Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This webinar is being transcribed and summarized.

OK, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission meeting for Thursday, September 10, 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. Commission President Campbell? Here. Commissioner Koppel? Here. Commissioner McDonald? Here. Commissioner McGarry? Present. And Commissioner So?

Present.

We expect Commissioner Chen to arrive shortly. First on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance at the time of issuance. And to date, there are no items proposed for continuance. So we can move on to commission matters for item one. Excuse me, commissioners. uh let's go back to consideration of items for continuance under your discretionary review calendar i am pleased to announce that item six for case number 2023-008594 drp at 288 pacheco street the discretionary review has been withdrawn uh commission matters item one commission comments and questions If there are no requests to speak from members of the Commission, we can move on to Department Matters, Item 2, Director's Announcements.

Good afternoon, Commissioner Sarah Dennis-Phillips, Planning Director. I don't have a lot to report on the department specifically, given the long weekend. And I think we're still regrouping from that. I did want to note, just because affordability has been a topic of conversation for this commission, including Ms. Shudish's comments last week about evictions, the package that the mayor's office and several supervisors announced this morning to help stabilize affordability for existing renters. That includes tenant right to counsel, increasing payments to those evicted under the Ellis Act, stopping evictions for nonpayment, for short-term nonpayment of rent, working to support those who are housed through expiring federal vouchers, legal enforcement so that we can help address illegal systematic practices by landlords. and a Know Your Rights campaign that will be led by the Mayor's Office of Housing so that our renters know what resources they have and what rights they have. So we can send you more information on that, but I think it's worth noting, given the topic of conversation, that our decision makers are actively working to address those issues.

Seeing no questions, we can move on to item three, review of past events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and the Historic Preservation Commission. There are no reports, and the Historic Preservation Commission did not meet yesterday, placing us under 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.

Thanks for the time. Thanks for the update. Good afternoon. Georgia Shudish. I'm going to the computer, please, SFGov. There it is. So that came as a postcard. And as you can see, this is 525 28th Street. And it was approved in 2012. after Section 317 was passed by the board and after the commission approved the 2010 code implementation document, which was the first one. Yet I went down to DBI when I saw this, and there were no demolition calculations done for this project. And unfortunately, that happened quite often prior to 2014 and 2015, even though 317 had been around for a number of years. The most famous one you probably remember is 125 Crown Terrace. But this is 525 28th Street, and it's another one. And it's one of the first in Noe Valley. I remember when it went away, I didn't get to take a picture of it because I didn't know it was going to be a trend. But you can see it there. Oops, somebody's phone rang. OK, so there it is. And it has ongoing repercussions, like all these projects that were alterations that should have been reviewed as demolitions have. And you can see the price history there. Originally in 2012, it was $570,000. That's like dreamland now. And it went up exponentially. The biggest jump was when it sold in 2014, but then it went up 4.6 and then 4.7. I mean, some of these went up to like 7, 8, even 9. OK, so why was this a demolition? It's the scope of work. And you can see it in this overhead. The one on the left is from the PEM. That shows the layout of the lot from the 1990 Sanborn. And here it is basically today. You can see it had all those attributes of major alterations that should have been reviewed as demolitions. Typical scope of work, horizontal and vertical expansion with the facade alterations. And basically, the house was obliterated. So recently, the commission talked about an update on the merger with DBI. Oh, there it is originally, by the way. There it is now. And there's another picture that I found. So that's the original house. So recently, you talked about having an update on the merger with DBI and planning. Here are my suggestions. That planning and DBI should work closely at the initial intake for projects with scope of work like this to improve review of the projects prior to the issuance of the planning approval letter, PAL. The new small residential PRJ applications require scanty information compared with the previous forms. There was one in February that asked for more information than the one in June that was printed in June. At least that's what I noticed. And projects found to be tantamount to demolition should get a demo permit. Form 6, complying with info sheet SO4. And maybe you have a joint hearing with DBI, BIC. And that's my comments. Thank you. Have a great week. Thanks for the news from the supervisors. And there's my 150 words for the minutes. Thank you.

OK, last call for general public comment for items not on today's agenda. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. We can move on to your regular calendar, commissioners, for item 4, case number 2026-005705, PCA, story count and mezzanines, planning code amendment.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Tate Hanna, planning department staff. Just a bit of background. I'm joining the legislative team with the planning department after merging from DBI. Before you today is file number 260709, introduced by Supervisor Mahmoud. And with us today is Raynell Cooper from Supervisor Mahmoud's office. So I'll let him speak to the ordinance first.

Thank you. Good afternoon, President Campbell and commissioners. Good to see you all again. My name is Raynell Cooper, legislative aide for Supervisor Bilal Mahmood. Hope this is a bit more straightforward than our conversation last week. This legislation came to our office by way of the Builders Roundtable, a quarterly meeting where we bring together developers, architects, attorneys, and labor leaders to discuss what we can be doing better as a city to get more homes built. One of our builder partners told us about an issue slowing down a project she was working with in Hays Valley in District 5. Their plans include a mezzanine between the first and second floor. These are, of course, common in the high ceiling culture of San Francisco. Under the building code, if there are sprinklers, buildings can have mezzanines that cover up to 50% of the floor area and not have them count against the overall story count. This means that, according to experts that compile building codes, a sprinkler mezzanine of this size is safe for use. Under the planning code, however, that number is 33%. That means that if a mezzanine is between 33% and 50% of the area of the floor plate, a planning department plan checker and a DBI inspector would give you different answers to the same question of how many stories that building has. Thankfully, given the size of the building and the type of uses, this did not prove to be a material issue in the case of this building in Hayes Valley. But reconciling the two definitions caused delays in review and required escalation within the planning department. For other buildings, this is an inconsistency that can create more major headaches. An architect could intend for a floor being built as a mezzanine for retail use, but if planning thinks it's a second floor and not a mezzanine, and it's in a zone where second floor retail is not permitted, then the property owner would have to change plans or find a new use. Supervisor Mahmoud's legislation fixes that by aligning planning code with the building code's more expansive definition of mezzanine. This legislation will bring the two codes into alignment, clearing up any confusion and allowing for more usable space in our new construction buildings without jeopardizing safety. This is hardly the only place where parts of the planning code or building code conflict or create confusion with other parts of the code. These issues may seem like pedantic nitpicks, but they add real costs and real delays to projects through the plan review process. Our office will continue to investigate other inconsistencies and hope to bring more legislation forward on this point to you soon. I want to thank Deputy City Attorney Rob Capula for his work on this legislation, as well as Lisa Gluckstein and Elizabeth Gordon-Jonk here for their input, and Tate Hanna as well for his work. And you'll hear from him shortly. We are in support of the staff recommended modifications that you'll hear about from Tate. So thank you so much for your time, and I'll hand it back over to him.

Commissioners, I did want to just jump in because something I should have done before Tate started speaking. Tate Hanna is one of the amazing results of our phased merger with the planning department. So Tate has a significant background in state policy and legislation. He's worked for DBI for a number of years working on their legislation for the building code and is one more example with the great knowledge and background that he brings of our ability to bring together planning code and building code issues when we look forward. So we're really grateful to have him. Tate, I'm sorry I didn't do that introduction before you came up.

No worries at all. Thank you, Director. And thank you, Raynell, for your summary and the intent behind this ordinance. So as mentioned, this ordinance would amend existing planning code that allows for a 33.3% floor area coverage for a mezzanine before it is considered a separate story. The ordinance would change that 33.3% threshold to 50% in an attempt to align with the building code. I will flag that the building code is not this sort of, the binary switch from 33 to 50% does not actually necessarily align with the building code in all instances. The building code has a list of exceptions that allow this standard 33.3% floor area coverage to be increased to 50% without it being counted as a separate story. So that includes the type of construction, if there are sprinklers present, and the occupancy of that building. So in an attempt to actually make sure that that alignment is comprehensive throughout, the department is recommending modifications, is recommending approval with modifications. Those modifications would be including a reference to the building code exemptions in the planning code so that if there is ever a point in which the building code allows a mezzanine up to 50%, the planning code would similarly allow that. In an instance where the building code only allows 33.3, the planning code would align there as well. Raynell mentioned this also could have an impact on neighborhood commercial districts. There are certain areas in which ground floor retail is permissible. This would allow without that mezzanine being counted as a story for the ground floor to essentially be expanded if it goes from 33% to 50% in those instances. So there are some circumstances in which a ground floor retail situation would be able to expand slightly under this ordinance with the modifications. I will note that the department has not flagged any implementation impacts aside from some potential coordination between DBI staff and planning staff. As planning staff are reviewing an application, they may need to coordinate with a DBI plan checker to make sure they understand the exceptions in the building code and if they're applicable for that specific project before determining the appropriate coverage for a mezzanine. As mentioned, the department is recommending the commission adopt a recommendation for approval with modifications, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

OK, commissioners, if there are no immediate questions, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. Last call. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, commissioners.

Commissioner McDonald. So thank you, Tate, and others for working on this. And it seems to me like this is a really straightforward proposal to align disparate elements of the codes that people have to deal with. And it seems to me that The proposed modification that staff is making makes a lot of sense because it aligns it better than the original proposal did. So I don't have any questions for you, but just to thank you for your thoughtful analysis of it and providing us with this modification. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Koppel.

Thanks to Supervisor Mahmoud's office. And I've worked with TAPE before at TBI. It's refreshing to already see some of the positive results of Working together at times, you know, there's been a little confusion or misalignment between the two departments with a gray area to kind of like, you know, point fingers about. So it's good to see we're kind of lining things up to work a little more efficiently. So I'm very supportive. I'd move to approve.

Second. Anything else, Commissioner Coppel?

No.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Soh.

Welcome, Tate. Really happy to see how we actually work together in proactively than reactively. So welcome. My question is relating to working with making sure that there are areas that are inconsistent between a planning code and building code. Now, with this proposal from Supervisor Mahmoud, you have been skillfully using some of the exemptions in the building code that can actually make this more aligned just for particular use, in this case is retail.

So it's not specific to retail. That was in reference to specific neighborhood commercial districts where this might be applied, where there is ground floor retail and they have a mezzanine where they are still utilizing that as the ground floor. It's part of their retail business. If this were allowed and if the building met the building code exceptions, that mezzanine could be expanded up to 50% and still be considered part of the ground floor. And therefore, the ground floor retail use would be slightly expanded. But no, this applies to mezzanines at large.

So would you say it benefit a lot of the commercial corridors?

It could, yes. Again, it's not a major expansion from 33% to 50%, but there is the potential that those neighborhood commercial districts and those businesses serving those neighborhoods could benefit from this.

OK. I'm in support of this, and I think it's a really good step forward. And I would like to ask, what about the PDR districts with a lot of lift work loft?

So this still would apply. That mezzanine change would still apply. It just depends on the usage. So we would have it, again, be dependent on the building type, the occupancy, and if there are sprinklers there, if they were able to get up to that 50%. But yes, it could apply in those districts as well.

So I would like to add just a recommendation to look into the PDR districts and the uses of work. So I think that will be benefiting a lot of residents and also live and work in their space. That might be helpful, just as a consideration. I'm supportive of this.

I think that's it. Ready to take a vote, Jonas?

Indeed, there is a motion that it has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval and just to be clear with staff modifications. Yes. Very good. On that motion, Commissioner Chen? Aye. Commissioner Koppel? Aye. Commissioner McDonald? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 6-0, placing us on items 5A, B, and C for case numbers 2025-007507DNXOFA. and SHD for the property at 536 Mission Street. Commissioners, you'll be considering a downtown project authorization, office development authorization, and shadow findings.

Good afternoon, commissioners, Rebecca Salgado, planning staff. The proposed project would demolish the existing seven-story, 236,680-square-foot Golden Gate University buildings on the site and construct a new 46-story tower on the lot with one of two distinct land use programs or variants. The first variant, the commercial variant, is a 700 foot tall, approximately 1.22 million square foot building that would include a mix of office space and laboratory space. The project sponsor proposes two options for the commercial variant in terms of relative amounts of office and laboratory uses. The second variant, the office and residential variant, is a 649 foot tall, approximately 992,000 square foot building that would include a mix of office space and 385 residential dwelling units consisting of 64 studio, 221 one bedroom, 62 bedroom, and 43 bedroom units. All variants would include basement accessory parking, bike parking as required by the planning code, and ground floor retail or restaurant use at the southwest corner of Jessie Street and Ecker Street. In addition to the provision of proposed privately owned public open space, or POPOS, on the project site, both variants would improve the entirety of Ecker Street between Mission Street and Jessie Street as POPOS, and the project sponsor would maintain that portion of Ecker Street for the life of the project. The actions before the commission include a request for a downtown project authorization with Planning Code Section 309 exceptions as noted in the draft motion, an office allocation to allow the establishment of up to 555,390 square feet of new office use, and the adoption of shadow findings related to Union Square and Portsmouth Square pursuant to Planning Code Section 295. The zoning officer will also consider two variances from the parking and loading ingress and egress controls at a regularly scheduled variance hearing on September 23rd. To date, the department has received three messages regarding the project. One message is in opposition to the demolition of the Golden Gate University buildings. One message asked for the project sponsor to consider retaining portions of the Golden Gate University buildings in the new tower design. And a final message requested further consultation with a neighboring property at 16 Jesse Street. The department finds that the project is on balance consistent with the transit center district plan, the downtown plan, and the objectives and policies of the general plan. The project will contribute to the revitalization of downtown by adding a new mixed-use tower within the downtown core. Both the commercial variant and office and residential variant propose modern buildings with designs that are meant to harmonize with the surrounding downtown core. The eventual design and construction of a new tower will result in a high quality building that will build on the vision for the neighborhood articulated by the transit center district plan. The project will create substantial new ground level outdoor popos with a new retail storefront at the corner of Jesse Street and Ecker Street, which is proposed for re-pedestrianization under the project as envisioned under the downtown plan. The project will also contribute revenue to the city in the form of taxes, impact fees, and other exactions toward the improvement of San Francisco's transportation network, as well as funds for new open spaces, affordable housing, child care, and other public services. Based on the findings contained within the case report, the department recommends approval of the project with conditions. This concludes my presentation unless there are any questions, and the project team also has a brief presentation of the project. Thank you.

OK, we should hear from the project sponsor. You have 10 minutes.

Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Brandon Wong, executive vice president for Lincoln Property Company. On behalf of Lincoln and McCord Partners, we're excited to be here today. to present 536 Mission, which is a current Golden Gate University site located in the heart of the Transbay District Plan. This project was born out of a strategic partnership with Golden Gate University, providing the university with much-needed capital to continue its long-term educational mission and continue to be based here in San Francisco in the right size space. San Francisco is on the rise. but the recovery is delicate. On the tailwinds, we have an amazing city of leadership and an economy fueled by emerging technologies. On the headwinds, we face higher interest rates, geopolitical uncertainty, and capital scarcity to fund new development projects. As major investors in San Francisco, we understand the market and what could be built in today's environment. Office demand is at an all-time high, and it's clear what tenants desire, best-in-class design with amenities, views, and access to public transit. There is a true flight to quality, and despite higher overall market vacancy, there is a clear lack of new Class A space to meet current and future tenant demand. In our presentation, we'll be showing two designs, an all-office tower and a mixed-use variant. But to be clear, The all-office tower is our focus and what we intend to build. We are in active discussions with potential tenants that want the quality and attributes that the all-office tower design provides. When we embarked on this endeavor, we did not anticipate the current Prop M challenge that we're facing today. The landscape has changed considerably in the last several months. Our original application requested 1.2 million square feet of office. While 1.2 million square feet of Prop M is not currently available, we respectfully request that the Commission grant the remaining 813,000 square feet of Prop M to allow this project to move forward. We understand that we will need to work collaboratively with the city and come back to the Commission to secure future Prop M. Approving our design and granting our project the remaining 813,000 square feet of Prop M will give us the go-forward confidence to invest the significant capital needed to complete our drawings and break ground. The project will provide impact fees and ongoing transit funding to support the long-term vision of this neighborhood as a transit hub. The project will also feature open space and retail amenities to support the revitalization of downtown for its workers and residents. Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to being part of San Francisco's downtown recovery.

Thank you, Brendan, and thank you, commissioners. I'm Mark Schwettman with Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. We're the project's architects. Very pleased to present to you today 536 Mission in the heart of the Transit Center District Plan, a neighborhood which has seen, since the turn of the century, an extraordinary amount of development focused primarily on high-quality residential towers to the south, along with the city's highest intensity of commercial uses along Mission Street. As transformative as this has been for the city's skyline, its effect on the public realm is equally important with new high quality open spaces at Crayde. The site is currently occupied by the Golden Gate University building, which does relatively little to contribute to this vision of the district. Bounded to the south by Mission Street, the east by Ecker, and to the north by Jesse, we propose the demolition of this building to create way For a new publicly spirited building that has an enhanced public realm, functioning is a really important link in the pedestrian pathway between Market Street and the Salesforce Transit Center, with intimate open spaces that lead from Eckhart to Mission Street. As Brandon mentioned, we have two versions of the project before you today, an all commercial version and a mixed use version. Both take a similar approach to site circulation and logistics, with primarily pedestrian focus on the southwest and east, and loading and service access on the north, where a modest setback of the building allows for a slight widening of Jesse Street to allow Jesse Street to function as a two-way street west of the project site. This avoids the conflict created by the stalled construction at Oceanwide, which is currently requiring vehicles on Ecker Street. The mixed-use building is a simple form which meets the ground in a series of two lobbies facing Mission Street and a retail space facing Ecker, framing a public space with a two-story high indoor-outdoor canopy, an arcade of sorts with a very transparent facade behind that. The building's floor plates step from larger office plates at the bottom to special amenity floors at the center and then residential floors at the top. creating a bundled form which is both responsive to the program of the building, but also to the form of the context, and a simple but elegant metal frame facade vertically proportioned with larger single lights of glass for the office and smaller divided lights for the residential. The office version, though, takes a more ambitious approach to the ground plane, creating a series of uniquely scaled public spaces, starting from Ecker Street, flowing seamlessly into the project's on-site public open space, and then into lobbies. These lobbies are framed by landscape designed by Pete Walker and partners, of course, the architects of the landscape at the Salesforce Transit Center. These elements are defined by a roughly 40-foot high architectural base, a horizontal element which cantilevers out over the sidewalk, creating an appropriately scaled public room. This public room begins at Ecker with complete improvements to the Ecker Street right of way, new paving, new lighting, new planting, seating both fixed and movable, flowing seamlessly into the site's on-site public open space, which leads directly into the south-facing lobby for the office uses, which have a direct relationship to Mission Street and the current mid-block crossing directly aligned with the building's core. Lobby flows up to a mezzanine level, which faces the 560 Mission Street open space with a very transparent multi-story facade, transforming the current blank wall of that space into a part of the public realm. This is a view down from that mezzanine. As interesting as the base of the building is, equally important that it relate to the city's skyline and to the very carefully considered bulk controls and height controls of the district. The tower's simple and elegant form tapers most dramatically on the east, leading to a setback of over 75 feet at the east side, which is an appropriate response to the city's current tallest building directly to our southeast and future second tallest building to the east. In addition, the building's corners taper from large radius at the bottom to a smaller radius at the center, and then back to a larger radius at the top, which creates a distinctive presence on the skyline. But importantly, this form provides a significant amount of efficient, high-quality space, the type that tenants are demanding in this environment, and the type which very few buildings in San Francisco can currently deliver. The facade is responsive to the character of the transit center district. careful balance of primarily glass and metal, but punctuated by an important amenity space at the center of the building and an illuminated crown at the top. The facade features a two-story expression with an alternating pattern of variegated metal detailing, and those metal details are recessed into the facade vertically and horizontally, creating a space for an indirect lighting effect that will blend the form of the tower into its illuminated crown on the skyline. Thank you very much for your time. We have additional information about the project should there be any questions. And happy to see you all again.

Very good. If that concludes the project sponsor presentation, 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.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Eddie Reyes, and I'm a native San Franciscan resident and president of Ironworkers Local 377 here in San Francisco Construction Trade Union in DC-10. I support the authorization of 536 Mission Street with the conditions recommended by staff. This is the kind of location where San Francisco should be concentrating development. The transit center district plan calls for substantial growth in our transit investments, a strong employment center, and a mix of uses that keep the neighborhood active beyond the workday. We should follow through on that vision. Both alternatives include retail and offices. One adds laboratory space. The other would provide up to 385 homes. That gives the project more than one potential path forward. The housing alternative in particular offers an opportunity to bring more residents and a neighborhood that should be a place to live, not just a place to work. The retail component also matters. We should judge downtown development by what it contributes at the sidewalk, not just what it adds to the skyline. I want a project that gives people reasons to walk these blocks, patronize businesses, and spend time downtown. The commitment to using local registered apprentices and union trades is another important part of our support. Local people should have the opportunity to build this project and develop a career in the process. Please approve the project with conditions. Our goal should always be a completed building that contributes to San Francisco and not another approval that stays on paper. Thank you for your time. Go Niners.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Adam Van de Water. I'm the executive director of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority here in support of the proposal before you, as this is a key part of what was originally envisioned when this commission adopted the Transit Center District Plan in May of 2012. This is a site that would be put to higher and better use and would pay into the community facilities district of the Transbay program that would allow our project, that portal project, to bring Caltrain and eventually high-speed rail to its northern terminus just to its south in the salesforce transit center so we're here in support i'm happy to answer any questions about the transit connectivity but really excited to see development activity in this neighbor again to help us support and complete the vision of the entire transbay program thank you

Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Taylor Jantz. I serve as the CFO of Golden Gate University. GGU has been part of San Francisco since 1901. For more than a century, we've educated working adults, accountants, attorneys, tax professionals, many of them working in the city while they earn their degrees. We're one of the most rapidly growing universities in California. And we're growing because we're changing how we deliver education. Higher ed is being reshaped. Students need flexibility. Employers need skills. And a degree must pay off faster than it used to. Golden Gate University is transitioning its model to meet that. We teach in flexible online and campus weekend formats built around people who are already working. We're moving to shorter, stackable credentials so students earn something of value along the way rather than only at the end. And we design programs with employers so what our students learn is what the market is actually hiring for. That means fewer fixed classrooms and more ways to reach students where they already are. Selling this site was part of that transition. It let us right-size our footprint and put capital into teaching rather than into a building designed for a different era. Our connection to this district was never about the building. It's always been about our students. They work in these towers, and when downtown works, they do and so do we. We support allocating the full available office allocation to this project in fulfillment of the promise of the original Transit Center District Plan. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Matt Russo. I'm the elected business manager of the International Union of Elevator Constructors, headquartered here in San Francisco. The city's plan identifies this district as a center for transit-oriented job growth. It also recognizes that major projects take time to finance, design, and build. We should evaluate this application with that longer horizon in mind, rather than expecting a development decision today to produce an occupied building tomorrow. There's a practical reason to put jobs near transit. It gives more workers a way to reach employment without depending on a car. That a sound use of this infrastructure of the public has already paid to build. For us, the measure of success is broader than the office square footage. We want an occupied project that supports the surrounding neighborhood, and we want the construction work to provide opportunities for the people who live here. That is why the commitment to local registered apprentices and union trades matters. Downtown investment should help train the next generation of skilled workers, not leave them watching the work from the sideline. Please approve the office allocation with the conditions. Give this project a path forward with the expectation that the result will be construction, employment, and an active contribution to downtown. Thank you.

OK, last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. And this matter is now before you, Commissioner.

Commissioner McGarry.

This one I'm excited for. Construction back, new construction back in downtown San Francisco. It's been missing for a while. Residential units, basically retail, restaurant, laboratory, R&D, office. Basically, this project is, and then the local hire on top of it. I hope it's not just a... fleeting local hire. I hope there's teeth in it. Basically, I would like to see local people actually build the community. This one is great, and this could be the start of many more to come, and it's exciting to see it because basically we've been struggling on the outside construction-wise for the last five, six years, and this one looks like it's the spark to get us going again at the right time. So as the man said, let's go Niners. This one has my support.

Thank you, Commissioner Koppel.

Yeah, just one question for the architect. Is the lighting on the top of the building serving as the art?

I don't think that the configuration of the public art has been determined yet. I would imagine that a significant amount of it will be at grade. So the anticipation is not that the top is lighting.

Okay, great. I also think this is a great project downtown. Revitalization still needs to be a large priority. It's again like the intersection of jobs, business, commerce, and not just the the people constructing the job temporarily, but also the full-time employment of everyone who will be working in the office afterwards. And don't forget those local contracting businesses that will also be dispatching and employing those workers. This location is definitely appropriate. This is where the office belongs. This type of transit-oriented development is just going to put more riders on Muni. I'm very much in favor of this. I really like the ground floor activation. And did I see some trees inside the building as well? So, you know, not just on the exterior, on the sidewalk, but inside the building. I really look forward to hopefully later on seeing this building like from the street level in person. Great to see no opposition. Mr. Vanderwater, Labor's here. And how often does an existing building support their own replacement? So that's not too common. So considering all the support here, I'm very much in favor as well.

Commissioner McDonald.

Hi. Thank you for this presentation. I appreciate the efforts that have gone into this project and the work between the developer and the designer and the staff to craft a project that I think is really well considered. And I appreciate the presentation that you gave today because it added a bit more to my understanding of the project. So I did have a few questions for the architect. So the block of Ecker Street that this project is going to design and manage, that's such a key link all the way from Market Street to the Salesforce Park. And obviously, it's a link that has been pretty rough for a while. Anyways, I think it's very important and presents a wonderful opportunity to enhance the public realm in a uniquely San Francisco way. My feeling is that one of the great joys of walking through San Francisco comes from the human scale details. that are found at the base of buildings and within public spaces. So there's a great opportunity for the lower level frontage of the building to provide those human scale details. I didn't necessarily see it in the preliminary plans that we looked at earlier, but I appreciated some of the renderings that you showed here today. But I hope that you could speak a little bit more about what you're envisioning for the human scale details at the ground floor of all of the variants, and particularly in the arcade space, and then also On Ecker Street itself, you know, what are the details and amenities you're considering that go beyond the row of trees? I know you're dealing with the issue of having to potentially provide for vehicles coming through there for a limited amount of time. But just what are you thinking about for these spaces to bring it down to the human scale?

Yeah, no, it's a really good question. I think there's There's a couple different ways that architecture and design can do that. And I agree that the building itself needs to do part of it. And there is a sort of transition of scales from the very large to the room scale of that canopy. And then the next layer, is really that closer to human one to two story scale and you see for example the portal through the cladding of the building on that side there are similar elements that track around the west and the north side of the building but i do think we have focused with pete walker's team that scale really on the landscape and the public realm design because it is a significant building and our intention in the design of the building was to kind of create air for the public realm. This is a very dense part of the city. We have buildings that are 500 to 1,000 feet tall going up around us. So the first priority was to create that space and then to fill it with landscape elements. So the trees are significant. The ground plantings are significant. The timber benches, the lighting under the benches, and then the movable furniture, which we think is important because we don't know what that retail space is going to be yet. Depending on the kind of use it is, it may be very busy in the mornings when people want to sit in the sun. It may be very busy in the fall when people want to sit in the shade. It may have indoor-outdoor space. So it's kind of a flexible framework. I think we do anticipate details in the way the materials and the cladding are articulated. You can see, for example, the way the two-story glass panels above the belt course line transition to one story, and they have a finer vertical grain of metal perforations in them. But I think, in part, you're responding to the building's openness at its base. Because it's so open, it doesn't have a sill, and it doesn't have smaller scale frame elements. And I think that's appropriate for this, given how dense this neighborhood is.

OK, thank you. I appreciate that answer. I do have another question, but I think it's very appropriate to be using the landscaping in this case to help introduce that human scale. So I'm glad that that's what you were talking about. And my other question, if I may, has to do with Jessie Street and the pedestrian realm along Jessie Street. So that long row of the roll-up doors at the loading docks is unfortunate for the public realm. It's the only way I can think to say it. So I understand that the mid-block location of the site and the narrowness of Jesse Street creates some really big constraints, but I would hope that during the design development efforts, efforts could be made to reduce the cumulative lengths of the loading area, if that's at all possible, or at least to mitigate that impact of the long blank wall of the roll-up doors that presents to Jessie Street. You know, Jessie Street is a bit of a chaotic space right now, if I may say. But there are some interesting things going on there, and pedestrians are walking up and down and through it. So do you have any comments about that concern?

Yeah, I wish we could make the loading and ramp even narrower. We can certainly study it. However, the turning templates show that it's essentially the narrowest it could possibly be and still get the trash trucks in and out, as well as, frankly, the planning code required loading bays. So we are meeting the minimum functional requirements of the building. What we did, though, we pushed it as far to the west as we could to make the retail space, or in the case of the mixed use variant, the retail space plus a small plaza as wide as possible. So it's more than a third the width of the site. It tapers back. So I think Jesse is quite narrow. The sidewalk is quite narrow. And unfortunately, it It really can't be wider because the buildings across the street, they have loading as well. They have bollards. We have the minimum widths required by the fire department. So we opened up the corner. We did set the building back slightly, again, to allow for that two-way thing. And you've probably seen that there are now roll-up doors which open and close very fast. So I would like to see that during the day, you won't be looking into the loading dock and the trash. The door will be closed. We can do them in a nice finish, enhance the paving on the sidewalk. Because I actually do think people will walk from Market Street and then go west through the 560 Mission Plaza as well. So I think people will walk through there. I mean, I walk through there. I just walk down the middle of the street, though. It is part of the city's pedestrian network. This building, though, has only one back, and we've used as little of it as we can for these uses.

Yes, I appreciate those constraints, and thank you, and I hope that whatever efforts can be made as you continue to do the design development to make it even more pedestrian-friendly would be, I think, very welcome for the

pedestrian realm. That's it for my comments. Great comments. Thanks, Commissioner McDonald. Commissioner So?

Thank you. I second and echo all my fellow commissioners' great positive remarks. I'm not going to repeat them, but I just say they're great. Thanks for making those statements. I wanted to have basically two other questions that I have. One, maybe the easiest one is relating to Popo's, or maybe perhaps the architect can answer that. Hi, Mark. Hi. And so just my understanding is that you're requesting to use the entire plaza area, not the entire one, but like all the Popo's access is on the ground floor, and none of it is happening in any of the sky lounges or rooftops.

That's correct. I think it's consistent with city policy that ground floor open spaces are the most used. And the opportunity this site presented was Ecker Street, which is an important pedestrian space that is really not very nice right now. So we did focus our efforts on the exterior portion of the ground floor and Ecker Street. I do think that in particularly the office variant, the openness and publicly spirited nature of the office lobby functions as a sort of open space. But due to the technical interpretation of whether indoor popos can count in this district, we are not counting it. So there's an interesting quirk in the way it's calculated that only space is built since the downtown plan count in the calculation, which essentially excludes the very large public open spaces of the Bank of America building or one bush as counting as outdoor open space. So the base of this building, we think, is extremely publicly spirited. It is where we have put the open space at the ground. And I think that's where it belongs.

And so in your current proposed schemes, the alleyway is vehicle access, right?

No. We are not relying on ECER for any vehicular access. Today there are vehicles on ECER because Jesse dead ends into the ocean wide site. And that is not meant to be the permanent configuration. But what is done with that site and that street extension is totally out of our control. So we are not relying on ECER. Our project proposes that ECER be pedestrian only. But it is a city street. And should the city work with Oceanwide or the current Ocean or the Oceanwide parcel to do something else, of course, that's out of our control.

Oh, okay, so that kind of probably, I really appreciate your answer to that, because I'm looking at your vehicle diagram, so circulation and site access diagram. That's what I was not sure what the orange-ish dash arrow line is along the alleyway.

Yeah, that's the orange, if the screen can come up. The orange is pedestrians. So the orange is all pedestrian in this.

And then the dash one that is in the alleyway with the two rows of trees. Yeah.

So that, as an interim condition, is where the fire department could, in case of emergency, drive down. So that's emergency use only. Again, we don't think that's the final condition. But it's kind of not up to us whether that street continues.

And also notice that that's actually outside your property line.

Yeah, that is the right-of-way of Ecker Street.

So what is the extent of your proposals that you propose that actually meet the requirement of our proposed square footage requirement for the size of your building?

We worked with planning staff on exactly what would count and what wouldn't. And again, as I mentioned, it's kind of a technicality, what counts and what doesn't. But all of Ecker and the continuous paving and improvements that go from Ecker up to the face of the building are all counted as public open space.

So is it, I'm just trying to get my self understanding, so you're counting your POPOs, part of it is actually outside of your property line?

That's correct. The improvements.

But that's actually not yours, so how could you count that?

There is precedent for it, and I think maybe that's a question for planning staff actually, because we did work together with them to make sure the math was mathing.

Rebecca Salgado, Planning Staff. Just to clarify, so the POPOs requirements are under Planning Code Section 138. And that section of the code does allow for public right-of-way to count towards POPOs space as long as all relevant city agencies are in agreement. So, yeah, it is not something that's used super often. It's usually simplest to provide the POPOs within the lot, but the code does allow for that. And we've been meeting extensively with multiple city agencies just to talk about all of these public right-of-way on Jesse and Ecker to make sure that other city agencies believe they're also feasible.

Thank you, Rebecca. So with that regard, you had already reached out to, like, MTA and DPW and I don't know who else is part of this.

Yeah, and disability access coordinator. And this project has gone to the streetscape design advisory team multiple times and separate from that. Because the site circulation issues around the site, especially with the neighboring site under construction or post-construction, we wanted to make sure that there was a feasible option for this project to move forward on its own.

Thank you. Just to add, to make it absolutely clear, The project sponsor of the project is paying for all of the improvements and the maintenance of that space, even though it is public property. So all of the improvements are being paid for by the project.

So there's no square footages actually tied into the requirement of POPOs?

No, there is. So the square footage, it's in the downtown project authorization motion. But for the commercial variant, there's 24,419 square feet of popos required. And for the residential and office variant, there's 11,195 square feet of popos required. Neither variant are providing the full amount. The residential and office variant gets close. There's only 872 square feet that they're not providing. The commercial variant is not providing 12,895 square feet. Because really, the lot is 32,000 square feet. So for any square footage of Popos not provided, they are required to pay an in-lieu fee.

Thank you, Rebecca. This is much more clear. I wish it was in that little table one. Then I don't have to put you out here to ask this question. It's good to hear that one version is closer to meeting the requirement. The other one seems like it's meeting, anyway, I can't do the math right now.

Yeah. The office and residential has a lower requirement because the residential doesn't trigger the POPOS requirement.

And then while you're here, that kind of dovetailed me to the next questions of what come in front of us today is make a motion to approve one of these options or just...

So the recommendation of staff is to approve both variants with conditions. So both the commercial variant, which is taller, and the office and residential variant. They each have distinct designs and programs. Staff is recommending an allocation of 555,390 square feet of office. The project sponsor has requested the full currently available allocation amount. So if you follow the recommendation of staff, you would be approving the smaller allocation, but still within that commercial variant. Or it would be the same amount in either variant of office allocation.

Okay, thank you so much.

So it would be approval of the project, but with the $555,000.

Your recommendation, the staff recommendation, is with the office allocation of that $555,390 square foot. Yes. And that would get them to be able to use both in your table. However, the project sponsor shows very strong interest to get the $813,214 square foot. That's correct. For 100% commercial.

Yes, and both options under the commercial variant will require some laboratory use because even the 813,000, that's the maximum available right now, is less than the square footage of the commercial variant. It's a little bit unusual.

It's good to clarifying it and also for anyone who are interested in the project can get a better clarity of what are we talking about and what are we doing here. I would probably like to have a question to the project sponsor. I would like to hear maybe the people who funded this. I'll spare the architect for now. How do you, can you explain to us, like, why do you really, really need the 800,013 square foot? What are the challenges or upside? Yeah, absolutely.

So the request, we need 1.2 million square feet to get the project built. But by getting the full 813,000 square feet available, that will give us the confidence to spend the tremendous capital needed to get the site shovel ready. We're talking tens of millions of dollars. And so we're going to work collaboratively with the city to fill the remaining gap. But getting that 813,000 square feet will give us the confidence that we can find a solution and move this project forward.

Thank you, Brendan. Maybe I just have one more question before you move away. I don't want to make you walk back and forth. For the other versions, you get to build shorter or slightly shorter, and then you also have about over half a million square foot. How likely would that project be able to actually shuffle ready?

Yeah. So when we embarked on this journey, this was at a different period of time. This was in the beginning of 2025 when the market was very unknown. The idea between having two variants was really to create flexibility into an unknown market. As we said today, and I mentioned this earlier, some of the headwinds we face are higher construction costs, higher interest rates. So the cost to build the mixed-use variant honestly doesn't pencil today. And so the rents for office are higher. The development costs for office are lower. And so the office works today. The mixed use currently doesn't work today in today's environment.

OK. Thank you. That kind of concludes all my questions, so thank you. Commissioner Koppel?

So I'm correct. Reckon Park did approve or bless the shadow findings. Yeah.

Yes, that's correct. In July, we went to the Rec and Parks Commission, and they recommended approval.

Great. I was going to ask maybe Mr. Kevlin to just give us a little context on maybe office allocation has a little bit of a stigma in kind of the sense that way too much often vacancy. Is there a way you could maybe come up and just put this topic into context a little bit? I myself track a lot of the leasing activities. There's been... a big uptick in leasing primarily smaller firms with AI companies. But I have heard from a number of leasing brokers that the larger tenant leases are starting to materialize. Do you have, like, this isn't your only client. Do you have a sense of just where office allocation in general is at, just to maybe add some flavor to that topic?

Yep. This is a little bit outside of the comfort zone, being outside of the legal world. But I guess what I would say,

If you could.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, in the last five years, it's been kind of surprising, having worked on a lot of these downtown buildings, all of them existing at this point, nothing new has been built, in how much the demand has grown and how much we're spending significantly on tenant improvements for these newer Class A office buildings. On the flip side, because there are tenants, because there is a market today for paying tenants, whereas our Class C office buildings, a lot of them in mid-market, I'm being told they'll never be used as office again. We may be getting right to the point. We've got a couple of office to resi conversions that are in the process right now with project sponsors that think they can do it. so that it's a great opportunity, because they're not going to be office anymore, to then turn them into resi. So I do think what we're, again, putting the Class C office space aside, the brokers I work with, they are busier than they've been since the teens, because there is so much demand for this office. And it's obviously an unfortunate situation with the Prop M. But the demand appears to be there.

Thank you. Yeah. With that said, I again do want to acknowledge these developers take on a lot of risk. I don't know how many years they've been putting into the project already and how much money they've already spent to get just here today. So I want to approve both the variance and the full amount of office allocation. I was going to move to approve item A.

And item B and C. And that's for the staff recommended amount of allocation?

No, I wanted to recommend the full amount.

800 and whatever that is.

So just for clarity's sake, the city attorney, I heard it as the full office variant, which is the 800 square foot.

Is that correct? 813, I think, whatever it is.

The larger number requested by the sponsor.

That is not the staff recommendation. Yeah.

Right.

And I was distracted, so I heard the motion. Did I hear a second?

Yes. Commissioner McGarry seconded.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Chen.

Thank you, President. Just one, going back to the POPOs, sorry, there's a lot of questions about the POPOs. So there is one section that is, and this, I don't know if this is a staff or a project sponsor architect question, but there's a, the section that is Jesse Street, it's a public right-of-way, so that is going to be public access 24 hours. Is that correct? Okay, I see nods. The section that is on the property, the section that is on the property, are there any conditions on the hours for that POPOs?

There are standard hours of operation under the Planning Code Section 138. And we also have a condition of approval in the downtown project authorization motion that the project team will continue to work with planning staff on the final details, as well as a maintenance agreement for the POPOs, so furnishings and final hours. But there are standard hour requirements under 138.

Thank you. And what are those, just for the record?

I believe it's sunrise to sunset, but I would have to check the code to know.

OK. Thank you. Great. For the item, I don't know if there's anybody on staff who can talk about the office allocation currently. I know that the commission recently approved changes to the process. And so I think trying to forecast what that allocation will be coming up and and also giving staff some time to maybe explain like their reasoning for for their recommendation for the 555 sorry the 555 000 and um and just the and looking ahead because i think also in the staff report it says that there are there are currently applications requesting more than two million what exactly is that how how staff is looking forward of the forecasted new allocation with the projects that are coming in?

Maybe to save you a trip to the microphone, I'll tackle that. Thank you. Rebecca and Nick. Thank you. Commissioner Sarah Dennis-Phillips. So yes, a couple of things. Commissioner Chen, just to remind you or to enumerate on what you mentioned. In late July, this commission adopted a resolution supporting a new policy, both in terms of revocations for existing office, so that we do not have offices, projects that we fear aren't able to move forward sitting on what is now scarce resource because of the constraints around Prop M. That policy that you adopted also included policy statements for priorities for future allocations of Prop M. And you included, there were three recommended policies within that prioritization, projects that included residential alongside their office allocation, projects that have already begun construction, i.e. hole in the ground projects that were currently half built and were stalled because of the pandemic. And then third, a prioritization for projects that voluntarily revoked their Prop M but came back in good faith when they actually were ready to move forward. So in light of that, one of the priorities you see here with the more restrained office allocation is in light of that first priority policy, right? Approving projects that include residential with them. With a full allocation of office, this project will not have any residential within it. I do want to be clear, and we are not here to dispute the project sponsor's statement about what they find financially feasible at this moment. As we know, what is financially feasible changes moment by moment. What tenants choose to lease changes moment by moment. And what we are recommending is something that will allow this project a vote of confidence to move forward, that we're here to work with them moving forward, but also not constrain all the other options that we have in terms of downtown development. So I did want to remind you in that vein that if the full allocation was granted here, That is all the allocation that we have. So projects in the pipeline, such as 50 Main Street, which is another project coming before you, or others, would not be able to move forward until we have significant changes to our Prop M pipeline that we described to you in that late July hearing with those constraints. So that's obviously a choice for the commission, but that is why we're making the recommendation we're making moving forward. And then one other note, I think you've heard staff say in 5A, we are recommending you approve the envelope for the various project variations. And we're doing that because if and when there are changes to Prop M, either a greater supply to Prop M that wouldn't constrain all other office projects downtown from moving forward, or changes to the policy itself by the voters, that would allow other variants of the project to move forward at that time. So maybe I'll pause there and see if there's more questions.

Thank you. This is very enlightening. And I think as a reminder, and I'm sorry I didn't request this beforehand, because of the changes to Prop M in 2020, I think this year's Prop M allocation was somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 square feet.

I believe it's even less, but yes.

It was less. And so by asking for 800, by asking to increase the allocation from 555 to 800,000, then that is essentially one to two years of probably future allocation that we'd be authorizing and we would not have available to us in the future.

We can't actually take the bank negative, but it does limit, you know, when they're asking for 800 and some thousand, that is what we have in the office allocation bank at this moment in time. if we get $100,000 and change in October, the bank will go from zero. At an $830,000 allocation, our bank would go to zero. In October, we may go up to $100,000, I think $150,000.

Because of revocations?

No, because of what happens every October and the limited amount. It used to be $875,000, but what we project this year, because of the 2020... Proposition changes, we'll get a very limited amount of Prop M. And then that is all we would have available to work or grant future projects forward. And so just as a reminder, and I'll look at this right now. 50 Main Street, for example, which is the next project looking forward to is looking for $350,000 in their office allocation coming forward. So just that is the other active project that we have that will require an action for you all in the near term.

Does Pier 70 also apply?

So those don't require actions by you. Those are already approved development agreements. And when a office building in Pier 70 or Mission Rock Port Projects pulls a building permit, that will automatically be deducted. We're not forecasting that to happen within the next nine to 12 months. I'm going to look to my team again. Is that right? Roughly. So we think those actions will happen outside of that timeline. It's a hard math game, and nobody can predict the future. And I think we are doing our best as staff, and obviously you have to apply your own judgment here as well, but to recommend actions moving forward that allow to the best of our ability all boats to move forward so that we see economic activity across downtown without picking favorites and winners and losers. Thanks.

Thank you. Yes, so I think in my head what I'm trying to think of is if we, so the staff recommendation is just rounding 555,000. If the motion by Commissioner Koppel is 813,000, so if we draw down all of our office allocation, it would take It would take some time to refill it back to where, if we took the staff recommendation, we would have 260, roughly. And if we drew it all the way down to zero, it would take us at least one year, maybe much longer to even get back to that same level of of square footage, right? Plus revocations, plus whatever else might happen. Is that?

Yes, you are correct. And again, it's hard to pinpoint exactly because revocations will play into the mix and potentially add some back if we're able to. But those are future actions. The other thing that will help in the future, and it's hard to know when this will happen as well, is the conversions mentioned by the project sponsors council here. So if there is an office project downtown that is converted to residential, when it's actually constructed, not when it's permitted, we do get to pull that back in the bank. I don't think we're foreseeing any residential conversions within the next 12 months, for example. So again, that all indicates that your statement is true, but just wanted to add color that it's hard to pinpoint exactly because of revocations and conversions, but generally, yes.

Sorry, and if I could just add, sorry, good afternoon, President Campbell and Commissioners, Corey Teague, Zoning Administrator, just one other nuance about kind of this October 17th when our annual allotment kicks in. It's correct, we are going to get approximately 217, but we also, we have debt, essentially office allocation debt that needs to be paid at that same time where we've approved other projects in the past that are approved in a manner where basically they draw down 10% per year into the future. So what that means is even though we are going to technically get $220,000, we're also going to be paying out about $200,000 in debt, so to speak. So the net increase that we will receive in the large cap October 17th will actually only net out to about 20,000 square feet instead of 220,000 square feet. So it's just an important thing to note. And we went over this in more detail, I think, when we brought the policy before the commission, which is we have these different forces pulling the program in kind of different directions. We have the potential revocations and the conversions and more production of affordable housing, which will help add more to the pot. But we also have, you know, just projects coming forward asking to take allocation. And then we have essentially still these five projects that are still pulling 10% of their allocation for the next approximately five years. So that's pulling us in the other direction where we kind of have to pay that debt every October as well.

if that makes sense. So to repeat what I've heard, I think in terms of net new allocation, I think one number I heard was this fall, October, we will get somewhere around $200,000. But actually, because of these prior commitments, it's actually more like net new $20,000.

Right. It's accurate to say we're going to get about $220,000 into the large cap on October 17th, but we just also, we have to immediately turn around and pay, you know, the balance of our debt for this year on October 17th, which will effectively net out to only about 20,000 square feet.

Understood. Thank you. Sure. Thank you to staff. My one question about the POPOs, I'm inclined to support the staff recommendation. The motion, I think, currently by Commissioner Koppel is to modify it with the $800,000. I am disinclined to support that at this time, but I'm open to hearing the rest of the commission.

Thank you. Yeah, my knee jerk reaction is to also support the motion. But I appreciate all of the added insight and the careful math that's happening. I think one challenge is we don't get to see that math. But we sort of abstractly know that it's happening right in terms of the revocations and all of the gymnastics that are happening behind the scenes. I guess one question. So in that sense, I want to make sure that we're not in a position very soon when 50 Main Street comes before us and we have emptied the kitty. So I guess one question I have is around what a project like this has to go through after this step in terms of getting more office allocation? What does that process look like for them next, if we only grant staff's recommendation of the $555,000?

Good afternoon, commissioners. Nick Foster, department staff. I apologize for my raspy, horrible voice. In terms of leg injury and catching a cold, I'm here in one piece. They would need to come back and secure a new allocation, frankly. So the allocation, whether it's the 555 amount or the larger 813, whatever balance they're not making up that meets the pro forma, they would need to come back and secure a discrete, separate office allocation from this commission. So when that's available. And so that's, as the director outlined for you, we're just trying to do prudent resource management with the available allocation amount we have today. And that's why we're recommending the smaller amount. Should some of the Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects voluntarily revoke their existing allocations, or if we end up having to come back before the commission in the future to ask you as a commission to revoke their allocations, any combination of those, we could put allocation back into the proverbial bank. But any net new ask by this project sponsor would be a discrete new office allocation for the balance that they're seeking. Does that help?

Yeah, that helps. This project otherwise has my full support for all of the reasons that we've discussed today. I mean, this is an enormous investment in downtown, and I think Eckhart is such a gift. Back to the city, the Popos, everything about this. As much as I would love to grant the 813, I do respect the math and time that's been put into the recommendation that staff's put forward. So I would support the staff recommendation be put into a motion. Commissioner McDonald?

Yes, I just wanted to discuss one more thing. It's really for the record. So I want to make sure that my understanding about Ecker Street is correct, that this is not a street vacation. And even though it's called a popos, in fact, so that's privately owned public open space. That's what that stands for. In fact, it's really a... PMPOS, which is a privately managed public open space that the developer will manage for the life of the project. So I wanted to verify that my understanding is correct, and then also to ask the question, will Ecker remain open 24 hours, even though it's considered to be a quote-unquote popos?

Thank you. Rebecca Salgado, planning staff. Confirming that your understanding is correct, this is not a proposal for a street vacation. It is a proposal for the project sponsor to maintain that stretch of Ecker Street as a POPOS space. And also, the space will be open 24 hours. Yeah.

Commissioner McDonald, if I got to add, yeah. Just to give you a little bit more of the background here, not a street vacation, still going to be public right of way. The process is a major encroachment permit where we work with DPW, but really with planning, SFMTA, and all the others to design it with the city. The project sponsor not just funds it but constructs it to city standards and will maintain it and actually has liability over it for years to come. So it will be affected other than with the land ownership itself effectively managed and operated by the project sponsor. With respect to the hours of operation, there is obviously part of this in the public right of way, part of this on site. And as Ms. Delgado mentioned, the POPOs do have normal daytime business hours as restriction or as a requirement. Effectively speaking, there's no barrier between the two spaces. And this is not uncommon downtown where you have public open space up against popos. And there's no wall there. So effectively, it is going to be open 24 hours, both the public right of way as well as the space that's on the property itself. So I just want to make that clear that it will be indistinguishable in operation. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much.

Commissioners, if there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve both variants with the full office allocation requested of 813,214 square feet. On that motion, Commissioner Chen? No. Commissioner Koppel? Aye. Commissioner McDonald?

No.

Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner So?

No.

And Commission President Campbell? No. That motion fails two to four with Commissioners Chen, McDonald, Soe, and Campbell voting against. Is there an alternate motion?

Commissioner Chen.

I'll move to a move for the staff recommendation. Do I need to say all the downtown project, all the stuff? No. Okay. Move to approve the staff recommendation. Is there a second?

Second. Second.

Very good, commissioners. If there's nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve with staff modifications on that motion. Commissioner Chen? Aye. Commissioner Koppel? Aye. Commissioner McDonald? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Soe? Aye. And Commissioner President Campbell? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously 6-0 and concludes your very brief hearing today.