisco in 2023 as having the longest permitting timelines in the state. They issued their policy and practice review, and they gave us a lot of very firm directives with consequences attached to it, including both adoption of the housing element that includes many objectives that we have to accomplish that effectively roll up to fixing permitting. So it is very much tied to our housing production, but it's also timely with our economic recovery that we're still working through post-COVID. Yes, so moving on. Now that we know what our why is, and we really know what's broken, it's also really important that we have a vision for where we want to go. And the vision that we have is a very ambitious one, but we thought that it was really important for us to set out and think, again, the planners in us, and I think this is why it's great to have this housed in the planning department, but to really establish a vision for what a permitting experience should look like for a customer. And so as a part of the work that we are kicking off with Permit SF and that we are really going to be kicking off in this next phase two is what we're calling a permit rationalization process. I'm actually immediately after this hearing going back to the office and meeting with department heads to kick off a working session on permit rationalization. But really what we mean by that is instead of filing a planning application and then a building application and then a public works application and then a public health application and then a fire department permit, how can those things, if they are part of one building, they're one development project, how can they maybe be one application with different workflow steps? Things like that is what we're talking about when we're talking about permit rationalization so that the customer's experience is simpler They give us their project data one time, and it gets loaded into the system once and can get distributed on the back end to multiple agencies rather than filling out five different application forms. So that's a bit of our vision for where we're going in an end state. And within that, we also wanted to sort of peel back the onion one layer deeper and really talk through what should the key principles when we come to... Permit SF has been filled with thousands of tiny decisions that we've had to make, tiny little changes, but all of these little changes are what lead up to big change. But we wanted to have some guiding principles as well. And so these were the four that we really focused on when we kicked off Permit SF in early 2025. First, that we need to have a holistic and programmatic approach to permitting. And we need to really challenge, I think this was really important, challenge some of our cultural orthodoxies and practices that we have just assumed are the way we do things and the way we should do things. So really this question of, And why do we do that? And really asking that question sometimes two and three times in the same conversation. Because oftentimes, speaking for myself who's been here for two decades, we sometimes actually don't always know the why. It's just how we do things. And so really the challenge is challenging those things to make sure that every decision that we're doing is both necessary for achieving life safety, or planning policy purposes, but also is factoring in customer experience and feasibility. Secondly, customers should be the center of our work. I don't think this has ever been the center of our work in permitting to date. And so as we're reforming this, that needs to be a primary focus and principle. Defining and measuring success. Again, I think as we've really gotten under the hood in this project, we've realized that our ability to access data and make data-driven decisions is very challenging. We have some data to make decisions, but candidly, to be able to leverage that data and access that data and manipulate that data to understand hypotheses and conclusions is very difficult. in our antiquated legacy systems. The systems don't talk to each other, so being able to piece together data from the fire department, the building department, the planning department, and public works, some of these agencies don't actually have databases that house this information. A lot of our permit processing information is still sometimes in more antiquated methodologies. And so moving forward, we need to have a system where we have clear data inputs so that we can actually use data to change our behaviors. And again, not expect to get everything perfect on the first try, but to make sure we're building those systems where we have that evaluation capability moving forward. And last but not least, which I very much appreciate, again, is sort of the principle of no band-aids. We have been historically pretty good as a city fixing individual problems. So if a project gets stuck or broken and somebody is complaining about somebody's dropped the ball somewhere, we've usually been able to clean up the mess pretty quickly and get the project back on track. But we've never taken that next layer of evaluation to say, why did that project get off track? Why did it fall through the cracks? Why did it not get assigned for months and months? Things like that. And so really a big part of this is not just solving sort of that whack-a-mole individual projects, but looking at the systemic reasons of how something could be falling through the cracks and how can we fix that moving forward. All right, so then taking it to the next phase, how we're approaching Permit SF. We've really broken it down with those principles in mind into three primary buckets, or a three-legged stool, if you will. One is customer experience and operations. And I'm going to go through separate slides of some examples of things we've accomplished over the last year that fall into these three legs of the stool. First is customer experience and operation. I really put these as things of, this is just good government. No one has to give us permission to do these things. These are not legislative in nature. These are just making decisions to change how we do business to improve how we're serving customers. The second is legislation and government accountability. I think this is probably what the commission is most familiar with because we've been before you with a lot of pieces of permit SF legislation. And lastly is technology. And we really see that we can't fix permitting without addressing all three of these items. First up, I'm going to only highlight a couple of things on the slide. And there are even more items that we didn't put on the slide that we've accomplished in the last year, but these are the highlights. One of the items that I really wanted to focus on, and again, Permit SF as a whole, none of these are really major, major items in and of themselves. But permitting, part of the problem has been like death by 1,000 cuts. So the first one that I think is really great and even predates this administration, these are things we've been working on for a while, But historically, we didn't have a queuing system when people would come in in person to get a permit. We literally had old deli ticker tape, and people would pull numbers, and we had no information. We had no information on who was coming in, the frequency of those customers, how many people are repeat customers, new customers, or how long were they waiting for services. Starting in about 2019, right before COVID, we implemented a new software system where we started collecting data on our customers so we could see our service levels. Flash forward, in this first year, we now had several years of collecting data, especially regularized for a post-COVID world when everyone was back in the office. And we realized that our hours of operation of when our permit center was open, which were the same hours pre-COVID, were no longer perfectly aligning with our demand from our customers. And what we realized is that customer behavior shifted after COVID. People used to come in really, really early. A lot of contractors, they would come in at like 7.30 and be done 3.30, 4.00. And what we realized is we were starting to close queues really early. We would have no customers in the morning, and we would have to turn people away in the afternoon. People's behaviors have clearly shifted a bit. And so using this data and being able to see that, we changed our permit center hours. And so we shifted it back an hour to be able to accommodate, when the bulk of our customers were there, a more efficient use of staff time in the morning so people aren't sitting twiddling their thumbs. And then on the back end, not having to turn people away in the afternoon. So I think that's a great example of how we've improved operations with data Second, sort of pivoting in a different direction, in this first year, we spun up a digital special event permitting portal. The way it used to be is if you wanted to throw a special event in San Francisco, you really had to navigate this in large part on your own, especially if you're one of the sort of smaller, mid-sized special events, not like the marathon, things like that. But if you wanted to do, like, a doggy get-together at Dolores Park and you wanted to have an event, you didn't really know where to start. And so you would have to sort of figure it out, go to all these different agencies, figure out, do you need police? Do you need public works? Who are you renting space from? And so we created a standard permitting portal where you just have to tell us about what you want, and we as a city figure out which agency it needs to be routed to, and then all of the cities provide that feedback so that we give really clear advice to people of, This is the date that's available. Here are your processes. Here's the total anticipated cost to, again, make it easier for people to do the cool things in San Francisco that we want people to do and that create that placemaking that's only in San Francisco. One more example on this that I wanted to highlight. Again, in a completely different direction, which is sort of the theme of Permit SF. We're kind of all over the map here on the things that we're focusing on. One of actually the employees of the building department, who's one of our frontline staff, noted that it was a real pain point for the clerical staff when people were ready to pull their permits that when a permit scope triggered a unified school district fee, which is a pretty high volume of projects trigger a unified district school fee, they had to refer the application physically to the school district for them to do the calculation of the fee. And she was saying, if we could just do it ourselves, it would shave off often 10 days to two weeks worth of time. Because it's just basic math. It's x number of square feet at a certain rate. But I guess historically, there wasn't trust between the school district and the building department for the building department to do that calculation. And so instead, the school district insisted on doing it. But as you can imagine, there's a handoff. There's a transition time. It goes in somebody else's queue. They do calculations. They come back. And so we initiated a conversation with the Unified School District, had a conversation, created a new MOU, and now the building department is doing those calculations and they're able to do it instantly in real time when the applicant is ready to pull their permit. So again, another example of where you're shaving off a little bit of time and kind of no substance is lost in the meantime. Next up on legislation, a few to highlight. And I wanted to highlight just a couple that the Commission hasn't seen that weren't planning code amendments The first this is one of the earliest items that we did but it's been incredibly successful is we heard from a lot of our small business owners that The process to put out sidewalk tables and chairs was really laborious and cumbersome And costly and for a small business, especially if you only own one shop even just the requirement to prepare a site plan is to show where your tables and chairs are feels daunting, because they're an expert in making a cup of coffee or a sandwich, not necessarily knowing how to navigate obtaining an architectural plan set. And so we turned the permitting process basically into a digital attestation form, where we outline the really critical, important, requirements, as in keep the sidewalk free and clear for ADA purposes, things of that nature. And we just make somebody attest to it. We put very clearly in that attestation the enforcement process. You basically get one warning, and then you get fees will be applied if you don't comply. But we took away the permit fee as well. Because in reality, the permit fee was for us to review the plans. If we don't have plans that we need to review, we don't need to charge a fee. So we both reduced the permit obligation, the cost for the small business to prepare the plans, and then the cost for the application itself. It also has reduced staff time in having to review those plans. And this has been incredibly successful. And we've seen a lot of small businesses say that this has increased their ability to be solvent and be successful. There was one business in particular, we got a story back, who is in Japantown who didn't have a strong um ground floor presence they were sort of tucked away a little bit more and they said being able to do tables and chairs has made their business really visible and has dramatically increased their revenue and so that was a great example the second was as it relates to minor encroachment permits so as you guys know many of the new buildings that are getting built in san francisco are built up to the front property line and that's something we really encourage to maintain a strong urban street wall However, pragmatically speaking, on all of those buildings, there are often little features that have to go on the front of the building, things like an ADA push button, things like a fire standpipe attachment, features that encroach two to four inches projecting from the facade of the building in a very small, discrete space. Technically, though, those encroach over the front property line, and we're triggering the requirement for a minor encroachment permit, which both, A, required a separate permit application, It took a fair amount of time, because as you can imagine, there's a very high volume of those types of applications that come through public works, so they had a bit of a backlog. And then third, these all required annual fees to maintain that ongoing in perpetuity encroachment. And so one of the pieces of legislation that we passed was to basically identify a universe of things of that nature, those small encroachments, and just said that those were exempt from meeting minor encroachment permits wholesale. Lastly, one other thing that we've done from a government accountability perspective is aligned permit processing timelines across all of the permitting agencies consistently. This was not something that previously existed. Even though a building permit is one building permit, it gets routed to the planning department, building department, fire department, public health, et cetera, multiple agencies. All of those agencies previously did not have a standardized expectation for how long it would take to do key milestones of the review, like a completeness review, first plan review, and revisions. Everyone kind of did their own thing. So we came together and aligned on performance target for each of those three, and we are now tracking those and have those visible on the permit SF website. So anyhow, that is a touch of what we've done from a legend government accountability perspective this first year. Lastly, moving to technology, where we're going to focus the rest of the presentation today, we really thought it was important to identify first what our technology pain points are. And I would say primarily, in some instances, we entirely lack technology. So the picture here in the pink form, that is our current building permit application. It is pink. It is double-sided. You can't use one of these pens terribly well because of the texture of the paper. You have to use certain types of pens. So the interface is outdated. They're different. They are on legacy software systems that are no longer being supported by the software companies in many instances, so pretty much being held together with duct tape and bubble gum. And it's just disparate, and the systems don't talk to each other on the back end without a lot of gymnastics for our data and analytics staff on the back end. So with that, we are moving to and we are approaching the end of our first year of having contemporary software to fix the permitting process. So this first year was really tackling a lot of different things, moving from this legacy system into a contemporary world. I think most importantly, the permits we've identified on the left-hand side are the permits that are part of the first year scope, most of which have been delivered, although some are literally basically being launched almost as we speak here. But I would say an even more critical part of this first year is that it's A, been the beginning of the culture change of we are changing. We are moving into one system. In doing that, it requires agencies that have been able to sort of design systems their own way, we've had to make a lot of compromises to standardize how we talk about things, how we refer to things, and how we function. We now need to all do digital plan review in the same way. We all need to collect fee payments in the same way. So it's a lot of what I kind of think of as this sort of under the hood work that we've really needed to do in this first year that will be transferable as we move forward and can scale into more and more permit types moving forward. So we started with what were relatively simple permit types because we knew we had this really difficult work of these foundational items. that we're going to need to be tackled. And so a lot of those items are highlighted here. I won't go into each and every item. But as you can see, in and of themselves, they aren't permits. They aren't permits at all. But this is the background work and, honestly, the really difficult work that is necessary to resolve and have questions and work through so that we can release permits in an easy and streamlined manner. Within the first year, a couple of quick stats that I just wanted to highlight, and we're almost done here, don't worry. One of the most interesting stats that I think I have seen within this first year is that our customers have really told us they don't like coming to the permit center all that much. Some people do, but 27% of our customers from this first year have filed permits outside of business hours. This is telling us that People are running their small businesses. They're living their lives. They're filing permits at nighttime or on the weekends when it's convenient for them, not when we're open for business. And obviously, there are costs. Although some people do it for a living and get paid while they're down there, a lot of people actually have to take time off work and are not getting paid in order to come down to the permit center. Over 1,500 permits have been issued in the first five months since we've been live with the portal. I think in part that shows that it works. It doesn't mean we haven't had any bumps along the way, but to me this first year was really the proof of concept. A few other interesting statistics, I think to be expected in part as we've moved online, It's also made things faster in person for those remaining scopes that haven't yet gone into a digital space. And the last point that I think is really, really interesting that's an important thing to keep remembering is that our over-the-counter process that we currently have that we do get a lot of praise about, a lot of people do really like our over-the-counter permitting process, it has an artificial volume throttle associated with it. And in part, if you can think about this, we have a lot of folks who maybe run a sign company for their business. Historically, they would maybe come down with 10, 15, 20 permits all at once. And as you can imagine, that one customer could just overwhelm our staff for their entire shift, and we'd only get through one customer. And other people would think they're number two in line, but it would be three hours later because they're processing through all these. So we've established sort of a maximum number of permits that you can process at any one time at the permit center. which has sort of artificially capped what the market wants to submit at any one time. In the digital portal, the sky's the limit. Submit as many permits at any time that you want to. So with the fire department alone, which has been the easiest for, again, with the data that we have to do an apples-to-apples comparison from year over year, from pre- to post-digital platform, we've seen over a 9% increase in permit volume. And so that's not insignificant, especially when, in the previous world, our staffing really met the demand. And so we now have more demand in part than our staff capacity at the moment. And what's coming next? So that was our first phase. That's what we're doing right now. Phase two, in addition to this permit rationalization process, it's really thinking through, what do we want to bite off next? What are the types of permits that make sense for us to move forward into a digital space next? What do we want to cluster together? And what do we effectively want to reform or, lack of a better term, smoosh together for an improved customer experience? It involves a lot of other agencies, and so that's the difficult work that we're hoping to kick off as soon as our next contract is approved, which is in part why we are here today. Although not required legislatively, we are asking for the commission's support of a resolution for a five-year multi-agency contract. Again, multiple agencies will be paying for it, but it's being housed in the planning department since we are sponsoring it as Permit SF. And it is approximately $32, $33 million five-year contract. We really anticipate that the bulk of the work will be completed in the first three years for most of the work that I think this commission is most interested in. As I noted on one of the earlier slides, there are a lot of agencies that are sort of adjacent to construction permitting, but our primary focus is really to get through that construction permitting in the first three years. And with that, that wraps my presentation. I could go on and on, so I'm going to spare you. But we're doing a lot of exciting, difficult things, and we'd love your support. Thank you, guys.

Thank you for that presentation. And with that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

I have the handouts. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll just close this so it's easy for you.

I'm ready. Thank you, Jonas.

My name is Jerry Dratler. The OpenGov implementation started in October 2025. Why extend the contract for five years when there is a two-year extension option and many unresolved issues? This will allow the city and OpenGov to complete the 36-month review of the 150 types of city permits before making a 2031 commitment. You can see from the table there are three levels of complexity. My question is, how many of the 113 medium and high level or high complexity permits have been reviewed? virtually none of them. There are 12 city departments in the OpenGov project. How many of the 150 permit types are DBI permits? And most importantly, when will the DBI Open Government implementation be fully operational? This is a critical question because the building code revisions that were approved last year became effective June 21, and the existing permit tracking system does not support that. reasons why the OpenGov contract should not be extended to 2031 at this time. OpenGov has not completed the review of the permit types, and most importantly, has not completed the project fitness analysis for the 12 city departments. How much of this work has been completed? Does the project executive steering committee recommend extending the contract for five years? And will the building inspection commission also be asked to approve the five-year extension? And has the project comprehensive roadmap been completed? Henry Karnilowitz is a permit expediter, a contractor, and he also serves on two advisory committees that advise the planning department and the Department of Building Inspection. He wrote an article in Beyond the Crown dated June 8. He called out three important concerns in this article. And this man expedites permits for a living. The city is proposing to eliminate over-the-counter permitting. Trade permits for windows, doors, siding, fire alarms, and sprinkler systems will no longer be issued with same-day review over-the-counter. Sprinkle and fire alarm permits are currently requiring seven to 40 days for approval. Permits that require plan drawings that are not submitted over the counter are rarely approved in less than three to four weeks. OpenGov will not provide the existing permit tracking functions in DBI's PTS system, for example, monitoring special inspections. So why extend the contract for five years when there's a two-year extension? Thank you.

Any other public commenters?

Hi, everyone. It's me again. My name is Bivette Brackett. And during the pandemic, I had the pleasure of working with Nicole Ayobani to speed up and make sure that business permits were able to be issued to people quickly. And it resulted in the reducing of business taxes and stuff like that and streamlining the process. So I know that the heavy lifting that it takes working with various different departments. I think at the time, we worked with 19 different departments to get that done. and now it's a better experience for small business owners. So I'm really excited to see the work that has been done to at least start this process. This city is very vast, and as the speaker mentioned earlier, a lot of departments have their different way of doing things, and it does take these really heavy conversations to kind of break down why do we do things the way that we do in the city, and to create better efficiencies, lower costs, and free up time for the staff to take care of really sensitive items. So I know that this is probably the first and second year that they've been doing this, but I really would like to see this work continue. I would really like to, as the other gentleman said, there be some more reporting out to the public on some of these matters. I think they really matter to people. People want to know how this government and specifically city and county is responding and how they're making some of these measures better for people who are going through the permitting process because just my own experience even doing things during the pandemic, working with SFMTA for street closures and stuff, it was hectic and through working in a complimentary way with different department heads and staff, we were able to come up with more efficiencies and this will lead to also being able to build housing quicker. I mean, I think that's what everybody is here for and talking about. Several people have talked about the importance of housing, and so we need systems like this in place that can bring us up to the 21st century. Thank you.

Last call for public comment. Okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Braun.

Thanks, Ms. Vlade, for the pretty comprehensive overview of the permanent SF efforts. I really appreciate seeing everything that's been going on and the examples that you provided. And kudos to the whole permanent SF team. Just to think about this, it's such a big lift, and there's so many pieces to this. When it comes to the overall broader permit SF efforts, setting aside the OpenGov contract for the moment, I have a couple of just kind of open-ended questions. I don't know if you have answers, but whatever you might be able to share would be helpful to me. And so I'm curious about what has What has been learned from this initial implementation, both in terms of specific types of permits, and also broader lessons that could be moved forward now into the next phase that you described?

Absolutely. And I will probably not hit on every lesson learned. We've had a ton of lessons learned. And I actually think one of our lessons learned is just our strategy as a whole. We're really approaching this in what they call this agile way of doing work, of not, and I think this is a real shift for the city, not doing work behind the scenes to try to strive for perfect and then launching perfect, but really trying to get things out there, iterating, using things, tweaking, making adjustments so that we really get, you know, it's not just our best guess of what does perfect look like, but we actually get things out there and see how the real world and our Both our staff and customers are using the tools and iterating. And it is a bit of a change for customers. I think one of our lessons learned is we can do a better job, I think, both internally and externally talking about both that type of approach so that when people see things, if they aren't perfect, Sometimes that's actually intentional, because that's the best way for us to find out exactly what thing do we need to tweak when people are using it, rather than us thinking we know best behind the scenes and sort of having that analysis paralysis and never actually delivering progress. So I think, though, we do need to do a much better job on our communication strategy. We were moving with Mach Speed this first year. And I think what came at that cost was a fairly poor internal communication plan. And so in large part, Kevin is now taking the lead on this. So he's joined us as of June. And one of the primary focuses is really going to be thinking around, again, our customers and our staff, making sure we do a better job. talking about where we are, what we're doing, again, on all three sort of branches of Permit SF, but especially in the technology side of things, because people just care about how do they get their permits. So that's, I think, one of our biggest lessons learned. I think the second one that we've really had has been one around decision-making internally. Again, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of small decisions that have actually, for sure, thousands of small decisions that have been made over the last year And I think early on in this first phase, we were still kind of getting our sea legs for how we escalate when we think something is going in the wrong direction or if we don't have alignment across executives, across agencies, how do we grapple with that? And I think we've really made a lot of progress in how we're dealing with that now. We kind of have a better sort of like SWAT team of dealing with things, working through things, and then pulling together better sort of like pro-con arguments for us to ultimately escalate decision-making on. So I'd say our decision-making process and our lessons learned around internal communications and external communications I think are probably our two biggest takeaways among many other little ones.

Sure, that makes sense. I mean, I was sort of thinking about that, too, in terms of there must be so many things that involve leadership in order to actually move some of this forward because it is such a cross-silo kind of effort, hence why it's so difficult. I'm curious about the first example you raised of communication. Is that where you're referring mostly to the processes for communicating internally or externally to the permanent customers or?

I think it really spans the gamut. Certainly internally, we've been moving so quickly that we forget that our own staff, even if they are not directly touching permits, because obviously we've kept folks who are working on permits closely abreast to How is this for planning staff? How are you going to actually navigate the OpenGov systems, software technology for this subset? We've got door siding, window permits. How are you going to process those differently now than you used to process them in the paper? We've done, I think, a good job talking with those on the ground staff. But I think we forget that our broader agency um cares they care about these changes they care about what's going on and so i know in large part director phillips has really taken this on as well of us doing more listening sessions but also i think doing a better job sharing out just progress updates, decisions so that folks have visibility into something is delivered in the new software in a certain way. And we maybe haven't done a great job saying why, again, that escalation of decision-making process. So being a little more transparent with, again, all of these little micro decisions and that the fact that they are made, they are being made thoughtfully and with good debate. And so we're trying to do a better job of being structured in documenting our decisions and keeping them in a centralized place so that folks access and can view and can ask the questions and we can share out in more real time and so that's you know a variety of different things from listening sessions to having a sharepoint page to doing more regular e-blasts with updates to staff but then also with our customers knowing that we have a you know we have a really vast set of customers. We have customers who are going to be a one and done, where this is the only time they ever engage with the city, some of whom are very tech savvy, some of whom are not. We have monolingual customers, a very large population of people who don't speak English. And so how can we support them? And then we have folks who do this for a living. And so I think we also, as one of the examples highlights, there are people who have made their business by knowing how to navigate the existing system. And we're changing that. And that change is difficult for folks. And so we're really trying to factor in all of those different perspectives and use cases and making sure, though, that we're doing communication to all of those people the best that we can and kind of meeting all of those different demographics of folks in different ways.

That's helpful. And certainly change is probably hardest for people who know the old ways the best. So that makes sense what you just said about that range of users. Do we have a follow-up survey or means of collecting user feedback?

Absolutely. We have a QR code. It's probably in the deck, but it's on the Permit SF page, both email address for Permit SF that can be anonymous as well as a QR code that people can click and fill out comments. Again, open to both staff and external customers. And we are collecting that feedback. And as you can imagine, we have a massive parking lot of to-do suggestions. And again, ranging the gamut, many of those are not technology related. Many of those are legislative in nature or process improvements. And so our team as a whole is trying to make sure that we're picking off a few kind of from every category routinely and doing these 100-day sprints of reforms that kind of, again, touch on the whole gamut.

Great. And that's actually a good segue kind of to something a little bit more related to those processes versus what's happening with OpenGov's sort of interface and database kind of transition. So first of all, you know, in public comment, we heard, you know, the idea that maybe some permits are taking longer or not being processed same day. which I don't know if that's necessarily something to do with the OpenGov transition so much as the changes in workflows. I don't know. Do you just have any... Yeah, absolutely. I guess I'm asking both what is the tracking of our improvements in timing, the timeliness of processing permits, and then also what's been the experience so far?

Yep, absolutely. So we absolutely, again, the nice thing is we now actually can track. So we for sure are tracking our performance and have performance metrics for everything we've gone live with. But I'd say a couple of things. One that I noted is our volume is up because, as I was mentioning, we no longer are artificially limiting the number of applications that are able to be submitted, which was the case for over-the-counter. We are now opening the floodgates. So we have more permits coming in than we did before. We have not commensurately increased the number of staff. So there's already A, there's that tension point right there. That's just a reality. Somebody who manages a team who do permits, when your staff go down and your permits go up, backlogs happen. But secondly, there's also the change element. And I think the change bell curve, maybe it's not a curve, the change line on the graph, change is hard. And especially, I would say, they brought up the fire department. This is a group of folks that we are really focused to help support. They were some of our first agencies to go live with permits. Digital plan review being sort of a new thing integrated into the system, there's absolutely a learning curve. There have been a few things that we've had to fix along the way. Again, as we kind of expected, nothing is usually perfect when you launch it on day one. So there have been a few things that we've been fixing, and we've got, I would say, a pretty focused game plan for bringing those review times down. And my goal is that the process will ultimately be more efficient, that we can accommodate an increase in volume with the same staffing levels and have the same performance. We aren't there yet. But I think we know what we need to do to get there, and we're tracking it and fixing it. So there were a few software issues that actually wasn't with OpenGov, the software, but the third-party plan review system that we had to connect in with. That did cause some of our backlog delays. But again, these are all details within the system that I think are to be expected in this first launch. I think what I always think about is we're in this transition building phase. This is when it's going to be the worst. We have to think about where we're going and where we need to get to. Being in two different systems, or at some level three systems, still an over-the-counter in-person process, an old-school in-house review process that's not in the software, and then this new software, That's hard. There's really no way around it. But there's no magical way for us to snap our fingers and go from the old system to the new system in any kind of comprehensive, logical, thoughtful way. We're going to have to do this in an iterative way. And so that is part of the work that we're really focused on, again, later this summer when this next contract kicks off, which in part, one of the reasons this contract kicks off, it gives us sort of the capacity to do that thoughtful work of, what should we package next so that we can have the best experience for staff and customers? So when we're talking about permit rationalization, it's not just about what permit types should get sort of smushed together. But it's also thinking about what will it take to get the fire department entirely into a new system so we can fully deprecate their old system? Because as soon as we can get rid of one of the three variables, the better. And we can get an agency fully in one. And so those are some of the strategies that we're going to be thinking about a lot this summer is what is the fastest way for us to get the bulk of a customer's experience or the bulk of an agency's experience fully in one system so they're not pivoting to three different systems, which inherently is going to be an inefficiency.

OK. Thank you. Yeah, the teething problems certainly sounds reasonable. I think the one note I would make is just I feel like as we transition more permits to being online, which we should, that should be our modern practice while still having an in-person option. It's a little harder. There's a little less pressure maybe to solve a problem right now when there isn't somebody standing there right in front of you, like they would be at the permit counter. So hopefully these processes, we can work out the kinks and still manage to keep a sense of urgency and priority and just a seamless process for staff to be able to do their work very easily. as this gets implemented. But yeah, certainly it all sounds like it's on the right track with a lot of challenges along the way. I just have one last question, which is there was the question that Mr. Dretley raised about why extend for five years at this point instead of a two-year contract extension, and I'm just curious what the thinking is about that.

Absolutely. So the two-year contract extension that we actually have right now is just for the licenses. So the contract is usually two parts, a little oversimplification, but basically it's professional services to help us build and be strategic and think through what should come next, how do we design it, how do we build it. And then there's the just straight-up software license cost. It's like the license we have Microsoft Suite to have Word or Excel. The two-year extension extends the license. It does not give us any more dollars in professional services. So it would literally just keep the existing lights on for what we've already delivered. It would not let us scale or expand to anything new. So basically, that puts a big pause in progress. So to us, that didn't seem useful in any way. We want to move as quickly as we can to, again, stop the teething phase. We want to get through teething as quickly as possible and fully in the new system. So that's the reason for it. And again, as I mentioned earlier, too, it's a five-year contract. I think our goal is to really get through the bulk of the construction permits that are, again, relevant to, I think, what the commission mostly sees in the first three years, which is our goal.

OK, thank you very much for answering my questions. And the contract resolution has my support. I think it's important for our ability to keep this process moving forward and knowing what we have to work with. And so, yeah, thank you very much.

Thanks, Commissioner. Thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

This is Wadi. You and your team, thanks for bringing us into the 21st century. San Francisco, it's kind of ironic that we're holding up where we even know what carbon paper is, but you showed an example of it there. I recognize it because we also have it as a backup, backup, backup in my daily job. We have to pull out this paper that basically has no pen in the world that can fill it in. So thanks for that. Past practice, nothing will get you in trouble. The company I work for, the organization I work for, nothing will get you in trouble faster than using the term past practice because you lose why you were doing it in the first place. You're just doing it because basically that's what we always did. So changing it from the start, I see the continuity in five years as opposed to extending for two. You need continuity, you need buy-ins, you need basically everybody on board. Change is hard, but change is good as well. It's hard, but basically it's inevitable, it's happening. Everybody's getting a new role in here. If you're going from a paper-pushing organization to the digital world and the forefront of the digital world, around Sterling there, Sterling Miller, he needs to be on site making money, basically not down at the permit office over the counter. Might work for MidTimes, but business, construction, contractors, subcontractors, all need to be basically on site making money to stay afloat, not standing in line. And I remember the day, pulling that ticker and seeing the people, why are they pulling three tickets? They're pulling three tickets because they don't want to talk to that person or that person, and they're basically deciding who they want to talk. So taking all of that out of it can only be a good thing and brings in the 21st century where we should have been ahead of anybody else because we are, San Francisco is great. So I wish you well on it all, wish us all well on it, and I'd make a motion to adopt.

Second.

Thank you. Commissioner So.

So I really appreciate that. I didn't time how long it took you to tell us everything about what you and your team had gone through since like a whole year gone by, right? And also especially since the mayor addressed the city, the state of the city earlier in the beginning of this year. Also need to thank Sarah Dennis-Phillips to allow the staff to have such a great collaborations across so many different agencies. I really personally thought it was just really try to get the building permit and the planning permit, but now we adopted so many friends from our city, including the SFIM permit. So that's a really huge effort, but I think for the long run, it will put San Francisco above everybody, above every city, because currently, I personally had also experienced some interesting permitting experiences in our neighboring counties that is very, very antiquated, to borrow your word. So I look forward to have this robust, really working system for the entire city families, not just planning permit or building permit. We're talking about every permit sounds like there is under the sun. But however, though, I do want to ask a few things about, because we just keep kind of, a lot of our friends keep kind of joining this, what do you call it, joining the movement. And so how do you prioritize what is going to be NEED TO FOCUS FIRST BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY WE ARE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND NOW WE ARE JOINING FORCES WITH DBI AND PERMIT SF. WE HAVE OUR AGENCY ARE PRIORITIZING ON IMPROVING THE LAND USE RELATED MATTERS, RIGHT? SO HOW DO YOU HELP US OUT HERE? HOW DO WE PRIORITIZE?

WHAT COMES NEXT?

Yes, yes. And then how can we help our public to get a better understanding? Because knowing that this upcoming few years is going to be a lot of pivoting and learning, and we are definitely very nimble and agile. seeing your contract amount and now knowing what you're actually, your scope is like kind of when like this, like a fireworks exploded. I mean, like, so it's a two-part question. How do, what are we prioritizing and how do you inform the public moving forward?

Absolutely. So certainly at a macro level, what we're prioritizing is housing and small businesses. But also, we have to think about what are the actual permits that lead to those. To build housing, it's just a new construction permit. In San Francisco, we right now don't have a housing new construction permit and a commercial new construction permit. We have a new construction permit. So our approach is A, starting small. So I think part of our process is going to be for those two industries, small business and housing production, what's kind of the easiest, as we say a lot, like what's the happy path? What's sort of the easy version of both of those? let's not try to think about the worst case scenario first. Let's just try to iterate off of the simple use case. But let's also weigh those factors. So we have those policy factors of what permit types we're interested in going next. But there are also other factors into this. There's what agencies have no system right now. So for example, the planning department, we're actually kind of the best of the bunch. We have a relatively contemporary software system that actually collects data and we can report off of. So although we are eager and ready to pivot off of that system, we also have a functional system that does work for us. There are other agencies that literally their software is either nonexistent or no longer being supported by their software vendor. So that needs to take a level of priority, of what agency is in the most urgent place technologically speaking. So that needs to be part of our rubric, if you will, of thinking about prioritization. And then I think there are a handful of other factors thinking through. for example, looking at what the software product is and are there things that we would want differently available in the product in order to reimagine a certain type of permit. And so we want to make sure the tool matches our desired future state need but is also aligned with the agency's most urgent needs. So there may be instances where an agency's urgent need involves permits that maybe aren't housing and small business, but they literally have no system, and we need to get everyone into a contemporary system. So some of these things basically don't have a perfect answer for you as part of this. This is literally the work that we're going to be kicking off end of August, early September to be thinking about this. But these are the things that we're going to be talking about developing kind of like weighted scores on this. And likely, it will be a package each. How we've broken the contract up is into what we're calling project charters. But I think of them as little phases of delivery. And within each phase, we are going to sit down and think about what should come next policy-wise, and then think through in real world that of, do we have everything we need to succeed? Do we have the right team partners? We're going to work through that and make sure that everything we want to deliver aligns with all of those priorities. We also would love to hear from people. If our customers have strong feelings about what should go next and are really, really excited what big pain points are, we would love to hear from them as well. So I'm sorry. That was the first part of your question. I forgot what your second part of your question was.

The second part was because things are ever, but things are evolving, right? You mentioned phase one. We took care of a lot of the low-hanging fruit, the basic plumbing permit things, right? And then you have that set of data. But then moving to phase two, you are going to expand to more complicated permit applications. Then your set of data will be different. But my second part of the question is, like, how can a general public keep up with understanding of where things are. If I have to answer an auntie asking me what to do about her coffee shop in the middle of Chinatown, I'm not sure. Should it just open to a particular website and it's just going to change overnight?

So we would say a couple of things. We are, and we can certainly always do better on this, but we are really focused of having our Permit SF web page be very transparent. And we've got a great landing page for what's accessible digitally and a lot of details on how to pull different types of permits with direct links into the system. So that will be maintained. But one of the things, again, part of our we are improving how we're communicating part of what I was talking about earlier, is that we are planning on publicizing what's coming next a little bit better so that we may not know what's coming in a year. But as we're focused on each charter, each next phase, we will be publicizing that so at least folks know what to expect over the next three to six months for delivery so people can plan accordingly. Most people aren't actively working on their permit applications for a year out. They might be thinking about their project, but they're not as concerned about form of paperwork filing. But we will be giving as much lead time on our website as possible, doing things like the customer forum. For example, we had one yesterday that's open to the public, in-person workshops with folks, smaller focus groups, that sort of thing. Again, really tailored to what we're planning on launching.

Okay, I do have my one last thing is I really agree with you, and we definitely need to do better. Already we're doing pretty good, but we can do better. Now we have other, we collaborate or group with three departments, so good customer service is very important. how many times I personally mortified just to get a permit from DBI. I can't count how many times I personally got mortified. I like really being treated not as professional as it could be. This is not when I was serving on this particular commission. But I just want to make sure that whatever we're doing, had a way to incentivize our own staff to have a good customer service. And also, I do believe we can streamline a lot of things with an electronic portal and all that. But what really, at the end of the day, it's a human touch. like they wanted to at least get to talk to someone, like what's wrong with my comments? How can I answer those comments? Or maybe how can we, how can the project sponsor explain better to any given plan check reviewer what is the real issues? Because I just want to make sure that that doesn't go away. The inception of accepting the project is becoming more agnostic and automatic, but at the end of the day, there is a human touch there, and that human, our staff, better be professional and friendly, not being like... whatever they used to be, try to be really discriminatory to people of color.

And what I would say is I think the vast majority of instances that I've seen in my experience working for the city where there has been frustration from customers in terms of our customer service, a lot of times the genesis of that frustration is that, A, the materials that were submitted were not complete, didn't sort of address the items that were needed because we weren't asking the right questions. And then our staff weren't communicating what's wrong clearly because we don't have standardized comments. a clear way to communicate often graphic issues. I find it's very difficult to verbally communicate things on architectural plans. It's much easier when you can talk from the plans. And so I would say, through technology and smarter questions and more intentional prompting of customers for information about their project, and then a more strategic way for us to do plan review and standardize our comments and our feedback. I do think that's going to address 80 plus percent of some of that frustration of the customer service frustration. But I agree with you, part of this effort is to also make sure that our staff are able to focus the highest and best use of their skill set. And I agree with you, there will always be the need for our staff to be able to sit down with customers and have detailed policy conversation about the substance. But I do think it sometimes helps take the temperature out of the room when that substantive conversation can be the first interaction, rather than round five, because they've been going back and forth on details that really should have been There's a frustration on both sides that sometimes comes from that. And I think that's where we can do a better job building the right questions, building standardization into the tools to sort of bring down that temperature to have that initial conversation be more structured. So I do think that. And at the end of the day, in a digital system, communication will now be tracked, it'll be visible, and it'll be part of the record. And so I do think there's a level of accountability that also will be there for managers in those hopefully very one-off cases of somebody not having appropriate customer service. We will now have the data as managers to be able to leverage that and really have more focused conversations as well.

Great. Thank you. And then that ties into the QR code, right? That's just, like, give us your feedback. Yeah, absolutely. All right. Thank you, Liz. I'm done with my comments.

Okay, thank you. Thank you so much for the presentation. SF permit is something we've been hearing a lot about, but getting a window into what you all have accomplished in the last year and where we're heading is fantastic. And I love that there's vision, right? That there's... I loved hearing, as someone that is, you know, my side, you know, my other job is I am one of your customers, you know, and my colleagues are your customers, and I think... approaching it not for what's easy for us, but what's the customer experience, I think, is going to be game changing. And this permit rationalization, one permit, separate streams, is going to be amazing. And that kind of broader asking why, I think, will go a long, long way. There's always this instinct to want to add to solve problems, but subtracting and really trying to get to the bottom of it, I think, kind of like what we just talked about with the CEQA amendments, I think, is going to go a long way. So great work. I think this was something we talked about not that long ago, how ironic it is that here we are in the epicenter of AI and adjacent to Silicon Valley, and yet we have so much work to do from a technology perspective, which is this OpenGov contract is what's before us now. I guess one question, and that's what's going to help us get there, but one question I had was it's a large sum of money that we're talking about over five years. Could you talk a little bit about should things not go as planned over the next couple of years? If things start to come off the rails, what does that look like? Do we have options to pull the ripcord and change direction?

Absolutely, yes. And I would say one of the biggest structural focuses that we weaved into this, the balance or the needle we were trying to thread on this is A, We haven't yet done all the permit rationalization, and we want to get going on that. So we don't yet know exactly what permits we want to design in what way 18 months from now. We haven't figured that out yet. So how do we... structure a contract that will be effectively deliverable-based without knowing the exact deliverables. And that was the needle we tried to thread. So the solution that we came up with is creating project charters. And we have the first two fairly well-baked because, again, those are sooner. We kind of have an idea of what we want to tackle straight up in the next few months. But these project charters are effectively each phase. And within that, how it's going to work is we are basically going to work together as a city of what we want to tackle first. We're then going to work closely with OpenGov to make sure that that's feasible, understand all of the interdependencies that are necessary for that to be successful. And then the payment structure is structured within that phase. So we're not releasing funds just willy-nilly. The funding is released for that phase and within milestones within that phase. So the bulk of their payment effectively doesn't come until we have a product delivered. And so part of it will be when our testing is done, and then part of it will be post go-live of those deliverables is when the final payment of that phase happens. So if the testing doesn't go well, we don't pay. If there's something broken along the way, if the product doesn't get delivered, we have not sunk much money in. We've got some initial funding to do the kickoff and the discovery work, appropriately so, as their professional services are being used. But we will not pay if we don't get a final product delivered at that sort of is as defined at the beginning of that charter. And then when that's successfully done, we kick off the next one and that same protocol sort of rinse and repeat throughout the full term of the five year contract. And again, we really hope that within the first three years is what our current plan is, that we won't actually need their professional services beyond year three, because also as part of this is sort of the knowledge transfer plan where, you know, at this stage we are building up our knowledge but they still hold more knowledge to how we build out new permit types. By the end of the three years, we hope that sort of those lines have crossed and we have enough knowledge to basically handle this ourselves.

That's super helpful to understand. The project charters are ones that, is that something you just, as part of your presentation, do we know what those are?

They're embedded in the scope of work that's associated with the contract that the Board of Supervisors will act on. That framework though, that framework is what the contract is all about. And there's greater detail around the first. And this is where probably my level of detail ends. Rebecca Mayer, who's handling the contract, is here, who helped draft all of this and negotiate it. But we have that level of details there. And I can follow up with you separately if you'd like to see what those are.

Without creating more, this is so informative, without creating more work, is it possible we could do this at some healthy cadence? Absolutely. Whether it's annual or just to kind of understand what happened in the last year and where are we headed now?

I think it would actually be really appropriate as we kick this off, either when we kick off every phase or when we wrap every phase and or, that we can do that. We're happy to come back.

Fantastic. You mentioned an invitation to the public for feedback, and there's workshops and things like that. Is there an easy way for customers to provide feedback on the website?

Again, if you go to Permit SF, just Google Permit SF. I don't know the exact URL, but it's the first hit. There's an email and a form where the public can give us feedback, and we've gotten a lot of feedback over the last year.

Great. I'm curious, maybe, I don't know, I'm going to put you on the spot here, but in my organization, we often talk about big, hairy, audacious goals. I'd be curious to know what yours are for SF permit in the long run.

I mean, my personal goal, and I'm not exactly sure, well, I'm sure somebody can measure this at the end, but HCD said that we had the longest permitting timelines in the state. My goal is that when this is over, we have some of the shortest in the state, and we're the gold standard for government technology.

Love it. Thank you.

If there are no further questions, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval on that motion. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 4-0. and places us on item 10 for case number 2025-012151 PCA for the 100% affordable housing planning code amendment.

Do you mind if we take a little break? I don't mind at all.

Members of the public and SFGov, we're going to take a five minute recess.

SFGov TV. San Francisco Government Television. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon and welcome back to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, July 23rd, 2026. Commissioners, we left off under your regular calendar on item 10 for case number 2025-012151PCA for the 100% affordable housing planning code amendment.

DAVID HERNANDEZ- Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm David Hernandez-Garcia, planning staff. I'm joined by Lisa Gluckstein, Carly Graub of the planning department, and Sheila Nicolopoulos of MOCD, who will be available to answer questions at the end of this presentation. We are also joined by Charlie Schiammas, who will speak on behalf of Supervisor Chen with some considerations. Thank you for having us to consider the proposed 100% affordable housing planning code amendments. This legislation was introduced by Mayor Daniel Lurie on December 9, 2025, as part of permit SF initiatives to support housing production in San Francisco. I'll start by laying out key challenges facing 100% affordable housing and residential care facilities. From there, I'll walk through the proposed ordinance package and highlight feedback we've received. San Francisco continues to face major barriers to delivering 100% affordable housing amidst scarce and highly competitive funding sources. Development costs remain extremely high, averaging upwards of $1 million per unit. Projects often spend five to seven years in pre-development, during which holding costs can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Commercial space requirements add further complications. MoCD's preliminary analysis of 332 commercial units in affordable housing buildings found vacancy rates of 25% in the Tenderloin and 19% across District 5. Affordable housing developers report that ground floor spaces can sit empty for years and require costly build outs, diverting limited resources from housing. MOCD's vacant commercial spaces funding program aims to offset these expenses, but leasing them continues to be very difficult and resources are limited in what they can support. Mid-block alley requirements also limit feasibility by reducing developable area and introducing additional infrastructure costs. In some cases, such as 1234 Great Highway, these constraints make 100% affordable housing infeasible without seeking additional waivers. Residential care facilities face rising operating costs and evolving care needs, leading some to close and being sold on the private market. Converting these buildings to 100% affordable housing requires a conditional use authorization, adding yet another procedural hurdle. These examples represent only a portion of the challenges facing affordable housing production, but they illustrate the broader context in which this ordinance attempts to address key pain points and improve feasibility. The ordinance focuses on three key goals. First, it streamlines processes and reduces uncertainties so 100% affordable housing can move forward faster. Second, it strengthens feasibility, helping more projects advance with limited resources. And third, it creates a path for converting unviable residential care facilities into 100% affordable housing. Together, these changes make delivering affordable homes in San Francisco easier, faster, and more predictable. To begin, it removes ground floor active use and commercial requirements, which currently can be waived under state density bonus law. It also exempts 100% affordable housing from mid-block alley requirements that can reduce developable area and add infrastructure costs. These changes let affordable housing developers focus scarce funding on producing housing and improving project feasibility. In addition to removing these use and design requirements, this ordinance would also allow temporary uses on future affordable sites as soon as they enter MoCD's pre-development pipeline, rather than waiting until a development application is submitted. Allowing earlier activation creates opportunities for interim revenue generating uses, such as a parking lot or a small business, that can offset holding costs and support local economic activity. Without an interim use, holding costs can be $500,000 a year, which is paid from affordable housing funds. Sites could also host community serving uses such as tiny homes or other services that deter property damage and improve neighborhood safety. Overall, these changes keep long inactive sites productive and activate community serving uses during multi-year pre-development periods. In addition, the ordinance creates a new adaptive reuse program to convert unviable residential care facilities into 100% affordable housing. The program exempts these conversions from standards that never applied to RCFs, such as certain design requirements, density controls, bike parking, and impact fees, and allows essential enlargements and modifications to support feasibility while retaining the existing structure. Overall, it provides a predictable pathway to transform aging RCF buildings into long-term affordable homes and ensures they continue serving vulnerable communities. In short, the ordinance removes costly ground floor commercial and mid-block alley requirements, allows temporary uses earlier in the pre-development process, and creates streamlined pathways to convert older residential care facilities into 100% affordable housing. These updates improve feasibility and make delivery of affordable homes more predictable. Our outreach included conversations with affordable housing developers such as Mercy Housing, TNDC, and CCDC, RCF providers such as Self-Help for the Elderly, and community organizations including SF Safe House, which is currently converting a former RCF building to affordable housing, Choo Choo, and United to Save the Mission. OVERALL, THE FEEDBACK WAS SUPPORTIVE AND PROVIDED IMPORTANT REVISIONS THAT HELPED SHAPE MANY ASPECTS OF THE ORDINANCE AND WILL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS. WE HEARD MEANINGFUL CONCERNS FROM REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MISSION ACTION PLAN 2030 LAND USE AND PLACE KEEPING COMMITTEE REINFORCED BY CHUCHU. These community advocates highlighted that removing commercial space requirements could reduce opportunities in neighborhoods such as the Mission, where immigrant-owned businesses and community-based nonprofits have relied on and leveraged these spaces to provide culturally specific services. We continue to be in conversation with these advocates, especially in the mission, to consider exemptions for Mission Calle 24 and parts of Valencia. And we will continue to work with District 11 to address some of the concerns that Charlie Chamas will bring up in a moment. We value this engagement and support and the continued presence of community serving commercial spaces through leasing support and funding opportunities. It is worth noting that the ordinance does not prohibit such spaces and allows them where they support feasibility or meet community needs. We'll continue to connect with community organizations, RCF operators, and affordable housing developers over the next few weeks. We expect this to be heard by the Board of Supervisors in September 26. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance, which removes key barriers, supports adaptive reuse of RCFs, and strengthens the production pipeline for 100% affordable housing in San Francisco. Thank you so much for your time and attention. We're happy to answer questions. Before that, it's a pleasure to introduce Charlie Shamas of the District 11 Supervisor's Office to share some concerns.

Good afternoon, President Campbell and members of the Commission. I'm Charlie Chalmers here on behalf of Supervisor Cheyenne Chen. Thank you, David, and for the opportunity to speak before the Commission. I just want to start with the basic framework that fostering active community serving ground floor spaces in 100% affordable projects has delivered some outstanding outcomes for building residents in the broader community. One example is in District 11, where in recent years, new 100% affordable projects have created opportunities to leverage a new childcare center, a youth arts center, a neighborhood cafe, a bicycle cooperative, and a full-service community health clinic in a neighborhood that is very underserved. Of the seven ground floor spaces that were created, only one has resulted in a vacancy. Citywide, affordable housing projects have also anchored vital neighborhood services, cultural hubs, and economic infrastructure. This model has created strong, stable, and mutually beneficial partnerships that are often much harder to achieve with private storefront spaces. Providing these ground floor partnerships has not come without challenges as affordable housing developers have to compete in an increasingly cost-constrained environment and there's insufficient funding and incentives to deliver the community development outcomes the requirement intended to produce. A related aspect is ensuring that affordable housing developers and local communities have the tools they need to make this program successful. This includes the extent of support, investments, and incentives such as those that the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development can provide. Supervisor Chen would like to work on amendments in partnership with community stakeholders and the department that would leave the legislation unchanged citywide And in the priority equity geographies, it would provide for affordable housing developers that meet certain objective standards for due diligence in seeking to fulfill the requirement to qualify for a waiver. We're aware that there are discussions to completely exempt commercial corridors in the Mission District from this legislation, and this amendment would not impact those corridors. Thank you for your consideration.

Okay, if that concludes staff presentation, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this matter. We need to come forward.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Annie Chung. I'm with Self-Help for the Elderly. So I'd like to make also just a very few comments on the proposed resolution. First, Self-Help is a nonprofit provider for both 100% affordable housing as well as affordable RCFE, which stands for Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly. We support the staff's recommendations on making the transition from RCFE that are faced with closures into affordable housing units, which are acutely needed for San Francisco's low-income and aging residents. We also strongly support the new proposed project that would allow projects to include community-serving uses, such as childcare centers, as Charlie ever mentioned and also David, but also senior and community centers and service centers on the ground floor rather than mandating that the developers have to rent it for commercial use. These recommended changes would reduce barriers and help streamline the production of more 100% affordable housing units, which are so desperately needed in San Francisco. We also like to recommend that the Commission and the planning staff continue to study and find ways to support existing small to midsize RCFEs, facilities that only have six to, say, 30 beds. These facilities are facing tremendous pressure to stay open and provide essential 24-7 housing as well as care services for very rapidly aging and frail seniors. We have discussed this with David and the planning staff and also some supervisors regarding the urgency of preserving and strengthening this viable service and making this type of long-term care affordable to seniors on fixed incomes before all the small and mid-sized RCFE facilities start to disappear. Self-help memory care, RCFE that takes care of 15 seniors that have Alzheimer's and dementia, charges only 50% of market rate. And we could only do it because we have a secure HUD housing subsidies and a grant from DARS to subsidize our operation. We understand and experience the intense pressure for owners of small facilities and urge the Planning Commission to work with us and work with the community for more sustainable and affordable RCFE. So we're in support with David's recommendation. Thank you.

Okay. Good afternoon, President Campbell and commissioners. My name is Jessica Rubio. I am the policy director at Mission Economic Development Agency. While we're here to support the streamlining of temporary uses for affordable housing developments, we are here also to request two simple and targeted amendments for the Mission District. One is to continue to apply the ground floor activation requirement on Mission NCT and 24th Street NCT, and to do the same on Valencia Street, only for corner lots on 16th Street and 22nd Street. Ground floor activation is essential for street safety, vibrant cultural corridors, and wealth building for immigrant businesses and entrepreneurs. Removing this requirement risks creating dead zones on our most vital corridors. We fully recognize as a developer as well that funding and managing ground floor commercial spaces can be challenging for affordable housing developers. BUT WHEN WE ADDRESS THIS IN COLLABORATION WITH DESIGNATED RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT, THE POSITIVE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY IS IMMENSE. FOR EXAMPLE, THROUGH OUR COLLABORATION WITH OUR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND WITH OEWD RESOURCES, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACTIVATE MOST OF OUR SMALL SITES AND LARGE SITES ground floors, bringing back organizations who were displaced or allowing business owners to continue to stay in the neighborhood. These include childcare centers, beauty salons, nonprofit organizations on youth, arts, and other community services. So we are here to please ask you to approve these simple amendments to protect the Mission District. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Alex Santiago, and I am a 21-year-old college student who interns in the Mission District. Every day that I go to work, I pass through the 16th Mission BART station. And I wanted to note how my sense of comfort is really reliant on those community members and small businesses that follow along the Mission Street as I make my commute to work. It's the local store owners and the nonprofit organizations on that street whose open eyes and open ears make me really feel at ease and comfortable as I make my commute. And we know that vacancy and abandonment are vessels for crime, and without grant floor activation requirements, the Mission to Street runs the risk of replacing a lot of its vibrancy with abandonment, and a lot of its healthy commerce with dilapidation, which could potentially allow for crime. This is why I urge you to continue to apply the ground floor activation requirements on Mission and 24th Street NCT zoning, and to secondly do the same on Valencia Street, only for corner lots on 16th and 22nd. I ask you to do this for safer streets and for a safer Mission. Thank you so much.

Okay, last call for public comment. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Braun?

Generally, I'm very pleased I think that the changes in this legislation make a lot of sense. They're reasonable. They seem like a really good set of steps towards accelerating and supporting the production of affordable housing in the city. I don't really have any concerns at all with the temporary uses, mid-block alleys, or conversion of residential care facilities components of this. But I did want to dig a little bit into the ground floor commercial and active use requirements change for affordable housing projects. So the arguments for supporting that change make a lot of sense to me. The difficulties in filling that space, the possibilities that the building could use it for something a little bit more supportive and helpful for the residents, even if it's not a public-facing space. I would like to understand if we don't have an active or commercial use on the ground floor, what controls do we have to ensure that that ground floor does not become just a dead space along potentially a commercial corridor? If it just becomes a set of blank walls or utility doors throughout most of the facade, that seems like a pretty worrisome thing that could really discourage people from continuing to make their way down the sidewalk or feeling safe going down the sidewalk. What are we talking about for ensuring that there's still quality pedestrian-oriented design at those ground levels? Thank you for that question, Commissioner Braun.

So part of the work that you all did in reviewing and approving the citywide design standards are actually one of the key things that we rely on to ensure that the street level, whether it's a storefront or whether it's simply space a part of that building, is going to be meeting pedestrians in a way that's both inviting, that is supporting the pedestrian and public realm. So those guidelines lay out key, very defined, objective standards that are both architectural and talking about design, different treatments that affordable housing or any user who applies the standards can use. And with ministerial projects, those are applied to all projects who go through those processes. So those will still be applicable. So we definitely still care very much and really appreciate the work and thought that you all went through when we approved those back in.

2024 I believe okay, and I think there's also a reference that currently it's a possibility for these or Correct me if I got this wrong, but but basically with state density bonus Some affordable housing projects have been waving out of these active use ground floor requirements. Is that actually a track record of? projects doing that or Just you know a possibility

Yes, and I can invite my colleague to add a little bit more detail on how many projects, but there has been. It's been a major trend. But go ahead, Carly. Thanks, Debbie.

Hi, Carly Grobe, planning staff. Many of the 100% affordable projects that we see do seek some waiver or incentive from a number of ground floor controls. We're looking at active uses and also commercial requirements. Sometimes they are able to meet some of those requirements, but the technical application to those projects can sometimes be very challenging to meet. In some cases, it's because of the site constraints. You know, sometimes we get affordable housing parcels that are a little odd-shaped or sort of the end of a block, so the requirements may be more significant, or it's a competition of programs. So there's certain streamlining programs, and, you know, for example, permanent supportive housing often requires some of that space to be dedicated to services instead of commercial uses. So we do see a significant number of waivers from those controls.

OK, thank you. That's helpful. I think just from my perspective, I could support legislation as is. But I do think it will be important to continue to have this conversation as this legislation moves forward to determine if there are potentially locations where this might not apply, as has been raised. I don't think I necessarily would need that in the motion of supporting legislation. Hopefully those conversations can continue and see what might come of them. And I will say I reside near a recently completed affordable housing project near Valencia and Cesar Chavez. And it's not, as far as I know anyway, it's not active uses on that ground floor. And it is a high level of design. Now, that's not on a really active level. high foot traffic kind of commercial corridor right there. But even so, I've seen some positive results from a building that does not have active or commercial uses on most of the front, most of the ground floor on it. So at the same time, I take the point that the concern about wanting to ensure the continued vibrancy and safety of our commercial areas. But with that said, I don't see any other commissioners seeking to make comments. So I make a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval of the legislation.

I second it.

Okay, if there's no further deliberation, Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval. On that motion, Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously four to zero. Placing us on items 11A and B for case numbers 2025-004469, CWP-02 for the San Francisco Shoreline Adaptation Plan informational presentation and consideration of a resolution.

Good afternoon, President Campbell, commissioners. My name is Tam Tran. I am the resilience lead and a principal planner in the community planning division. I've come to you before to ask for some commission actions related to grant funding for the shoreline adaptation plan. And today, we're here to ask for one more final commission action for the last piece of grant funding that we got from the state. We also want to take the opportunity to give you a detailed overview of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan as we begin to ramp up our work. The last time I came to you, I came alone. And so I'm really excited today to come as a part of a team to complete this work. This includes the project manager Danielle Ngo, Amnon Ben-Pazi, David Garcia, and Sarah Richardson. Also part of our team is Alex Morrison and Eric Vaughn from the Office of Resilience and Capital Planning. Most of us are here in the chamber today. And with that, I want to hand the mic to Danielle Ngo.

Slides, please. Great. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners and members of the public. I'm Danielle Ngo, senior planner in the community planning division. Today I'll be sharing a high-level overview to explain our project's purpose and goals, kicking off our project's launch. This item also includes a draft resolution, as Tam mentioned, for your review and action. We welcome comments and questions from the commissioners and members of the public about what you hope this project achieves for the city's long-term resilience to sea level rise. As we launch our project, we'll do our best to incorporate your feedback into both the process and outcome of our work. We'll start with our project's purpose and goals, explain the regulatory landscape, and invite you all to forthcoming outreach and engagement opportunities. Why do we need a shoreline plan? Our top line message is that globally, sea levels are rising, and here in San Francisco, we're already seeing the effects. On the right hand side, you'll see recent photos of how sea level rise can flood our shoreline, making spaces dangerous to visit, overtopping pathways, and inching closer to buildings and people. Scientific projections suggest that over 10% of the city could face frequent and permanent flooding in the coming years. The city's neighborhoods, parks, and critical infrastructure are at risk, and without coordinated action, the damages to the city will threaten our communities, environment, and the economy, and will be very costly to fix. We must plan for coordinated action before things worsen even further. So what will the shoreline plan do to address these needs? The shoreline plan will guide how San Francisco prepares its shoreline for sea level rise, flood hazards, and extreme storm impacts. It'll build upon past and ongoing efforts addressing sea level rise throughout the city. In some areas, we need to fill gaps in planning. In other areas, we need to pick up where we left off. There will also be extra focus to areas that are most vulnerable to sea level rise. Throughout the project, community input and the latest scientific knowledge will help determine what's at risk and what should be in our adaptation plan. Our work will occur over the next two years, anticipating completion by late 2028, plus local adoptions and regulatory approval through early 2029. As I mentioned, this is not the first time the City has tackled sea level rise. We're lucky that we're not starting at square one. We have over a decade of work to build upon. Citywide, we have the Sea Level Rise Action Plan from 2016 and the Sea Level Rise Vulnerability and Consequences Assessment from 2020. The Shoreline Plan will update the VCA using the latest scientific information. We also have a number of area specific work throughout the city led by numerous agencies like the ports waterfront resilience program and Titus major development the shoreline plan will stitch together these efforts into a cohesive citywide plan a The department is leading this work with the Office of Resilience and Capital Planning. Thanks again to Eric Vaughn for joining us in the room today. We can't do this work successfully without the broad partnership and expertise of numerous city agencies. We're convening a working group with the agencies you see on the screen, ensuring that our plan is enriched by their support and subject matter expertise. Beyond the shoreline plan, the management and implementation of coastal adaptation is the responsibility of the city agencies with jurisdiction as owners and managers of shoreline areas and assets. The shoreline plan is entirely grant funded, detailed on the screen. And thank you to the state's Ocean Protection Council and the Coastal Commission for the planning grants awarded to us, totaling about $2.8 million. As Tam mentioned, we're here today for the third and last grant as a draft resolution in your staff report. Adoption of the attached resolution by the Planning Commission is required by the Ocean Protection Council to secure the grant award of about $664,000. Staff recommends the Commission to adopt this resolution. Now we'll talk about the regulatory landscape. In 2023, State Senator Laird passed Senate Bill 272 for sea level rise planning and adaptation. Laird represents District 12 for reference, encompassing the counties of Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo. SB 272 requires local governments along the state's coastline to create a sea level rise adaptation plan. The plan must use the best available science, include a vulnerability assessment, including inequity analysis for at-risk communities, analyze the economic impact, determine adaptation strategies and recommended projects, and identify lead agencies. Once local jurisdictions complete their plan and receive approval from regulatory agencies, they become prioritized for implementation funding from the state. So SB 272 set the requirement for local governments to plan for sea level rise. Then local governments are directed to use the latest scientific understanding and the latest adaptation planning principles from the state's Ocean Protection Council. and plans must be approved by their respective regulatory agencies. For San Francisco, our shoreline along the Pacific Ocean is regulated by the California Coastal Commission, and our shoreline in the San Francisco Bay is regulated by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Both agencies have published guidance to support efforts complying with SB 272. The shoreline plan will be a substantive body of work for the city, with numerous components seeking approval from numerous policy bodies. This graphic outlines the anticipated actions, timeline, and pertinent bodies involved, informed by the policy requirements from 272 and the regulatory requirements from CCC and BCDC. Additionally, the project team is available to visit other agencies' policy bodies as needed. All things considered, here is a high-level walkthrough of our work. First, the shoreline plan will identify what's important to communities and the city. What's our long-term vision and long-term goals for sea level rise resilience? Second, we'll identify what's at risk and what consequences we may face without concerted action. Who's most vulnerable, what's most vulnerable, and where? Third, we'll identify how the city can protect and manage future risk. What are the specific adaptation strategies? Who will lead them? How much will it cost? And what other policy changes do we need? Hand in hand, the project team will conduct public outreach all throughout to inform development of this work. So on that, the shoreline plan will be a community-based planning process, meaning a collaborative process where people who care about the shoreline help guide every major step of preparing the plan. Robust outreach and engagement will ensure that local knowledge informs development. On the screen, you'll see a high level description of how we're organizing our outreach and engagement so far. We'll have general outreach, things like our website, our mailing list. We'll have targeted outreach based in neighborhoods and communities most at risk of sea level rise. We'll have strategic touch points here and there, like key informant interviews, as well as a group of community partners, which I'll describe on the next slide. One prong of our outreach will be a group convened regularly throughout the planning process, and we're calling them Shoreline Community Partners. This group will be comprised of representatives from affected and vulnerable communities, local businesses, property owners, the people most affected by projected sea level rise. The Shoreline community partners will support our team, providing input on outreach, vision, and other planned components, as well as supporting us connecting with the community as far and wide as we can and addressing these community concerns as they arise. We're forming the group now, so anyone is welcome to respond to our online interest form. Please respond by August 4th, and we will follow up. Again, robust outreach and engagement will ensure our plan reflects real community needs, your needs, our needs, and strengthens the city's collective response to projected sea level rise and shoreline change. We welcome everyone to participate as much as they can in our forthcoming opportunities, like participating in events, sharing your knowledge, as well as reaching out to the team directly. We're happy to share that our website is live, sfplanning.org slash shoreline plan. You can check out our work on your own time, sign up for our mailing list, and explore the fact sheet. And you can also see our team's email address, where you can reach out directly for your ideas and questions. So thank you for this opportunity to share about our work, and we look forward to your feedback and review of our resolution.

OK. If that concludes staff presentation, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item.

Hi, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Vivette Brackett again. I just want to say thank you for the presentation about the Yosemite SLO project. I also wanted to say that I have the privilege and benefit of being here today at this 1 o'clock to 4 o'clock meeting. But many people in my community and in this community surrounding Yosemite Sloan does not have that same opportunity and benefit to be able to come forth today. I would hope that the Planning Commission may think about equity in terms of meeting space as well. Some other commissions have sometimes had their meetings in the evening when certain specific topics address a neighborhood that may be disadvantaged to be able to get more public comment or more response on issues and stuff like that and things that they would like to see. I'm excited about the Yosemite SLO project, especially because I did a lot of events at India Basin during the pandemic before India Basin was actually fixed and we were part of the crew that did brunches there and worked with Phil Ginsberg with Park and Rec to get social distance hearts drawn over in that area and seeing that whole area built up and being used as public space now and it being a beautiful park especially further down by Indian Basin and stuff like that where I've also done free cooking classes for people in community Those projects and things happen, but a lot of times community does not get enough awareness and we really need more investment and resources. And these projects, not just in terms of community outreach, but resources so that people can participate and also planning some of these events in a collective manner so that people are more aware of what's happening. I know a lot of people are concerned about kind of what's going to happen along Third Street in terms of transportation issues with SFMTA and being able to get back and forth with the closing of the bridge and stuff like that. So just wanted to give those few comments. So thank you again.

Good afternoon, Commission. Evangela wanted to speak for Bayview overall. As one of the colleagues just mentioned, we need to be at every part of things that are happening in our community. And when it comes to outreach, when it comes to having these type of conversations, so we can know what's going on from the day to day, not only for us to be aware, but if there is something that we can help fix before it comes to y'all, so we are in agreement and in alignment as community There has been things that have not been in agreement with us. And I know that it's important and they believe in getting communities backing. So I want to make sure that that is driven home today, that if you want the communities backing, you have to get into the community and talk to the community and work with the community beyond the outreach when it comes to being partners, but also walking the walk with us. Thank you.

Last call for public comment. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner So?

Well, I'm always supportive of this effort. I did mention early on, like, we really is, like, climate resiliency, we need to really adapt. And I'm grateful to see that we have a really good team of staff to create that continuity. And I would assume that we are doing the heavy lifting to kind of bring all the other city agencies together to do this effort with us. As I remember when I was serving on the board of directors on SFMTA, we quickly identified like there's this sea level rising and everybody needs to work together along the entire shoreline. So I'm just super happy we are continuing this effort and I greatly appreciate today staff I mentioned that our website is live, and I hope that the general public will find themselves easier to reach the right group of people and get an immediate response to whatever question they have. And again, I think it is a good approach to have our public directly seek information from our department. So I'm in full support of that. I think item A is just informational. Item B, 11B is adoption. So I motion to adopt.

Commissioner Braun.

I don't have extensive comments to share over my time and Over the last four years, I've heard about this plan as well as some of the other plans that were mentioned for sea level rise adaptation. And it's just good to see over time how this work is moving forward and how we are identifying resources to keep it moving forward and to continue the prioritization to continue efforts to ensure that there is a lot of community dialogue and inputs to these processes as well. So this has my full support. Thank you.

Thank you. I echo the sentiment, incredibly important work. Um, it's a very long term investment in our city that we need to be making. Um, and we do hear along the way, um, the other efforts that are, um, that have an initiatives that have, um, been going on. So it's really, exciting to see that we'll be filling in the remaining gaps and coordinating strategies and then coming out of it with a land use plan and implementation roadmap and funding strategies. And I, of course, support deeply the community public stakeholder feedback. This work is highly technical, too, so I do want to just make sure we're balancing that out. the community engagement with the technical work that this is going to entail, all the assessments, flood modeling, adaptation strategies, evaluations. Yeah, I just want to thank the staff for their work on this and what's coming up. I can't wait to see where we're heading with this and the outcomes, and happy to support it. And I think that's all of our comments. I think that's it. And we have a seconded motion.

So I can thank you. Okay, commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt the resolution on that motion. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 4-0, placing us on item 12 for case number 2026-001608CUA at 230 Anza Street, conditional use authorization.

Good afternoon. President Campbell, members of the commission, Jeff Horn, planning department staff. The item before you is a request for conditional use authorization for planning code section 317 for the demolition of a vacant two-story, two-family residential building at 230 Anza Street within an RTOC zoning district. The product site is located on the north side of Anza Street, between Collins and Wood Streets, on a 2,500 square foot lot. The site is one block to the south of Geary Boulevard, across from USF's Lone Mountain Campus, and two blocks west of the city center shopping center. The demolished building would be replaced with a new 85-foot-tall, eight-story residential building, approximately 15,600 square feet in size with eight units, allowed through the Housing Choice San Francisco program. The proposed unit mix would include a one-bedroom unit, one two-bedroom unit, five three-bedroom units, and one four-bedroom unit. These would all be provided as ownership units. The one-bedroom unit, unit 201, and the two-bedroom unit, unit 701, would be provided as affordable replacement units. The project includes a basement level with three vehicle parking spaces and eight class one bicycle parking spaces. The project is fully compliant with the Housing Choice program's code and with the planning code as a whole. The project will maximize the 85-foot height allowance and provides an 18% rear yard, which is a modified design standard that is built into the ROTC zoning district for Housing Choice projects. The project is not seeking any discretionary modifications from the commission under the Housing Choice program. The project has proposed the demolition of two rent-controlled units, which have been vacant for nearly 10 years. Per State Senate Bill 330, when rent-controlled units are to be replaced with ownership units, the units must be replaced with de-restricted units at 80% of area mean income. As such, the project will provide units 201, a one-bedroom unit, and 701, a two-bedroom unit, as BMRs at 80% AMI, to replace the existing one-bedroom unit and two-bedroom units proposed to be demolished. The project received a statutory exemption from CEQA under State Assembly Bill 130. Two correspondences were received on the project with concerns on the project scale and impacts to the cost of housing within the vicinity of this project site due to the new units. Staff finds the project to be necessary and desirable, as the project would provide six additional family-sized units at the site. within a building that is fully compliant with the housing choice program, the planning code, citywide design standards, and the general plan. And staff recommends the commission to approve with conditions as proposed. This concludes staff's presentation, and I am available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we should hear from the project sponsor. You have five minutes.

A PowerPoint?

Sure. SFGov, can we go to the computer, please? Thank you.

Yes, right there. OK. Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Chuck Wong with CM Wong Architecture. And I'll just talk a little bit about the background and the approach to this project. There's a shortage of housing in San Francisco and the new family zoning plan that was intended to address that shortage along transit corridors, adding homes without mega projects. The new family zoning plan allows for much taller buildings than were previously allowed. There are other areas of the city that allow much taller buildings than our site. Our site height limit went from 40 feet to 85 feet. As one of the first projects, if not the first project proposed under the family zoning plan, our building will naturally appear much bigger than our neighbors. There is just no way to get around that. Over time, when other lots around us develop similar sized buildings, our building will start to blend in. So a little about this project. The project fully complies with the RTOC zoning and the 50 slash 85 R4 height bulk limits enabled by the family zoning plan, as well as the San Francisco design standards. The project provides family-focused housing. The mix includes four three bedrooms and one four-bedroom units to help families stay in San Francisco. The project also provides two affordable units to replace the existing two units. The total net add of six units include larger family homes. The existing two housing units on site have been vacant for many years. This narrow parcel is exactly the type of infill the updated zoning unlocks efficient use of existing land to deliver high quality projects. Overall, I think you can describe our design as contemporary. Some might ask, why didn't we just try to copy or relate to the adjacent buildings? We are surrounded by buildings in all different styles, from nondescript boxes to Victorians. Creating an eight-story building with, let's say, a Victorian style wouldn't really be appropriate. The architecture prioritizes livability and vibrancy over trying to mimic every other older building. With the tall and narrow building envelope, the key to our approach is to articulate the facade to give it more interest. So some of the elements of our design include offsetting the facade to break it up horizontally, The projecting balconies break up the facade vertically. The changing of materials and colors to further break up the facade. Natural and warm colors and wood-look siding accents to blend with the surrounding elements. The glass railings allow clear, unobstructed views around the city. Along the blind property line walls, we emphasized the lines of the panel siding, as well as adding accent color to the panels, which gives it further interest. And also the C-shape and L-shape.

If we go back to the previous.

So you see the C-shape and L-shape at the balconies add a playfulness to the facade. And finally, beauty is subjective, but functionality matters. This project turns vacant residential units into new family size units with balconies overlooking the UCF campus. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

OK, if that concludes sponsored presentation, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item.

Hello, my name is Alan Cohn. I've never attended a commission meeting before, so here we go. I live at 236 Anza, right next door. You saw a picture of it just a second ago, or a drawing of it. And I am here to request that you guys just think carefully about whether it really makes sense to put an eight-story building in the middle of a block that's all mainly two and three story buildings. And it's not that I'm against building. My neighbors to the left and the right, we talk about that property all the time. We're desperate to have something built there. It's an abandoned property. It's covered with, literally covered with a plywood box. And it's been that way for like 10 years. And it's just the definition of an eyesore. But we all thought it was going to be like a three or four story building. That's what we were looking forward to. I'm not an expert. I don't know anything about real estate or zoning codes or any of this stuff. But it just seems kind of weird to me to put an eight story building in the middle of this block where everything else is two and three stories. I'm afraid that my little house, two stories, is going to end up looking like the little house from the movie Up. But you guys all are experts. So I'm requesting, I'd be very grateful if you all apply your expertise and think through whether it really makes sense to put an eight-story building in the middle of a block with mainly two- and three-story buildings. Thanks.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Ruth Levy. I live on Ewing Terrace, which is a block away from the project. Ewing Terrace is a cul-de-sac with, actually, we have a staircase that goes down from Ewing Terrace to Anza Street. We have a neighborhood association that includes 70 Residences, 70 families, and a lot of children. Our association secretary wrote a letter to you, emailed it several days ago. And I'm sure you have it, but I'm sure you've got dozens of other letters to consider. And I will take up some of the points that she's made just so that they go on record. And I'd like to leave this letter so that it goes into whatever file it goes into. Number one, this is a project that's incompatible with the character of the neighborhood. It's just jarring. We have a neighborhood where the people on Ewing Terrace, 25 years ago, we did a tree planting on Anza Street. We collaborate. This will kind of render the cohesion. It's inappropriate. And aside from that, this is a block away from Geary Street. Geary Street does not have any eight-story buildings. This stretch of Geary does not have anything. The closest is a six-story building that was just built on Geary and Sixth Avenue for senior housing. That's the tallest building. And it's a commercial street. This is a quiet street. that is, yes, USF is right across the street, which is lovely. And we've dealt with the building at USF. We've been very collaborative. We've gone back and forth with them. They've been helpful to us in considering our requests. So let me get on with some. I'm not going to read all of the items. There is a character to this neighborhood. And when you walk down the street, it creates tension to see something like this. We have plenty of tension in our lives these days. So when something is this jarring and the neighborhood is up in arms about it, I think that needs to be taken into consideration. The proposed building will also dominate. It will alter the neighborhood, the skyline. The architectural style has absolutely nothing to do with the neighborhood. There are no really totally modern buildings of this type. Is this going to be a precedent where every block is going to have some needle pointing up in the middle? And we also have not been adequately informed. This only went out July 7th. The neighborhood has not had enough time. And we've been furiously emailing to each other, trying to talk to each other. Thank you, ma'am, but that is your time. And we'd like your consideration for either continuance or just to scale this down.

I'm Christine Kim, and neighbors of Ewing Terrace, neighbors of Ruth Levy and the Munzes back there. We were informed about this. And in addition to what Ruth has shared, we personally will be impacted because our views will be blocked. have these nice views of the Golden Gate Bridge. That will definitely be blocked. The beautiful views to the Wren Headlands and the Presidio, it would be something that would change the way a big, I guess, something that brings us tremendous joy right now. And do you have anything to say? She doesn't have anything to say. So I think that is pretty much, in addition to what Ruth had said, what we have to share. Thank you.

Thank you.

BETSY MUNZ, Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Betsy Munz, and my husband and I live on Ewing Terrace, which is across the street from the proposed project. I wanted just to point out sort of graphically the scale issue that people have been talking about. The footprint of this building is less large than this room, and yet it will be eight stories high. which is taller than virtually any building here in the Civic Center. It's taller than the library. It's taller than the courthouse. It's taller than this building, except for the dome. And having something that tall and such a small footprint on a street where from the beginning of Anza all the way to the ocean, three miles away, there's nothing that's more than three stories high. It's just not a beautiful part of San Francisco. So I worry about what it looks like. Now, the building itself is well designed. I appreciate what the architects have done. I just wish the building were about half the size that it is now, because As eight stories high, it's really going to dwarf everything else. Even the USF Loyola Terrace buildings are not that tall. So thank you very much.

I'm her husband, John Munns. And I could go over all these comments, but one thing I would like to mention is if you're going to put a big building in in a residential neighborhood, you should put in enough parking. It's already a problem. This is going to add a whole bunch of units without parking. When USF put in their buildings, they put in parking. Everybody has to put some parking in. virtually none in. And I would feel, well, first of all, I don't like the size of the building. Let me be frank about that. But I think it's even worse if you build a big building, and then don't put parking in, and then externalize all of those costs to your neighbors. It's just wrong. The builder should take care of that problem. And I could go on, but the points have been made. Too big. Too ugly on the sides. No parking. Totally inadequate parking. I shouldn't say no parking. That's wrong. Totally inadequate parking. It just is going to make the neighborhood, which is a nice neighborhood all the way around, up and down Anza, Ewing Terrace, Little Mountain, the other side, it's just going to cause problems for everybody who's there. And if the builder would put enough parking in, I still wouldn't like the size of the building, but he wouldn't be externalizing all of his costs to us. Thank you.

A last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

I'll jump in. I think this is the first time we're seeing a project here at the commission, at least, that is part of the family zoning, exercising the local, yeah, okay. So it's neat to work through something for so long and then finally start to see the fruits of that labor. This feels like a poster child project in response to, I think, what we all imagine for family zoning and the local program. It's great to see project sponsors exercising that option. We're getting eight units in exchange for two. It's a transit-oriented community. District so we're really I think that's why we don't have parking right? I think the logic there is that we're close to Transit and it's not required. Is that correct? Yep I appreciate the mix of units that this we could have done lots of studios We could have done this is a really nice healthy mix of units and we get those two affordable units for the ones that we're losing and It checks so many boxes. And I understand the concerns about the height. You're right. It doesn't look like it fits in. And I think that the truth is that's kind of the growing pains of executing the family zoning plan itself. I would argue it's maybe not that the building is too tall, but rather that we've allowed buildings to stay so short for so long. So this is our catch-up. period, and I suspect this won't be the tallest building in the neighborhood for long. It's just the growing pains of the new zoning. The property's code compliant with the new HCSF program. It's fully compliant with planning code, citywide design standards. This has my full support. Commissioner Braun.

Thank you, President Campbell. Yes, everything President Campbell said, I agree with. The family zoning plan was adopted in December of last year by the board supervisors and the mayor, and we had worked through a lot of the details here as well along the way. And this is the kind of project that is now enabled by that, and there's also a lot of by right pathways that exist with housing and restrictions from the state level about ensuring that we are approving housing. So I sympathize with the point that it's jarring. This is going to be a period of transition in many areas of the city in which now we're going to be potentially seeing taller buildings than we're accustomed to. It's true in my own neighborhood as well. It was also part of the rezoning plan. And, you know, so I think that's going to take some getting used to. But, you know, besides that, I concur that, you know, this is a great trade where we have two vacant, long vacant units in a very distressed building that are now, you know, those will be replaced with affordable, two affordable units at 80% of area median income. And then also six additional housing units above that, including housing units that are of a size for families in many cases. So I think about the long term with these changes that are happening and the housing unit that's built today is a home for generations of people over the next 100, 150 years. And so it's time for us to really start moving towards catching up on that. To the developer, it's an ambitious project. This is a very narrow site for such a tall building. You have a pretty high percentage of your floor plates taken up by two stairs and the elevator core that has to be built at this height. An underground level plus three levels of concrete expensive concrete podium I'm curious to see if if the sponsor is able to move this project forward because it has a lot of kind of Financial efficiency challenges, but that's not what I'm here to weigh in on And I will just be curious to watch this and see what happens ultimately with the with the property but that being said I I will make a motion to approve the conditional use authorization for the removal of those units.

Second. Second. Commissioner McGarry. Is that it? Commissioner Braun, thank you. Commissioner McGarry.

I'll echo my fellow commissioners. So it starts. The Richmond is getting height. The Sunset's going to get height. We put it off for years. Everybody else has had to basically house. Every other district has had to house San Franciscans. They're kind of run out of space. and basically it's our turn this is the start of it and there's going to be more there's going to be little needles sticking up in every little neighborhood in the richmond it's happening it's going to happen we've got a deficiency again arena goals 82 000 that's over a year ago that can only be growing because we're not building them because we've been saying no no no no no for years. That basically, no, no, no, has led to a deficiency of basically, it's probably more like 100,000 units we need definitely like yesterday. But we're not building them. Yeah, this is going to look weird. It's going to look out a lot better than it does right now. It's just going to be taller, you know, and it'll be shiny on the side. But it's unfortunately, this is This is all of our own making, and we have to accept it. So change is not common. It's actually here, and this is an example of it, and there's going to be more.

Sir, I'm sorry. Sir, I'm sorry, but public comment is closed. Sir, I'm sorry, public comment is closed. Sir, you're out of order.

If I may, the parking permits, I'm on 10th and Gabriel. We've got one block that doesn't require parking permits. It's great when you're the top 90%. But when you're the only block with two blocks left that don't require a parking permit, everybody comes to park in your end. And the car outside my house is not. in my neighborhood, or it's actually around the corner where they can have a permit, but my back garden goes there. And I try and get a permit, but I'm not entitled to get a permit because I'm in a no-permit parking. So it's a catch-22. There's a vehicle outside my house for two weeks, and it only moves for street cleaning. There's nothing I can do about it. The parking in the city, and hey, I got it good. We're in the Richmond. We have it good for parking in comparison to the rest of the city. It's a mixed bag, and it's not going to get any easier. We're going to get bigger. We're going to get more dense, densely populated. And basically, there's going to be people moving to the Richmond and the Sunset, the inner, the outer. And there's going to be more than two cars to, well, there's already more than two cars to each household. But this is just the new. the new San Francisco. It has to happen. It should have happened gradually for the last few decades, and it just hasn't. And here's where we are. And this is the first example of it.

Commissioner Soe.

I really second all my fellow commissioners, a lot of your comments. And I actually really appreciate that this is the first one that your project applicant is utilizing our local program. which is like to see more of these. Again, I mentioned earlier we want more housing of all kinds. And I noticed that you have two units here are also below market rate units. So that's a really good commitment. I do, however, really wish that you do have a commitment to actually have it built so we can actually house families and people instead of being it as such as entitlement and then sell it. So I really want to make this clear that we're all kind of watching. Permit has an expiration date. So we do need to encourage you to grow, to build. So thank you. Is it someone that wanted to? Maybe, yeah, there may be a question I would like to see if you have a commitment. Do you want to come up and talk?

Yeah, yes, please.

You can come up and speak in the microphone, please.

So I first want to say that I very appreciate all the comments that, you know, we received. And I appreciate all the neighbors showing up here. And it's our intention to have it built. I just want to tell you all that. And we're trying our very best because the building code is really standing in the way. And I appreciate you. point out the difficulties we have. In terms of parking, we can provide four, but because of the ADA requirement, we can only provide three. So that's just an example of the things we have to consider. Building code is not really catching up with the evolution we're making here for planning. But we're trying to overcome all the difficulties and have it built. Thank you.

I appreciate it. I'm in support of this. Commissioner McGarry?

So there is a commitment to build it, and you're not going to sell on the entitlement? Got you. Thank you.

Very good, commissioners. If there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So?

Aye.

Commissioner Braun. Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell. Aye. So moved, commissioners. A motion passes unanimously 4-0. Placing us on the final item on your agenda today, number 13, case number 2025-010921, CUA for the property at 5300 3rd Street, conditional use authorization.

I am starving.

Good afternoon, President Campbell and members of the Planning Commission, Edgar Orobesa, the Planning Department staff. This case was continued from July 9th, 2026 Commission hearing to today's date. Before use of request for a conditional use, the project proposes a change of use within an existing 12,700 square foot single story commercial building located at 5300 3rd Street. The applicant seeks to replace a Formula Retail tenant, Walgreens, with a new Formula Retail tenant, AutoZone. No building expansion is proposed. The scope of work is limited to a minor tenant improvement and new signage associated with AutoZone. To approve this change of use, the Planning Commission must grant a conditional use under pursuant 303, 303.1, and 786. AutoZone is a retail use. It's not an industrial operation. Its activities will not involve any mechanical work on vehicles. The use is limited to the sales of automotive parts, accessories, and related goods. The Commission as well as staff have received a significant volume of correspondence regarding the proposal, including messages both in strong support and in opposition. We appreciate the time and care the community members have taken to express their perspectives. Opposition for the proposal has included letters and comments from the community. As reflected in the Bayview CAC's letters, the opposition centers on several key concerns. The CAC noted that the proposal does not sufficiently advance long-standing community priorities, such as expanding access to quality retail, neighborhood serving businesses, workforce development opportunities, healthcare services, grocery options, and cultural amenities. They emphasize that Bayview residents consistently seek projects that contribute to a vibrant mixed-use community. The CAC expressed concerns that the proposed use offers limited benefits towards achieving these broader community goals. The CAC encourages that the property owner and city agencies to consider alternative uses that more directly align with the community's priorities, strengthen the local economy, support local hiring, small business participation, and enhance the overall quality of life for the Bayview residents. Support for the proposal has included letters and comments from nearby small businesses, particularly those involved in the automotive service, as well as local residences. They note that the proposed AutoZone would bring needed activity to a site that has been vacant for more than a year. During this period of vacancy, the property has experienced, excuse me, ongoing neighborhood challenges, including reoccurring graffiti, litter accumulation, and loitering. Supporters emphasized that reoccupying the building with a stable, daily operating commercial tenant would significantly improve site conditions, enhance the surrounding streetscape, restore consistent sense of activity, maintenance, and oversight that has been missing during the prolonged vacancy. Public outreach. The property owner has undertaken extensive outreach over several years to identify a viable tenant and ensure the future use of a site that aligns with both community and city priorities. Beginning in 2020, the owners met with D10 leadership, including Supervisor Shimon Walton, and continued coordinating with his office through 2025 to explore potential city-supported activation strategies. However, no tenant opportunities emerged from these discussions. From 2020 to 2024, the owners also worked with OEWD's Small Business and Community Affairs Manager, Larry McClendon, on efforts to stabilize the site, exploring community mural options, tax incentives to address heightened security needs, and strategies to mitigate increasing retail theft. Following Walgreens' departure in 2025, OEW connected with the owners with Iris Lee from the Office of Small Business, who conducted an on-site assessment and marketed the space to both local operators and regional prospects, including new pharmacies. No suitable candidate was identified. During this period, the owners also retained Touchstone Commercial Partners for a 16-month private sector marketing effort. And after more than five years of outreach and active searching, AutoZone emerged as a viable tenant. Since July 9th continuance, the property owners have continued meetings with the community stakeholders, and he recently emailed the planning commissioners outlining those outreach efforts. Any questions regarding the content of those outcomes of those meetings should be directed to the property owner and his family, as planning staff was not involved in those meetings. Commissioners, the department finds that the project is consistent with the general plan and meets the required findings of plan code section 303 and 303.1. There is no over concentration of a formula retail within 300 feet of the site. And the proposed auto zone represents a citywide serving retail use that appropriate fits this transitional location between neighborhood serving districts and heavier industrial areas. The project would not displace an existing business. It substantially improved the condition of the property that has remained vacant for more than a year. Reoccupying the site with a stable commercial tenant would enhance the streetscape, reduce ongoing nuisance conditions, and restore regular activity and oversight. Importantly, the property owner has spent more than five years working closely with the city staff and agencies to identify a tenant that would complement the neighborhood and address community priorities. AutoZone is the result of the extensive and sustained outreach effort. For these reasons, the Planning Department finds that this project is necessary, desirable, and compatible with its surroundings and recommends approval. I have one other thing to note. Planning staff requests the opportunity to formally present On additional conditions, should the Planning Commission decide to approve the proposal, as part of the continued outreach with the community and in line with the recent letter submitted to the Commission, President Campbell, Department staff would like to propose the following conditions. These conditions have been reviewed in detail, are fully enforceable by the Planning staff, and reflect the agreements reached among all parties participating in the discussion. Project sponsor shall collect all fluid and auto parts drop-offs inside the subject property. And the drop-off collection kiosk receptacles should be staffed and monitored by employees. Project sponsor must screen or enclose unsecured parking lot trash receptacles and or garbage dumpsters. The proposed signage shall be pedestrian-scaled and shall not include cabinet lights, internal illumination, high-intensity lighting, or flashing LED lights. The project sponsor shall work with the department staff on signage program that is sensitive to the surrounding community and that blends into the adjacent commercial corridor, as outlined in Article 6 of the Planning Code. And finally, project sponsor shall incorporate a mural onto the subject property. Project sponsor shall work with community groups under the direction of the planning department to incorporate the mural and determine its size, content, and material. This mural should present on the subject property within six months of opening of the new business. This concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we should hear from the project sponsor. You have five minutes.

I'm sorry, sir. If I could just add on the last bullet point regarding the conditions of approval, I've been instructed to say that we must scratch out content as part of that.

So that would be the project sponsor shall work with community groups under direction of the planning department to incorporate the mural and determine its size and material, not its content.

OK. I don't want to share.

Good afternoon, President Campbell and Commissioners. My name is Raj Kahl and my wife Veena Kahl here. We have owned this building for about 15 years. This is our family's nest egg, family's savings. We have managed this building ourselves. There is no property manager involved. You may have received a letter from Supervisor Hubert of Alameda County who may have mentioned that in his letter of support that we are not only a productive member of San Francisco community, but we have contributed to the economic vibrancy of the East Bay as well. Walgreens was going to vacate the building in 2020, and we have been looking for a tenant since 2020. We formed a community task force and made Walgreens stay for five more years. Only AutoZone came forward in six years of our research. There were few warehouse applicants that had expressed interest, but we did not pursue those opportunities because we thought that was not the proper use of the building. Neither was it in the interest of the neighborhood, nor was it in the interest of the guidelines that were given to us by OECD, whom we have been working very closely for past six years. So when AutoZone emerged, we did our own due diligence before signing up with them. Three things stood out for us. We visited a number of stores, and three things stood out for us. Each of their facility was clean and well kept from the outside and inside. We did not go in the stock room and stuff, but we did see all the public areas. They were very well kept. And we spoke to staff and most of the hires were from the local communities. Thirdly, their employees were happy to work for AutoZone. A lot of them had been with AutoZone for a long time. They were not doing any auto repairs. They were there in retail business and knew a lot more about the cars and the passion they had for their work. And on the other side, cost of carrying empty building is very high. I'm not sure how much you are aware of that. There is extremely high insurance costs that we have been paying for the last 18 months. There's high maintenance costs. Every week a large amount of garbage gets dumped in our parking lot and we have an outside company that is regularly maintaining the parking lot and the graffiti and all that. We of course have our mortgage and city taxes, property taxes that we have to pay. Ironically, We are at the risk of getting hit by city's commercial vacancy tax. City wants to fill all the vacancies fast, therefore they have put this commercial vacancy tax, but how can we afford that if you would deny or delay our application or AutoZone's application? It has taken a year, actually more than a year, with AutoZone to come to this point for this hearing. If a new process has to be started, if a new tenant has to be found, it will take another year or more if any tenant is found. So far, we have nobody as a backup offer. And what to say if there will not be more objections on that new application? So we have spoken to a lot of people in the past 14 days. We had voluntarily agreed to an extension. And during that time, we have been meeting everybody. So while we have put the details in our memo to the commissioners, while I was sitting here listening to other applicants here, I heard commissioners say, Opportunities to work faster. Don't delay, don't slow down. Give all proper notices. And here we have a proper use of the building, proper zoning laws. We have OEWD blessing. We have Supervisor Walton's support. And we have, more importantly, we have planning department who has diligently looked at the application, has therefore approved it. So my wife and I are here to ask for your yes vote on this application so that we can move forward. We still have months of work to do to get the building permits and have AutoZone move in. Thank you for your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioners. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on this item. Again, you need to come forward.

Excuse me. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Orande Sterling. I'm a lifelong San Franciscan, a small business owner, and vice president of the Bayview Hunters Point Coordinating Council. I understand the importance of activating vacant commercial spaces, but I believe we should be asking a much bigger question than simply how to fill an empty building. The real question is whether this proposal represents the highest and best use of one of the most visible commercial properties in Bayview-Hunters Point. For generations, Bayview community has experienced disinvestment. Every major site that becomes available should be viewed as an opportunity to create lasting economic opportunity, not just another retail use. Imagine if this space became a workforce development center where residents could train for careers in the buildings trades, healthcare, technology, or green energy. Imagine a business incubator that gives local entrepreneurs affordable space to grow their companies. Imagine a community innovation hub with classrooms, meeting space, youth mentorship programs, and resources for small businesses. Imagine a mixed-use development with housing above and neighborhood serving businesses below that creates jobs, supports local ownership, and keeps wealth circulating within our communities. If this project moves forward, I ask the Commission to require real community benefits. Will there be local hiring commitments, apprenticeship opportunities, contracting opportunities for local and minority-owned businesses, partnerships with community organizations? Those are the kinds of investments that strengthen neighborhoods and create generational wealth. Bayview Hunters Point deserves more than projects than simply occupied spaces. We deserve developments that invest in people, create opportunities, and leave a lasting legacy for future generations. I respectfully ask the commission to consider whether this proposal is truly the highest and best use of this property and to encourage a vision that reflects the full potential of our community. Thank you.

President Campbell and Commissioners, I'm Sanjay Minocha, resident of 1003rd Street, right opposite the Hortacle Park. I walk by the 5300 3rd Street pretty much every day on my daily walk. And since this place has been vacated by Walgreens about 18 months ago, I have seen this facility deteriorate. I have seen the garbage. It is stinky. And when the Walgreens were there, I always felt this was a very nice neighborhood to walk into. A little bit on AutoZone. I'm retired and I'm very keen on looking at the neighborhoods. I was doing a little research on the AutoZone. AutoZone with about 130,000 employees around the world, 7,000 retail facilities. HAS BEEN DOING PHENOMENAL WELL IN THE STOCK MARKET. ALL THE EMPLOYEES THAT THEY HAVE AT THE RETAIL OUTLETS ARE THE LOCAL EMPLOYEES. AND BY HAVING AUTOZONE FACILITY ON THE 5300 THIRD STREET, WE WILL BE ENCOURAGING THE LOCAL PEOPLE TO BE HIRED BY AUTOZONE. MOST OF THESE EMPLOYEES AT AUTOZONE HAVE GAINED NOT ONLY THE WAGES, BUT have gained tremendously by the stock appreciation that has happened at the company. I strongly would urge the Commission to look at approving the AutoZone facility so that we can have a vibrant and there will be a willful gain of the employment in the local community. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, all. My name is Thomas Fisher. I've been a baby resident for over 12 years. I also sit on the neighborhood's community advisory committee. I'm pleased to be here today, so thank you for taking my time. I'm here to urge you and plead with you to deny the proposed AutoZone at the former Walgreens site. I want to start with something that you should know that has not been visible in the materials before you. Our community advisory committee voted 6-0 unanimously to oppose this project. The vote was submitted, and it was buried in the documents presented in this commission. We represent the community. We heard from our neighbors, and their answer was unanimous. This fact belongs at the center of the decision and not in a footnote. In fact, the members of the CAC were taken quite off guard by this proposal and many actions taken behind the scenes without bringing us into the discussion. Now let me tell you why. Bayview Hunters Point is not in need of more automotive retail. There are three other auto parts stores within a mile of the proposed location. We're in a state of emergency around food security, health care access, and environmental justice. And this project ignores all three. Let's start with food and medicine. When Lucky closed on Baby Plaza in November, our neighborhood lost its last full service grocery store. A proposed AutoZone would take one of our last large retail locations and effectively turn it into a warehouse for auto parts that provides little access to the public. If you look at the proposed floor plate, which in the documents which you received, It reflects this warehouse feel. It is a stock room that the project sponsor has mentioned that takes up most of the available space and not available to the residents. In a part of the city, is overwhelmed with warehouses, this takes away another opportunity to feed its residents and provide other local and vital services our community needs. Two-thirds of San Franciscans live near the poverty line, are already food insecure, and in a district that translates into diabetes and hypertension, hospitalization rates are one and a half to three times the citywide average. With both neighborhood Walgreens now gone, we have zero retail pharmacies left, save the niche smaller one that was just announced. Replacing that site with an auto parts store is a direct threat to our residents. Then there's the environment. Bayview Hunters Point also already carries the heaviest pollution burden in San Francisco, 80% of the city's wastewater treatment, a Superfund site, and a 14-year gap life expectancy between our neighborhood and places like Noe Valley or the Inner Sunset. This AutoZone reinforces car-dependent infrastructure in a neighborhood already choking on transit-related pollution. And then let's talk about the city's own planning goals. Transit First is supposed to prioritize walkable corridors. Only 1% of our residents bike and 3% walk to work because corridors lack the groceries.

Thank you, sir, if that is your time.

Opposed?

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Justin Saw. I've spent the past few weeks with merchants and residents along Third Street. Eight months. That's how fast this neighborhood lost two anchors. February of 2025, the last Walgreens in Bayview-Hunters Point. November 1st, the Luckys at Bayview Plaza. Today's agenda answers with auto parts. Your own SAF report classifies AutoZone as a citywide serving. In plain English, the store depends on customers from outside the neighborhood driving in. So here's what the wrecker ignores. The road they drive on is scheduled to close. The Islas Creek Bridge replacement two years. Third Street severed between Marin and Cargo Way. No cars, no T3rd. Every customer from the north detoured. This commission certified that project's EIR in November. The owner's submission describes a 15-year lease. The closure lands within that window, and nothing here shows that AutoZone's numbers can survive it. If the store fails mid-lease, the corner goes dark again. AutoZone says it will serve Bayview's auto shops, so I went and asked them. Lee Auto Body, Cap Attire, T21, Craig's, USA Auto Body, Napa, Auto Parts Store, and others all strongly oppose it. Last fall, this commission denied Club Pilates on Valencia Street after a year and a half of vacancy. Vacancy alone didn't decide that outcome. The community voices did. Bayview deserves the same say over 3rd Street. Continue this item or deny it. Bayview asks for food, medicine, and opportunity. This item answers with motor oil. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Dr. Chad White. I have lived in Bayview for 10 years. I also work in local government preparing staff reports and advising public decision makers. So I understand the importance of an accurate record and a fair public process. Today, I ask you respectfully to deny or at least continue, pending a more complete public engagement process, this request to convert this prominent site from a community serving retail to a new, more niche formula retail. This is not necessarily an assessment of AutoZone as a business. It's a question about whether approving this formula retail use provides a clear public benefit in a location on a corridor where the community faces critical needs. I do not believe this project has met this burden. There's been work with city staff, very little with the community. This community has demonstrated real and sustained concerns. After two public meetings, as was just mentioned, the Bayview Citizen Advisory Committee voted unanimously 6-0 against this proposal because it does not advance a neighborhood's long-standing priorities around groceries, pharmacies, health care, neighborhood serving, retail, and other daily needs. Not a single member of the public spoke in favor of the proposal at those meetings. It's surprising, in my opinion, that after that, SF Planet did not add any kind of contemplation of redesign, but instead just pushed the project forward quickly. That's a real concern. The Third Street Merchants Association has declined to endorse this option because they fail to see how it will boost the local economy. In fact, they've not been meaningfully engaged in the topic. Not even Barb Grada, a local business owner across the intersection from the store, was engaged, except in the last 48 hours. And she's a very civically engaged person who hosts candidate forums for district supervisors. She speaks out on behalf of the Merchants Association. As I said, this is one of the largest and most visible spaces on Third Street. It sits on a transit corridor in a neighborhood that remains underserved compared to the rest of San Francisco. We have three auto parts retailers already nearby. And as was just remarked, we cannot eat auto parts. Approving this permit would not simply approve a new tenant. It would permanently reduce the flexibility of the site and remove one of Bayview's best opportunities to secure the kind of community-serving business residents have been requesting for years. It anchors one end of Third Street. It would emphasize suburban-style driving culture instead of a walkable community that other neighborhoods enjoy. The report describes an exhaustive tenant search. That was all news to us. We didn't know about this. Things had been going on for a long time. It says nothing about the requested rent, perhaps the single most important factor determining what kinds of businesses can apply for the space. It does not speak about the public engagement process beyond the CAC. The task force, like the property owners, don't live in the neighborhood, don't live in San Francisco. So I kindly ask and respectfully ask that you vote no until there's a demonstrated public interest or fit with the broader economic concept, or at a minimum, direct planning to undertake meaningful public engagement with the landlord and with AutoZone to find the correct use for this space. Thank you. Help us get this right.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Theo Ellington, executive director of the Ruth Williams Bayview Opera House. And I just want to commend all of the community folks who have engaged in this process. Two weeks ago, we noted about 60 letters from community folks who wanted to be involved in the process. Since then, we've got an additional 30 letters that have been submitted to you all, again, mostly in opposition of this project. And so what you're hearing today and what you have seen in those letters is a neighborhood who is, quite frankly, sick and tired of being sick and tired. We have literally been going parcel of land by parcel of land by parcel of land trying to fight for our existence and make the case for what we need in this neighborhood. And so as I said two weeks ago, I'll say it again here today. that we need a community and economic development plan that allows for some of the real development outcomes that we have longed for in this community for so long. Also want to just talk about the last two weeks, because I think it is very telling in which a property owner or a big corporation comes into a neighborhood. We've held this discussion in public twice. The ask has been time and time again to come in front of community groups like the Bayview Merchants Association, groups like Economic Development on 3rd, groups like the African-American Art and Culture District, and those requests have been denied. We talk about a long vacancy. We talk about the opportunity that we have, and my hope is that we can dream bigger for this neighborhood. My hope is that we can literally participate and build the neighborhood that we deserve. The other thing that is really disturbing to me is this environmental piece, that this neighborhood has been asked to shoulder the burden of a wastewater treatment plant, of the highest concentration of industrial routes, of a garbage facility, and so much more that has plagued this community. And so we have to do better. And I think that you are hearing this. We're asking our city partners to hear what the residents have to say. In respect to AutoZone, I want to see firm commitments. I see a PowerPoint presentation that's been passed around. It feels like corporates speak to me. It feels like they are not coming into the neighborhood in good faith or establishing a precedent for wanting to work with community. I think about the environment. I think about neighborhood beautification. I think about signage. I think about design review. All of these things I want codified in writing. And so as I requested two weeks ago, I am hoping that you all will consider a continuance for 60 days until we get hard details around a good neighbor policy in writing from AutoZone and the property owners. Thank you.

Hi, I'm back again. Hopefully this is my last time today. However, I just wanted to note that over the last 20 years, two decades, I've worked on various economic development projects throughout the Bay Area that deal with commercial corridor improvement, as well as mixed use spaces, housing, et cetera. And I just want to note that four jobs for a 13,000 square foot property is not economic development. I respectfully ask that you continue this item or denies the proposed Auto Zone 5300 3rd Street. Today's decision is about much more than a single business. It's about cumulative impacts of environmental justice and whether City Hall will continue its pattern of disproportionately affecting Bayview-Hunters Point without our input. If you would please look at exhibit one, which I'm going to show you guys on this. This image is pretty much the impact of auto emission as well as large manufacturing businesses in the Bayview that we currently have. As you can see, our community is saturated, overly saturated. I'm going to switch the image to the next picture, which will show other neighborhoods. This is Pacific Heights in comparison.

And if you want to look at other parts of the city, I've done four other neighborhoods.

So as you can see, as other people have already mentioned, we already have three auto retail large corporate entities in our community already, including over 30 others. Commissioner, this proposal would further concentrate automotive-oriented commercial uses within San Francisco's southeast sector within roughly two miles of the site. Numerous collision repair facilities, smog stations, tire shops, and none of them are planning on buying anything from AutoZone, as the previous speaker spoke about. The issue before you is not whether AutoZone is a good business. The issue is whether the neighborhood should continue to receive another automotive serving business while other commercial corridors receive grocery stores, pharmacies, neighborhood retail, and community serving investments. San Francisco Planning Commission's environmental justice framework recognizes that neighborhoods already burdened by environmental hazards should not continue to receive a disproportionate share of land uses that reinforce those burdens. Environmental justice requires us to look beyond the single application CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF DECADES OF PLANNINGS AND DECISIONS I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE A HARD DECISION TO MAKE BEFORE YOU TODAY BUT AS MANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE SAID THIS DISCUSSION DESERVES LONGER INPUT WITH COMMUNITY ESPECIALLY SINCE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN LOCKED OUT OF THESE DECISION MAKINGS FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS AS THE OWN PRESENTERS SAID THEMSELVES

Good afternoon. My name is Chellam Thubati. I'm the co-chair of Baby Hunters Point AB617 Community Emissions Reduction Plan Community Steering Committee, which is a state-mandated body under Assembly Bill 617. I'm here in a position First of all, I did not know the property owner did not live in Bayview Hunters Point. And I just want to address one thing the property owner said, that it was only AutoZone who came. And AutoZone told us why they came to Bayview Hunters Point. They said they have been targeting this market not a community. They've been targeting the Bayview-Hunters Point market for a very long time. I had to tell them politely that we are not a market. It probably has the highest number of people, you know, it's a district with the highest number of people living in San Francisco. I'm not going to, you know, there was another, what I heard was, you know, the reason to put AutoZone is graffiti, and dumping. The other gentleman who lives in Oracle Park but walks to Bayview said that. So I just wanted to say that there's 20,000 pounds of illegal dumping a day in Bayview Hunters Point. that the city refuses to do anything about. So suddenly dumping is a problem. But more importantly, other speakers have talked about why they should not be there. But purely from an urban planning point of view, which is I see that that's your forte, is that the southeast sector has a lot of auto body shops. and auto parts shop. But the rest of the city, particularly the western and northern part of the cities like Presidio and Pack Heights, they don't have auto parts shop. So if you're an urban planner, that's what you should be looking at. We have O'Reilly. If you approve this, what you will be telling us is that we should accommodate a corporation who feels entitled to set up shop bayview hunters point where there are a lot of other including local auto parts stores So I am not sure. For me, I personally feel like this is a waste of your time. I don't know why the staff even brought this to you if you're purely looking at it from a planning point of view. There are a lot of stores there, including local stores. This is a waste of your time. And if you must approve this, then I really, forgive me, I don't understand, like, if you have to approve the staff's recommendation, then I'm failing to see the point of the planning commission. So I respectfully request you to reject this. There is no need for this. I welcome you to Bayview Hunters Point. And come check it out. Please reject this proposal. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Nick Hill Call. Veena and Raj's son, and I think there have been numerous amount of things I've heard today that have been getting lost in translation, so I just wanted to kind of try and come up here to help clarify some things. One of the speakers earlier had mentioned something about this being a standard for the Bayview area, and I think I just, one thing that really has stuck out to me because it's, as my dad mentioned, it's kind of our family nest egg, so I've been very involved in this process, and I think setting, for San Francisco as a whole, I think setting the standard of that making it so difficult for these businesses to come and kind of almost making it very difficult sets a dangerous precedent to any future business that wants to come in or developer that wants to come develop or kind of to see any real impact here. To put it bluntly, I think it sets a dangerous precedent that is going to kind of scare a lot of big developers and a lot of big companies from coming here. And I think a really fitting quote for this is, I think it's a rising tide lifts all boats. And I think that applies here because yes, AutoZone isn't the dream store for this location and for this neighborhood right now. But I think with the investment that AutoZone is providing, I think it will encourage a lot of other businesses to come in and be like, hey, look at them. They're doing well. We should come here too. So I think it's not necessarily the How should I word this? It's not exactly the most ideal retailer to go in the space. But I think in the long run, I think it'll be beneficial to the Bayview community. Yeah. Continuance or, in my personal opinion, I know some previous speakers have mentioned a continuance. I don't know what continuance of 60 days would do when we've been looking for six years. Personally, I don't know where we're just going to find magically a grocery store or pharmacy or whatever. I don't know what's supposed to come of that. But yeah, that's all I have to say. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Evangela is my name. I am born and raised in Bayview, Hunters Point. I'm also a board member of the Bayview Hunters Point Coordinating Council. Okay, so I'm just going to... If you call it D10, if you call it the Southeast Corridor, a lot of us call it Indian Basin. You got to be a particular age to know what Indian Basin is. Let me be clear. Babe, you on this point. We are not for sale. Some of the previous people on AutoZone side and the family who owns the space, what I would say is if you're talking about a standing standard, And you said y'all have been working this out for six years. Where was the community in all of that? And what I mean by that is there was nothing anywhere near the old Walgreens except for when it was time for us to do a hearing. And I'm talking about the two weeks ago hearing. I just want to make it clear that I am not only an organizer, I am also a person who loves to talk about things that will make this place better, i.e. my own home. When I say born and raised, I mean born and raised. Went to school and came right back. didn't miss a beat. So Walgreens has been not only a place for me to go get snacks, for me to get snacks for the movies before I came downtown, it has also been where I got both of my parents things for them when it came to ice packs, when it came to their medicines. When Walgreens closed, It has been really hard on this community. It is still being really hard on this community. The fact that AutoZone, no disrespect to them, but the fact that they try to swoop in is a problem. When we're talking about food insecurity, if we had, and I'm saying myself, I will help the owners figure out who else could be a part of this conversation. And if they feel like the 60 days or 90 days is not enough, how about we just cut it? No auto zone. And you figure out what the communities help. My hand is there and I'm saying it in a public forum where it will be on record that I myself and other people in the community born and raised will help make sure that that we get a proper use for it. I would say, I don't know, a Safeway, grocery outlet, something that has, that's actually gonna help the community and not harm the community. We do not need another AutoZone or another auto parts store. We actually need things that are going to help the community thrive. Once again, Bayview Hunters Point is not for sale. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Tiffany Carter. I am a fourth-generation Bayview native. I come from a family of Bayview homeowners with deep roots in Bayview. I am also a member of the San Francisco Planning Equity Council for the last five years, and I hope that is not in vain. I hope that my voice is valuable today and that it carries value. I understand that this AutoZone is a family asset, but Bayview is our cultural asset. It is an African-American cultural district. We are here because this is about whether this is the highest and best use for one of the most important gateway sites into Bayview. I also want to recognize that the CAC again unanimously voted against this proposal, reflecting the community's belief that this does not align with the long-term vision for 3rd Street, for the corridor. I hope that our voices again is valued. As planners, you guys are planners, architects. You know that planning and design are among the most powerful tools to shape communities. They influence public health, economic opportunity, climate resilience, mobility, and quality of life for generations. As the mother of a University of Southern California grad student at the Price School of Urban Planning, straight out of Bayview, that wants to come home and ride her bike. I hear about her riding her bike all the time. That is the future of San Francisco. We are not a car-centric city. That's not what we do. When you guys just talked about the future and where we're going, AutoZone is the past, unless, I've yet to hear the future of AutoZone, but nobody, we're not doing that. Planners are taught. Hold on, I lost my place. Planners are taught to think beyond today's vacancies and towards the best use of land. A temporary vacancy is a challenge. A challenge. A permanent land use decision shaped neighborhood for generations. We would like some discretion as the same discretion as the Club Pilates. I read that article because I love Club Pilates and I couldn't believe that you guys didn't pass that. San Francisco has adopted a transit first policy, a climate action plan, and a Vision Zero zero emissions. Bayview has some of the highest documented asthma rates in San Francisco. Just last month, I spent the entire weekend in ICU at UCSF Mission Bay because my nephew, a Bayview kid, had a severe asthma attack. OK, so when we talk about environmental and health challenges, it's not a talking point. It's not a tool to use to vote things in our favor. It is a very documented thing in Bayview. We hope that you guys will grant a continuance. This needs more time. It needs more time. Ultimately, we don't want AutoZone. I think we've been loud and clear about that. I think if nobody is showing up except AutoZone, I think that also says a lot. We have proximity, Mission Bay, Golden State Warriors. We can do better. Thank you.

Last call for public comment. Again, you need to come forward. If you're with AutoZone, I think you have a financial interest, so you should have been given your comments under the project sponsor's time, including the family member that spoke. Final last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry.

This is a heartbreaker. I work out of D10, Hunter's Point, whatever we want to call it. Go back to Butchertown, whatever generation we want to go. Yeah, it's AutoZone. It's your national brand. You see a market, and you're the car version of Starbucks. I get it. People have their life. You're corporate. It's a market. It's speak. It's corporate speak. Basically, you move. I don't know if you knew Islas Creek is going to shut down. And when it does, it's going to shut down for two years, I believe. I know that because we just built our new hall in Hunter's Point and 3rd and Cargo will be one block the other side of that bridge. So we'll be cut off as well. It's also private property. It's not a co-op. It's private property. And basically, the people who own it need to rent it. And it would appear they tried to rent it for quite some time. They had the power of the city to try and help them, OEWD. I know they work hard. And I know they didn't sit on their hands and just basically do nothing for the length of time they were working on it. So we are where we are. So there's OTA zone. I might ask you to come up and talk, because I've been told there's been 25 jobs up to that will be incorporated with this. With that, local hire, unfortunately, from construction point of view, will not be part of this, because I don't think you would build anything, union, anywhere, which I find odd, because you are international and you're corporate. But the bottom line is the bottom line. So then we're left to the people, local hire within the community, that you say you're going to hire. And you're nodding your head as I'm talking, so I'm assuming that is the case. You're going to team up with the aircraft maintenance department at City College on Evans Campus. Is that a possibility for a pipeline of workers? I see you're nodding your head. So that's a possibility. That's actually on the cards? Yeah? So that's young people within the community basically working in your store that are gaining skills and also going to school with cooperation with and partnership with AutoZone, the community, and City College to train people going forward. That is a commitment. Then basically they're asking for approvable conditions on top of that. So we've got training, but we also There's oil use and collection. Basically, conditions include open and transparent oil use collection logs. And that will be logged so we know what's coming in. And more importantly, disposal logs. And we know what's going out on that, too, because that's really important for this community, that basically you heard everything. I get the community's anger. There's been a flurry of activity in the last week into our emails as well in support of this from the community, a lot more than actually against it. I really thought the continuance two weeks ago would basically do good. It would appear that something did happen because we're in a better position now with a commitment for training and a commitment to partnership for training with City College. And the aircraft maintenance department are there. And then I can't help but go back a few months and realize that basically SFO, we are going to build a new aircraft maintenance mechanic division out there we had people here complaining about that they didn't want to see it i could see the possibility of jobs and basically bringing mechanic maintenance for aircraft back to sfo it's not the shipyards coming back but it's the equivalent the aviation equivalent of of those jobs coming back because they're they're they're not here now you know but But there is a possibility. I see possibilities down the line of this being a pipeline, a very miniature one, but a pipeline of a group of people, an ecosystem of people that actually basically get the hands-on training and the stocking here, the educational training in City College, and then basically move over to SFO as maintenance mechanics down the road. I see possibilities. where there's none right now. And there hasn't been any for 18 months. And it would appear there's none going back further than that. Is it perfect? No. Nothing's perfect. Nothing's perfect. And worse than that, they're going to cut us off when they shut down that bridge. That's going to be an issue for them, too, because that market is not going to be as flourishable as they thought when they inked that lease. So it's a pickle. It's ours. It's basically the neighborhoods. We have to basically do what we need to do to basically get out of whatever situation it is. Yeah, it's a perfect scenario. It's a perfect job. It's a gateway site. But nobody wants it. Nobody's why. And we have to figure out why. What do we do to create opportunities that basically there should be 10 people lining up for that? And again, it's private property. They choose who they lease to. The community doesn't. I can't. I can't tell the store across the road from my house who they're going to rent to when the lease goes out. It's private property. I just don't have that. It's not a co-op. I don't have, I can complain about it, but ultimately I can't say you cannot rent to this person, you can only rent to this person. You know?

So it, I... Folks, folks, you're out of order at this moment in time.

We're in a situation here where basically nothing is happening, and nothing's been happening for God knows how long. Basically, there's either activation or it stays the way it is. But if it stays the way it is, it's just getting worse. That property is not getting any better day by day. It's not good. We're not in a good spot. We're really not in a good spot here. And people are not like, we're not in an economy where basically there's 10 tenants to actually pick from. they're going to activate the situation. And basically what we're going to do is we're going to try and work with them to see what we can possibly use this as a stepping stone to actually better the situation going forward. Or we do nothing and we just sit there. The shipyards shut down in the 80s. Well, the Navy pulled out, and things went into decline. But bit by bit, we have to basically get ourselves out of this. I want to see the opportunity in this. I want to see growth. I want to see things actually turn around for the better, not just stay in stagnation.

I'm going to ask that comments from the gallery please stop.

I'm not allowed to have a conversation back and forth, so I'm going to try and tee it over to one of my fellow commissioners.

Thank you. Commissioner Tso. Thank you.

Thank you for everyone who come out here and also two weeks ago you were here and a lot of efforts, a lot of many years of struggles and I had to give appreciation to my planning staff, Edgar, actually carrying that torch to try to help to revitalize Third Street. I've been to Third Street many times and through the pandemic and also all these recent years, it is... Coming along, it could be better. But having blight on the street, personally, I don't feel safe. And that's simple as that. And recently, I do recognize that the AutoZone or actually the Walgreens site has started to have encampment on the lot. And it's a challenge. Whoa.

All right, I'm going to ask that the gallery please stop interrupting the commissioners. Otherwise, we're going to have to clear the room, all right? And I don't want to have to do that. Let's respect the process, please.

May I continue? Yes, please. Thank you, Commissioner. It is a huge property, so it's not really easy to find a tenant that can fit in there. And it is owned by just a family. It is a challenging situation, and no one wanted to be in today's world, right? There's a Walgreen left and then left our community, your community, without the formula retail pharmacies. But I'm also aware of that there's a new pharmacy coming up nearby that is actually closer to some of the major senior homes. that allow them to have more convenient access to get their pharmacy fills. One of them actually can just go down the elevator and then there's the new pharmacy store. And there are four grocery stores along the Third Street corridor. And I also recognize that This packet I think is coming from the AutoZone people. I might want to ask you to explain to me a little bit about what is your store selling because I do like that you have the free recycling services for community available to the community. So I guess before I keep going on some of the community benefits, I might want to, can Autosun, do you mind come over here and I want to ask you a question? Yes, it is. Commissioner can ask questions from the public comment. May I ask you, explain to us what is your store provide? Store what? What does your store provide?

Are you selling? Oh, I'm sorry. So it's a quick introduction. My name is Avin Savinia. I am the regional manager for AutoZone. I cover from Berkeley down to the Fresno area. To include Oakland and San Francisco, this is Erica, our environmental specialist. That works for us as well. So what do we provide? We provide, and I have it on the slideshow if you're more than welcome to see it, but we provide jobs. We provide service. If you're talking about commodities within the location, we also provide for the do-it-yourself customer. What that means is when someone comes to an AutoZone, we're not really there for leisure. We're there because something happened to someone's car. And we've trained what we call auto owners to help those customers get through that process. We're also, like they said earlier, we're retail. We do no mechanics. So we don't do any of that. So I don't know. A lot of the times, because of our name, it sounds as if we're kind of a shop. We're not.

So you're selling parts? Yes, we sell parts.

So on the mapping you saw there, you see the, obviously, sales floor. The back of it is all, to what he said earlier, it's all just parts, extra parts. And if you have any environmental questions, you're more than welcome to ask.

Yeah, your oil recycling drop-off, can you explain to me about? So you're selling parts, so you really have nothing to do with oil change or anything?

Yeah, no. So what we do is we provide the community a place to actually recycle their oil with us. We give an incentive fee back to them as well, and that's through CalRecycle's permit process. We also partner with any community that's open to it to do free filter exchange events. If they want to do an oil change on their car at home, they can bring their old oil filter to us, and then we actually give them one for free. And that's just to keep the community engaged with recycling efforts. And then along with that, we recycle all of our materials inside the store, as well as our oil containers also in there. So nothing's outdoors. This is all inside.

It's inside them.

Inside, nothing's outdoors. I know that was brought up as well. But yeah, so those are recycling programs that we offer to the community. We also take their battery cores. So if they get a new battery, we take their old one and recycle it. And we actually give them $10 for credit for the store. So if they bring us an old battery, we give them $10 credit. And they could buy anything in the store with that gift card as well.

OK, thank you. Do you do the neighborhood recycling with just vehicle oil or just also cooking oil?

Yeah, so we take vehicle oil. So that's just motor oil. But we also take transmission fluid as well. And then we do have a vendor and a program where we can actually recycle any type of orphan waste left outside, such as coolant, brake fluid, stuff like that. We actually will handle that. So anything left on the property will be handled by a certified vendor.

Is there anything else you'd like to share with the commissioners and the public at this moment?

Just the one last thing is, you know, they earlier, you know, the CAC mentioned, you know, we are a big entity as AutoZone, but we don't forget where we come from. I've been with AutoZone 25 years. They've given us plenty of opportunities, and we would love to be part of that community to be able to share that. What I mean by that is we hire what we call rising stars. You're 15 and a half. We'll help you get a job. We'll get a job with AutoZone, obviously with a minimum amount of hours. We don't pay the regular minimum wage. We go above because we understand the area we're in. We provide jobs. We provide 401K benefits. All of those can be obviously on our deck. We're in the people business. We just sell auto parts. So I just want to make sure you all know that.

Do you have some commitment to beautification on 3rd Street?

Yeah. Adam? So as far as beautification, obviously, Adam? I'm going to have my real estate from AutoZone, just to make sure we're right. But from a standard standpoint.

Like help them clean their street. Yeah, definitely. Beautifying the street.

Yeah, so whatever is planned as far as in real estate, we'll abide to, obviously. But I do want to paint the picture that our store managers are trained to walk, not just the front of the building, around the building. We take care of the gardening. We take care of abandoned waste. We take care of if there's, you know, spray paint, someone does something weird, we'll take care of that. But our parking lots are well kept.

I'm sorry? We also take care of any illegal dumping, you know, couches, stuff like that. They get left on our property. We handle that. We have certified vendors for everything.

Yes.

Can you mention about all the lawsuits you have about employment restrictions?

Sir, you're out of order.

Please. And I think my fellow commissioner had mentioned about your commitment to local hire and then some training program.

Yes, so let me tell you. So if I can paint that picture, we just opened up a store on 10th and Howard, local hiring. So I invite you all to go into that location. It's probably the same size as that one, all locally hired. Now, ultimately, it's not a perfect scenario. There are auto owners that go to school, and they live in different areas, and they're in this part of the town at this time of the day. We'll hire. We'll give them an opportunity as well. But for the most part, locally hired.

OK. And you're OK with notice that our conditions of approval to here, you need to work with our planning staff to come up with? signage that works with the community, you're okay with that? Correct. We're made aware. Might have be a little tweak from your corporate boilerplate standard. Yeah, yeah. But yes.

Okay.

All right. Well, thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you. It is a tough one coming in here. A lot of people, I know that This neighborhood had systematically, historically been marginalized, and it's one of the very rich, diverse community neighborhoods and had a lot of history of environmental justice that needs to be right. And then I'm also really aware of that We are needing to revitalize San Francisco economic. And we can't do that by kind of leaving things the way it is. I see that there's like a two-step approach. What I don't want to see is landlord, property owner just start to, without even trying to find someone to take over the lease, they just start to sell it off. and then fence it all up and let it sit there for 10 more years just so then we can come up with the new master plan to rezone this to housing. I see this as a two-step approach. Right now we have someone that is still continue to invest in San Francisco in multi-generation, small family. and facing a lot of fines and fees from the city because they can't find a tenant that are willing to fill their space. But they're not giving up. They're not trying to sell it. And I appreciate that. But I also understand this corner could have been a better use for something else. And that will take years for that to happen with some policy change. and some adjustment. And this could be a two-steps approach. But for now, we have what we have to fix in our immediate needs to bring 3rd Street to a better, safer neighborhood. And yeah, that's kind of where my stand is.

Thank you, Commissioner. So Commissioner Braun.

First, I have a question that relates to something that Commissioner McGarry had mentioned. The property owner, in one of their submissions, mentioned a July 15 meeting, and there's a written agreement that's being prepared that includes the job creation local pipeline that was referenced by Commissioner McGarry, and then also the neighborhood beautification efforts. through partnership with Economic Development on 3rd, that I believe just was mentioned as well. Could the representatives from, since those are AutoZone commitments, could you speak a little bit to the status of those agreements and provide a little bit more background on them? I know that there were just some nods, yes, but I could use a little more context on this, whether from AutoZone or the property owner. Yes, please. Yes.

So I'm going to let Raj go first. Go ahead, Raj.

So we had just before, and previously we had a task force formed, and we were regularly meeting at the property or over Zoom calls. And as part of community outreach, Last hearings continuation we met at the property with We as a property owner facilitated that effort to bring government community and the business together we Cannot enforce that agreement so when we brought a dot Supervisor Shaman, Supervisor Walton's office, Representative for Mail's office, and Larry McClendon from OEWD. And Vince was there as well. So they explored these ideas, and they had an agreement in principle. And they are in the process of formalizing So I think I'll let Vince talk about that.

So when it comes to you talking more about hiring, correct, just to be clear?

It has to do with, well, the supervisor, Commissioner McGarry referenced formalizing a job training pipeline with the local community college to link these roles directly with their new aircraft maintenance training program.

Got it. So one of the things we would do, and a little bit of what we do is, I'll give you an example. We work with the mayor's office as of now. I have an HR department. She'll go out and she'll actually make contact with whoever's on site, maybe their HR, and propose what we're doing at AutoZone, at which point to see if they're even, which I'm sure they would, willing to have some type of partnership. Does that make sense?

Does that make sense? Yeah. And then also the neighborhood beautification effort with the partnership with Economic Development on 3rd. What's the status of that conversation?

Same thing. I met with them last week. And one of the things that was brought up was community involvement in regards to community service around the neighborhood, beautification. And one of the things, like anything else, I have to run that up. But ultimately, I can make that decision with my boss. And he gives me the OK. But because it's AutoZoners, our terminology for our team members, going out there, being part of that event, that process, getting to know our neighbors. And we get to do that during that process. So we'd be definitely open to that.

okay thank you for that um i would just say and you can sit down i think that's another question i would just say uh that's out there there's a lot of people from the community here who just heard that and uh if this does move forward uh i think those are commitments and conversations that we as a city and also you know everyone should be trying to hold folks accountable to those efforts that they're still formalizing. More concretely, I think, are the conditions of approval that we have that we're able to actually put in place as a city, which are the ones that the staff read out about the signage changes, the indoor fluid collection and auto parts drop-offs, and the mural on the property as well. So those are a little more in our control. I'm going to back up a little bit. One of the things that I've been hearing, obviously, all this from the community. And I can totally understand the frustration of losing two Walgreen's stores and a grocery store in pretty short order in this area. And then to see maybe not the most exciting retail tenant coming forward to replace one of those community serving stores. And I do appreciate that, and I appreciate the effort of being here and being part of this process. What I'm grappling with and having to think about here is sort of the full sweep of the efforts to fill this space and the challenges with it, and also the alternatives. Should I continue this item? Should I reject this item? What I'm seeing here is that the zoning on the site is actually industrial it's it's m1 zoning and pdr1b zoning which is which allows a lot of uses it does allow retail obviously but at the same time you know one possible outcome of this is that the auto zone walks away their property owner whatever happens we reject it and this becomes some sort of just industrial like light industrial use It was helpful to hear from that's not been entertained thus far. But it's something that does weigh on me a little bit because I have to think about what happens if we say no. And so that is a possible outcome here. The prior Walgreens was formula retail. The authorization here is about formula retail. So I am thinking about that. And just the fact that there has been not an ideally community-driven process, but there has been a very, sounds like very aggressive and long-term leasing process for this site to try to develop actual real concrete potential tenants who could take this site and maybe something that could have been a little more desirable. And I'll just say, an auto parts store, I get that. It's not... It's not my ideal use either. It is a retail use. But at the same time, again, I'm just trying to balance against what happens if we say no. The site, at minimum, I think, sits vacant for a very long time. It possibly becomes industrial. And also there is the possibility that something will come together and there will be a really desirable, widely supported use. But on balance, when I think this through, I see... much more likelihood of negative consequences than positive consequences by rejecting this. And so I am supporting the conditional use authorization for a formula retail use of the site.

Thank you, Commissioner Braun. I believe the community absolutely should have a voice in the kinds of businesses that they'd like to see in the Bayview. These aspirations belong in our planning process. and continue to shape the neighborhood's long-term vision. The two things I keep coming back to are what our role is on this commission, which is to work within what's been adopted by the city, the policies and regulations, and what's complying. And I think where I come back to two things. One is the zoning, which Commissioner Braun was just talking about, and what I see as market conditions with a landlord that I believe has, in good faith, tried to find a tenant for this building. I mean, this has not been going on just a few months. This has been going on for years. Our packet showcased outreach that we don't always see with property owners, district leadership, OEWD, Office of Small Business, 16-month private sector marketing effort. There's been... WHAT I SEE AS A GOOD FAITH CONCERTED EFFORT TO FIND A DIFFERENT TYPE OF RETAILER FOR THIS AND AUTOZONE WAS THE RETAILER THAT CAME FORWARD. GOING BACK TO THE ZONING, THIS IS M1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. the department categorizes as a transitional light industrial buffer area. So when I combine what I'm hearing from the community with where we are, there's just a huge disconnect. So to me, this warrants revisiting the zoning of Third Street corridor, right? Because we're not on the actual Third Street corridor. We're actually in this buffer zone. But maybe we need to look at that again. We need to look at the zoning here and have this really reflect the vision of what we're hearing from the community. But in the meantime, I don't feel comfortable denying this because this It feels irresponsible to me, to be totally honest, to allow something that could serve as economic vitality. It could be building momentum for future revitalization along the corridor. So my hope is that we can revisit this from a zoning perspective for the future, but in the meantime, I support.

I have the decency to just say that.

I believe that's, oh, Commissioner Braun.

I make a motion to approve.

Second.

With the amended conditions of approval as well.

With the conditions of approval that were read.

Indeed. Okay, commissioners, there's nothing further. There's a motion that has been seconded. To approve with conditions as amended with additional conditions submitted by staff. Striking content from the last bullet point on that motion. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved. Commissioners, the motion passes unanimously 4-0 and concludes your hearing today.