Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, September 3rd, 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. I'd like to take roll at this time. Commission President Campbell, Commissioner Chen. Present. Commissioner McDonald. Commissioner McGarry? Present. And Commissioner So? Present. Thank you, Commissioners. We expect Commissioner Koppel to be absent today. And welcome back from your extended recess. Thank you. First on your agenda, Commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item 1, case number 2026-001584, CUA. THE PROPERTY AT 160 PARAISO PLACE CONDITIONAL USE AUTHORIZATION IS PROPOSED FOR AN INDEFINITE CONTINUANCE AND ITEM TWO CASE NUMBER 2026-004399 CUA 3821 NORIEGA STREET CONDITIONAL USE AUTHORIZATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN I HAVE NO OTHER ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE SO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION on the items proposed to be continued only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward seeing none. Last call. Public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you, Commissioners. Do I hear a motion?

Commissioner so.

Thank you, Commissioners, on that motion to continue. Item 1 is proposed. Commissioner Chen? Aye. Commissioner McDonald? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Soe? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 5-0, placing us under your consent calendar. And the item listed here under constitutes a consent calendar is considered to be routine by the Planning Commission. There will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission of 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 3, case number 2026-004873 CUA at 1581 Webster Street, conditional use authorization. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that this matter be removed from the consent calendar. Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your consent calendar is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Tso. Motion to approve.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners. On that motion to approve item three on consent, Commissioner Chen. Aye. Commissioner McDonald. Aye. Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner Tso.

Aye.

And Commission President Campbell?

Aye.

So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 5-0. Commission Matters, Item 4, Consideration of Adoption Draft Minutes for July 23rd and July 30th, 2026. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the Commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And your minutes are now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner McGarry. Second.

Thank you, Commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner Chen. Aye. Commissioner Coppel, excuse me, Commissioner McDonald. Aye. Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So. Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell. Aye. So moved, Commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 5-0. Item 5, Commission Comments and Questions.

I would, maybe this is directed to the director. I know we have the merger underway. It's been underway for a while. It'd be lovely to, for us as well as the public, maybe to get some updates or if it's possible to even get some periodic presentations on what's going on behind the scenes.

President Campbell, happy to do that. I'll wait to see if there's other questions that I can touch on a little bit in my director's report, and then we'll come back with a fuller presentation.

Great. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Commissioner So?

I think Sarah wanted to talk about this a little bit in her director's report, but I just want to report back that this past, was it this past weekend? It's just Saturday. It feels so long ago already. Saturday, with the planning staff and myself, we attended the second inaugural Chinese housing summit, all in Cantonese, and it's out in TECHNICALLY THAT IS WHAT DISTRICT WAS THAT. ANYWAY, THE WEST SIDE. SUPERVISOR ELLEN WAS REMINDING ME THAT'S NOT HIS DISTRICT BUT IT WAS A BLOCK AWAY FROM THE OTHER NEIGHBORING DISTRICT. ANYWAY, IT WAS A GREAT DIALOGUE THAT WE HAD CONDUCTED LIKE FOUR DIFFERENT BREAKOUT WORKSHOPS WITH MONOLINGAL CHINESE SPEAKING MOSTLY MAJORITY OF THEM ARE SENIORS BUT THERE ARE OTHER MIDDLE-AGE PERSON PARTICIPATE. IT WAS REALLY WELL RECEIVED. I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE PLANNING STAFF AND ALSO OTHER OFFICES LIKE MAYOR'S OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ALSO WAS THERE TO GIVE THE GENERAL PUBLIC BETTER UNDERSTANDING AND ALSO ONE-TO-ONE DIRECT interactions and of course our Mayor Daniel Lurie and Supervisor Cheyenne Chan and Supervisor Alan Wong and Supervisor Malgard had also show up. So it was really good to see how we can have the ability from the government and foster a positive and very productive dialogue with our communities and I'm very happy to hear that largely they all are receptive and understanding that building taller and more dense is the way moving forward for the city to address the housing crisis and they all wanted something more of like a community complex instead of individual homes. They are more concerned about actually bringing community complexes that has not just housing but community programming in terms of entertainment for all different age group and access to healthcare and also access to some level of parking. So it was really nice to feel the support. And Sarah was there and then she gave some really amazing remarks at the end. So I encourage everyone to show up. Colleague, you know, they gave you a headset to have a really, they have really good English translator in real time. So it was really good. And I had to thank our community benefit district, the Chinese cultural district in the Sunset to really hosting it and actually fostering a very productive and diplomatic dialogue on workshop. So yeah, kudos to all of you.

Wonderful. Thank you.

Okay, commissioners, if there are no further comments, we can move on to general public, excuse me, department matters, item six, director's announcements.

THANK YOU. PERHAPS COMMISSIONER, JUST TO EXPAND ON COMMISSIONER SO'S COMMENTS, I THINK I JUST WANT TO USE THE OPPORTUNITY OF WHAT THE SUNSET CULTURAL DISTRICT ALSO PARTNERING WITH WAME AND SELF-HELP FOR THE ELDERLY THIS WEEKEND DID BY INVITING DECISION MAKERS AND THE DEPARTMENTS LIKE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT INTO THEIR DIALOGUE, WE ARE ALWAYS EXCITED ABOUT THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO ATTEND AND CONNECT WITH COMMUNITY WHERE THEY ARE, RIGHT? IT'S GREAT WHEN THEY CAN COME TO THESE HEARINGS BUT WE ALSO LIKE TO GO OUT AND MEET THEM WHERE THEY ARE IN THEIR LANGUAGES. AND SO THIS IS LESS OF AN ENCOURAGEMENT I THINK FOR OUR COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE HOPEFULLY YOU ALL KNOW THIS BUT ALSO FOR ANYONE WATCHING THE We have so many portals and staff who are, you know, connected to our communities that if there's an opportunity and you want to hear from us, let us know. We're happy to come to you. The dialogue on housing is particularly important for the future of our city, and so wherever we can continue that, both to educate people and understand their issues, it's a really great opportunity. ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT COMMISSIONER SOH DIDN'T MENTION THAT WE HEARD AT THAT FEEDBACK LAST SATURDAY, TOO, WAS SURPRISING BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FROM FOLKS WHO DEVELOP HOUSING OR ENTITLE HOUSING, WAS A DESIRE FOR FASTER APPROVALS, WHICH WAS REALLY INTERESTING. I MEAN, THE DESIRE TO get to the outcomes of more places for people to live more quickly is permeating even to people who don't have any role in that process. And I mention that because also another announcement I'd like to make is that yesterday the Budget and Finance Committee of the board forwarded the OpenGov contract, which our longer standing commissioners reviewed back earlier in the year that the planning department is taking on. It's a big contract, $38 million, $33 million really, because we've expended some of it over the first year. But it'll be a really big undertaking as that both moves through the Board of Supervisors in a couple weeks, and as we double down in intent to really building that new permitting system that will move housing approvals quicker. So thank you for your support on that. We'll keep you apprised of that as it moves through the board. Liz Waddy over here did a yeoman's job bringing that through. So now she gets to go off and get married. So I don't know if I can make that as an announcement as well. And then the third announcement I'd like to make, and this is, I think, fundamental for your work with staff. It is not a big change within our planning organization. But we are doing a management shift within the planning department to ensure that we're supporting our staff and our teams, especially as what they do grows and changes, along with our Permit SF project, our Permit SF portal, and growing work within the district level teams. Our absorption of the permit center, which is one part of the organization that President Campbell, you asked about that we'll report back on. So the punchline here is that because of the growing body of work under the permit SF umbrella and the role that Ms. Wadi has been playing, both managing, being director of permit SF and director of current planning, It's unsustainable. The body of work is just too big. So we are shifting management so that Liz can focus on that body of work under Permit SF and growing that Permit SF team. And what that means is that our deputy directors of Rich Ducre and Kate Connor are taking the helm of current planning. And we'll have responsibility over two sides of the teams there. Rich, you know, has been doing much of that work already, particularly with regards to our intake team, our historic preservation team, our permit center team. And he is gaining now our office of short-term rentals and our enforcement team, so he'll be overseeing that. half of current planning, and Kate Connor will be overseeing our district teams that bring forward the projects in our various supervisorial districts. So really grateful to all three of these leaders, to Liz, to Rich, to Kate. Really, they are shifting and taking on more as our work grows to make sure that we have the right organizational oversight of all the people doing the various bodies of work. Not a huge shift in anyone under them or above them. So it all works the same, but it really is they are taking on more to make sure we can operate as a department. So really grateful to them. What that also probably means is you will still see plenty of Liz because our Permit SF work is huge, but less of her sitting here at this dais so she can focus on that work and more of Kate and Rich up here sitting at this dais. So, just wanted them all here today to make that announcement, but that's what's coming. It's all, we're excited to have the right staffing levels as we're growing the Permit SF work and to make sure we're continuing to support our current planning work.

Congratulations.

Congratulations to your wedding.

And then one last thing I'll just note on the record. You may recall probably three or four months ago there was a series of payment scams for planning approvals. We got a couple more. So I just want all people who are doing business with the planning department to look carefully at any invoices that come your way. It's not cool when this happens. We're on top of it. We're doing what we can. But I just want people to be aware that there appear to be another round of them coming. Thank you. That concludes my report.

OK, Commissioner, seeing no questions for the director, we can move on to. Item seven, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission. There is no report from the Board of Appeals, but the Board of Supervisors this week passed over 20 landmark designations and the street tree standards ordinance on first read. THE FULL BOARD ALSO DENIED THE APPEAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPROVAL AT 2722-2724 FOLSOM STREET AND UPHELD THE CITY'S APPROVAL AND CONDITIONS. ALSO THE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVED A CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR THE OPEN GOV PERMITTING SOFTWARE AND HAD A HEARING ON THE OPEN GOV CONTRACT PROCUREMENT PROCESS AND ALSO APPROVED THE RELEASE OF RESERVED FUNDS. THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DID MEET YESTERDAY AND THEY ADOPTED A COMMENT LETTER WHICH WAS THE FIRST IN A LONG TIME IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS to regulations implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the city's and the Historic Preservation Commission's role as a certified local government in the state of California. Finally, they adopted recommendations for approval for landmark designation of the first AME Zion Church at 2155 through 2159 Golden Gate Avenue and the Jefferson Airplane House at 2400 Fulton Street. If there are no questions, Commissioners, 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.

Good afternoon. I'm Georgia Shudish. Happy September. Recent news and anecdotes about buyouts and evictions, including Ellis Act evictions, are very distressing, to say the least. They counter all the efforts the city is making to increase housing and to meet the racial and social equity goals in the housing element. This is nothing new, and there have been alteration projects approved where tenants were forced out or worse and under the Ellis Act. Here's a few examples that I know of. The Carl Jensen Flats, 7928th Street, which was an Ellis Act eviction, 3882 Cesar Chavez, 235-237 Jersey, 1132-1134 Sanchez, 271 Fair Oaks, and 1163 Shotwell, which was a buyout. But, given the push to build, including the reduction in the inclusionary, the Commission should issue a resolution encouraging the city, the Board of Supervisors, and or the mayor to notify or ask for consideration from the legislature, which has carved out specific legislative directives to the city in the past, to eliminate the Ellis Act for San Francisco. due to the current loss of existing affordable housing, which adds to the housing crisis, while the city is continuously working to meet the RENA goals at all levels. And I just want to quickly read something that I think gets to the heart of the matter. It's the findings for Section 317, the first three sentences. San Francisco faces a continuing shortage of affordable housing. There is a high ratio of rental to ownership tenure among the city's residents. The general plan recognizes that existing housing is the greatest stock of rental and financially accessible residential units and is a resource in need of protection. So that's my statement today. I sent you an email about that. Here's my 150 words for the minutes. Thank you very much.

This is general comments because I do have some comments on the Freedom West that's coming up. My name is Ace Washington. I am the Fillmore Corridor Ambassador. I'm here speaking on the Western Edition. There's so many projects. in the Western Edition. Redevelopment has left us with unfulfilled obligations and we're left all alone in the Fillmore. And people like myself, we had to come up to these agencies and these commissioners and plead and beg with you when we don't have no entity that's helping us. We have all these San Francisco City entities without communities involved. Just like this thing you finna come up with the Freedom West. There is no community entities from the communities. So I'm here to express was happening in the Fillmore. My name is Ace. I'm on the case. And I am the Fillmore Corridor Ambassador. Listen, I'm not elected. I'm not the mayor. I'm not the supervisor. But damn it, I am the Fillmore Corridor Ambassador. And so put some respect on that name. So anyway, I'll be here talking about Freedom West. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Let's see. President Campbell and commissioners and Director Phillips. My name is Richard Sinkoff. year resident of San Francisco. I love this city. And I just wanted to make some very brief comments. I recently received an email on Nextdoor about a project in the West Portal. um a large housing project there were some concerns on next door about the height of this building but overall my my general comment today is about neighborhood design character and compatibility of the new buildings that are moving through the process in the city with the existing character of the city i want to make sure that in our move to create more housing, more dense housing, we're not forgetting the qualities and the attributes of San Francisco that have made it a unique place really in the world in terms of history and neighborhood character. Many of the buildings that are going up in my, this is my view, on Market Street around the city, frankly, are very same. You know, there's a sameness to the quality. They're going up very rapidly. And I think we're sort of losing the plot a little bit in terms of balancing the needs for more housing in the city, more dense housing on these corridors, and the beauty of the city and the beauty of our neighborhoods. So I'm encouraging the Planning Commission COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF TO CONTINUE TO PAY ATTENTION TO DESIGN GUIDELINES, VIEW CORRIDORS, LIGHT ACCESS, ALL THOSE THINGS THAT HAVE REALLY MADE SAN FRANCISCO SUCH A REMARKABLE PLACE TO LIVE. SO THANK YOU.

OKAY. LAST CALL FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA. Seeing none general public comment is closed and we can move on to your regular calendar commissioners for item eight case number 2026-005654 PCA review of landmark and historic district designation planning code amendment.

Good afternoon, Commissioners Maggie Smith, Planning Department staff. I would like to first introduce Reneal Bejoy from the Supervisor Mandelman's office to open the item. I will then provide the presentation, followed by possibly Raynell Cooper from Supervisor Mahmoud's office, who will speak. And then I will ask both Supervisor Aids to remain for Q&A. Thanks.

I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT MANDELMAN WHO INTRODUCED THIS I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT MANDELMAN WHO INTRODUCED THIS I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT MANDELMAN WHO INTRODUCED THIS ORDINANCE ON JUNE 2ND AS PART OF A PRESIDENT MANDELMAN WHO INTRODUCED THIS ORDINANCE ON JUNE 2ND AS PART OF A PRESIDENT MANDELMAN WHO INTRODUCED THIS ORDINANCE ON JUNE 2ND AS PART OF A BROADER HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ON JUNE 2ND AS PART OF A BROADER HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE ON JUNE 2ND AS PART OF A BROADER HISTORIC PRESERVATION EFFORT THAT WAS DEVELOPED WITH BROADER HISTORIC PRESERVATION EFFORT THAT RIGHT NOW A DESIGNATION TAKES A MEDIAN OF OVER 500 DAYS FROM START TO FINISH. A TIMELINE THAT LONG IN OUR OPINION CREATES UNCERTAINTY FOR BOTH THE CITY AS WELL AS PROPERTY OWNERS AND SIMULTANEOUSLY RISK LOSS OF VALUABLE HISTORIC RESOURCES. This ordinance makes very modest changes to the designation process, among them letting the Historic Preservation Commission initiate and recommend landmark designation at a single hearing, clarifying who can request a designation and removing overly prescriptive outreach and comment requirements from the code. These are all meant to make the program faster and more predictable, but importantly, do so without reducing any scrutiny from the process. PLANNING IS RECOMMENDED TWO MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORDINANCE OF WHICH OUR OFFICE IS SUPPORTIVE. BEFORE I HAND IT BACK TO MAGGIE SMITH TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE DETAILS, I UNDERSTAND THAT A STAFF MEMBER FROM SUPERVISOR MAHMOUD'S OFFICE IS HERE TO SPEAK ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THIS LEGISLATION. ALTHOUGH THE TEXT OF SUPERVISOR MAHMOUD'S AMENDMENTS HAVE NOT YET BEEN MADE AVAILABLE, OUR OFFICE IS UNSUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL FOR VARIOUS REASONS. Housing production and historic preservation are not mutually exclusive goals. They go hand in hand. In a city of over 211,000 parcels, we have fewer than 2,500 landmarks, just about 1%, versus 3% to 5% in cities like New York, Boston, or Los Angeles. AS YOU ARE ALREADY AWARE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY NO MEANS RECOMMENDS LANDMARKS FLIPPANTLY AND LANDMARK STATUS BY NO MEANS PRECLUDES DEVELOPMENT. THIS ORDINANCE IS PART OF A BROADER CITYWIDE EFFORT TO REDUCE UNNECESSARY PROCESS, TIMELINES AND INCREASE THE RESPONSIVENESS OF CITY AGENCIES TO PEOPLE. THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE, INCREASING STAFF OBLIGATIONS, LENGTHENING THE PROCESS AND THEREBY INCREASING UNCERTAINTY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, THE CITY AND HOUSING DEVELOPERS ALL AT ONCE. I'LL NOW PASS IT BACK TO MAGGIE SMITH FOR PLANNING THE PRESENTATION BUT I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AFTERWARDS. THANK YOU.

WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR SUPERVISOR MANDELMAN'S ONGOING SUPPORT OF OUR WORK. I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE LANDMARK AND HISTORIC DESIGNATION ORDINANCE BOARD FILE NUMBER 260622 WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS. AS YOU'VE HEARD THE PROPOSED PLANNING CODE AMENDMENT STREAMLINES AND CLARIFIES THE LANDMARK AND HISTORIC DESIGNATION PROCESS. THIS IMPROVES PREDICTABILITY FOR PRESERVATION AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORTS CLEARER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAMILY ZONING PLAN. As background, Articles 10 and 11 of the San Francisco Planning Code facilitate and maintain the official list of designated historic resources. These are longstanding programs adopted in 1967 and 1985, respectively. We have provided copies of our handouts on SF places, which includes our landmark designations program and what designation means for property owners. We have copies in your packets and then also to the side if anyone is interested here. When it comes to development, designation does not impact the zoning or buildable area of a property. Designations in both articles include individual properties and groups of properties or districts. Currently, there are 16 Article 10 landmark historic districts and 7 Article 11 conservation districts. NOTABLY THERE ARE 2,365 UNIQUE PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH ARTICLE 10 AND OR ARTICLE 11. THIS IS ABOUT 1.5% OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PROPERTIES IN THE CITY. The proposed ordinance as part of Supervisor Mandelman's historic preservation package developed alongside the family zoning plan. Recognizing both the urgency of expanding housing and the importance of identifying and protecting San Francisco's historically, culturally, and architecturally significant places, Supervisor Mandelman worked closely with department staff to strengthen preservation tools within the broader rezoning effort. By supporting the San Francisco Citywide Cultural Resources Survey, SF Survey, for short, increasing the number of city landmarks and streamlining and clarifying the designation processes through this ordinance, the department can ensure that preservation occurs more predictably and efficiently as the city welcomes new housing projects. For reference, I have provided copies of our Historic Preservation and Family Zoning Plan fact sheet created last year, also on the table as well. Our work with the designations program is, of course, led by the general plan, as seen in the recent housing element 2022 update, as well as the urban design element. The proposed ordinance with modifications applies the principles of transparency, efficiency, housing, equity, cultural heritage found throughout the general plan. CURRENTLY, THE DESIGNATION PROCESS INCLUDES SEVERAL INEFFICIENCIES AND INCONSISTENCIES. INITIATION AND RECOMMENDATION MUST OCCUR IN SEPARATE HEARINGS. ARTICLE 10 FOLLOWS GENERAL CODE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES IN SECTION 302. THERE IS NO CLEAR GUIDANCE ON WHO MAY REQUEST DESIGNATION. OUTREACH AND PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT REQUIREMENTS ARE OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE AND THE CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL IS NOT EXPLICITLY REQUIRED. THIS ORDINANCE WOULD ALLOW THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE AND RECOMMEND DESIGNATION AT THE SAME HEARING. ARTICLE 10 PROCEDURES WOULD GOVERN DESIGNATIONS INSTEAD OF SECTION 302. ORGANIZATIONS ELIGIBLE TO REQUEST INITIATION WOULD BE CLARIFIED. OUTREACH AND PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS WOULD BE MAINTAINED BUT WITHOUT CODE LEVEL PRESCRIPTIONS AND CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL WOULD BECOME EXPLICITLY REQUIRED. These changes meet the goals of streamlining and clarifying the designation process. They improve efficiency and reduce procedural inconsistencies. While the minimum amount of time to complete the process is about six to nine months, the current average time from the department opening a designation record to closing it is more than two and a half years, with a median of over one year. This ordinance helps to reduce this timeframe by about four to six weeks. Yet through the first step of the process, staff still conduct an extensive review to confirm the property qualifies as a landmark and staff conduct outreach, especially to owners. The Historic Preservation Commission then must still review and approve for initiation and the Board of Supervisors must also be supportive. Through the Family Zoning Plan Landmark Designation Program, 14 places have been officially designated to date. OVER THE PAST YEAR AND CHANGE. AND ANOTHER 44 HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, BUT IN VARYING STAGES OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. ABOUT 20 PASSED THEIR SECOND READ AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EARLIER THIS WEEK AND ARE NOW PENDING MAYOR SIGNATURE. OUR RATE OF ATTRITION THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS FROM RECOMMENDATION TO DESIGNATION HAS BEEN ABOUT ONE THIRD DUE TO PROPERTY OWNER CONCERNS OR REMOVAL BY THE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR. Historic preservation and housing production are complementary strategies that, when aligned, can create more livable, inclusive, and rooted communities. Historic buildings provide continuity with the past, connect to community history, and foster shared identity. Landmark designation does not prevent housing development. In fact, the two can occur in tandem, as demonstrated by these adaptive reuse examples. We require a more thoughtful, context-sensitive approach to ensure that any new development respects and integrates a landmark's character defining features. Supervisor Mahmoud's letter, copies provided, outlines concerns that landmarking can limit housing development potential. It describes prospective amendments under development that would require the Planning Department to assess a site's housing capacity as part of the landmarking process, document any housing-related history or feasibility, including findings acknowledging potential lost housing, and offset any lost capacity through upzoning or transfer development rights. This would add more steps to the landmarking process, including significant staff time and housing capacity analysis that is outside the scope of our work. On August 5th, 2026, this year, just a month ago, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the legislation and expressed strong support for streamlining landmark and historic district designations. They emphasized the proposed ordinance improves efficiency, predictability, and alignment with the housing goals without reducing scrutiny. Commissioners and public speakers opposed alternative amendments would add housing capacity analyses arguing these would create unnecessary delays misunderstandings about landmarking and conflict with broader city preservation and housing objectives the hpc adopted a recommendation of approval with modifications through resolution number 1625. the department supports this proposed ordinance because it streamlines and clarifies the Landmark and Historic District designation process by allowing HPC to initiate and recommend designations in a single hearing, consolidating two of the current five minimum hearings required for designation, aligns amendments with Article 10 instead of Section 302, clarifies who may request designation, removes overly specific outreach and comment requirements, and requires city attorney approval of ordinances. The department recommends approval with modifications to explicitly include cultural throughout Article 10 to align with adopted equity policies and clarify that any member of the public includes organizations and groups. For consistency throughout Article 10, cultural should be included between historical and architectural when they are listed. Along with historic preservation organizations, cultural heritage organizations should also be included. These changes address racial and social equity considerations by expanding access and further reduce ambiguity in the designation process. The recommendations further meet the intent of the proposed ordinance. By improving the designation process, the department can more readily identify the city's landmarks and therefore improve predictability for new development. The proposed ordinance will bring more consistency to the planning code, including areas that concern the development of housing. I will now pass the mic off to Supervisor Mahmoud's office, and then after we will all be available to answer questions.

Great.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, PRESIDENT CAMPBELL AND COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU, MAGGIE AND THE TEAM FROM PLANNING AS WELL AS RENEL FROM THE BOARD PRESIDENT'S OFFICE FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS LEGISLATION. MY NAME IS RENEL COOPER AND I'M A LEGISLATIVE AID FOR SUPERVISOR MOCHMOOD WHO INTENDS TO INTRODUCE AMENDMENTS TO THIS LEGISLATION WHEN IT REACHES THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. Supervisor Mahmoud is a supporter of our city's architectural and cultural history and supports the goal of improving the city's legislative and bureaucratic processes. As I'm sure you know, Supervisor Mahmoud loves the sound of shorter timelines. But as the city looks to expedite landmarks across the city, we must take stock of how historic preservation intersects with the goals and requirements around housing production. These two strands are forever intertwined. When something becomes a landmark, it doesn't automatically turn into a museum, it doesn't get a documentary made about it, it doesn't even get a plaque for neighbors and passersby to learn about its history. Its primary mechanism, really the only tangible outcome of landmarking, is adding process requirements to modifications to the subject building. NOW SOMETIMES THE MODIFICATION THAT LANDMARKING IS PREVENTING WOULD ROB OUR STREETS AND NEIGHBORHOODS OF ITS RICH ARCHITECTURAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY. THESE PROTECTIONS ARE CRITICAL AND THERE ARE MANY SITES ACROSS THE CITY THAT DESERVE THOSE PROTECTIONS THAT DON'T YET HAVE THEM. BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT WHEN A SITE IS LANDMARKED IT MAKES REDEVELOPMENT OF A SITE FOR DENSER HOUSING MUCH MORE DIFFICULT AS IT MAY REQUIRE RECEIVING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR CHANGES OR EVEN GOING TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO GET A LANDMARK REVOKED. And while it's possible that landmarks can add new housing, even the planning department admitted as part of the calculations in the family zoning plan process that sites with landmarks are extremely unlikely to become new housing. Research suggests that there is a link between wide scale historic preservation and high property values and historic preservation has been weaponized in conversations around housing projects in San Francisco going back decades. EVEN THE CITY'S OWN HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM CALLS FOR CONSIDERING THE EFFECTS ON HOUSING IN BALANCE WITH THE RACIAL AND SOCIAL EQUITY GOALS IN ITS LANDMARK DESIGNATION. THE SUPERVISOR AGREES THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO PRESERVE ITS HISTORY BUT IN THE FACE OF OUR HISTORIC HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND SUPPLY CRISIS, DECISION MAKERS LIKE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND SUPERVISORS NEED THE TOOLS TO UNDERSTAND HOW LANDMARKING AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS INTERSECT. AND THE SYSTEM NEEDS A WAY TO OFFSET THE HOUSING CAPACITY LOST THROUGH THAT LANDMARKING PROCESS. Supervisor Mahmoud's proposed amendments will require the planning department to analyze the housing potential and capacity of sites that are being considered for Article 10 and Article 11 designation. This would include a calculation of the maximum capacity under the current zoning and a report of history of development applications at the site. Our office is also planning on including a provision that would allow for the lost housing capacity to be offset elsewhere. THE EXACT PROCESS HAS NOT YET BEEN DETERMINED, BUT THIS COULD BE DONE THROUGH TRANSFERS OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS SIMILAR TO WHAT IS ALREADY ALLOWED IN C3 DISTRICTS IN THE LITTLE USED PLANNING CODE SECTION 128 OR THROUGH REQUIREMENT THAT THE ZONE CAPACITY BE ADDED ELSEWHERE AS PART OF A FUTURE REZONING. THE AMENDMENTS WOULD ALSO REQUIRE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO REMOVE THE LANDMARK PARCELS FROM FUTURE HOUSING ELEMENT CAPACITY ANALYSES. BEFORE I FINISH, I WANT TO BRIEFLY DEMONSTRATE HOW THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD IMPROVE THE LANDMARK IMPROVAL PROCESS. Until recently, Supervisor Mahmoud was a member of the Land Use and Transportation Committee, which reviewed landmarks. This is a part of the typical material received as part of the process. And SFGov TV, if you can put on the overhead. Great. As you can see here, we've got a great description of the history of the sites. AS WELL AS A LIST OF ALL THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AND THEN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S REPORT AS WELL. THE HOUSING DOES NOT COME UP ALL THAT MUCH IN THIS REPORT, HOWEVER. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THERE IS THE MENTION OF THE FAMILY ZONING PLAN AND A you know, understanding that there is an overlap with housing, but it is not, you know, core to the document. Besides that sentence, discussing the landmarking in the context of family zoning plan, there isn't a mention of how this designation impacts the ability for this parcel, the neighborhood, or the city to deliver housing. I don't bring this up to say anything negative about the incredible work of the preservation planners who put this together. It's just that the framework in which it was written is not suited for a city that is serious about building housing. Now let's take a look at how this works across the country in New York City.

And I will, yes, I will use this Zoom.

SO THIS IS A PAGE FROM A REPORT FROM THE NEW YORK CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ABOUT ONE OF THEIR LANDMARKS. IN ADDITION TO THE DESIGNATION REPORTS WHICH HAVE A FULL NARRATIVE ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORY OF THE BUILDING, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITS TO CITY COUNCIL A SHORT REPORT ON THE SITE. THIS IS A PAGE TWO OF A REPORT ON A SITE IN MANHATTAN. YOU SEE THE PLANNERS IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH HERE DESCRIBING THE ZONING AND THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND THEN THE UNUSED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AT THAT PARCEL. It fully quantifies what development capacity is foregone by the action of landmarking the building. The numbers look different than what they would look like in our version as New York zoning paradigm is different from ours, but the idea is the same. THE DOCUMENT ALSO ATTESTS TO THERE NOT BEING ANY KNOWN CONFLICTS WITH PLANS OR DEVELOPMENTS AT OR NEAR THE SITE. THEY EVEN GO ONE STEP FURTHER BY ALLOWING THAT EXCESS CAPACITY TO BE TRANSFERRED TO PROPERTIES NEARBY, SIMILAR TO THE TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN C3 DISTRICTS THAT COULD BE EXPANDED AS PART OF THE SUPERVISOR'S AMENDMENT. THIS MEANS THAT LANDMARKING TRULY IS NOT A TRADE-OFF BETWEEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND HOUSING CAPACITY. While the details are different, the result is clear. When a city council member in New York is handed this report, they can read this and know exactly what the landmark designation means for the creation of housing. Our decision makers here in San Francisco deserve that same information. San Francisco's landmarking process is in need of an update to streamline paperwork and legislation required, which is why Supervisor Mahmoud sees the merit in President Mandelman's legislation. It also needs an update to reflect the defining urban crisis of our time, housing affordability, by ensuring that landmarking does not get in the way of new homes. We're still working on finalizing the language of our amendments. I don't have that to share today, but I'm here to answer any questions about the amendments. Thanks so much.

Okay, with that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this piece of legislation.

Can you make that thing on the screen? I need assistance because I'm computer illiterate. Okay, great. Oh, that's perfect. Thank you. And then to make the, oh, to make the, to show the other pictures in there, what do I do? Oh, that thing, okay.

Okey-doke.

Hi, I'm Georgia Shudish. I think this is great legislation. I appreciate Ms. Smith, and I appreciate my supervisor and his aid for putting this together and all the things they've landmarked in D8. I want to show a couple things that should have been landmarked to show why this legislation is good, because streamlining is always good, as we know. First of all, I just want to mention the Fitzhugh Building. Maybe none of you are old enough to know about the Fitzhugh Building, but that's where the Empty Sacks is now. If you watch Vertigo when it's on TV, there's a shot Hitchcock has of the Union Square, and you can see a very nice view of the Fitzhugh Building. And if you think about it, it would be nice if it was still around rather than the Empty Sacks because it could have been converted into apartments downtown because it's a beautiful building. Anyway, can I have the computer, please, SFGov TV? Okay, so this is 20 Raycliff, and I've talked about this before, but I don't know if in front of this commission. This is a Second Bay tradition home on Raycliff Terrace, which is an eligible historic district because, according to your own documents, it's eligible under Criterion 3 as a historic district. Raycliff Terrace is a rare example of a grouping of residences designed in the Second Bay tradition by notable master architects of the era. This was designed by H.C. Bauman. He didn't do too many single-family homes. He mostly did those big, beautiful apartment buildings in Pacific Heights. But anyway, so there it is as it was. Now I'll go to the pictures. That's when it was altered. It wasn't a demolition. It was altered. It snuck through in the demo calcs. This should never have been allowed. It was an A-rated building, a contributor to a potential historic district. This is why we need to streamline and have better oversight of our historic resources. They lifted it up, as you can see. There it is again. That's what's there now. I think, I know it's subjective, I think that it takes away from the importance of this area as a potential historic district. This is contrary, maybe this is Fourth Bay tradition, I don't know, but that is a very nice area and it shouldn't have been, this house I don't think should have been allowed to be altered like that. And finally, I'll just show one more thing on the real overhead, please. That is the photo from the PIM. That's as it looked in 1948. It was built in 1947. That's from the assessor's photos. I think it shows how wonderful it is. And if you looked at the first photo in the thing on the computer, you can see it had not been changed all that much, very little. I mean, this landscaping in the front is beautiful. And I'll just add that the contractor was Oliver Rousseau.

I guess that's it.

You know, that's why I think this is great legislation, and I hope you pass it as written. Thanks again to Ms. Smith and Mr. Sucre. Thank you.

Okay, last call for public comment. Again, you need to come forward.

Unrelated, but yes. Any chance I get to speak, I come up and talk. But I support the project, so I'm speaking on the project. But outside that, let me just give you a little history about you guys. Most of y'all weren't around with the urban renewal, which we call Negro removal. See, right now, in your history books, you wouldn't even expect blacks to be around in San Francisco at this point in time when Justin Herman took over. And now we got our younger generation. I'm 72. I don't look like it. But I got three generations under me. My kids, my kids' kids, and my kids' kids. So I'm obligated to talk about what's going on in the San Francisco Bay Area, city by the bay, where we the blacks has been left behind. And I hate to get up here because I'm not racial. I got white people in my family. But the family of this urban renewal, what we call Negro removal, the Planning Commission is responsible, along with redevelopment agencies. And I'm going to hold you all responsible until we have some relief of what's happening in this city by the bay. My name is Ace, and I'm on the case.

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

Commissioner McGarry.

Well, I understand tweaks and pivots are good along the way for this case. I think a lot of thought went into this, a lot of work went into this, and I think it should be moved as is, and I would make a motion to move this forward as is, minus the amendments.

Commissioner So.

I really appreciate everyone, our staff, Supervisor Mendelman's office and Supervisor Mahmoud's office. And actually, specifically, I would really like to send my appreciation to Maggie and her team under the direction and leadership of Richard Sucre. I know like citywide survey is not a new thing. Citywide survey stemmed before COVID and it was We have very limited resource to conduct a very fast-paced citywide survey and also there were priority geography prioritizing neighborhood that has been systematically historically underserved to actually take on those survey. So you might have not seen enough of the survey result if you're living in a fancier neighborhood compared to the one that has been always looked at less resource. So I just want to leave it like that. But then I also think that in general, in light of the spirit of streamlining our approval process and also our legislation and policy, even though what comes in front of us today is really just saving like four weeks out of nine months, It's not a whole lot of saving, but I can respect that. That's moving to the right direction. I do want to bring up a few pieces. personally felt that maybe we should have, I have some questions with the staff that you might want to just clarify to us and also to the public. First is that when is anyone can actually initiate landmark? Anyone? Yes. Like that's like everyone who is human being, right? Okay. Yes. All right. So whether you're part of a group or you're just individual? Yes. Okay. So in the spirit of that and I see that the recommendation number one or two that add back a specific language to elevate a specific group of organization. seems to be more of confusion than actually clarifying it. I would recommend to not need to add those wording because it's redundant, like anyone can. So anyone can actually watch this, go back and like anyone. all of us, you know, so I don't really see there's a need for that except it really call out some special group that elevated their own status more than general public. I think to be in the spirit of fairness, I think this would be a bit over overly labeling. In my experience as serving as a capacity as a former Historic Preservation Commissioner for two terms, I do personally experience and see that in action where the property owner himself or herself or themself really call in during the Historic Preservation Commission hearing for a landmark destination and say that I have not, I'm not aware of my properties being landmarked or I don't have any adequate information that has been reached out to me. So, I want to know whether that had been still going on or it was just something in the past when I was there.

SURE, COMMISSIONER, SO I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS. SO AS PART OF THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION, WE ARE REQUIRED TO SEND CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS IDENTIFYING THEM THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD TO HEARING. I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS WHERE THE MAILING ADDRESS MIGHT GO. SO IT'S OFTEN TIMES PROPERTY OWNER GROUPS MIGHT HAVE NOT A an address that is tied towards where they regularly check mail, for example. So we've encountered that a couple of times. Our staff try to do our best to reach out as much as we can to an applicant and make sure that they understand that their property is being brought forward through the landmarking process, either by the HBC or the Board of Supervisors. BUT AT SOME POINT WE DO ARE REQUIRED BOTH AT THE HPC HEARING AS WELL AS AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO GET MAILED NOTICE BASICALLY FROM THE CITY THAT THEIR PROPERTIES ARE MOVING FORWARD. SO IN THOSE FEW INSTANCES, I THINK THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE ATTRIBUTED THAT TO.

Okay. So thank you for that. So it sounds like it might still happening depending on if they somehow, the property owner somehow missed the mail or the address is sent to somewhere. Okay. So then it's kind of lead to me, I really want to make sure that we have a very fair process. It is kind of, This is a double-edged sword, but I do want to have more conscientious outreach to specifically property owners that they fully aware of that this is actually even being considered instead of during that public notification hearing which has a running clock. Because I personally, like some of my fellow commissioners also was also a former HPC commissioner. So in my experience that I really wish that no one ever had to sit up here and ask to vote when a property owner call in and literally said, I do not want my property landmark and I'm not aware of this. And I wish there's more time to talk more about this.

Yeah. Just to add to the, we also do a community forum. We reach out to property owners ahead of the sort of initiation and provide information on what it means to be a landmark. SO WE HAVE THOSE LARGER ENGAGEMENT EVENTS TO SHARE INFORMATION WHERE WE INVITE PROPERTY OWNERS SO THEY'RE NOT JUST LEARNING THROUGH THE NOTICING PERIOD. AND THEN ESPECIALLY FOR ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE WEBSITES, WE DO THAT RESEARCH TO TRY TO FIND THEIR EMAILS IF POSSIBLE.

AND COMMISSIONERS, JUST AS YOU NOTE, CERTAINLY AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION IN REVIEWING THIS LEGISLATION, YOU CAN MAKE THAT ASK OF THE SUPERVISORS THAT PROPERTY OWNER CONSENT BE CONSIDERED IN PART OF THE DESIGNATION PROCESS. Just for clarity, currently Article 10 does not require property owner consent to be moving forward with a landmarking. As a matter of policy, planning does a lot of work to try and make sure that the property owner both knows what is going on on their property, if we can get a hold of them, and then are made aware. So in the current family zoning plan landmarking program, which is an initiative that we have that spun off of the family zoning plan, property owner consent is factored into quite a bit of the designations as directed to us by the supervisors.

Yeah, that would be really good to add that as a recommendation from our body because lately, as we all know, whether you're renters or homeowners, it's really not that easy to actually get your home insurance. And I was told and aware that some of these extra landmarking will trigger the inability for the property owners. I'm not talking about just homeowners, but like just property owners to actually getting their property insurance. or they just got dropped. So, it's not a very fancy time of San Francisco. I just don't want to add more to any property owner if we can avoid that. But in general, I appreciate this proposal for amending our planning code to streamline landmarking process, even though it's only four weeks, but still better than nothing. My last comment is regarding to some of the, I mean, like, I get the message of what some of the supervisors concern. Supervisor Mahmoud had listed a very robust, very detail-oriented requirement or request. But I think in general, I have another take on this is that when we looked at a given property serving on the Historic Preservation Commission, when there is a time where we need to evaluate whether we should fully preserved a particular project or partially preserved a particular project or totally acknowledge that this will have a negative impact to historic resource on a given project. In those processes, the staff report did actually have a matrix with three columns to show that if the commissioners vote for the fully preserved condition, this project will lose XYZ amount of square footages at which tabulating to either its offices space or housing, depending on that given project. And then if the commissioner decided to take on the hybrid version, partially preserved, then there is what is the delta lost or gained, right? And then there's a third option, which is if the commissioner take it as accepting that this will have negative impact on historic resources, then what is the project will be able to achieve a certain number of housing and certain number of square footages. And I wanted to ask staff that this is something that we already have been doing and with the collaboration with project sponsor of any given property. So, it doesn't seem like it's really overly exhausting the staff from actually show us more comprehensive, informative decision to say, if you vote on this today, these versions, I know that's more like a CEQA thing, but it's, you know, I mean, historic preservation is literally, really is about CEQA, right? So, I wonder if there's a way we can actually embrace that spirit to so then we all, the decision makers, we are the governing body just for the Planning Commission. But for HPC commissioners and more importantly for our Board of Supervisors to have like a very comprehensive, fair information, like a piece of paper, a chart to see. A lot of the information from what Renard was showing, quoting from a New York City Council member, those information actually, the zoning height or zoning type and FAR, is actually pretty easily extrapolated from Project PIM. I don't think we gonna, so I'm like in that level, I felt like it is fair to provide information to policy decision makers to have well more informed decision and it's actually like a, everybody have the same information. It's no longer like, you feel this way or someone think the other way. Not really necessarily asking anyone to do the brain damage that someone would pay a lot of money for a land use attorney to figure out how much maximizing you can do, because that might be a little bit just too nuances. But I think any one of us deserve to see the trade-offs, the options.

YEAH, COMMISSIONER, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IS THE ALTERNATIVES PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH WHENEVER WE CONDUCT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT UNDER CEQA AND SINCE HISTORIC RESOURCES AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ARE ONE OF THE TOPIC AREAS THAT WE LOOK AT IN AN EIR, WE ARE MANDATED UNDER CEQA TO LOOK AT potential impacts to those resources and then look at options for reducing those impacts given the overall objectives of the project. I think the challenging part you have with that level of analysis with these projects right now is those projects are always done with a project in mind, right? Like you always know what is the underlying project that is being analyzed in an EIR, and then you riff off of that to basically figure out how you can mitigate impacts to historic resources within that realm. So we actually have defined rules that CEQA provides for us for looking at alternatives analysis, for looking at envelopes, for also striving for feasibility, because you can't just create fictitious alternatives that aren't feasible at the end of the day. So there are parameters that you have. I think the challenging part that we found with a lot of Supervisor Mahmoud's recommendations for housing is that the housing space right now is very broad. There are 19 different programs that allow you to use state incentives to build housing on a particular site or a particular somewhere. So where the old equation of zoning, as in I have a lot of a certain size, I can build two units. That's not the space that we're currently operating within, given the multitude of ways that you could look at housing. So like a lot of what we did under the family zoning plan was, for example, remove dwelling unit density limits as tied to parcel area right so that way we provide now more buildable area and form-based looking zoning the other part that layers on top of that is the bonuses and the other things that you can add on to it so when you have something as simple as like for example what you looked at on a few weeks ago with the and a project, right? The base zoning on that was a 40 foot height project. What came in under housing choice was close to 85 feet. It'd be hard for us to guesstimate those within the larger space of kind of housing in San Francisco and with what zoning is. So I think what you say makes a lot of sense that the information that we have on PIM is easy to present, right? So, yes, being able to provide for base zoning, being able to provide for all of that. We do provide that summary in the executive summary, but we don't connect that back towards developability on a particular parcel. You know, again, with landmarks, landmark designation doesn't actually impact your zoning or your zoning envelope itself. It requires a process by which we... look at things with more care under the historic through the historic preservation lens or historic preservation review but it's not an outright prohibition in terms of impacting the size or developable area of a particular site so that's the challenge with a lot of the proposals that are being put forward to us is we we are planning we don't state for a property owner what you can or cannot do to your site. We basically tell you in response to what the rules are that are established by the city and county of San Francisco.

Thank you. I really appreciate that very I would say juicy, but very informative, detailed explanation of all the nuances. I hope that it really also demystifies it a lot to the general public. However, it's in the spirit of really making sure that every one of us and my peers and my supervisors had the same information that they get so that they can make an informative decision when they cast their vote is very important. It's paramount. I'm not asking to go down the rabbit hole, but it's more just like with an assumption of the baseline zoning that we have. And this is the site that would allow to do whatever. So I would like to add that as a recommendation to move it forward.

the part where you're suggesting that that language not be included in the nomination process or?

I propose to strike down the nomination process to have the specifically call out cultural or preservation organization because they are practically Because does anyone, anyone who can breathe and human being can, like a legal age, I would assume, can nominate the initiation of landmarking? So any given special group? Yeah, I propose to do that, and I also propose to have that intentionally seek owner's consent on the property, and also... at the baseline zoning information to the historic preservation nomination proposal. Just the baseline, the one that we already have, like easily available.

And just to clarify, that would be just something that we would include in the staff report? I mean, I'm just thinking about how we codify things, and we don't typically codify everything that goes into the staff reports.

I think what Ms. Smith is saying is basically if you direct us as commission to do that as a practice in your reports, we'll just do that. You don't need to amend the legislation as such.

Oh, okay.

On the staff reporting part about the zoning.

BUT IT'S RELATED TO LANDMARKING SPECIFICALLY, RIGHT? YEAH. SO WOULD THAT NOT BE INCLUDED IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS?

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED TO IS THE QUESTION. YOU CAN AS A MATTER OF COURSE DIRECT US TO INCLUDE ZONING INFORMATION.

THAT DOESN'T BECOME A LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT. THAT JUST BECOMES A DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION TO STAFF.

Well, I mean, no, I think it would be a recommendation because pretty much the historic preservation destination would not really come in front of the planning commission. So the time that we have to specifically ask for it is more like then become a reactive than proactive. It's my purpose of this is actually being more of a proactively tell all the policy makers to have the same information. at the beginning, not like at the end, like, oh, can you show us what if this project A, if we become landmark, then what are the potential tradeoffs? I wanted to kind of like when any project that we looked at on any project that had existing tenants in place, there is in our project application, there is a chart to tell us that how many tenants are there and how many are legally there and how many have been illegally displaced, right? So I'm just like talking about like because this is today we're talking about in the spirit of really streamlining and foster transparency and understanding amount government agency and also the general public. So in that spirit of that, I really wish that there is a much more clarity in terms of all these relationship that for my fellow commissioners, we don't need to, we're not voting on the landmarking, but we have some, we do have our According to the city charters, we do have authority to call out for a hearing within the 45 days after HPC's referral. But I'm just saying that I really want to see something with that level of clarity so then we can, the policy decision makers, the governing body will have a much more harmonized way to have fully informed decision to cast their vote. So I don't want to make it, I want to make sure that our recommendation reflect that instead of making it as more like a reactionary approach on a given project base. So how do we word that?

I think that, does that not align with one of the supervisor's proposed amendments, if I'm hearing you correctly, require the planning department to calculate basically estimated number of units that could be built at the site were not landmarked.

Similar, but except that supervisor's recommendation has been disregarded at what level, right?

Does the supervisor... Yeah, keep in mind, commissioners, part of what... YEAH, KEEP IN MIND PART OF WHAT YOU'RE DEBATING RIGHT NOW IS WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. SO AGAIN, THIS IS YOUR REVIEW OF THE LEGISLATION. YOU AS A BODY ARE ALLOWED TO ADD YOUR OPINION BASICALLY INTO THE LEGISLATION FOR THINGS THAT YOU EITHER WANT TO SEE OR DON'T WANT TO SEE RELATIVE SCOPE OF WHAT THE LEGISLATION IS KIND OF TOUCHING. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF AS A MATTER OF COURSE, YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE, I THINK COMMISSIONER SOH, WE'RE TRYING TO DISTILL WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW, YOU WOULD LIKE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS AND AS PART OF THAT, YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ADDED INTO THE CASE REPORT?

Well, partially true. I do not like to have our planning commissioner review landmark destination. I would like to keep it the way it is. It's as a recommendation from our fellow amazing historic preservation commissioners that it's not where I'm going at. I just want to, in the spirit of reading Supervisor Mahmoud's letter and their recommendations recommendations, and also just sitting as a former Historic Preservation Commissioner with the experience of looking at it, how can we better be informed of all the all the costs and consequences of our voting on a given project to be landmark or not. It just similar to what would be mandated by CEQA on the certificate of appropriateness, but this now we're also mandating or like amending our planning code, which is then will be a mandatory review process. I just simply want to ask for something similar to Supervisor Mahmoud's suggestions, but it's coming back to more like after listening to our planning staff, you and Maggie mentioned there is probably a lot more variables of 19 different laws to overlaying it. It's really difficult to really pinpoint to that nuances, but I'm just simply ask for like a baseline. Like in those, in any time you propose a historic destination on landmarking a property or a district, you show that in just our JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER RESEARCH REPORTS, HERE IS THE BASELINE. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ON THIS PROPERTY. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD WHATEVER, RIGHT? JUST ON THE BASELINE. I KNOW THAT LEGISLATION ON THE STATE LEVEL AND THE FEDERAL LEVEL WOULD CONSTANTLY CHANGE, TOO. I'M NOT ASKING FOR A LAW SPECIFICALLY.

I THINK IF WE CAN DISSECT IT A LITTLE BIT, I THINK IT SOUNDS you want to provide a recommendation that the HPC consider trade-offs of landmarking against the baseline project zoning that we have. But keep in mind, the only misnomer about the zoning is that zoning no longer gives you a quantifiable number of units that you can build. Most cases now, RH1, RH2, RH3 are easy to think of like single family, two family, three family. you now have other add-ons within that context between ADUs, using whatever housing choice programs, like the other things that are added into that. But if it's an understanding of baseline zoning and develop whole area, that's definitely something that you can recommend is provided for context. So I think that's the challenge right now with providing that level of analysis is that it is difficult for planning staff to provide that writ large because of the amount of options that exist right now. So on our end, what we do quite a bit in our work is respond back to, right? So an architect develops a scheme, great, that seems to meet this. If there's nips and tucks and other things that you can get another unit, we provide advice accordingly, but it's hard to pinpoint what that looks like relative towards the development of a proposal on a particular project.

WOULD IT SATISFY YOUR RECOMMENDATION IF, THANK YOU FOR THE DOCUMENTS THAT SUPERVISOR MUTMOOD'S OFFICE SHARED. WE HAVE THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION, THE RECOMMENDATION. And in that highlighted sort of what is in there in the beginning and we talked about maybe just presenting the info that's on the property information map, sort of similar to what New York did and just an overview, but would it satisfy your recommendation for staff to just include that in the reports that go to each of the different steps?

To me, yes, but I would like to open my floor to the rest of my planning commissioner after hearing my really, I don't want to hoard the whole spot here. I'm going to pass it. To me, it is, but it's just in understanding. I know that there are also, we can do more, but that's just for now. That's where I stand.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner So. Commissioner Chen.

THANK YOU, PRESIDENT CAMPBELL. THAT'S THE PRESIDENT, RIGHT? OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. I MOSTLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SO'S REMARKS AND I JUST WANTED TO DIAL IN AND JUST MAKE SURE IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE MAYBE TO KIND OF PROPOSE LANGUAGE AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER MCGARY'S CURRENT MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND WITHOUT I BELIEVE IS TO RECOMMEND WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW HOW THE PROCEDURES ARE HERE, BUT I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER SO AND TRYING TO PUT THIS INTO LANGUAGE, I THINK IS TO RECOMMEND WITH MODIFICATIONS. SO INSTEAD OF THE LANGUAGE THAT'S NOW ADDING THE ORGANIZATION WITH HISTORICAL OR CULTURAL THINGS, I THINK IT WAS AMENDED TO READ THE DEPARTMENT OR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY REQUEST DOT, DOT, DOT, A NOMINATION. AND SO THAT WAY, AND SO THERE'S ALSO CURRENT LANGUAGE ABOUT THE OWNER BUT A LOT OF THAT LANGUAGE HAS BEEN STRIPPED OUT SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO MENTION THE OWNER BECAUSE THE OWNER IS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. That is the, okay, so I think that's the modification one. I think modification FROM COMMISSIONER SO IS LANGUAGE ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS SEEKING OR REQUIRING CONSENT OF THE OWNER WITH EXACT LANGUAGE TO BE, YOU KNOW, I THINK TO BE DECIDED AT THE BOARD. IS THAT ABOUT, OKAY. AND THEN I THINK THE THIRD ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THIS LIKE THIS Understanding, I think, you know, acting director or director? Director Sucre.

Director now. He's like a director now.

Director Sucre is, I think, kind of talking about challenges from staff about really sort of really understanding all the development capacity, right? But I think adding, I don't know what the right word is, you know, the objective of

The baseline, yeah.

Yeah, sort of like the objective information that we know about the development potential of this property. And again, like, I defer, I think, to staff or to the president or fellow commissioners about whether that should be a recommendation, whether that should be a directive from the commission to the department that doesn't have to go into the code, whether that should be something that is codified. You know, I don't know, but that's sort of like point three, if that makes sense. So, I'm just trying to summarize, I think, what I've heard. And then I have a novel point four, and so I just, I, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF THIS IS THAT BECAUSE DUE TO THE FAMILY ZONING PLAN, THE DEPARTMENT IS DOING THIS SITE SURVEY AND IS LOOKING TO POSSIBLY LANDMARK FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION HUNDREDS, POSSIBLY THOUSANDS, RIGHT, OF PROPERTIES. AND THIS PROCESS, THE CURRENT PROCESS BY REQUIRING AT LEAST TWO HEARINGS AT HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADDS we'll add thousands of hours of staff time, commission time. So I think that is a crux here. And so we are trying to save ourselves time and preserve our mental energy. This is what I'm trying to distill this. The one of my hmm and so so that's that's I think the the crux and so this is this is sort of a time-saving efficiency kind of question that of Some especially for things that have been nominated by the department, right? These are these are these are projects. These are properties right that had been that I think had been vetted what what I am I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN THIS HAPPENS BUT I THINK WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS IF THERE ARE MANY, MANY COMMUNITY INITIATED NOMINATIONS THAT COME THROUGH AND WHETHER THERE IS ENOUGH TIME FOR THE DEPARTMENT OR STAFF TO CONSIDER THEM ESPECIALLY BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN THE LEGISLATION THAT NOW SAYS THAT THE INITIATION HEARING IS WITHIN 45 DAYS. WHAT I AM SCARED OF IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME THAT MIGHT BE RUSHED TO DO BOTH INITIATION AND RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT HAVING HAD TIME TO REALLY CONSIDER THE REPORT. SO MY QUESTION TO STAFF IS TO SAY, HEY, LIKE, YOU KNOW, IN PAST PRACTICE, YOU KNOW, WHAT HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO PROCESS THESE THINGS? BECAUSE THESE ARE CALENDAR DAY LIMITS, IT'S ALSO LIKE CONSIDERING RECESS, VACATION, RIGHT? IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, IS THIS THING? AND THEN WHAT I'M DRIVING TOWARDS IS TO SAY IS THAT I THINK IT MAKES, I THINK GIVEN THE CONTEXT, IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO SAY WE ONLY NEED ONE HEARING FOR DEPARTMENT INITIATED NOMINATIONS. I'M CURIOUS HOW MUCH STAFF ARE REALLY PRESSING FOR ALSO STREAMLINING THESE COMMUNITY INITIATED NOMINATIONS?

IN MOST CASES, I'LL SAY WE ARE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY MEET THE 45-DAY CHARGE. KEEP IN MIND THE LEGISLATION GIVES US THE OPTION TO KIND OF COMBINE THE TWO HEARINGS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT WAS A PROP, TO GET TO THE SECOND HEARING, YOU HAVE TO PASS THE FIRST HEARING. IS A GOOD WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT. WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF COMMUNITY INITIATED LANDMARK NOMINATIONS WHERE IT HAS NOT PASSED THE FIRST HEARING, LIKE WHERE PLANNING STAFF DON'T AGREE WITH THE LANDMARK AND THEN WE ASK THE HBC IF THEY ALSO AGREE AND THEY SAY NO. SO THEN THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION KIND OF DIES AT THAT STAGE. INHERENTLY, REMEMBER, FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION, only the HPC and the Board of Supervisors have the right to kind of start the process. Anyone can ask, any member of the public can ask the HPC or ask the Board of Supervisors to start it, but the process doesn't start until the HPC actually, or the Board, keep in mind, so it's either or, kicks it off is a good way to think about it. So that 45-day period is about, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR SOMEONE GETTING CERTAINTY THAT I WOULD LIKE THE HPC TO ASK YOU PLANNING STAFF NEED TO BRING IT FORWARD TO THE HPC ACCORDINGLY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THAT. SO DURING THAT TIME FRAME, WE WILL BE REVIEWING THEIR APPLICATION AGAINST THE ADOPTED CRITERIA THAT THE HPC HAS. WE WILL BE RUINING OUR OWN INTERNAL NERTS AND PROVIDING OUR OWN KIND OF RECOMMENDATION BACK FORWARD TO THE HPC FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. One of the logic in helping Supervisor Mandelman draft this up was, for example, where we have easy kismet between the owner, our recommendation, and the board, do we need to keep both hearings or can we combine the two into one and allow for both public notice and so that's the ideal scenario is that we get that charge between the three and so that way it lets us kind of move through the process slightly bits faster than we normally could so right now we're mandated to do the two is part of the issue so with the legislative amendment we could smush the two hearings into one

RIGHT. SO I THINK I AM ON SO BECAUSE IF IT'S INITIATED BY THE BOARD, IT'S ALREADY INITIATED SO IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A FIRST HEARING. IF IT'S INITIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT, RIGHT, THEN I THINK THERE'S SOME VETTING. IF IT'S INITIATED BY THE COMMUNITY, I THINK MY SENSE, I HAVE NOT ACTUALLY OBSERVED THESE HEARINGS, BUT MY SENSE IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT STAFF DO NEED EXTRA TIME, I THINK, AND HAVING Even if this language were to pass, I think to say that you could consolidate. We could.

Yeah, if we thought that, for example, if someone from the community initiated a landmark, we're in alignment with it, the property owner is in alignment with it, we would combo the two hearings and move it forward accordingly. SOME OF THIS, KEEP IN MIND, IS ALSO TO GIVE US TIME TO DRAFT THE CASE REPORTS, MAKE SURE WE GET ALL THE INFORMATION ACCORDINGLY. SO IT'S AN OPTIONALITY RIGHT NOW THAT WE HAVE. UNDER THE FAMILY ZONING PLAN, THE LANDMARKING INITIATIVE WE HAVE THERE, WE HAVE A A MORE STREAMLINED CASE REPORT THAN WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST. SO THE CURRENT VERSION OF THIS USES A LOT OF OUR OWN EXISTING INFORMATION AND STREAMLINES THE REPORT TO ABOUT TWO TO THREE PAGES. IN THE PAST WE'VE WRITTEN BASIC LITERAL THESIS ON THESE WHICH I'M SURE COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL AND COMMISSIONER SO can attest like they're 45 page they used to be 45 page documents you know heavy academic um they're great for the history buff inside of all of us but like they're they're they're meaty so they they they take a lot of um time and effort but we we've successfully been able to like vet this both with the city attorney and the state and others that we can get a lot more consolidated in kind of how we move things forward accordingly. And so this was part of that effort, which was to give us the ability to combo the hearings if the stars align, honestly. Right.

So I think, well, the number of community, the relative mix of community initiated, especially in the next few years with the family zoning plan, right? I think there will be, it sounds like there will be over a thousand

Keep in mind, it's currently low. We pretty much get about one or two community initiated landmarks a year. So the current landmarking initiative that we have is coming from the department in partnership with the supervisors. So as we bring forward new landmarks in this batch that was a spinoff of the family zoning plan, we are working both in partnership with the supervisors, community groups, property owners to make sure that we hit that kismet that we want at the end of the day. So, you know, that includes making sure we get broad support for landmark designation, doing the work with the property owner to make sure that they really understand what a landmark means and what this means for the future of your property, and also making sure the supervisor is supportive of it. UNDERSTOOD.

I THINK I DON'T EXACTLY KNOW HOW IT WORKS HERE BUT THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE FROM COMMISSIONER MCGARRY SO I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE MAKE ONE MOTION TO AMEND THAT COMMISSIONER MCGARRY'S MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE MODIFICATIONS POINT ONE, TWO AND THREE ABOUT WHICH IS TO RECAP TO SAY IT'S A DEPARTMENT OR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY REQUEST A NOMINATION. POINT TWO IS ABOUT ADDING OBJECTIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SITE, THE ZONING, THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND THEN THE THIRD ABOUT SEEKING COMMUNICATION AND CONSENT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AS RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS. AND THEN SO IT'S ONE MOTION. I THINK THAT SORT OF SUMMARIZES WHAT COMMISSIONER SOH SAID. GOING TO MAKE A SEPARATE MOTION BECAUSE THIS IS NOT I THINK COMMISSIONER SOWS AT ALL BUT I THINK REVISING THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IN SECTION 1004.2 TO SAY THAT TO CONSOLIDATE THE HEARING CONSOLIDATION BUT TO NARROW THAT TO CONSOLIDATING HEARINGS FOR DEPARTMENT ORIGINATED NOMINATIONS. FOR PROPOSED DESIGNATIONS NOMINATED BY THE DEPARTMENT. SO THAT'S A, I'M LESS WEDDED TO THIS, BUT I DO THINK THAT COMMUNITY ORIGINATED DESIGNATIONS, NOMINATIONS SHOULD HAVE, SHOULD I THINK GO THROUGH THE TWO HEARING PROCESS. BUT I DO NOT WANT TO MAKE, I DO NOT WANT TO COMBINE THESE TWO THINGS BECAUSE THESE TWO THINGS MIGHT BE SEPARATE.

I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO JUST CONSOLIDATE THEM AND MAKE ONE NEW MOTION TO HAVE THESE THINGS IN IT. MAYBE OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO VOICE THEIR OPINION.

I'M KIND OF WILD CARDING IT HERE. I'M AFRAID THAT IF SOME PEOPLE AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SO'S THINGS BUT NOT WITH MY THINGS, THEN I DON'T WANT TO TANK THE ENTIRE THING. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY.

I RESPECT THAT.

THANK YOU. YOU CAN KIND OF PARK IT OUT THERE AND THEN WE CAN HEAR SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS AND SEE WHERE WE LAND. Thank you. That's okay.

Yeah. Perfect. That's all my comments.

Thank you. Those are great. Commissioner McDonald.

Hi. Thank you, President Campbell. Okay. There's been a lot that's been going on here. I have some specific things I want to add and some questions. So, first of all, I want to say that I really appreciate the efforts that the staff and department have made with Board President Mendelman to address this issue in, I think, a very thoughtful way and to come up with what I think are some pretty straightforward approaches to streamlining things and I have read your arguments and rationales for things that are in the packet here and it seems pretty straightforward and that a lot of things are covered and I appreciate that that you have been very thoughtful about the details that have gone into this. So some specific questions is one is so all of what has been talked about here as potential additions, since we're talking about a streamlining proposal that is only going to save Five weeks, five to six weeks, not a lot. So how much time would these things add back into it with any estimate that you might want to give us for that or just sense of it? That's one question. And the second question is regarding this language about clarifying that any member of the public includes organizations or groups, which I think was put in by the Historic Preservation Committee. Right? If I read this right. So I just wanted to ask, is there some problem that they're trying to solve with that language? Or whether you think that the simplified language will be just as good and do the trick?

I think that that portion was proposed by the supervisor. His legislative aid is still here. So you can always bring him forward to the dais to ask the question.

And I guess I'll do that.

A joint effort between staff and.

RIGHT, YEAH, THIS ORDINANCE AS A WHOLE WAS DEVELOPED IN VERY CLOSE COORDINATION WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SORT OF THE ASK WAS WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO STREAMLINE AND CLARIFY THIS PROCESS. THAT WAS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. I'm not sure I can speak to the specific history behind it. My understanding is that it was just sort of making clear. I think maybe there have been instances in the past where some of these organizations did not necessarily feel that they were able to or something of that matter.

Yeah, I'll just say for the record, any member of the public can ask the HPC or ask the board to initiate a landmark. So, you know, I do agree that, you know, the language is a bit redundant. And so, as part of your recommendation, you can ask the supervisor to strike it from the record. But it's, you know, it doesn't hurt one way or the other, quite frankly.

So you were just trying to telegraph or clarify for these organizations that, yeah, you're included in this, too. So to my thinking, sure, I understand streamlining language when possible, but it doesn't make a lot of difference maybe one way or the other if it's just meant to telegraph to them. And then my other question about additive time that might come with what's been discussed here.

Yeah, I can speak to that. So just regarding each of the different recommendations, how much added time. So the first one, I think, removing the preservation orgs, that's kind of no time. If that were to be removed, that's how it is now. For asking property owner consent to be required, I think that that would require probably a significant amount of time, just trying to track down the property owners.

um particularly for those that we don't have great contact info for and maybe they would just I know we would have to figure out that process internally if we don't hear back um yeah currently if it works where if the property owner has found out about this at the last minute we usually do delay the hearing in deference to making sure that we have time and opportunity to review SO IF IT SOMEHOW DOES MAKE IT TO THE HEARING AND THE PROPERTY OWNER REACHES OUT TO STAFF AND ASKS, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR CONTINUANCE, WE'RE OFTEN GRANTING IT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE SIT DOWN TIME WITH THEM. SO THIS HAPPENS USUALLY QUITE FRANKLY WITH PROPERTY OWNER large property groups, like when a property is owned by multiple entities and the entities haven't discussed amongst themselves what this means or what to do with it. Because then there's often just one LLC or something that gets sent the letter rather than the 10 property owners that might own it.

And then on this, oh, did you? So it's basically a part of your process already?

Yeah.

And then on the third, I think that really depends on the approach. If the approach is a larger table, like the preservation alternatives table, that information, having been through that process myself, that is very, as Rich mentioned, is very specific to the project and to the project sponsor. Those tables are often, the numbers are often provided by the project sponsor, not by staff. So that requires a lot of external expertise and that level of detail would require a significant amount of time and staff expertise that we do not currently have on the team or just within the scope of our work. If it was... to be added to the staff report, information that's already sort of objective information about the site, like the zoning, which I think some of it might already be in there, but that is already existing on the property information map. much less of an effort for staff time, but it would still require additional staff time, particularly for these large batches where we're looking at multiple properties at the same time. If we have a template already and adding more to that would add more time.

Yeah, and I'll just add again, I think this is the hard part with being on the planning staff side. It's not something that we do, right? We work in partnership with architects and developers to help craft the scheme relative to the rules that the city has adopted. But we are often asked, well, what can I do with my property? My solution is to pull up the zoning table, go through the multitude of ways that you can do all these things with your property, And so it's really hard on the government side or the city side to tell a property owner, well, you can build this. When actually, well, you didn't tell me about this and this and this and this. So that's the challenging part with providing that level of speculation on what can a parcel do. It's something that we always are doing in partnership with rather than kind of dictating out to because it can be deceiving from that end.

And maybe I'll just add to that, just because it's something we deal with all the time on a staff resourcing perspective. And of course, we are never resourced to do everything we want to do. I think particularly as we try to find ways to bring more housing forward, if we can quickly and creatively point people towards paths and point them towards the expertise, whether it's a land use attorney or appropriate architect to figure that out, we will do that. We just aren't resourced to be THE LAND USE CONSULTANT ON A PARCEL BY PARCEL BASIS. DOING THAT KIND OF WORK WOULD TAKE US AWAY FROM ALL THIS OTHER WORK THAT YOU GET TO SEE US DO ALL THE TIME.

THEN ON THE FOURTH ITEM, I BELIEVE IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT WOULD REQUIRING ANY COMMUNITY INITIATED LANDMARK TO DO TWO HEARINGS?

YES, SO I THINK IN THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IT'S AT THE TOP OF SECTION 10.2, IT SAYS THAT THE HBC MAY INITIATE AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL IN THE SAME HEARING AND THEN I THINK MY PROPOSED LANGUAGE WOULD DESPECIFY TO NARROW THAT TO ONLY FOUR DESIGNATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OR THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT.

And I think that that would also add more staff time, particularly for those where the stars do align and we do agree with the community-initiated or another venue that brings in the landmark nomination. That would add more staff time if we were required to still do two.

So just to be clear where we're at at this moment in time, I've got one motion on the floor and several friendly amendments that are being suggested, whether or not Commissioner McGarry accepts those amendments. But I still have yet to hear a second to the first motion. So I just clarify where I'm at.

Right. I'm sorry, but I don't know exactly how the process works. So is it possible now for me to second the original motion? You could second the original motion. I would like to second the original motion.

Great. Thank you.

Is that any other comments? Commissioner McDonald? No? Okay. So I spent a lot of time with this. I thank you to the staff for spending time with me on this. I think the amendments themselves are quite modest. I think what is triggering for me and maybe some of my fellow commissioners is just around landmarking IN GENERAL, WHICH WE ALL BELIEVE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I THINK IT'S JUST THERE'S THIS BROADER NARRATIVE THAT WE ARE AGGRESSIVELY LANDMARKING RIGHT NOW. WE SEE IT IN THE NEWS AND WE HEARD ABOUT IT IN ANNOUNCEMENTS IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING THAT I THINK THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JUST APPROVED 20 LANDMARK PROPERTIES. And it's hard to un-landmark a building. And I agree that building housing and landmarking are not mutually exclusive things, but it does make it much harder to work with a landmark building. So I think my concern is around just wanting to make sure that we're being really careful and thoughtful about the buildings and the districts that we are landmarking. So I really appreciate Supervisor Mahmoud's the sentiment of the letter and some of what they're getting at in terms of like wanting to make sure that we're making informed decisions. So I do like the idea of maybe it's not a, maybe it's a technology solution or maybe there's some way that we can just make sure that as we're looking at properties that we see what its development potential is. Maybe that's taking a maxed out developable volume and assuming a certain efficiency and applying a certain logic for like costs, sorry, square footage per unit, like 800 square feet or something. And it just applies a certain logic. Or maybe we can look to New York to see how they're doing that. I also really liked this idea of, you know, taking the development rights, you know, if something is going to get really locked in. And, you know, for example, in my neighborhood, the Castro is being eyed for a historic district. And it's really interesting because there are a lot of properties there that can go as high as 80 feet. But if many of them are contributors to the district, it's going to be very, very hard to do that. Not impossible. But it's going to be hard. Certificates of appropriateness are hard, right? They're hard to get. And we've got great examples of buildings that are landmarked that have gone on to propose a lot of housing. There's the Julia Morgan property in the Marina. It's great. It's great, right? It's not an impossibility, but it does make it So I'm interested, I'm curious around that idea. I'd love for the supervisors to explore ways of transferring development rights so that we still get more housing, which I think is the goal, while still preserving buildings that are worthy of being landmarked. I like the idea of making sure that owners are aligned with the landmarking as well. I appreciate it's hard to do that. So I wonder if after some sort of quantity of outreach if we can't get ownership by and then perhaps there's some sort of super majority that we have to get from the supervisors or maybe we could look into something like that. I mean right now it sounds like nothing's codified but it's Like the practice is that the supervisors are all like wanting owner buy-in for the most part, but you could imagine the sentiment changing in 10 years. So is there a way we can, you know, ensure that we have super majority or something like that if we can't get ownership buy-in? That's one thought if just to make staff's life a little easier so they're not chasing down owners to exhaustion. One just high-level comment is that I think I appreciate any kind of amendments that help make things more transparent and more efficient, which is why I'm in support of this. And I would hope that we could kind of apply the same sentiment on the certificate of appropriateness and the other side of this, right? So because once a building is landmarked, I think we want to try to be just as efficient and transparent around that side, too, to try to make projects more buildable. So again, housing and landmarking isn't mutually exclusive, but I hope we can help on the other end when someone has a landmark building and wants to build more housing, that we can make it as transparent and as efficient as we're making the landmarking, if that makes sense. That's kind of a broader comment. And then I guess for me, I'm kind of leaning away from the department, both department recommendations, both for the redundancy of the language around members of the public versus the organizations, blah, blah, blah. I think we all agree on that. But the cultural resources I think gives me a little bit of And maybe we haven't spent much time talking about your recommendation one around adding cultural resources. I think for me that one is a little bit more obtuse and abstract. Maybe you could just like walk us through an example of, you know, what would be left off if we didn't add that recommendation from the department.

Sure, happy to speak to that. I'd like to point to our racial and social equity analysis section. A lot of the work that we're doing on our team, our team is called, we've sort of tried to reframe our work as SF cultural heritage, expanding beyond just historic preservation, beyond the thoughts that just historic or older properties are those that may architecturally seem significant, would be we would want to usher into future generations. The cultural side is really critical to our work, particularly the equity side. And the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission both made resolutions, and specifically the Historic Preservation Commission back in 2020 for racial and social equity, to center our work in it. And the cultural side is centering that work. The Historic Preservation Commission resolution really focused on making sure that we are landmarking properties that are significant and important to underrepresented communities across the city. We have a significant imbalance of properties that are just important for architecture. And as we know, we all love San Francisco. There's so much heart and soul of the city that we see through the cultural heritage and through the cultural side of everything, not just sort of the aesthetic side. And so that phrasing also, I think, in the recommendations section, I highlight a couple other places where it's already included in Article 10. And so it's just keeping that consistent as well.

Just to make sure I got all of my comments here. Yes, I think that is it for me. You took off your name, Commissioner McGarry, because you were going to talk.

I'll be quick.

Oh, you are? Okay.

Yeah. I made the motion because thank you for staff, and I didn't thank you when I made the motion. The amount of thoughtfulness in the work you put into this is phenomenal. You've worked with historic preservation. You've worked with the supervisor. And you came up with a document that actually works. It expedites the process. It involves everybody in the process. But why I don't want the amendments is because if we're saving five weeks and our amendment is going to add, that's on the current situation, and we're just going to add five weeks. That's an extra 10 weeks. Basically, it's the opposite of what we're doing. So while...

Going through this, everybody has an opinion of what's going on or their own opinion or their own neighborhood.

They're looking across from the neighbor thinking that that person should not have the right to landmark my property as I wouldn't have the right. I don't believe I have the right to landmark. But the process is there. Everybody feels there's a democracy. Everybody feels like there is a portion where they can have a stake or a conversation. Yes, I do worry about the individual, basically homeowners, landowners, not having a stake or not being aware that their property is going to be landmarked. That is a concern. But I think it's all taken into account. If they're that far removed and they're absentee landlords, I think this document and this basically covers it all. So for me, it's about workability. If we're going to make changes and the department doesn't have the ability to actually enforce those changes or the procedural wherewithal to actually do it, we're just killing it. And I don't think that was the incentive when this was initiated at the start. So... Thank you for that.

Thank you, Commissioner McGarry. And just for the benefit of our two newest commissioners who are sitting in their second hearing and members of the public as well, there are only five commissioners present today. So we do have a quorum, but it takes four commissioners to adopt any action, right? And the planning code directs the planning commission that you shall approve or disapprove any planning code amendment that comes before you. So, if you don't get four votes, you effectively are passing along a recommendation of disapproval, okay? In the past, you know, commissions have, you know, Accepted the fact that maybe all of their recommendations don't get included as part of a formal motion But they direct staff to include them as findings of individual comments from individual commissioners So I'll just throw that out there before I call the question that that for the motion that's on the floor that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval without modification on that motion Commissioner Chen I

I'm sorry, I missed it. So this is currently the motion from Commissioner McGarry? Correct.

Commissioner McGarry made a motion to adopt a recommendation for approval without modifications. Commissioner McDonald has seconded that motion, so I'm calling the question now.

Okay. Without amendments.

Without any of Commissioner So's or your... FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS INCLUDED. I GUESS THEY WERE NOT FRIENDLY.

FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR NEW COMMISSIONERS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTOOD THE SECOND PART OF WHAT OUR COMMISSION SECRETARY SAID, WHICH IS IN THE ABSENCE, IF THERE ARE OTHER COMMENTARY HERE THAT MAY BE INCLUDED IN ANOTHER MOTION, BUT IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN A MOTION, YOU MAY DIRECT STAFF TO CARRY THOSE COMMENTS FORWARD TO THE COMMITTEE. SO WHILE THEY WON'T BE EMBEDDED IN A MOTION, WE WILL CITE THEM. ON THE RECORD AT THE HEARING. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR.

AND ONE LAST CLARIFYING POINT, I ASKED STAFF WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD TIME FOR A CONTINUANCE BECAUSE YOU COULD CONTINUE THE ITEM WITH A THREE TO TWO VOTE, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST A MAJORITY, IT'S A PROCEDURAL MATTER, TO ALLOW A SIXTH COMMISSIONER AT THIS POINT TO CHIME IN. UNFORTUNATELY, THE CLOCK HAS RUN OUT AND TODAY IS SORT OF THE LAST DAY YOU CAN FORMALLY ADOPT A MOTION WITH ANY KIND OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

And one last procedural question is that if this motion does not pass, it's still live, right, that we can still discuss? Yes. If this motion fails, there will be additional deliberation, another motion that can be put forward, and we'll vote on that. Okay. Got it. All right. So on the vote, no.

Commissioner McDonald.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry. Aye. Commissioner So.

No.

And Commissioner President Campbell.

Nay.

Okay, that motion fails two to three with Commissioners Chen, Tso, and Campbell voting against. Is there an alternate motion?

I move to approve with With recommendations as discussed in the record, and I actually, I don't even know who has support, but with points, as discussed earlier, points one, modifying section 1004.1a to specify, to clarify that it is the department or any member of the public who may request designation. Point two, to require information about the development, objective information about the development potential of the property in the hearing information. Point three, to seek consent of the property owner including possibilities of a supermajority if the owner, without the owner's consent. And then it's point four, is that something, President Campbell, is that something that's germane?

Transfer of development rights.

I just, I would love to see that conversation continue as a recommendation, not as a formal amendment or anything.

Point four is a recommendation, recommend that the Board of Supervisors consider transfer development rights. I WILL LEAVE MY DEPARTMENT ONLY THING. I'LL LEAVE THAT ALONE. I THINK THERE'S FOUR POINTS.

I SECOND IT.

LET ME TRY TO. WE'RE TRYING TO GET SOME PROCEDURAL MATTERS. I'M CLEAR ON THE STRIKING OF THE PROMOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST SENTENCE OF 1004.1 AND LEAVING IT AS CURRENTLY

I THINK THE CURRENT LANGUAGE HAS PROPERTY OWNER IN THERE.

YOU WANT TO STRIKE THE PROPERTY OWNER. CORRECT. SO THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION IS SIMPLY TO AMEND 1004.1 TO STRIKE PROPERTY OWNERS AND LEAVING EVERYTHING ELSE THE SAME, NOT INCLUDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. CORRECT. SO STRIKING PROPERTY. JUST FOR CLARITY, YOU'RE NOT INCLUDING STAFF'S PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS, RIGHT? BECAUSE THE FIRST CHANGE IS MODIFYING THE SECOND. SO I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING, THE MOTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MODIFICATIONS PROPOSED BY STAFF.

Yes, so staff had two recommendations, and so I think the second one is moot, right, because of this first one. Correct, correct. That's clear. That's clear enough. So the first one is adding cultural, and I think we are not, I think it is not taking that. Right, just to be clear. Yes, yes.

Just again, for clarity. Okay, so the first proposed modification is, so to the first sentence of 1004.1, I think that's clear. The second one is to include... um in staff report um information about underlying zoning and development potential of the property is that right yes i believe that is okay um and then the third is seeking owner consent yes so uh i think we can word it as strong as uh

LEAVE THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE.

INCLUDE A PROCESS TO SEEK OWNER CONSENT. WE'LL LET THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SORT OF FIGURE THAT OUT. AND THEN SO IT'S THE FOURTH ONE.

I'M NOT. THE FOURTH ONE FROM PRESIDENT CAMPBELL WAS TO CONSIDER A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.

AND CONSIDERATION FOR TDRs. GOT IT. And no .5. I think those are the four. Okay. So on that motion, Commissioner Chen.

This is to approve with recommendation.

Approve with modifications, and there are four points to those. There's four modifications that we've outlined.

Understood. Aye.

Commissioner McDonald. Aye.

I'm sorry, I just need to know something procedural. Is all I can do right now vote?

I'm sorry?

Is all I can do right now vote one way or the other, or can I ask a question?

Right now there is a motion that has been seconded. You can ask for clarifying questions if you'd like. Okay.

I have a clarifying question because the language that's been put into it regarding how much information needs to be provided by staff for you know, the development capacity of the site, I'm unclear whether that is a small amount of information that's being asked for or if it gets into the whole big issue of all of the different possibilities. Yeah.

I mean, what I heard from Commissioner So is a desire for just a baseline underlying zoning clarification on development potential. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, that's deceiving and not accurate and not very informative to the person who's digesting that information because of all of the 19 other development potential circumstances that are available to any developer or owner of the property. So that's why I'm just respectfully, it doesn't really provide much information in my opinion.

Do you mind if I kind of elaborate a little bit why I kind of feel like this is more like meeting the middle? meeting the common ground of there's a desire to be more informative about how we vote on any given property to landmark the property. And the way it is now, Only very few really industry expert can immediately know where to look for these baseline zoning information or special interest group that know how to do it. And if the governing body has a very different diverse group of expertise, that might not be necessarily historic preservation driven. So we don't have a way to share with all the governing body and decision makers of what this potential site could be. But what I'm asking for is not what was being put forward as a piece of memo from Supervisor Mamou's office of going down to look at 19 different legislation that is applicable to this particular site and then went through a very meticulous way to find out all these variables. What I'm asking for is a middle ground of giving all of us a base idea of the magnitude of the given site. Because it's pretty obvious if you know like this site is a, if we're proposed to landmark this site and this site is zoned for allow to 80 feet tall zone and it's zoned for mixed use and it's in a transit oriented corridor. immediately I would assume this is the baseline of, like, anyone can actually go into our planning website right now with our really robust data through coming out of the success of the Family Zoning Plan, that you can actually see that. But I simply am not asking for staff to conduct an extensive search and a lot of effort to do it. I'm just saying these informations are easily available, but yet not being put together in our packet. to actually give us a clear understanding of what are the magnitude of consequences that we are evaluating. So that's my version of clarifying why I wanted to add that motion of recommendation number three into it, not asking staff to do what a land use attorney or fancy-pants architects do, you know. I'm just saying bringing in what we already have as a baseline, and I would trust that any governing body that has any jurisdictions over land use matters at least had that baseline level of professional acumen on this subject matter expertise. Like when you see that you are landmarking a property, even like right now when you see you're landmarking this property, but it's zoned for 85 feet tall, and it's, you know, like things like that, then each of us can take that information and process it in our own way. I just really want to know, I just simply want to have a TRANSPARENT AND SAME INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ALL OF US. THAT'S ALL.

MAYBE I CAN ACTUALLY JUST PASS OVER OUR STAFF REPORT WHICH DOES INCLUDE ZONING, THE ZONING DISTRICT AND HEIGHTENED BULK FOR ALL LANDMARKS.

I THINK WE'RE SUGGESTING MORE of an indication of if a property of this nature were to be developed to its maximum exercising family zoning, for example, it could yield and it would be like an algorithm, right? That you're assuming a certain amount of percentage of efficiency, a certain size, average unit, which would be probably like 800 square feet or something per unit, that it would yield and it would be a range, probably anywhere from eight to 40 units of housing. to be factored into, to make an informed decision around.

That would be really nice. Yeah, that would be really nice. In addition to this, yes.

Oh, so you're describing something different, or in addition to what she's... Yeah, in addition to what this... Yes, that information, that data. Yes.

Yeah, because it's giving us like in a layman language term of what it could be, right?

Is this something we might make as a recommendation for the Board of Supervisors to discuss further versus a modification? There's a difference, right?

I mean... ESSENTIALLY, YOUR PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ARE JUST THAT. IT'S SUGGESTING TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO THINK ABOUT IT. THEY ULTIMATELY MAKE THE DECISION.

OKAY. I THINK THE POINT, THE MESSAGE REALLY ENCROSSED THAT WITH THIS MOTION.

COMMISSIONERS, IF I MIGHT OPINE AGAIN. JUST REMEMBER, YOU CAN ALWAYS DICTATE THAT AS A MATTER OF POLICY FOR US, RIGHT? SO RATHER THAN PROVIDING IT AS A hard-coded amendment in the legislation, you can direct staff to provide that level of analysis or, for example, encourage the HPC to consider that analysis in their landmark designations for future. So it's something that you don't necessarily need to put it into the legislation itself, but it's something that you could recommend your fellow body to do.

I don't mean to cut you off, but that's the point here is we are talking about amending planning code. So, it's not, and then there's no interest for us to go in deep with like your specifically landmarking any single property, but we're talking about we have, my understanding is like the planning commission has a jurisdiction responsibility to anything that amending the planning code. And today what's asked in front of us today is a recommendation for proposal to amend planning code. So, again, would like to appreciate being something more proactive than reactive on case-by-case. I really know that you guys are really busy, so I don't think I wanted, we wanted, or like I can speak for myself, I don't want to call you and say, hey, I wanted to see this X, Y, Z. So, if we are really amending planning code of today, it would be nice to lay out these transparency and understanding of what we're expected to see in pretty much across three different governing bodies, right? The HPC planning and also the board of supervisors and ultimately to the mayor's office. So I really appreciate you said that we can always ask the staff for more information. I do really, really appreciate that. I will take it, keep it as an offer. But today we are giving information of our understanding of what we would like to recommend in the proposal to amend planning code. Yeah. Right. That's kind of where I am right now.

Commissioner McDonald?

So I guess it all hinges on what the definition of baseline information is, if that's what's going into what it is that we are proposing here. I mean, it's still very

Well, I'm pretty clear at least what Commissioner So is suggesting is what the underlying zoning would provide for without all of the other bells and whistles that the state bills or other things include. It's just like if it's RH2, then it allows two family, two dwelling units.

All right. Well. Sorry, this is a tricky situation because I feel like... Go with your gut. What's that?

Go with your gut.

Go with my gut.

Well, if I'm going to go with my gut, I'm sorry, I'm going to vote no. Yes. You can always make another motion after this if it doesn't pass.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner McGarry, yeah.

I'm going to go back to... Is this going to make the planning department, obviously it's going to make, you're going to have more work. Is the planning department going to be liable for every homeowner that calls up about their property and how it could be maximized to its potential and the planning department have to basically give a perfect answer to that with every option that's out there right now, and that calculation for every person, property owner that calls in asking for that. And if we get it wrong somehow, It's like, do you have the wherewithal to do that? Do you have the resources to do that?

As directed, we will do what we need to do to fulfill the mandate that the board and the commissioners put upon us.

So this work you've done right now is totally upended and you'll be back to the drawing board with a lot more work to actually do going forward. It is no longer what was presented in front of us here today. It no longer has the agreements, no longer has basically the checkmarks of the people that were behind it to get us here today. And now it's going to be totally, something totally different. And you don't have the resources to actually do it. Is that a fair assessment? Because it's not what was planned from the start. Now it's totally different requirements.

Yeah, Commissioner, I'd say whatever language that ends up getting, or if language does get amended and adopted by the board, we will work through with what that does in terms of the timelines and work with the supervisors and the commission accordingly. So we're obviously always happy to try and make sure we put forward our best effort in these instances to do what we need to do.

I love the can-do attitude, and I know we're going to pull it out of the bag at the end. But it's not what was originally in the bag. We've got something totally different here right now. Correct. It was not something that was part of our original recommendation. OK. So I'll have to vote no on that.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER MCGARY. SO WE'RE SORT OF IN THE MIDDLE OF CALLING ROLE ON THE VOTE ON THE MOTION WITH THE FOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. COMMISSIONER CHEN VOTED YES. COMMISSIONER MCDONALD VOTED NO. COMMISSIONER MCGARY, WHAT SAY YOU? I'M SORRY?

NO.

COMMISSIONER SO?

YES.

AND COMMISSIONER PRESIDENT CAMPBELL?

YES.

That motion fails 3-2 with Commissioners McDonald and McGarry voting against. Is there an alternate motion? As it stands right now, if there is no alternate motion, the resolution would go to the, will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors as a recommendation for disapproval.

I THINK MY INTENTION IS WE WOULD LIKE TO SEND THIS WITH A RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD LIKE TO SEND IT WITH A RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD LIKE TO SEND IT WITH A POSITIVE, I DON'T KNOW, TO SEND IT WITH APPROVAL OR WHATEVER THE POSITIVE.

RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. I AM TRYING TO DISCERN WITH COMMISSIONERS MCDONALD AND MCGARY WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT of these just like of the of the three or four points what are the things that are objectionable what are the things that are that are um you know what what what are the things that if we took out right we would still would still be fine so i think that's that's my question and so i think my sense is that point one is fine because it's just a language thing um point two about the property owner consent thing right i think there i think there is a way to make this streamline to say to to say oh it It does not require extra staff time. For example, I think President Campbell had a sense to say, oh, well, if you don't get the property owner's consent, possibly a higher vote threshold. And that would not require additional staff resources is my understanding. And then point three, I think about adding information, which is Commissioner So's thing. I think there are I THINK THERE ARE SIMPLE WAYS, RIGHT, AND I DO AGREE, I HAVE HEARD FROM STAFF, RIGHT, THAT IT WOULD TAKE MORE TIME ESPECIALLY BECAUSE STAFF IS PROCESSING OVER A THOUSAND OF THESE IN THE NEXT SO OFTEN. BUT I THINK WHAT THE EXISTING REPORTS, THEY DO SAY, OKAY, HIDE AND BULK DISTRICT, THIS IS THE ZONING. AND SO IF, AND I DID HEAR FROM DIRECTOR SUKRE THAT WE CAN, we could make it a department practice without necessarily making it a legislative action. And so maybe we could take that separately. So what I'm asking for is if we did separate out the THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT REPORTS INTO MAYBE POSSIBLY A SEPARATE DIRECTIVE. WOULD THE REMAINING THREE POINTS OF THE MOTION BE AMENDABLE TO THE DISSENTING COMMISSIONERS?

Recommendation of approval with modifications and those modifications put in to basically staff's ability to work them out as they come up individually, that the department's discretion on that, to work on them and take into account the points, that would be one way. It would actually, my concern here is the feasibility and the workability and the possibility that it will actually get done or it doesn't get done. That's my concern. otherwise basically throw it out and get something else because that's what we have right now is something else but all the work has been done I don't want that work to just be basically torn up but if the modifications were actually left in the hands of the department with all three points but especially Commissioner President Campbell's point that there would be a higher threshold for the owner, I get that. That seems to be a high point, and that's workable. It's doable. It's feasible. It doesn't add extra staff or a different department within the department that doesn't exist. at this moment in time, because there will be a floodgate. It's like, yeah, 1,000, but there's going to be a floodgate of applications on this. And then just after our discussion today, every homeowner just on curiosity alone is going to be calling the department just looking for the feasibility of what they possibly have. And then the liability that goes along with that, for me, that's just, I find it slightly insane. I really do think that the department should have the discretion because they've got us to this point, and it's very well thought out. Yes, is there a few things that personally I might have an issue, and one would be the property owner's individual right to their property and knows the say on their property and not the neighbor looking over thinking, I want to look at that into perpetuity and see no changes whatsoever. I think that's ridiculous, but that is a big part of San Francisco. It's riddled into every case we have here, you know, on a weekly basis. But it's still got to be workable. It's got to be feasible. And I think the points that were raised here today can be inserted into the subconscious of the department when they're making these decisions. And that's doable. And I would go for a motion like that. The wording of it? It's discretion. It's approval with discretion, but basically we would like the department in their decisions to take point A, B, C, D into consideration. We have that power. And that wouldn't be taken away by the supervisors going forward.

Director Dennis-Phillips. I just wanted to note on staff's, on the department's perspective, we are hearing loud and clear from this vibrant discussion that commissioners are in favor of less process, generally, because that's good government and we want to do it appropriately, and that you're also in favor of us being clear about our housing goals in addition to our preservation goals. And so I just want to note, whatever your motion comes out, you know, our staff reports and our practices will adhere to those, the spirit of that conversation that we are hearing today.

Anything else, Commissioner McGarry? Okay. Commissioner McDonald.

Okay. So the part of the motion that has been before us about making sure that the property owner is in agreement with any designation, I've just been trying to read through the text of the planning code as it is related to all of this. And what I see in here, and excuse me if I've missed something, but there is a notice of hearing, right, where Amongst other things, notice shall also be mailed not less than 10 days prior to the date of hearing to the owners of all property included in the proposed designation. Using for this purpose the names and addresses of the last known owners as shown on the records of the tax collector and to the applicant if any. So that's the process as it stands right now, right? So I would think if we're making a proposal for an amendment to the planning code, we'd have to be ready to insert some specific language either in here or somewhere else in this code saying something. And I don't know, you know, other than this process that's been set forward, right, in terms of notifying and letting people know and hopefully they'll show, they'll come and they'll be, express interest and they'll be there. And if not, people might be concerned about it, including the supervisor, et cetera, et I don't know how we would insert additional specific language beyond this that would be workable for staff. Right? So is there a suggestion for that specific language? Because if that's what we're voting on, that's what I'd like to know.

Asking people to show up to a hearing is very different than asking a property owner to actually give his consent. So I think we'll refer to the people who had trained as lawyers to add that into our code language. I just want to chime in. This is speaking of experience as well. I've seen so many owners come in front of me and said, I don't want this, and you still make me do it. And I really do not want to see that happen again as much as we could. That's many times I've seen it.

If I may answer, Commissioner McDonald, I think OUR ACTION AS A PLANNING COMMISSION IS THAT WE WILL SEND A RESOLUTION WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. THE RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE VERY SPECIFIC, AS WITH LANGUAGE 1, I THINK WITH THAT FIRST POINT ABOUT CHANGING THE LANGUAGE OF WHO CAN INITIATE OR WHO CAN REQUEST AN INITIATION, BUT THEN I THINK WE CAN ALSO BE FAIRLY VAGUE AND LEAVE THAT TO THE BOARD. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT JUST

Yeah, just to reiterate what Commissioner Chen is saying, that's accurate. So if you don't have specific language yourself that you're ready to draft, you can draft the sentiment and then usually if the supervisor wants to take your recommendation, they'll work with the city attorney or department staff to craft the intent of what you're saying back into the legislation.

Okay, so maybe I will try this again. Sorry, President Campbell.

Do you have any other comments or questions? Because I see your thing is there.

Sorry, my thing is still up there. Well, I guess if there, regarding the property owner, if there is language about endeavoring or, you know, to the best of the abilities, I mean, to obtain the consent of a property owner as opposed to absolutely have to, I might feel more comfortable with that. I mean, I think we want to keep it within the realm of, what is possible to do, especially if it's going to be something that's actually in the planning code. So on that one, I feel that way, the part about opening up GOING DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE.

IF I CAN OFFER A RECOMMENDATION, IN THE STATE AND FEDERAL REGISTERS FOR HISTORICAL RESOURCES THERE IS A PROVISION THAT TALKS ABOUT EXPRESSING OPPOSITION. A PROPERTY OWNER, IF THEY EXPRESS DIRECT OPPOSITION, FOR EXAMPLE, TO A LANDMARKING, THEY WOULD NOT BE PUT ON A FEDERAL OR STATE HISTORICAL REGISTER. SO THAT EXISTS CURRENTLY AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED AS A MATTER OF ORDINANCE IN OUR LOCAL. SO IT'S KIND OF THE OPPOSITE. IT'S LIKE FOR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF CONSENT, WHICH MIGHT BE HARD, IT'S DIRECT OPPOSITION TO.

THAT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD PRECEDENT. COMMISSIONER CHEN.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS AND THANK YOU STAFF. I KNOW WE PROBABLY SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS. THIS IS MAYBE THE FOURTH OR FIFTH MOTION. LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS. POINT ONE AS DISCUSSED BEFORE, CHANGING THE FIRST SENTENCE OF 1004.1A TO REFRASE TO SAY THE DEPARTMENT OR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY REQUEST DESIGNATION. POINT TWO, I BELIEVE, IS TO Better consider the consent or opposition of the property owner in a way that does not unduly burden department staff. Yes. And then... I THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT INFORMATION WE WANT TO PUT INTO THE REPORT FOR THE COMMISSIONS, I THINK WE CAN LEAVE THAT AS A DIRECTIVE WITHOUT PUTTING THAT INTO LEGISLATIVE CODE. IF THAT IS AMENABLE. SO I WILL SKIP POINT THREE AND THEN POINT FOUR I THINK WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OBJECTED TO IS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. SORRY, THREE POINTS. SO I WILL PUT THAT MOTION OUT IN THE AIR.

I SECOND. COMMISSIONER MCGARRY.

I WAS GOING TO SECOND THAT.

YOU WERE. OK.

Okay, maybe we got some traction here. Maybe we got some traction. So what I heard from Commissioner Chen in his motion that has been seconded is to strike the proposed amendment to the first sentence of 1004.1A as well as striking the term property owners from the existing legislation. TO RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS INCLUDE A PROCESS SEEKING OWNER SUPPORT IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT UNDULY BURDEN STAFF. AND FINALLY, AN AMENDMENT FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. ON THAT MOTION, COMMISSIONER CHEN. AYE. COMMISSIONER MCDONALD? AYE. COMMISSIONER MCGARY? AYE. COMMISSIONER SOE? AYE. COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL? AYE. SO MOVED, THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK OR KEEP GOING? ORDER A PIZZA. OK, COMMISSIONERS, VERY GOOD. WE GOT THROUGH THAT ONE.

THANK YOU.

ITEMS 9A AND B FOR CASE NUMBERS 2020-006887PRJ AND GPA FOR THE FREEDOM WEST PROJECT. YOU WILL FIRST HEAR AN INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION AND THEN YOU WILL CONSIDER INITIATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN. Oh, yes, yes, yes.

Commissioner McDonald, I believe you have a disclosure.

Hi. Yes, I would like to make a disclosure that I know staff member Patrick Grace in a professional capacity. Patrick was a student of mine when I was a professor at UC. Berkeley and we worked closely together both in classes and in other capacities. I do not believe that this relationship will impair my judgment or affect my ability to consider this item impartially. Thank you.

Thank you.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, PRESIDENT CAMPBELL, PATRICK GRACE, SENIOR PLANNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY PLANNING DIVISION AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I'M ALSO PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE FREEDOM WEST PROJECT. I'M EXCITED TO BRING THIS BACK TO YOU. AS WE APPROACH APPROVALS, WE WERE LAST WITH YOU SUMMER 2024 FOR AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM AND THE PROJECT HAS BEEN WORKING HARD TO REACH THIS MILESTONE. THE PROJECT EMBODIES A STRONG COMMUNITY DRIVEN VISION ROOTED IN HOUSING SECURITY AND THE DESIRE TO PROVIDE MORE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, RELINK THE CITY, CREATE ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACES AND ESTABLISH AN APPROACH TO EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT. TODAY WE BRING THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE FREEDOM WEST PROJECT STATUS AS WELL AS REQUEST THE COMMISSION INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN. AT TODAY'S HEARING SUSAN MA, PROJECT MANAGER FROM THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT WILL PROVIDE A REFRESHER ON WHAT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ACTUALLY IS FOR OUR NEWEST COMMISSIONERS AND AS A REFRESHER AND PROVIDE OVERVIEW OF THE KEY TERMS OF THE PROJECT. LANDON TAYLOR, CHAIRMAN AND CEO OF LEGACY FIRST PARTNERS WILL THEN GO INTO THE PROJECT'S GENESIS AND VISION. AND CHRISTOPHER BELL PRINCIPAL AT DLR GROUP WILL RUN US THROUGH THE PROJECT ELEMENTS AND SOME OF THE DESIGN CONTROLS THAT ARE BUILT INTO THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES DOCUMENT WHICH WILL SHAPE HOW THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED AND RESPOND TO THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE DRAFT ESG IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET FOR REFERENCE AND WE'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY AT TODAY'S HEARING OR NOW UP THROUGH ENTITLEMENT. AND THEN LASTLY I'LL REJOIN YOU TO WALK YOU ALL THROUGH THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND THE RELATED ACTION FOR TODAY. SO I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE SUSAN MA.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for your time today. I'm Susan Ma with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, here to give a little background on what a development agreement is, the role of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, and a high-level overview of the Freedom West Development Agreement. In essence, a development agreement is a contract between the city and a developer that grants the development rights to implement a project and codifies the project's specific uses, design, regulations, and policies. DA projects are typically constructed over longer periods of time, often in phases, and often include the creation of new infrastructure such as blocks and streets, parks, and community facilities. DAs can be used to negotiate public benefits that are responsive and specific to the neighborhood's needs and tailored to the project itself. They require many discretionary approval actions via legislation through this body and the Board of Supervisors. To keep projects accountable, DAs include reporting requirements, monitoring procedures, and ongoing community coordination. Once finalized, the DA remains effective on the project site even if the site is sold to another developer or owner. We most recently saw an example of a development agreement when the Potrero Power Station project came before this body in June of this year. OEWD's joint development division negotiates the development agreements and coordinates closely with the planning department and other city departments involved in reviewing, approving, and implementing the project. Community benefit packages could include terms around affordable housing, workforce development, open space, transportation and streetscape, as well as others. Our role is to balance public benefits and financial feasibility to ensure the project is implemented and able to deliver on the negotiated package. Okay, so now we're all experts in development agreements, and let's talk about Freedom West. At a high level, this DA will have a term of 25 years with an option for a one five-year extension. It will require on-site replacement of all Freedom West co-op units, Over 2,000 new housing units will be built including new affordable homes on site. We will ensure workers and local businesses will have opportunities to participate in the development through the workforce development agreements for both construction and end-use job opportunities. This is especially important as the project is anticipating over 9,000 construction jobs. The local business enterprise utilization plan will have goals for both LBEs and micro LBEs. The development will create over 1.5 acres of new publicly accessible open space that will allow for easier access to Margaret Hayward Park. And the STEM Entrepreneurship Center to serve the neighborhood with training, community space, and additional workforce opportunities. THIS INFORMATIONAL MARKS AN IMPORTANT MILESTONE IN THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT SPONSOR TEAM HAS BEEN WORKING ON THE VISION FOR THIS PROJECT FOR YEARS BEFORE BEGINNING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IN 2022. SINCE THEN THERE HAVE BEEN PROJECT REFINEMENTS, CONTINUED COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND ONGOING WORK TOWARDS ENTITLEMENT. WE ANTICIPATE BRINGING THE COMPLETE DA PACKAGE BACK TO THIS COMMISSION FOR APPROVALS AND CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR LATER THIS FALL. I WOULD NOW LIKE TO INTRODUCE LANDON TAYLOR, CO-CHAIRMAN AND CEO OF LEGACY FIRST WHO WILL BE GOING FURTHER INTO DETAIL ON THE PROJECT AND ITS HISTORY.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS LANDON TAYLOR. AS SUSAN INDICATED, LET'S HAVE THIS MAKE SURE. THERE WE GO. I'm the chairman and CEO of Legacy First, and we have the honor of being the investment managers and lead advisors to the Freedom West Homes Corporation. Probably even more pleased to say that I'm a third generation San Franciscan and a former resident of Freedom West from age seven to 17. You can advance the slide. Let me ground us first in history. Freedom West was born out of the horrific government sponsored urban renewal, which I'm sure all of you have history around 20 to 30,000 RESIDENTS DISPLACED, MOST NEVER ABLE TO RETURN, 800 BUSINESSES CLOSED, MY AUNT TUGGY'S BEING ONE OF THEM. So at the end of 1960s, the beginning of 1970, Bethel AME Church, led by J. Austin Hall, had the bold vision of building a co-op, a co-op to allow 382 families to move there and have stable housing and the ability to transfer their shares to future family members. THE CHALLENGE IS THAT BECAUSE OF NO FURTHER INVESTMENT FOR CITY, STATE, OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND A FAILED LONG-TERM ECONOMIC SELF-SUSTAINABILITY MODEL, the co-op was about to fail. And in 2018, I got a phone call from the vice president and President Mattie Scott, who you'll hear from in a moment, that says, come please help save us. So we came and we began to work on Freedom West 2.0, the $3 billion revitalization plan that we'll walk you through that is designed not only to save the co-op, but to, we hope, catalyze the revitalization of the broader Fillmore community. GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. WHAT IS FREEDOM WISE TODAY? IT'S OWNED BY THE NONPROFIT CO-OP, 10 ACRES, FOUR CITY BLOCKS, 382 HOUSES REPRESENTING 1,000 FAMILIES. THE AVERAGE INCOME OF THE COMMUNITY IS $40,000. which is poverty in San Francisco. So if they get displaced, they will likely not be able to stay in San Francisco. And the African-American population, which has plummeted from 13% back in the 1950s to under 5%, would continue to plummet. So we put together the plan, Freedom West 2.0, with anchored with the needs, the hopes and the understanding of the fears of the community. We started in May. MAY, NO, MARCH 7TH AT A BOARD RETREAT WHERE I BROUGHT THE BOARD MEMBERS TOGETHER. YOU SEE THEM IN THAT PICTURE. AND WE ASKED THEM TWO BIG QUESTIONS. ONE, WHAT HAS FREEDOM WASHED MEANT TO YOU, THE RESIDENTS, AND THE COMMUNITY FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS, AND WHAT DO YOU WANT IT TO MEAN FOR THE NEXT 40? AND THEMES CAME OUT. DO YOU SEE THAT IMAGE, ALL THIS WRITING? THESE THEMES CAME OUT. EQUITY, ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY, CONNECTED COMMUNITY. AND SO AS A RESULT OF THOSE THEMES, THESE DESIGN PRINCIPLES WERE CREATED, AND GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH LED TO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES. SO WE ASKED OUR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PARTNER, VICTOR MCFARLANE, to put together a master development plan that had to achieve these four guiding principles. Number one, the co-op must stay intact. You cannot replace the co-op. It must stay intact. It must remain 100% owned by the co-op. Number two, we must replace all 382 units of housing and they must remain affordable. Number three, super important. We have to create a 40 year plus ECONOMIC SELF-SUSTAINABILITY MODEL SO THAT THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS THAT THEY WERE IN TODAY WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN AND NUMBER FOUR THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD ALWAYS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SAY IN THE DESIGN SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT SLIDE WE MADE SURE OF THAT WITH THIS EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN OVER ONE THOUSAND TOUCH POINTS IN TERMS OF SURVEYS, 40 IN-PERSON MEETINGS DURING THE PANDEMIC, AND THEN OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS, COMMUNITY-WIDE ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS, AND JUST LAST WEEK, WE LAUNCHED THE LATEST, WHICH IS THE FREEDOM LAST HOUSING STABILITY COORDINATOR TO GO FAMILY BY FAMILY TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS PREPARED FOR TEMPORARY RELOCATION, MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE ECONOMIC NEEDS THAT THEY HAVE. GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THESE ARE SOME IMAGES OF OUTREACH. WHAT I LOVE IS THE ONE IN THE UPPER LEFT WHICH SHOWS THE INTERGENERATIONAL. YOU SEE THE BEAUTIFUL LADY WITH THE MASK ON. SHE'S 100. one of the oldest members. And then you see the baby, Richard O'Neill's vice president, he's only two, one of the youngest members. And so that is what this community represents. And then right in the middle at the bottom is the Freedom West Ambassadors Program where we now have ambassadors. Go to the next slide. So what's the overall programming? 2400 UNITS OF HOUSING, WHICH INCLUDES REPLACING THE CO-OP HOUSING, BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND CORNER, YOU SEE THE, IS THAT PINK, MAGENTA, WHATEVER, YOU SEE THAT COLOR IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT-HAND CORNER, THAT'S THE SENIOR BUILDING, 115 UNITS OF SENIOR, 100% AFFORDABLE, HAPPY TO SAY IT'S SCHEDULED TO BREAK AROUND MARCH OF 2027. And then as a part of the economic self-sustainability model, 20,000 square feet of commercial space of which the revenue from that commercial space will flow to the co-op to help with that plan. By the way, in that, you heard Susan mention a 5,000 square foot STEM entrepreneur and emerging technology innovation center that'll allow residents at Freedom West and the surrounding community to have access to the jobs, to the programming, to the capital, to participate in the 21st century economy that's happening around them that heretofore they've been locked out of. And then around it is 1800 units of market rate, including a hotel. One very innovative component is we created a partnership where Freedom West, the nonprofit, has a 20% profit participation with the master developer in the market rate, which therefore flows economics back to the co-op to create that long-term economic self-sustainability. We hope that becomes a model. THAT WILL GET REPLICATED AND SO THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE WHAT I CALL INCLUSIVE PROSPERITY. THIS IS THE RENDERING. YOU'LL HEAR CHRIS BELL IN A MOMENT FROM DRR GROUP, RENDERING OF THE COOP BUILDING. AND AT THE GROUND LEVEL IS THAT STEM ENTREPRENEUR EMERGING TECHNOLOGY CENTER. THAT'S GOLDEN GATE, THAT'S THE STREET I GREW UP ON, 847 GOLDEN GATE. LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. I'M GOING TO CLOSE MY REMARKS by speaking to, you heard me say that our vision is to make this catalytic for the surrounding community. So a couple of important stats, 1,000 low to moderate income residents will be saved from displacement, 382 units of affordable housing retained, adding another 133 units of affordable housing which will be owned by the co-op. And again, that also helps with their self-sustainability. $2 billion in one-time economic impact, 241 million in ongoing. An opportunity for jobs. We're excited about the partnership with trades, with labor unions to be able to bring great jobs and the apprenticeship program that we'll be doing to hire, make sure that there's local hire. And then the last piece that I'd mentioned is not to mention THE IMPACT ON THE CITY. SO OUR FORECAST IS THERE WILL BE OVER 800 MILLION IN NEW INCREMENTAL TAX AND OTHER REVENUES TO THE CITY OVER 40 YEARS, UP FROM A DEFICIT OF NEGATIVE 1.2 MILLION THAT IT COST THE CITY TODAY. AND SO THIS IS THE EXAMPLE THAT LEGACY FIRST LIKES TO CALL THE THREE C'S ALIGNMENT FRAMEWORK WHERE WE BENEFIT CAPITAL, CIVIC, AND COMMUNITY ALL TOGETHER. I'M GOING TO HAVE CHRIS BELL WITH THE DLR GROUP COME UP AND WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE DETAILS AND THEN I'LL COME BACK TO CLOSE BEFORE TURNING IT BACK OVER TO THE CITY. CHRIS.

Thank you very much. I think I can do this in under five minutes. Hope I'm still good there. Okay. So going from all of the social benefit that Landon outlined, I just wanted to sort of jump quickly into maybe sort of physical aspects of benefit, if you like. There's been a lot of great work done in this area to sort of heal once the Central Freeway was removed. like Octavia Boulevard, Patricia's Green. And this work can now be continued and expanded upon by allowing Octavia to continue through the Freedom West blocks and recreate that connection from Hayes Valley all the way up through Jefferson Square Park. I think it's a great access with a lot of really nice public spaces along the way. This new access coupled with the east-west transit corridor of McAllister Street creates a new crossroads for the Fillmore. This is an area in between activities and amenities that can now have its own activities and amenities. These will focus on that new civic open space and foster a vibrant neighborhood to attract a range of housing types and in turn be supported by that diversity of housing. This crossroads is also a great opportunity to help stitch together the surrounding neighborhoods and perhaps even people from further afield as it becomes a known place in the city. The design standards and guidelines, the thing we're talking about today, to sort of guide the future contributors. These have benefited from the work of other DSGs that have gone before us. We've studied many to get to here. They're also the result of two years of collaboration with the City Planning Department, OEWD, other city staff, Legacy First, various community members, and, of course, the Freedom West Co-op. Physically, right, you've heard that we're adding about 2,000 units to the area and maybe a 150-room hotel. But whilst we're adding that density, we're also actually adding open space because we're getting rid of the surface car parks that are there now and turning those into useful grade, if you like. Octavia Green North and South will be open to the public. And there's also two courtyards connected to Octavia Green South that will have public access. Frontage all around the site has been classified under the better streets classifications and indeed the new Octavia green north and south will be classified under the same system. There's some sort of drop off pick up traffic on the south and no vehicles on the north. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL OBVIOUSLY THROUGH THE DSG THERE'S SO MANY PAGES OF IT BUT RIGHT HERE YOU CAN SEE JUST AT THE STREET SCALE RIGHT THERE WE ARE IMPROVING ALL OF THE SIDEWALKS AROUND IN LINE WITH THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT AS WE GO TO GET TO THAT 15-FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH FOR THE CITY OR IN MOST INSTANCES USING ABOUT FIVE FEET OF THE PARCELS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT SORT OF FRONTAGE ZONE FOR THAT PUBLIC REALM. On the topic of mobility, I mean, this excerpt is the bike system, but we're really looking at the seamless integration of the city's transit pedestrian cycle neighborhoods through and to Freedom West. And we've been coordinating all this for some time with the MTA. Even though that's about bikes, it does show pedestrian bulb outs to help with the corners, as well as new and enhanced mid-block crossings at Golden Gate, McAllister, and Fulton Street along Octavia. On the built controls right we're looking here about towers and you know addressing floor plate size upper level reductions articulation the way they meet the ground etc and Skip that. And then here at the podium, and indeed even at the ground levels where we're looking at more articulation, the closer you get to the people that are on the sidewalks. So I want to just run through that very briefly. I know we have limited time. But I just want to wrap up by saying that while this project is similar enough to many other forward-looking vision plans, it's also significantly different. Often we're designing with imaginary future residents in mind. We are here, too, but there's also this additional responsibility to the future residents that we don't have to imagine, which is the co-op members that live there now. Thanks to Landon, we've been discovering what their fears are and their hopes are for the last seven years now, and I and we feel a real sense of responsibility to help them achieve their goals. Thank you. Landon?

Thank you, Chris. JUST TO CLOSE OUT, OUR CLOSING REMARKS IS THAT WE'RE JUST DELIGHTED TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY, AND WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US ALL TO END UP THIS TIME ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH URBAN RENEWAL. ERNEST BURTON, HE'S TREATED AS HIS FATHER ACTUALLY AS A PHOTOGRAPHER WHO DOCUMENTED ALL THE PICTURES, ALL THE PHOTOS OF URBAN RENEWAL. THIS IS ONE OF THE PHOTOS FROM HIS COLLECTION. And I'm proud to say that we're going to permanently display all of his father's work when Freedom West 2.0 is done in a museum so that we'll never forget that history, but we're excited about going forward. So thank you. I'll turn it over.

Thank you, Landon. SO THERE IS AN ACTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY. I WANT TO CHANGE GEARS AND TALK ABOUT THE GENERAL PLANNED AMENDMENT INITIATION. AS YOU HEARD, THE PROJECT ADVANCES MANY IMPORTANT CITY GOALS, PRIORITIES AND POLICIES EMBODIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN INCLUDING ADVANCING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, HELPING MEETING OUR HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS, ACCESS TO RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE AMMENDMENTS. THE PROPOSED AMMENDMENTS ARE INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE GENERAL PLAN REFLECTS THE COMMUNITY PLANNING EFFORTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT AND TO ALIGN THE GENERAL PLAN WITH THE PROJECT. STAFF IS PROPOSING AMMENDMENTS TO MAP 4 IN THE URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT. PLAN AS WELL AS UPDATING THOSE REFERENCES IN THE LAND USE INDEX. I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THOSE NOW. AMENDMENTS TO MAP 4 OF THE URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT WOULD UPDATE THE GENERAL HEIGHT CATEGORY OF THE FREEDOM WEST SITE FROM GENERAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS FABRIC SHOWN IN YELLOW HERE TO THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS LOWER SCALE HIGH RISE DISTRICTS CATEGORY WHICH IS SHOWN IN MAGENTA SO YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BEFORE AND AFTER. THIS REFLECTS THE NEW HEIGHTS PROPOSED AND ALLOWED BY THE PROJECT'S SUD. AMENDMENTS TO MAP ONE OF THE MARKET AND OCTAVIA AREA PLAN WOULD UPDATE THE GENERALIZED LAND USE CATEGORY FROM RESIDENTIAL AGAIN SHOWN IN YELLOW TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE SHOWN IN RED TO REFLECT THE MIXED USE NATURE OF THE PROJECT. And then finally as reference the revised maps and references will also be updated in our general plans land use index. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION INITIATING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND RECOMMENDS SETTING A HEARING FOR THEIR ADOPTION ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 8, 2026. AS FOR NEXT STEPS IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS, SUSAN TOUCHED ON THIS, INTRODUCTION AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WILL HAPPEN LATER THIS FALL AND THEN THE PROJECT WOULD BE BACK BEFORE YOU FOR A FULL SUITE OF APPROVALS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR, RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS AND PLANNING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES DOCUMENT. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL WOULD FOLLOW THAT LATER THIS FALL. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE PRESENTED THIS TO YOU AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS EITHER STAFF OR THE SPONSOR TEAM CAN FIELD. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. WITH THAT WE SHOULD TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS MATTER.

Well, I'm happy to give this project a stamp of approval from the Fillmore Cordova Ambassador. I'm really impressed. I mean, this is the first time I really got a chance to look at it closely. But I will have opportunities to engage with the developments and everybody in the future. Now, I want to tell you all again, I am the Fillmore Corridor Ambassador, in which this project is right in the middle of my projects. There are 26 to 27 projects that I'm working on. Could you imagine that? Just me, a black man working on it with no help from Redevelop, no help from you all. And I'm getting ready to put on this called the State of the Fillmore. that will be contacting and letting all these developments know I need y'all to give me the information about it. But I really want to say that this project has the stamp of approval of the Fillmore Corridor Ambassador at this particular time. And I just want y'all to know that. That's why I'm here to try to get some information. But they got the stamp of approval from the Fillmore Corridor Ambassador.

Thank you.

Michelle Brown Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Michelle Brown, and I serve on the Freedom West Home Board of Directors as a secretary and our development committee. I also serve as a treasurer on our Freedom West CDC board. Freedom West is my DNA. Because I was born there and I'm fighting to ensure it can continue to raise the next generation, generations to come. As a member of the development committee, subcommittee, I have spent years in the details of this project reviewing designs and pushing to make sure this redevelopment truly serves the families who live here. I know what is at stake because I am from here. I know what this place means to children who need stability, to parents who need affordable housing, and to the seniors who deserve dignity. We are unique in a way no other property is in this city. We have generations of families. My neighbors are my family. We have grown up here together and care for each other all walks of life. Your background doesn't matter because it's just all love. Freedom West 2.0 will replace every single one of our 382 co-op units so no resident is displaced. And the board made sure of that. It will add a STEM innovation center where the next generation can access skills for high-paying jobs, and the project will have 140,000 square feet of open space, which we are ecstatic about. This is not just a housing project. It is a promise to the next generation that we will have a home in San Francisco where we belong and where we contribute with multicultural diversity, which sadly has statistically and drastically reduced at alarming rates, especially in the African-American community. AS MENTIONED FROM 13% IN THE 70s AND IS NOW LESS THAN 5% TODAY DUE TO HOUSING COSTS AND DISPLACEMENT. I ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THIS PROJECT SO FREEDOM WEST CAN CONTINUE RAISING SAN FRANCISCO CHILDREN IN SAN FRANCISCO. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT MY PARENTS LIVED IN THE SAME UNIT THAT I LIVED IN WITH MY CHILDREN and my daughter today. So I appreciate your time and your attention to these details. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. It's good to be before you once again. My name is Maddie Scott. I serve as the president of the board of Freedom West directors, and I have lived in the Freedom West community for over 50 years. I raised all my children there, and now I'm a great grandmother. I moved there as a young mother, my husband and I, before redevelopment came in and devastated the community. I watched the empty lots. I watched our homes be picked up and moved and bulldozed and moved to other areas, homes that they say were dilapidated. I washed out businesses, places where I shopped on Fillmore as a child. I didn't have to go downtown. I could go in my neighborhood to shop. I could go get my hair done, pick up some shoes, go to the bakery. I could do all those things in my own community. Today I stand here as a mother, a civil rights advocate, and a resident who have watched this cooperative weather decades of deferred maintenance and disinvestment. When our founders created Freedom West in 1973, Reverend J. Esther Hall and the Bethel AME Church It was in direct response to government-sponsored urban renewal that displaced more than 20,000 black Fillmore residents and shuttered over 800 businesses. Our founders gave us something powerful, ownership. It's my first time owning a home, owning something. That means a lot to me, especially here in San Francisco. We see the dilapidation and the homelessness because people cannot afford it. Well, Freedom West is the dream. Developing a dream with affordability is key. Freedom West 2.0 is the fulfillment of that promise. It will rebuild all 382 of our affordable co-op homes. It will deliver STEM innovation center and open space, the infrastructure of a thriving community. After 40 years of deformed maintenance, our buildings are at the end of their useful life, but our mission is not. This project preserves resident ownership. It builds multi-generational wealth and could become a national model for equitable development. I urge the commissioners to support Freedom West 2.0. We're not just rebuilding housing. We are rebuilding our community together. We're rebuilding San Francisco. This is a model that is going to catapult across our nation. So I urge you and thank you for listening at us and for supporting this vision and this mission for Freedom West 2.0. Thank you very much.

Last call for public comment.

Hello, commissioners. It's not something I normally do, so I'm a little nervous. I'm originally from San Francisco. I live in New York, work as an artist. It is my beginning in San Francisco that is relevant to what is before you today. Around the time just before I was born, urban renewal came to San Francisco. My parents had just moved in the late 50s. My father is an architect, my mother an artist. And urban renewal started. And my father, as a preservationist, was just horrified. The loss of the homes, the loss of the architecture, the destruction of a community. And he couldn't stop it. But he could document it. So he and my mother photographed the destruction of the homes in 1959 and 1960. And not from a distance. they went right up into the destruction, wood flying towards them, like active destruction. And my father had meant to have a book out of this, but there was no appetite for those images at the time, and it just wasn't something that was well documented. But he kept the negatives, and he passed away a few years ago, and I inherited the negatives and started working with them. And I started to realize what these showed. I knew it was destruction of houses, but I didn't know the story. So I kept reading and learning about urban renewal. And in the despair that this caused, I looked for what's the way out of this? What makes this better? And I found Freedom West. Their website was up in the materials that you've seen. And I watched some videos with Mr. Taylor and the architects and the community. And that's the redemption. That's the way to make this better. Now, coincidentally, my father is an architect and an architectural renderer, and I have a career in rendering as well. I'm often involved with developments just like this. And so I'm seeing the briefs like you've been given today, and in 40 or more years of that in New York with the highest level of architects and developers, I have never seen any of them meet with the community to bring people in as they have. And you saw in the presentation, I've never seen that. This to me was the thing that sort of brought me out of the despair that all these photographs produced. So I believe very heavily in them. Although I will point out that while I do renderings, I did not do any of the work with Freedom West. I'm not presenting in favor of a client, I'm presenting in favor of friends. So we first showed some photographs at the Freedom West 50th anniversary event, and got to have the elders looking at the photographs.

Thank you, sir. That is your time.

Most notably, I've got my photographs on the table for people to see, and standing next to me is former Mayor Willie Brown. And he's looking at them, and he was quiet for a while. He's pointing.

He said, I was there.

I remember. So that brings us to this proposal. This is Freedom West 2.0. It's an opportunity to do a better job. In 1960, the city of San Francisco attacked this community. It took federal money. to destroy the community. And to do so, it had to be a blighted community. My father observed that this happened in 636 cities and towns across the United States, probably nowhere more impactful than here in San Francisco. So how do you make up for that? You can't make it go away. But you can look at how to do it better. And to me, this process is. I also later met with Reverend Amos Brown. I'm time?

Thank you.

Well, very briefly, Reverend Amos. I think that was your time, sir. Thank you.

But we appreciate your time and commentary. Thank you.

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

Commissioner McGarry.

So this project totally has my support. If 1906 was a natural disaster, urban renewal was basically a conscious, ignorant, arrogant mistake that's a blight not just in this community, this area, but the 638 plus cities around the country. But the fact that those who survived in this community at that had the wherewithal to get to parse those four plus acres together and basically look after themselves and the fact that years later they are the ones who are going to lead the way and give an example to possibly the 638 other cities that were affected around this country. that there is a possibility, a way out of this, and a successful way out of this. I've been fortunate enough to visit the project. I've met the elders, I've met the community, I've met the ambassadors. And they're just phenomenal people. I look forward to my day job when I'm dispatching out first period apprentices that are basically going to work on this through their career, journey out from this, and then basically maintain this because it is not just their home, it's their community. And redeveloping a community out of The circumstances that it arose from is absolutely phenomenal and inspirational at the same time. And I just look forward to doing whatever I can as a San Francisco going forward to make sure that this project is a success. So I would make a motion to move this wherever it has to be moved to get it going as quickly as possible. Second.

Second, yeah. Thank you, Commissioner McGarry. Commissioner McDonald.

Yes, I would just like also to say that this project has my complete support coming from a terrible legacy and a history of hanging on and then coming to this. It's a wonderful, wonderful story and I particularly like the way that this project as it's proposed will help really So I say reintegrate Freedom West into the neighborhood, into Hays Valley, into larger San Francisco, connect it to so much of what's been happening in the Hays Valley community. And this will now be a part of it, and it will have its own clear identity and wonderful public open spaces that will contribute to the greater public realm of the neighborhood and the city. So I think it's a wonderful project and I think it's being well articulated. And as I said, it has my full support and, you know, bravo for everything you're doing.

Thank you. Commissioner So.

I'm really appreciative in hearing stories, the passion of generations of living there and coming back and give back. I do remember last time when I saw this presentation, I coined this, like this is kind of like the candy land for mixed-use development for San Francisco. So I'm really appreciative and happy to see that today you came forward to us and actually have a lot more progress and a lot more detail. Something that we can actually see that you're really actually implementing your steps and I know it takes like a whole village together to do this work and it is a bit too late to make things right, but at least we're doing it. I'm really appreciative, at least in my lifetime, we're addressing this situation of what was unjustifiable back in those days. Really don't like it at all, being myself a Chinese American. I really understand what it means by being pushed out. The Chinese Exclusion and Inclusionary Act was still living with us today as we're speaking. I am in full support of this amendment. I found that it is consistent with our general plan, and I second my fellow Commissioner McGarry's motion. There are so many good stuff in here and I see that you started to hiring a very good architect to investigate mobility and work with SFMTA. This is a great start, I like that, the mobility map and to encouraging multimodal transportation. So I'm just looking forward to see the next progress and Sound like it's groundbreaking for the first senior home next year to come. So I wish you all the successful every single step and Godspeed in breaking ground.

Thank you, Commissioner. So Commissioner Chen.

Thank you, President. I'm also supportive. This is great. If anything, I'd be like, why can't I be bigger? Can I be taller? Can we do more? This is an incredibly rare resource, and I'm very thankful that there's a lot of self-determination with the owners about what to do with this property. But the size, the location of this area is something that is quite rare. that Trader Joe's is right across the street. You're close to very high frequency transit lines. You're close to job centers, and so I think If I had a magic wand, I'd be like, make it twice as big. Put more people on there. And let folks sort of like, you know, reap the benefits, especially the co-op shareholders. I also want to say, as someone who bikes and takes transit, right, I think opening up Octavia, the further two blocks, and making connections to the park and to the recreation centers is very important. I think with... sometimes the connectivity of the area can be can be a bit frustrating between I think one-way driving streets between sort of like just like sort of what the public realm looks like and so making that more accessible I think to everyone is sounds wonderful I had a I had a quick I just I had a quick sort of question I think maybe to, I don't know if this is to the planner or to the developer, but my understanding is that it looks like there are, so currently on site there are 382 co-op units of housing. Of those, 267 will remain co-op housing. There will be, the new project will have 267 UNITS OF CO-OP HOUSING AND IT APPEARS THERE WILL BE A ONE-TO-ONE CONVERSION OF 115 UNITS FROM CO-OP HOUSING TO AFFORDABLE SENIOR RENTAL HOUSING, BELOW MARKET RATE SENIOR RENTAL HOUSING. I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE DECISION OR WHAT IS THE REASONING BEHIND THAT.

YEAH, THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'RE REPLACING ALL 382 UNITS, ADDING ANOTHER 133. THE 115, THE REASON WHY WE ARE TEMPORARILY MAKING THE 115 UNITS SENIOR HOUSING IS TO HELP FINANCE IT. SO IT WILL BE, IT'S TAX CREDIT, BY THE WAY, GOT OUR TAX CREDIT ALLOCATION AWARD YESTERDAY. THAT'S WHY WE'RE FIRED UP ABOUT THAT. WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE THE BUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS THE CO-OP, IT GOES WITH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CO-OP AT THE END OF THE 15-YEAR TAX CREDIT PERIOD TO CONVERT IT BACK TO A CO-OP UNIT IF THE CO-OP BOARD DESIRES TO DO THAT. SO THE CO-OP WILL HAVE THE OPTION OF EITHER CONTINUING TO HAVE IT AS SENIOR AFFORDABLE RENTALS OR CONVERTED BACK TO THE CO-OP AND THEN THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE IN WILL HAVE THE CHOICE OF EITHER SAYING YES, I WANT TO BE A CO-OP MEMBER OR NO, I'D RATHER JUST CONTINUE TO BE IN THIS AFFORDABLE RENTAL. SO WE'VE THOUGHT THROUGH THAT TO BE ABLE TO BOTH HELP REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING SUBSIDY THAT WE NEEDED TO ASK OF THE CITY. by replacing that with tax credit equity that requires that 15 years for it to be a rental, but again, with the option to convert it back at year 16.

UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. SO I THINK IF I UNDERSTOOD, RIGHT, IT'S FINANCING AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTS AND MAKING SURE RESIDENTS HAVE A CHOICE, RIGHT, OF CURRENT RESIDENTS, RIGHT, CAN GO INTO THE SENIOR HOUSING, RIGHT? YEAH, THEY HAVE.

IT WILL BE 100% DISCRETIONARY, THE OPTION OF CURRENT CO-OP MEMBERS TO SAY EITHER, YES, I LOVE THE IDEA OF MOVING INTO THE SENIOR BUILDING, WHICH, BY THE WAY, WILL HAVE BUILT-IN HUND SECTION 8 VOUCHERS SO IT ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE HOUSING STABILITY, SENIOR RESIDENT SERVICES, MOBILITY CAPABILITIES, SO ALL THE BENEFITS THAT GO WITH ALSO BAYVIEW HOUSING BRINGING SERVICES. SO IF SOMEONE SAYS, YES, I'M, YOU KNOW, I'D CHOOSE TO MOVE THERE, OR RESIDENTS MAY SAY, NO, I PREFER NOT, I'LL JUST WAIT FOR THE CO-OP BUILDING TO BE DONE. and move there. So 100% optional either way. And then that senior building will also be available to additional San Franciscans for the balance that Freedom West gets first right. And then if it's not filled with Freedom West residents, then other seniors will have the ability to move into it.

UNDERSTOOD. AS YOU MENTIONED, IN ADDITION TO THOSE UNITS THERE'S ALSO 133 FAMILY BELOW MARKET RATE RENTAL UNITS. THAT'S RIGHT. GREAT. THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. THANK YOU.

Thank you. I'm echoing, I think, the general sentiment here. Thank you so much for the presentation. This is a once-in-a-generation project, and it's exciting to be a resident of San Francisco and be able to witness this and be a part of it. I really appreciate learning more about the sort of resident-driven, like this financial model. be neat to see how that can serve as a model for other projects in the world or country. I think two things, and this is obviously, everything is in its infancy here that jumped out to me. Interestingly enough, we're around the mobility model, which I really appreciated seeing. I'm also a biker. I know at my company, we talk a lot about kind of planning not just for today but for tomorrow and thinking about future modes of transportation and micromobility and also how these sort of driverless cars are going to influence how we're thinking about the ground plane. So maybe there's some more thought that can go into sort of how you're thinking about people moving through the site, how maybe these driverless car you know, drop-off points can become opportunities as you think about the planning of the ground floor. And then, like Commissioner Chen, I'm also like, more, more, more, like I want to see more, more of everything. I wondered if the one thing that jumped out to me in the plan was the hotel and wondering, is there, do you have built-in flexibility for that to be housing if the hotel doesn't quite work out? And are we giving you enough flexibility as market conditions change? FOR THE UNPREDICTABLE. THESE ARE SORT OF QUESTIONS I HAVE.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, PRESIDENT CAMPBELL. BUILT INTO THE PROJECT IS THE OPTION FOR A HOTEL ON ONE OF TWO PARCELS, ONE, NOT BOTH. THERE'S ALSO THE OPTION TO NOT HAVE THE HOTEL BUT HAVE AN ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF UNITS. THERE'S FLEXIBILITY THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THROUGH THIS PROJECT DEPENDING ON MARKET CONDITIONS AND WHATEVER MAY HAPPEN DURING IMPLEMENTATION.

I THINK WE HAVE A SECONDED MOTION AND WE HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS. I THINK WE'RE READY.

INDEED. COMMISSIONERS, THERE IS A MOTION THAT HAS BEEN SECONDED TO INITIATE AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 8TH, 2026. ON THAT MOTION, COMMISSIONER CHEN. AYE. COMMISSIONER MCDONALD. AYE. COMMISSIONER MCGURRY. AYE. COMMISSIONER SO. AYE. COMMISSIONER PRESIDENT CAMPBELL. AYE. SO MOVED, COMMISSIONERS, THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Placing us on item 10 for case number 2026-005420PRJ for the property at 2051 Market Street. This is a request for major modifications.

Are we ready? Thank you, Jones. Good afternoon. President Campbell, fellow commissioners, Jeff Horn, planning department staff. The item before you is a request for major modifications under the Housing Choice San Francisco program for a project at 2051 Market Street. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARKET STREET BETWEEN 14TH AND DELORES STREET WITHIN THE UPPER MARKET NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SITE IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE SAFEWAY SHOPPING CENTER. THE SITE CONTAINS A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT CONTAINING A VACANT TWO STORY APPROXIMATELY 7,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING. AS BACKGROUND THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND NO PHYSICAL CHANGES ARE PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. ON JUNE 27, 2024, THE DEPARTMENT APPROVED THE PROJECT UNDER THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW WITH WAIVERS FROM REAR YARD AND DWELLING UNIT EXPOSURE AND THE SITE PERMIT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ISSUED BY DBI ON MARCH 12, 2025. EVEN FURTHER BACK ON FEBRUARY 21, 2024, THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OFFICER HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AND ISSUED A GENERAL PLANNED EVALUATION WITH MINIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM. And there's no additional items before you in regards to CEQA. The project is proposing to demolish the existing two-story commercial building and construct a new seven-story, 85-foot tall, 29,000-square-foot mixed-use building that would provide 29 dwelling units and a 1,554-square-foot commercial retail space at the ground floor. THE PROJECT WOULD INCLUDE A MIX OF 15 ONE-BEDROOM UNITS AND 14 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS. A ROOF DECK PROVIDING APPROXIMATELY 2,250 SQUARE FEET OF COMMON USABLE OPEN SPACE, 817 SQUARE FEET OF PRIVATE USABLE OPEN SPACE THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING AND 29 CLASS I BICYCLE PARKING SPACES AND TWO CLASS II BICYCLE PARKING SPACES. The product complies with the planning code and the San Francisco design standards and the Housing Choice San Francisco program, except for the two requested modifications, one for the rear yard development standard through the Housing Choice SF program, and for San Francisco design standard C5 for light walls and side setbacks. Specifics on those are the Housing Choice rear yard allows for an 18% rear yard. ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR AND FULL LOT DEVELOPMENT AT THE GROUND FLOOR, THIS PROJECT IS PROPOSING A SEVEN-FOOT REAR YARD FOR THE FLOORS ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR AND ALSO TO NOT PROVIDE THE MATCHING LIGHT WELL TO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. AGAIN, THIS IS THE DESIGN THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE STATE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM SEVERAL YEARS AGO. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS OR CORRESPONDENTS IN REGARD TO THIS PROJECT. AND THEREFORE THE DEPARTMENT FINDS THAT THE PROJECT IS ON BALANCE CONSISTENT WITH THE MARKET OCTAVIA AREA PLAN, THE HOUSING CHOICE SAN FRANCISCO PROGRAM AND THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF GENERAL PLAN. THE PROJECT WILL DEMOLISH AND UNDERUTILIZE COMMERCIAL RETAIL BUILDING AND REPLACE IT WITH 27 UNITS OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS WELL SERVED BY PUBLIC TRANSIT. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

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

Thank you, commissioners. I'm Jeff Gibson, project architect for the project. I'm here today to represent this really exciting project on Upper Market in the Castro 2051 Market Street. As Jeff Horn explained, this project brings 29 new residential units online, including more family-sized two-bedroom units than required by the code. Fourteen of our 29, almost 50 percent of the units, are two bedrooms. 2151 Market Street comes from the State Density Bonus Lane and has been in the building permit process for several years. This is a project team that has a record of designing and entitling to actually build. We don't entitle and then wait and see and sell our entitlements. This is evidenced by our current project at the same development team at 159 Fell Street, which is actually under construction, seemingly some of the very few market rate units being built right now. This is one of those modest infill sites that's too small for some developers and too large for others. It's really easy to imagine, but they're really hard to make pencil. We've known from the very start of this project that one of the biggest constraints is staying below high-rise typology Given the significant increased construction costs associated with that Given the economic limitation of not being able to go taller we've worked on a very careful balancing act between the fixed costs of such a building like elevator stairs utilities and the relatively few dwelling units that can be achieved and EARLY ON THIS LED US TO REALIZE THAT WE NEEDED RELIEF ON THE REAR YARD FROM THE CODE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CODE THAT WE WERE WORKING UNDER AT THAT TIME, TO ADD FLOOR SPACE IN A HEIGHT CONSTRAINED BUILDING. A FEW YEARS AGO, REALLY THE ONLY AVENUE WE HAD WAS STATE DENSITY BONUS, SO WE LASHED ONTO THAT AND HEADED IN THAT DIRECTION. TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE USING THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW ON THIS PROJECT, NOT FOR REALLY ANY MATERIAL LIKE FLOOR AREA INCREASE OR HEIGHT LIMIT OR UNIT BONUS, BUT ESSENTIALLY JUST FOR REAR YARD RELIEF. AS POST-ENTITLEMENT DESIGN HAS ADVANCED, WE'VE LEARNED THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF AN ADDED AND KIND OF INVISIBLE CHALLENGE HERE. THE SITE SITS ADJACENT TO THE MUNI TUNNEL THAT RUNS UNDER MARKET STREET, WHICH IS MANAGED ACTUALLY BY BART, SO WE HAVE TO DO OUR APPROVALS THROUGH BART. Our foundation system has to use these sleeved piles that carry the building loads down really deep to avoid surcharging the tunnel. It's really complicated. It's really cool. But there are literally millions of dollars in the ground before we can even build one story here. Like you, we're in the business of seeing housing built, not just imagined, and as we've gotten further into the post-entitlement process, this project has sort of moved from the black to the red, essentially, and then further into the red. That is until the Families ReZone and the TAC legislation kind of came on the horizon, and that offered this project a new path forward to commencing construction on a realistic and more imminent timeframe. So, to be clear with the family rezone and the TAC legislation now adopted, our situation is this. We could stick with the state density bonus, do 5% onsite at 50% AMI. That doesn't really pencil any better than the pre-TAC approval of 15% onsite at 80% AMI. So, we're sort of in this, we'd still be in this like semi-red zone. We're probably not going to move the project ahead. or with the family rezone, which we love this new legislation. It's so cool. It's great. And the requested modification and the TAC legislation, then we can do a 10% in lieu fee, assuming current economics hold, then the project really pencils. So I don't want to see this project die on the vine. It's a really handsome building. It's a genuine asset to the street. It has a really nice variety of unit types, including family sized units. It's transit oriented, has a nice retail space. It's a nice moderate scale between the high rise Whole Foods building on the corner and some of the older three-story kind of apartment buildings on the street. This is a really dense, urban, triangular block of the city. It doesn't really have a mid-block open space. It's kind of almost like a European, like, packed kind of condition. This project is really, really shovel-ready. I don't use that term lightly. Like, the site permit is issued. BART has approved the foundation design. The structural addendum permit is down to its last few comments. DPW permits are approved, including the PG&E vault to put the PG&E transformer underground, which is, you guys know, so hard to get through. Construction bids are coming in. So, like, realistically, we can actually break ground within a few months here. At this stage in the project, any changes to the project design would incur significant professional fees and time delays and going back through really difficult plan check. So it's sort of like this is the project, ideally. So what we're asking today is, I think, pretty straightforward, an update to the planning approval using the HCSF program to reapprove the same building already approved, one that readily complies with the objective design standards, even though it actually predates those standards. And we're requesting two modifications. The first modification is to retain the previously approved rear modification from the state density bonus. This modification is what preserves the unit count and specifically preserves the two bedroom units. Deepening the rear yard from the seven feet to the 18 feet here would force us to essentially take that square footage and pop it up on top to an eighth story. And that becomes economically infeasible or high rise. And then the second one is to waive the requirement for a very small but very disruptive light well on the north side of the building to match the tiny, small light well on the neighbor on that side. That light well matching was not required in the original NCT zoning at the time, so it was not integrated from the beginning. If we carve that little light well down through the building, we eliminate at least five bedrooms from that stack of units. So even though it seems really small, it's problematic. ANYWAY, SO WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THIS REQUEST TO FURTHER THE INTENT OF THE FAMILY REZONE, BRINGING FAMILY SIZED UNITS IN CLOSE ADJACENCY TO HIGH QUALITY TRANSIT. YOUR APPROVAL KEEPS THIS PROJECT VIABLE, GETS THESE 29 UNITS INTO CONSTRUCTION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I'M VERY MUCH HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THANK YOU.

Thank you. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward. Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner Chen.

Thank you, President. I'm inclined to support, and I just wanted to make sure I understand, so maybe to Mr. Horn, so the current, so under the old project state density bonus, right, so it was the project sponsors submitted, it would be 5% on-site at 50% AMI, I believe. Was that the original proposal?

Sorry, maybe I should ask the project sponsors.

I'm sorry.

Yeah. Nick Roosevelt, Land Use Council for the project. So under the current pre-TAC legislation approvals, the project was doing 15% onsite and 80% AMI. It was doing that to satisfy the then applicable inclusionary code. It gave the project significantly more density bonus than it was using. We're requesting, I think, a 4.6% density bonus over the allowed density under the, at the time when we filed our initial application. TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S WHAT'S KIND OF ON THE BOOKS NOW IN OUR EXISTING PLANNING APPROVAL FROM 2024. THE SORT OF PATH FORWARD AT THIS POINT IS THERE IS THE PATH TO USE THE TACK LEGISLATION THAT JUST WENT INTO EFFECT A COUPLE WEEKS AGO TO REDUCE OUR ON-SITE TO 5% AT 50% AMI. THAT GETS US THE ABILITY TO GET THE REAR YARD WAIVER, SATISFIES THE LOCAL CODE AND GETS US FORWARD ON THE STATE DENSITY BONUS PATH. AS JEFF MENTIONED, THAT IS NOT A FINANCIALLY VIABLE PATH FOR THE PROJECT AT THIS TIME. SO THE ALTERNATIVE IS THE HOUSING CHOICE PROGRAM WITH THE MAJOR MODIFICATIONS WHICH GIVES THE PROJECT THE AVENUE TO PAY THE IN LIEU FEE TO SATISFY THE LOCAL INCLUSION AREA REQUIREMENT.

THE BOARD CHANGED THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING LEGISLATION AND THE PERCENTAGES. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION IT WAS 5%, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S ON SITE AND IN LIEU IS DIFFERENT.

YES, SO CARLEY GROVE DEPARTMENT STAFF, THE PREVIOUS RATE WAS A TEMPORARY RATE AND IT WAS 15% ON SITE. DEPENDING ON THE PROJECT SIZE IT WAS A 20% FEE RATE OR A 20.5% FEE RATE. THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MET AND RECOMMENDED A RATE WHICH WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF 5% ON SITE. THERE WAS A SLIGHT CARVEOUT IN THE MISSION AND THEN THE FEE RATE IS 10% CITYWIDE WITH SOME CARVEOUTS IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS, NOT THIS ONE.

THANK YOU. OFF SITE IN LIEU. No, this is, I mean, I think this is quite a fascinating project, because I think when the family zoning plan came about, I think there was some question, I think, from housing advocates about, you know, whether, you know, I think there were some questions about whether the family zoning plan was so restrictive that developers would just choose to keep using the state density bonus. And so, and it's interesting, I think, I don't know if this is the first project, right, that said that. A PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED STATE DENSITY BONUS PROJECT IS NOW SAYING, OH, ACTUALLY, WE CAN, IT'S MORE FEASIBLE WITH MODIFICATIONS, RIGHT, TO THEN ACTUALLY USE A FAMILY ZONING PLAN, COMBINED WITH THE RECENT LEGISLATION THAT LOWERS THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING RATES. AND SO I'M VERY CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A PATTERN, BUT I'M VERY CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT FUTURE DEVELOPERS ARE DOING. I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE MODIFICATIONS. I THINK ESPECIALLY THINKING ABOUT JUST In the current moment, when we're seeing one bedrooms in the Castro go for like 5500 or something like there's ridiculous numbers, right? It is like trying to trying to get stuff moving as soon as possible. And so I'm inclined to support. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, President.

I'll also chime in, this has my support as well. I actually pass this property every day on my commute, on my bike, on Market Street and it is like a sad little stretch there with so much opportunity right across the street from Safeway as someone explained like, two doors down from Whole Foods and two doors down from the Church Street Muni Station. So it is just like so ripe for being more than just this two-story sad building with no ground floor presence. It's just like windows and door solid. So anyway, I'm so excited about this project and it has my full support. I especially appreciate the retail going in on the ground floor. I think that's really going to make a big difference as well as all the additional housing. It is a complicated site. I appreciate you walking us through sort of the gymnastics you're having to do and why it's creating limitations on sort of like how you have to build this and where you can put the massing and why you're so tucked up against the property line there in the back. So I think my sentiment is we can't build this fast enough, and it's great to know that it's actually going to happen. So I look forward to seeing the barricades going up on my bike ride. Commissioner McDonald.

Yes, so I'd just like to say that, you know, in general, my feeling is that the kind of design requirements we have in regulations related to rear yard setbacks and even the light wells are actually really important in general, and they're there for an important purpose. However, under the circumstances of this particular project, everything that's been going through and the odd configuration of the whole block that you mentioned in the presentation, and whatnot around it, that my take on this project is that I am supportive of it. And I appreciate everything that you've gone through to get it to this point. And I, like others here, hope to see it actually happen soon. Thank you. Commissioner So.

I would like to just make sure that I understand what you had talked about here with your melancholia situation. So on-site 5% at 50% AMI, you still not pencil it.

Just want to make sure I understand that. The onsite was 15% at 80% AMI, is that correct? Well, that was the very beginning.

That was the beginning, and then currently it's 5% at 50% AMI, not 15% AMI. Sorry, 50, yeah, that's what I meant. 50% AMI, correct.

Which is what we recently did, like, before summer recess. Correct. And it's still not penciled out.

Correct.

Wow. That kind of...

I THINK AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION, THIS IS A CONDO PROJECT. THIS IS A FOR SALE OWNERSHIP PROJECT. IF THIS WERE A RENTAL PROJECT, THAT WOULD BE THE REQUIREMENT, 5% OR 50% AMI. FOR A CONDO PROJECT, THE TACK LEGISLATIONS REQUIREMENT, THE BASELINE IS 80% AMI, SO THERE WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE RELIEF, BUT THE PATH FORWARD FOR THIS PROJECT GIVEN THAT IT NEEDS THE RELIEF FROM THE REAR YARD WOULD BE TO VOLUNTARILY LOWER from 80% AMI to 50% AMI in order to qualify for the state density bonus. That deserves a little unpacking. I appreciate the... Do you mind saying that one more time?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think I understand what you're saying. It's a little confusing. You were actually, because it's a for sale property, you actually is required to do the 5%, if you don't do the onsite 5%, you're required to provide... 80% AMI, but if you, because you want to keep the rare yard as your special request, then you voluntarily bump it to 50% AMI, but then still it doesn't pencil out.

Yeah, so there's a little bit of, I think, how does the density bonus work? That's part of this question, I think, that you're asking. The density bonus offers additional density, incentives and concessions, and waivers. So three things. The amount of additional density and the number of incentives and concessions that you're eligible for depends on how much affordable housing you're providing and how deeply affordable that housing is. So when Nick is saying that he wants to reduce it to 5% at 50% AMI, that's because that gives that incentive that this project needs from the rear yard requirements, where they would have to provide more affordable housing at 80% AMI to qualify for that same incentive.

Right. Got it. Okay. That kind of, no wonder, like, that our chief economist report was pretty illuminating, like, nothing get built. Okay. So I am in support of your proposal today to utilizing the Housing Choice San Francisco to enable this project to happen. It is remotely actually my adjacent neighborhood. I really wanted to see Market Street in that corridor activate and have more people live there instead of having empty storefronts. So I motion to approve with the conditions as staff recommended.

Second.

Second.

It's really exciting to see the housing choice being exercised, too. We're just starting to see that activity, so it's great.

Okay, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. Commissioner Chen? Aye. Commissioner McDonald? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. Commissioner President Campbell?

Aye.

So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously five to zero. Commissioners at a place to send your discretionary review calendar for the last item on your agenda today number 11. For case number 2026-000723 DRP-02 for the property at 1142 Broadway. This is a discretionary review.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Trent Greenan, staff architect. The item before you is a public initiated request for discretionary review of planning application 2026-000723PRJ to construct a 601 square foot fourth story with a primary suite and roof deck on top of an existing two flat condominium building with a ground level garage and mechanical room. The existing building is a Category B property. There are two DR requesters. DR requester number one, Daniel Dion of 45 Glover Street, a rear-facing neighbor, claims the proposed fourth floor decreases the light available to their south-facing kitchen, three bedrooms, and rear patio which do not have sunlight from the east, west, or north. The project additionally reduces privacy and open space to all neighboring properties, AND INCREASES THE SURFACE AREA TRAPPING NOISE FROM BROADWAY ENTERING THE TUNNELS FROM THE WEST. THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IS TO MOVE THE ADDITION FURTHER TOWARDS BROADWAY AWAY FROM THE YARD CORRIDOR, MITIGATE THE HEIGHT OR CHANGE IT TO A ROOF DECK INSTEAD OF A STRUCTURE. ALTERNATIVELY REDUCE THE EXTENT OF REARWARD THIRD FACING MASSING ADJACENT TO NEIGHBORING BEDROOM WINDOWS. D.R. REQUESTION NUMBER TWO. a 39 to 41 Glover Street. The neighbor directly to the rear claims the proposed four-story addition presents exceptional site-specific design concerns not resolved by the code compliance alone. The project conflicts with residential design guidelines addressing topography, neighborhood context, building scale, light and privacy, mid-block openness, proportions, and roof lines. The proposed four-story would add building mass into an already constrained block interior. This would reduce light, air, privacy, open sky exposure, and the sense of openness from affected homes, and would worsen cumulative enclosure. The proposed alternatives are to deny the proposed four-story addition and require the applicant to consider a roof deck only with strict privacy controls. IF THE COMMISSION IS UNWILLING TO DENY ALL ADDITIONAL HABITABLE MASS, THEN AT A MINIMUM SHIFT AS MUCH MASS AS POSSIBLE TOWARD BROADWAY, REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT AND SQUARE FOOTAGE AND INCREASE THE SETBACK FROM THE REAR SIDE, LOWER THE ROOF PARAPET HEIGHT PROFILE AND INCLUDE WEST SIDE NOTCHING. TO DATE THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED TWO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION AND NO LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. STAFF REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. This project is compliant with the planning code, specifically with respect to height and building depth, and meets the residential design guidelines. The project complies with the residential design guidelines, articulate the building to minimize impacts on light and privacy to adjacent properties, and respect the topography of the site and the surrounding area. The proposed addition is modest in scale and is set back in the front and rear, minimizing impacts to neighbors in the rear, and allowing the building to step with the topography on Broadway. Minimal window openings and an unoccupied rear roof reduced privacy impacts to homes in the rear. As a result, the city facilitated mediation. The sponsors were proposing to make modifications to further reduce impacts, including matching the eastern neighbor's light well, lowering the height of the volume by removing the parapet, and removing a roof overhang. Therefore, staff deems there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and recommends not taking discretionary review and approving as shown in the modified plans. Thank you.

Okay. We should hear from the discretionary review requester. You have five minutes.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I am Dan Dion, and my family owns 45 Glover Street. We are, as said, one lot northwest and some five feet downhill from the subject property. The proposal significantly, so there's three factors in the residential design guidelines that we take exception with. The proposal significantly increases the shadows on our home. Two, it increases the noise pollution that we already have by echoing from the Broadway tunnel entrance, which is blocks away. And in addition, noise pollution from the nearby fire stations. We're blessed with fire stations, but there's a lot of sirens going off, and Broadway is a big east-west corridor for San Francisco. Thirdly, we believe it degrades our mid-block open space. So the noise and open space impacts are unavoidable with adding a 12-foot fourth story. However, it's difficult to quantify that, how many sirens, how many parties are going on, how many motorcycles are going down Broadway. So those aren't as quantifiable, but it does add a disproportionate 43% to the height of the subject property. And it will certainly impose on the open space and increase the echo of noise within the corridor between the homes. The shadowing effect, however, is reasonably quantifiable. In our home, as mentioned, three of the bedrooms, our yard, kitchen, with the dining area, are south facing. The only source of natural light are south-facing windows. The homes on our block are tightly spaced to the east and west, making the windows there impractical. The proposal significantly increases the shadow on our property, reducing and eliminating light to our living areas. The massing also reduces available ambient light that would otherwise be reflected on areas that are existing in shadows. The shadowing would begin in September and continue through March. The shadowing begins near sunrise, progresses through the morning, and recedes as midday approaches. Measured across the seven months of impact, as the sun is directly behind the subject project, it adds an average of 64% to the windows. So the shadows to our windows increase 64%. We think that is extraordinary. It also adds an average of 38% to the wall of the building. The wall has bay windows so it's more of an impact to the bay windows than the wall of the building. At times, the shadow extends completely up to our roof line. The sponsor shadow study demonstrates several moments in two days, while in reality the shadow impacts are present for seven months of the year across the morning. The extent of the shadows are not minimal, as asserted by the sponsors. Rather, the shadows are extraordinary and clearly detrimental. Living in the shadows negatively impacts our well-being. It permanently degrades the value of our property. It has the same negative impact on neighboring properties and brings us all down. We are asking that the Planning Commission use their discretion to reject this project or modify it to mitigate the impact. Thank you.

Thank you. Project sponsor, you have five minutes. I'm sorry? Oh, I apologize. Okay. I didn't realize that second DR. You have five minutes.

Good afternoon. Seth Subrianku, owner of 39 Glover Street, directly behind this project. In 22 years of decision, 2004 to today, as a matter of practice and precedent, this commission has not approved a new four-story on a mid-block of 65 feet or less anywhere in San Francisco. These lot are short, little mid-block space. A four-story on them cannot avoid massing and light impact. This is a 62-feet lot built to 100% of its depth. Four points I'll make. One, this commission on record. Staff's case is that the project compiled with the code and meets the guideline. This commission has answered that before. At 471 Hickory, a fourth floor on a lot of this size, code compliance, staff recommended approval, From the dais, I know this is code compliant. With a small lot, the neighbor is looking at a wall on that fourth floor. The top floor was eventually eliminated. Hickory was smaller project. 293 square feet top floor with a five foot side step back, 23 feet off the rear line, and no new shadow cast on its neighbor. THIS ONE IS 601 SQUARE FEET, NO SIZE SETBACK, WITH THREE STORY BUILT ALL THE WAY TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND SIGNIFICANT SHADOW CAST ON ITS NEIGHBOR. AT 38th STREET, A FOURTH FLOOR ADDING TWO UNITS. THE COMMISSION ELIMINATED THE FOURTH FLOOR STATING THAT THE FOURTH STORY BUILDING WAS NOT PREDOMINANT IN THE AREA. EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A FOURTH STORY BUILDING RIGHT NEXT DOOR. IN THIS SITE AT BROADWAY, THE FOUR STORY IS ALSO NOT PREDOMINANT. AT ONE WINTER PLACE, A FOUR FLOOR ON A BUILDING ALREADY BUILT TO THE REAR LINE. STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATION. THE MOTION TO DISAPPROVE NAMED THE LOCATION IN THE MIDBLOCK OPEN SPACE AS THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE. AND SITE CONSISTENCY WITH 120 VARINESS. DISAPPROVED SIX MONTHS EARLIER. BOTH 6-0. YES, WINTER PLACE HAS A VARIANCE AND VARIANCE HAS A TENANT ISSUE. BUT AT WINTER PLACE, THE GROUND WAS THE OPEN SPACE. AND AT VARIANCE, THE LAST WORD BEFORE THE VOTE WAS, I WOULD NOT SUPPORT ANY INCREASED MASSING OF THIS UNIT, OF THIS BUILDING, EVEN IF IT COMES BACK WITH AN ADDITIONAL UNIT. SO FOUR TIMES ON A LOT OF THE SIDES, THE COMMISSION WENT PAST STAFF. SECOND POINT, CUMULATIVE ENCLOSURE, ADDING TO A SITE THAT CANNOT TAKE MORE.

CAN WE GET THE OVERHEAD, SFGOV?

YEAH. OKAY. SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE GUIDELINE WILL CALL THIS BOX IN. THIS IS MY PROPERTY. 60 feet lot, shallower than 95% of the city. The hill rise to the east. Those building already take my property, my morning light. The project runs all the way to my rear property line with the staircase touching my property line. 14 feet of yard on my side, providing the mid-block open space. On their side, nothing. And on top of this, we're gonna add a fourth story. with no size setback, full width. Together, they are the extraordinary circumstances, and this is the layer that tips it. Like hickory, I would just be staring at a wall. Third point, topography of the hill. LOOKING EAST FROM LOWER BROADWAY, BROADWAY FALLS ABOUT 20%. WITH NO SIZE SETBACK, THE ADDITION STANDS CLEAR ABOVE THE NEIGHBORING ROOF LINE. THE SPONSOR PROVIDE A RENDERING THAT IS AT ONE SPOT WHERE IT HIDES BEHIND THE ROOF. 10 FEET TO THE RIGHT, THERE IT IS, NO SUBORDINATION. FOURTH POINT, SHADOW. The sponsor said that this project will not create additional shadow on your property. Their study skips five and a half hours when it does. I forwarded my version of this shadow study to Mr. Greenan, which you should all have as of Tuesday. On winter solstice, which is what this diagram said, at every hour of the day, the new shadow in red casts light on someone. My second floor window sits in this shadow. three extra hour on this day. For seven and a half months of the year, it takes sun from my windows or yard that I have today. And the three house behind it takes that shadow in turn. So I ask that you take this DR and disapprove this fourth story. If this is approved, then 22 years without one, more building in the same constraint will pop up all over San Francisco, taking light, air, and open space away from a block like this that is livable. Thank you.

That's your time. Okay, project sponsor, you have 10 minutes.

Doug LaVanchi Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Doug LaVanchi. My husband, Kenji Yoko, and I are the project sponsors for 1142 Broadway. We've lived in Russian Hill for more than 30 years and have called 1142 Broadway home for the past 14 years. We actually began working with an architect on plans for our home about five years ago, but a serious health issue in our family caused us to put those plans on hold. Thankfully, that's not behind us, and we're grateful to be able to move forward. Our goal with this project is to make a modest addition to our home that will allow us to remain here for many years to come. Also, Kenji and I both have aging parents, and part of our goal is to create additional space so that, if the need arises, we can have a parent stay with us and be part of our household. We understand that changes to a home can raise concern for neighbors, and we've taken those concerns seriously throughout this process. We've worked closely with our architect to design an addition that is modest in size, sensitive to the surrounding homes, and minimizes impact to the neighbors. We've also made changes to the design in response to the concerns that have been raised. What we are proposing is a 582 square foot addition that provides additional living space without increasing the depth of the existing building. We believe the project is thoughtfully designed and appropriate for this property and for the neighborhood. We care deeply about the neighborhood and about being good neighbors. We're not trying to maximize what could be built on this property. We simply are trying to make a reasonable improvement to the home we've lived in and loved for many years. I'd now like to introduce our architect, Devi Dutta Turari, who can walk you through the design and explain how we've addressed the specific issues raised in the discretionary review requests. Thank you for your consideration.

Hello. Thank you for hearing this. I know it's been a long day, so I'm going to go through this quickly if I can.

I'm going to use this projector.

SO THIS IS A FRONT VIEW RENDERING. YOU CAN SEE THAT TOP SECTION IS THE ADDITION. IT IS SET BACK FROM THE FRONT AND THE REASON FOR THE SET BACK IS FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE ALIGNMENT. THEY PREFER A SET BACK FROM BUILDINGS THAT ARE POTENTIAL HISTORIC RESOURCE. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE. I think you have this in your packet, but this just is an overview of the neighborhood. It's not the only fourth story addition by any means. There's many four story buildings on this block, across the street, behind us. You see both Satch and Dan's buildings behind us on this. This is an overview. I just want to correct one thing on what's in your packet. The original plan was 601 square foot addition, but we reduced that to align our light well with the neighbor. So it's actually 582 now. I just want to point out the setbacks. We have an 18 foot 8 rear setback to the property line, a 15 foot front setback. And then to Satch's house, there's an additional 14 feet. So really our addition is about 32 feet from his back building wall. And another aspect, the only open space on this property right now is a little 12 by 12 patio at the backyard. We're going to be providing a new roof deck. at the front so i think that'll actually improve the privacy situation with the neighbors because they won't be hanging out in the patio so much they'll hang out on the roof deck THIS BEFORE WE EVEN STARTED DESIGN, WE LOOKED AT NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER SIMILAR PROJECTS. SECH MENTIONED THAT THERE WEREN'T ANY APPROVED, BUT I THINK HE'S TALKING ABOUT DRs. THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL, I MEAN, THIS IS JUST EIGHT THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED OR BUILT, INCLUDING OUR NEIGHBOR WHO HAS A FOUR STORY. This is just the changes we made from the initial application to the revised application, increasing our light well to provide better alignment with the neighbors. And then we did reduce the height by removing a parapet and reducing eaves, which helps with the shadows. JUST THE REAR VIEW OF THE SAME HEIGHT REDUCTION FACING THE On the shadow studies, we don't document every single hour of the day. We take the kind of two extremes of the year, summer solstice, winter solstice, and we just take three times as representative. You can kind of extrapolate the shadows between it. We never denied that there would be shadows. These are intended to show what those impacts are. This is the summer solstice, which isn't a big impact. And of course, winter solstice, which is the darkest day of the year, there are some impacts that you can see, but they're not all day long and they're not across the whole building. This is just the street view showing, looking up Broadway. It is a very steep street, but the way we stepped it back I think minimizes the bulk you might expect from a four-story addition. And then this is just the end. So if there are any questions, happy to answer.

Okay, if that concludes the project sponsor's presentation, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. DR request to number one, you have a two-minute rebuttal if you'd like.

One thing I just would like to note that I'm sure is obvious to this commission is that the square footage is irrelevant when it comes to shadows. If it was 600 or 800 square feet an inch high, we wouldn't be here. It's the volume. It's 12 feet high and 583, 582 square feet now. That's what's going to drive the shadows on our property. And the 64% increase in the shadow on our windows is not insignificant. It's going to take hours of light out of the bedrooms, the kitchen, the eating area, and at times, all the way up to our rooftop. And when the four story on our unit or our home was approved 30 years ago, And as part of that approval, concessions were made. It was a 26-foot setback from the property line required and a 5-foot setback on the sides, on the west side at least. That's my understanding. And so there were substantial compromises made when this was built 30 years ago. The sponsor is asking that those don't apply, that we should be able to have a full east-west width of the property and a minimal setback from the rear fence line. And there is the front deck plan for this is substantial, and there is room to move the project forward to reduce the shadow towards Broadway. Thank you.

QUESTION NUMBER TWO, YOU HAVE A TWO-MINUTE REBUTTAL.

YES, THE STATS I QUOTED WERE DR, AND THAT'S EVERYTHING POST THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINE CAME IN, IN 2003, AND THEY'RE ALL FOR VERTICAL ADDITION, NOT NEW BUILT. I'LL MAKE ONE OTHER POINT, THAT OF THAT BLOCK, THERE'S FOUR properties of 48 that are fourth story. Everything else is three story or two story. I was also note that may be difficult to see, but three buildings in this photo does have a fourth story. Whether they were addition or new build, I don't know, but they all had a size step back.

So this building, I think it's 14 Glover, Then this other building has a side step back and, of course, Dan's building has a side step back.

Also, I want to point out that 471 Hickory that you disapprove and how that compared to this project. The red is the project, the rear, this is the neighbor. This is what this project looks like.

Sir, I'm sorry, you need to speak in the microphone.

YEAH, THIS IS WHAT THIS PROJECT LOOKS LIKE IN COMPARISON. THAT BLUE ADDITIONAL MASK IS THE MASKING THAT EXISTS TODAY. AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INCLUDING A FOURTH STORY ON TOP OF THAT. SO YOU DISAPPROVED THIS PROJECT WHEN THERE WAS SO MUCH MORE SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO NEIGHBORS. IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE, WE LITERALLY HAVE NO SPACE TODAY. I LOOK AT THIS AND THERE'S MANY ASPECTS OF IT THAT VIOLATE THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINE. THE SHADOW, COMMUNITY MASKING, FOUR STORY NOT PREDOMINANT, AND THE PROPERTY IS NOT SUBORDINATE WITH THE PROPER SIDE SETBACK.

THANK YOU. PROJECT SPONSOR, YOU HAVE A TWO-MINUTE REBUTTAL IF YOU NEED IT.

Hi. I understand the concerns. I think the development of the neighborhood, it's always a little jarring when your neighbor does construction, but I think it's part of living in a city and we all kind of accept that there's noise, there's people, there's bulk. I mean, I think that's part of how you improve a small, you know, they have an 1,100 square foot flat now. How do they stay in that long term? The only way to expand is to go up. So we're just taking advantage of the zoning that exists. If the city doesn't want fourth floor additions, then it should change the zoning because that's what they allow right now. Thank you.

Okay. With that, that closes the public hearing portion of this discretionary review, and the matter is now before you, Commissioners.

We are a city. We're tightly packed. There is only one way to go, and that is up or down, but down is not feasible in this case. The zoning allows this to go through, and I find this modest compared to what it could be. I find it tasteful. Basically, compared to most fourth floor additions or additions on top, this one does blend in very well. On the front, it's perfect. I get, you know, people on the front or on the back. Somebody's going to be affected. We're tightly packed. We are a city. I see no reason to to obstruct this. And I'd make a motion to that we uphold this, move it forward and deny their request.

Second. Is that it? Okay.

Quick question, Mr. Green.

Can you remind us what's dictating the 15-foot setback for the addition on the front side?

In the front? That's based on preservation review because it is a B building and it has not been reclassified. 15 feet is a standard setback to basically treat it as if it were an A resource without having to reclassify it.

What's the process? Can you remind us? What is that? Is that going through a review? Maybe this is a rich question. I don't know.

It's a historic resource review is the process that it would take. Owner-driven. Staff would evaluate it. Owner-initiated. Correct.

Yeah, and so we have SF survey that's eventually going to be taking care of that for folks, but we're just not there yet for this neighborhood.

And if it was determined to be in... non-historically significant, then there would be more flexibility with that 15 foot setback?

Yeah, then it would just be subject to the residential design guidelines, right? We, you know, probably would still ask for some setback to maintain that stepping with the topography. But yes, it could be less than the 15 feet.

I'M ALIGNED WITH, OBVIOUSLY I SECONDED THE MOTION. I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES HERE. I AGREE THAT THIS IS MODEST IN NATURE AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT THE PROJECT SPONSOR HAS MADE SOME COMPROMISES ON THEIR DESIGN TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS. THEY SEEM PRETTY GENEROUS COMPROMISES FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. Yeah, I second the motion and support not taking the DER and approving as modified. And those are all my comments, Commissioner Chen.

Thank you, and I'll be quick. I'm inclined to support the motion, but this is only my second meeting, but I think our last meeting in July, I think we had a somewhat similar DR where I think it was classified as a Class A historic resource, and so the department recommended a setback. The setback created conflicts with the neighbors, and so I don't know if this is a pattern, but something that maybe... You know, if I had a magic wand, I was like, well, maybe if we made it 10 feet, right, then we wouldn't, if the front setback were different, right, then maybe this conflict would not be necessary. So that's something I think maybe we could revisit at a future point.

Yeah, we're happy to, obviously. You know, we usually use 15 feet as a rule of thumb because what we're trying to achieve is minimal visibility from the public rights away in terms of the addition relative towards the street. And so we'll let people move up and down, you know, basically forward or back as they kind of help demonstrate the visibility of it. In most cases, I'll say a lot of this pattern for where the department has, you know, popped up over time due to CEQA appeals on historic resource natures. So the department has developed a fairly conservative point of view when it came to providing advice on these items because of the kind of litany of things that were getting put forward. Now that CEQA has become less of a tool for appeal, especially for small and modest projects, we're always happy to revisit a lot of this.

So hypothetically, if this project sponsor were open to wanting to move that addition forward to provide a little bit more relief on the back, it's not within our purview to be able to allow them to do that. It would have to go through this process of getting.

You certainly could actually as part of your DR. So that's within your powers, you know. The only thing we would probably look for and ask for is to just ensure that there's no, outstanding historical resource impacts. And I'll say on the surface of this, if you needed to shift it up to give a little bit more relief in the back, it's certainly feasible.

Is that something that the project sponsor was interested in having flexibility with, or were you actually comfortable with the 15 foot setback?

OK, COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DELIBERATION, THERE IS A MOTION THAT HAS BEEN SECONDED TO NOT TAKE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PROJECT AS MODIFIED. ON THAT MOTION, COMMISSIONER CHEN. AYE. COMMISSIONER MCDONALD.

AYE.

COMMISSIONER MCGARREY. AYE. COMMISSIONER SO. AYE. COMMISSION PRESIDENT CAMPBELL. AYE. SO MOVED, COMMISSIONERS, THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 AND CONCLUDES YOUR HEARING TODAY.

I ALWAYS FORGET THAT PART.