[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6543049,"mediaKeyId","3789614-81d8f060c38bed50fcfb3267c97b81d5","parentId",3789614,"title","Prologis previews 20‑acre railyard master plan centered on new underground Caltrain station","audioSeconds",1144,"startMs",1935000,"endMs",3079000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3789614-81d8f060c38bed50fcfb3267c97b81d5&start=1935&end=3079","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3789614-81d8f060c38bed50fcfb3267c97b81d5/thumbnail_1935000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6543049/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Prologis-previews-20acre-railyard-master-plan-centered-on-new-underground-Caltrain-station","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6543049-c7ac914a42edf86a416b3d68dab09bce/orig.mp4?Expires=1770887072&Signature=Cdefwd8QXpijAHcb87cKDWXVFCWF7xQp3EoOhthlK-BY25UgO94xdU00fKOPPluWZZCFgLPJ313WsbZ~5mMvrQeRN8JuE74~Kgvh7Mre2~oh~pXQIw4i8DVboa~FM4dxMyg1MqjLLeXAzsGSGW84lRqlXI18T6FFDzxAPHN3w9W2Bv9OKAikrcMiEUo-9niV8ajgNXk-Ar3I-gM3AOC7al-keFmDMmjBd9rWduc0lUaWdeF3zz6imO2bwnCfeWY-Sj6jW7M1nWqEb2Qhbf5iPrPuwzpeb9p6n8KSTjfKTn8nUEyjWINBBjZVLECvos3plSJaY5XA6WSGV~rgqRDNJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-06-12T00:00:00Z","article","Prologis, the private owner of the 20‑acre Caltrain rail yard between Fourth and Seventh streets, presented an informational master‑plan preview to the San Francisco Planning Commission on Thursday that would move train storage underground, add a new station and create mixed‑use development with parks, retail and room for thousands of housing units.

The plan envisions trains operating below grade while development rises in phases on the roughly half‑mile site, Genevieve Cadwalader, director for the Prologis team, told the commission. “Eventually the storage uses will move off‑site, freeing up the area represented in turquoise to be developed in phases over time,” she said, describing a framework developed after “at least 20 scenarios” of technical study with Caltrain.

Why it matters: The railyard sits amid major public investments — the TJPA “portal” linking Caltrain to the Salesforce Transit Center, the Central SOMA planning area and Caltrain electrification — so the city and multiple agencies have emphasized coordination. The site offers one of the largest remaining infill opportunities in San Francisco and, if built at the scale Prologis described, would shape transit access, jobs and housing in central SoMa and adjacent neighborhoods.

Key elements and scale: Prologis showed a development framework that includes a modern multimodal station near Fourth Street, signature parks and plazas, a 40‑foot setback along Townsend to accommodate the portal and a “sculpted mounding” of height that concentrates the tallest towers at the station. The company described an overall program of roughly 7,000,000 square feet of mixed‑use development and a very wide estimated range of homes — on the order of 1,500 to 4,000 units depending on phasing and product mix — and a proposed maximum height of about 850 feet at the highest node in its concept diagrams.

Comments from city staff and commissioners: Lee Lutensky of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development framed the project as a long‑term “visionary” opportunity to leverage private investment with planned public transportation upgrades and to knit together neighborhoods that the yard currently separates. Planning staff emphasized that Prologis and Caltrain have completed a multi‑year technical study and that the city is coordinating with the Transit Joint Powers Authority on overlapping work.

Commissioners used the informational hearing to press Prologis on affordable housing, parking and the project’s urban‑design details. Commissioner Brown asked which agency will host a replacement Caltrain yard; Prologis said that location has not yet been decided. Brown also flagged the large unit‑count range and asked how office vs. housing balance will be determined; Prologis said flexibility is intentional because the site will be built over many years and product mix will respond to market conditions and policy priorities.

Affordable housing and public feedback: Multiple public commenters urged a stronger, earlier commitment to deeply affordable housing. At least one speaker said “affordable housing was not mentioned once” in the presentation and asked Prologis to work with the city to “promote and encourage the deeply affordable housing that the city needs.” Prologis and staff said affordable housing is expected on the site but that “how it is implemented and what levels are still in conversation.”

Process and next steps: Prologis told the commission it anticipates filing a project application later in the year that would trigger environmental review, a development agreement and, if needed, rezoning or special‑use district approvals. The company said it will continue public workshops, station pop‑ups and focus‑group outreach; staff said interagency coordination on infrastructure financing and the station design will continue.

What to watch: The project will require close coordination among Prologis, Caltrain and TJPA on rail infrastructure and station design; the location of a replacement Caltrain yard; how an infrastructure‑funding plan is structured; and a concrete, enforceable package to deliver affordable housing. Prologis’ next formal entitlement filing will start environmental review and public hearings.

Ending note: Commissioners encouraged Prologis to show more detailed urban‑design diagrams at future briefings — building placement, open‑space sequencing and street‑level plans — so the commission and the public can evaluate how the abstract massings become walkable blocks, parks and multimodal connections.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Jun 12, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Prologis, the private owner of the 20‑acre Caltrain rail yard between Fourth and Seventh streets, presented an informational master‑plan preview to the San Francisco Planning Commission on Thursday that would move train storage underground, add a new station and create mixed‑use development with parks, retail and room for thousands of housing units.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6543030,"Developers preview SB 423 density‑bonus project at 668 Guerrero; neighbors raise view and affordability questions",884,9129000,10013000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3789614-81d8f060c38bed50fcfb3267c97b81d5&start=9129&end=10013","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3789614-81d8f060c38bed50fcfb3267c97b81d5/thumbnail_9129000.jpg","/articles/6543030/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Developers-preview-SB-423-densitybonus-project-at-668-Guerrero-neighbors-raise-view-and-affordability-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6543030-a61a0faaef2b37d42f49de843bbb5c2b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770887072&Signature=i3Vf1CI6CgvySW3O8eunma5u0l5ITsdIBoj0LS9AH4q1H48REfQ5nZG4y8GwBCypEZZNXVRhPsblkbvDADjUEec5k9LFkL77XtXdCs~o63cD0jXReAGxi0dB0gmEba2l55brjR59KKlt6SBCQb7y9N9fL3LsGFLmIfWgRkKGsq7EjepVTxesyz4XLyF~HpUc8ryiso69ObDownNsSBYTSdwxIsPyW3m0JhVBguWoVYTqRM5h5k66sbBwZeLIwURsNYWbx-F7HkV90BD7j3GIa8TuMxsal4pLEoAbb6UB~pejgVFfo8OyNX2yJKwwa2hPtJVs~WahQFuEBJprIsfWIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff and the project architect presented an informational preview on Thursday for a 12‑unit SB 423 (state density bonus) project at 668 Guerrero Street, an RH‑3 zoned site that the sponsor said would include family‑sized 2‑ and 3‑bedroom units.

Project description: Architect Riyadh Ganem described a development that takes advantage of state density‑bonus provisions to build 12 units, including several two‑ and three‑bedroom units and two one‑bedroom units. Ganem said the existing single‑story structure is not a designated historic resource and that the project uses a gabled roof form on the front elevation to conceal required mechanical penthouses and stair/elevator access.

Public questions and issues raised: Neighbors and commenters pressed staff and the architect on several matters. Georgia Shudish asked whether the submittal qualifies as an alteration rather than demolition and requested additional views looking north and south on Guerrero. She also requested clarity about which units would be set aside as affordable and flagged SB 423’s interaction with “priority equity geography” policies. A second commenter echoed concerns about height and the location of affordable units.

Staff responses and permitting notes: Planning staff explained that the placement of on‑site affordable units follows a director’s bulletin that requires proportional distribution and discourages putting the smallest or lowest‑quality unit in the basement. Staff said precise placement of on‑site affordable units is typically finalized during permitting and becomes a recorded condition tied to the project; the exact unit chosen for affordability is sometimes set at the permit stage and recorded against the deed.

Commission discussion: Commissioners asked about parking, bike parking, and long‑term flexibility of the project. Commissioner Brown emphasized bike parking and transit access in the neighborhood and encouraged the applicant to minimize parking in favor of people‑prioritized space. Commissioner McGarry praised the project for attaining affordable units by qualifying for ministerial density bonus pathways, saying the submittal was stronger than recent examples.

Next steps: The project is at the informational stage; staff will continue ministerial review under state law. The architect said he expects the precise affordable‑unit designation and final plan sets to be uploaded as part of the permitting process and that plans and conditions will be publicly available through the department’s property information map (PIM) and other public records.

Ending note: Neighbors asked staff to post presentations and renderings online; staff said presentations will be posted when submitted to the department and encouraged signups to receive alerts for permit applications.","An architect presented a state density‑bonus (SB 423) project proposing 12 units at 668 Guerrero Street; the presentation prompted questions about whether the project is an alteration or demolition, which units will be designated affordable, and how the proposal fits neighborhood streetscape and priority equity concerns.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6543035,"Planning Commission continues Community Investments Toolkit and approves consent agenda item",262,74000,336000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3789614-81d8f060c38bed50fcfb3267c97b81d5&start=74&end=336","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3789614-81d8f060c38bed50fcfb3267c97b81d5/thumbnail_74000.jpg","/articles/6543035/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Planning-Commission-continues-Community-Investments-Toolkit-and-approves-consent-agenda-item","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6543035-5d10c9d51ba17eac0f6c7a9819ccc0d5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770887072&Signature=Emoyx6zT38XhX116usmtUsuRXmdwHJCi4EgJTIhTkhG-ujXw6lyyeZxccr8tCYiZnH4CtdUkA9I6w24n2Okc29xKlwhRY8JOb8ZUXUEzKkC5ku5R1SA0STTn6N8q~XgWlHHMxjSSJxS2wTQARbuZnIq183uBjUgCHbKIwG9uxUubsVgqKyhSxcrof2V510UkSjOjSKKh4Gu-pmnr7bGs7NyQK4G3nTDzvUnApP06~XKCnY1K2EupB-wKRXD2ZVIM2FlM~4MLS5ucuHvSrrldVHBUIrwoZzjQbFlnwFSrIPX~lpJtwBOW5briBCxAsUp9nJxZ2xt6xTrPIA~97HJ3Sw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Planning Commission on Thursday voted unanimously to continue two items proposed for continuance — including an informational item on the Community Investments Toolkit in Equity Geographies — and approved a consent calendar item for a conditional use authorization at 1635 Divisadero Street.

Continuances and public comment: At the hearing staff listed two continuance recommendations: a continuance for Case No. 2023‑011606CUA at 935 Gary Street and an indefinite continuance for Case No. 2024‑008180 (the Community Investments Toolkit informational presentation). Public commenters asked why the Community Investments Toolkit had been repeatedly continued. Joseph Smook, representing Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition, told the commission the coalition appreciated a letter from Director Hillis and supported further continuance to allow additional community engagement “to make sure that it's relevant and responsive to the needs and experiences of residents and workers in our communities.” Another commenter urged the city to lobby Sacramento about SB423’s relationship to priority equity neighborhoods.

Commission action: Commissioner Imperial moved to continue the listed items “as proposed.” The motion passed 6‑0 with Commissioners Campbell, McGarry, Williams, Braun, Imperial and Chair Moore voting aye. Separately, the commission approved Item 3 on the consent calendar — Case No. 2025‑001061CUA at 1635 Divisadero Street — on a single roll‑call vote; that motion also passed unanimously.

Why it matters: The Community Investments Toolkit is intended to align local resources with neighborhood priorities in equity geographies and is connected to the city’s Housing Element implementation; commenters argued the toolkit should be shaped by those most affected and asked for clearer timelines for community engagement. The continuance gives staff time to respond to public requests and to coordinate with the Community Equity Advisory Council.

What to watch: Staff said they will return with updated timelines and specific engagement opportunities; community groups asked for clear public notices and for the toolkit to reflect neighborhood‑level implementation and funding options.

Ending note: Commissioners said additional outreach is needed; the commission supported staff’s request for more community collaboration before returning the item to a future hearing.","The commission unanimously continued two items including a Community Investments Toolkit informational presentation to allow for more community engagement; the commission also approved a conditional‑use item on the consent calendar.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6543039,"Planning Commission denies request to merge two units at 301 Main Street, citing housing‑loss concerns",1753,6299000,8052000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3789614-81d8f060c38bed50fcfb3267c97b81d5&start=6299&end=8052","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3789614-81d8f060c38bed50fcfb3267c97b81d5/thumbnail_6299000.jpg","/articles/6543039/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Planning-Commission-denies-request-to-merge-two-units-at-301-Main-Street-citing-housingloss-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6543039-977a1b0d80e3971b03bc959a3ca3c1a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770887072&Signature=HAWlITAA2sdcjmzaCbKjdKzyhbnWK6TUe9BHZOgEoLrV2bH~HSUILvnRJ0xOCevyLUncQdjXaKwHWePn-8SlHZ23shWJ2qCUB~DcvnXPBHGa9TaM0NBfY1YuXqCynQHMmPT~ZoM794T20DQHsoIwLn8c0R-Qwx4RA5de06zEm4wZHDVTImFNMndrWBkUZ3FPqFbCBUVLSXCbLefuyjpUg~g6~V9RvuWAeu-7s7Vzgf0ydQPwsEZsrsMOc6eWICVZ0rMHmCjg5PFP7Q7~jr~hqcrea~J3wc02a2KfCB8iscoNikdjCkx0UVm2nwkJwDdkBrz0TJ99~Fl1vr4R0~Ow4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Planning Commission voted 5‑1 on Thursday to deny a request to merge two condominiums at 301 Main Street, concluding that the project would remove one family‑size dwelling at a time when the city’s housing supply is constrained.

The proposal and staff recommendation: Planning staff told the commission the project was an interior combination of two owner‑occupied units on the 26th floor of the Infinity Towers that would produce a larger, three‑bedroom unit. Vincent Page of the Planning Department said the department had received 15 letters supporting the merger but recommended denial, noting that “approval of the project would result in the loss of a dwelling unit in an amenity rich part of the city” and that the city’s housing element seeks to preserve housing supply.

The vote: Commissioner Brown made the motion to deny; the motion passed 5‑1. Commissioner Campbell voted no; Commissioners McGarry, Williams, Braun, Imperial and Chair Moore voted to deny the merger.

Applicant’s position: The owners, Diana and Jonathan Yaron, and their architect Ricardo Mora described the request as an interior alteration with no exterior changes, reversible if the owners ever restore the two units. The applicants said the merger would enable multigenerational living and allow a live‑in caregiver to be onsite to support a household member with serious medical needs.

Commissioner and public concerns: Commissioners expressed sympathy for the applicants but emphasized the commission’s citywide responsibility to preserve housing stock. Several commissioners said they could not support removing a legally independent dwelling unit even when the immediate occupants had personal needs. Commissioners and staff discussed safeguards that have been used on similar conditional approvals — for example, a recorded condition requiring the property to be reconverted if sold — and whether such a restriction would be enforceable and sufficient to protect housing inventory.

Practical details: The applicants said the physical change is limited — adding a connecting door and reconfiguring interior finishes — and that the condo parcels and legal mapping would remain as two separate condo units, easing future reversion. Staff explained that any condition on future sale would be recorded on title as a deed restriction and would appear in future transactions.

Outcome and context: The denial preserves the existing unit count in the building. The commission’s vote reflects an ongoing tension in San Francisco planning: balancing individual residents’ needs — including aging in place and care for disabled household members — against the citywide goal of retaining and producing housing units during a prolonged housing shortage.

What happens next: Denial of conditional use authorization means the owners may pursue alternative solutions (for example, legal arrangements that do not reduce unit count or in‑building options that keep both units independent). The planning department will record the hearing disposition; the applicants may choose to revise and resubmit or pursue non‑merger accommodations for care needs.

Ending note: Commissioners urged staff and the applicants to explore options that support aging‑in‑place and caregiving without reducing the city’s housing supply.","The commission voted 5‑1 to deny a conditional use authorization that would have merged two owner‑occupied condominium units on the 26th floor of a Rincon Hill tower; staff had recommended denial because the merger would remove an independent family‑sized dwelling during a housing shortage.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6543044,"Planning Commission adopts phase‑2 of racial and social equity action plan; staff to publish monitoring metrics",789,4655000,5444000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3789614-81d8f060c38bed50fcfb3267c97b81d5&start=4655&end=5444","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3789614-81d8f060c38bed50fcfb3267c97b81d5/thumbnail_4655000.jpg","/articles/6543044/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Planning-Commission-adopts-phase2-of-racial-and-social-equity-action-plan-staff-to-publish-monitoring-metrics","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6543044-14ad52b1f9ccb3f14e86369c85521d77/orig.mp4?Expires=1770887072&Signature=nYNrbTc1RHWeSd-pzznltEyxbcb8eJ4NQ7oSV5XJpYxHj1J4um1VajM~xiMM176DK3BZVi0B6eS-u5Cw3KwoMzAmBONk2DzIwaxkHycJ6Izu97xw6OoZGj90Cspm9~k6Sl57FoT2QoCvzoUabJLdySxETBCc1YQiFysMNcaX9QH-f8UaLB6lWVvcpimVNPwZS4LZTchMmqu7Cf1C4RviJHV~qUD5lmwGJlkRg1M8sXbon6nvcCsNCDLGM6CGJZHTQsry86kCU6yIm9Uad~CcgPocW7uldBgo8MaAjoiIRGjcQ4Kyfs485GrUG0ARE3vculV8FEmwn8HQnZ02OoszOQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Planning Commission on Thursday unanimously adopted phase‑2 strategies of the department’s racial and social equity action plan, approving a package of actions that staff said will move the program from planning into implementation, monitoring and community‑facing tools.

The vote: Commissioner Joseph Campbell moved to adopt phase‑2 strategies; the motion passed 6‑0 with Commissioners Campbell, McGarry, Williams, Braun, Imperial and Chair Moore voting aye.

What was approved: Phase‑2 focuses on external, community‑facing commitments in four broad areas — equitable housing (including steps to support the Housing Element implementation), cultural preservation and cultural districts, environmental justice and an equitable downtown recovery — alongside community‑engagement strategies, staff training, and data tools. The department committed to publishing a public equity dashboard and to 1‑, 3‑ and 5‑year progress checkpoints.

Why it matters: City ordinance requires agencies to develop racial and social equity plans; the Planning Department’s phase‑2 moves beyond internal personnel changes toward concrete, externally applied tools the department will use when reviewing projects, writing code and engaging neighborhoods. Staff said the plan prioritizes actions that are feasible with existing staff, defines measurable deliverables and clarifies which outcomes the department can directly control.

Staff presentation and community input: Carla De Mesa, who leads the department’s Community Equity Division, told commissioners the plan reflects extensive outreach, an internal equity council and revisions based on commissioner feedback. Division directors outlined how equity actions will be folded into existing programs: Rachel Tanner (Citywide/long‑range planning) cited housing element rezoning and neighborhood resilience projects; Liz Waddy (Current Planning) described historic‑context statements and a planning‑code equity audit; Lisa Gibson (Environmental Planning) described targeted mitigation outreach and streamlined tribal consultation proposals. William Cartagena, a member of the Community Equity Advisory Council, urged the commission to institutionalize the changes so they outlast personnel or mayoral transitions.

Public support and concerns: More than a dozen community organizations — Friendship House Association of American Indians, Mission Economic Development Agency, Neighborhoods United San Francisco, housing advocates and small‑business groups — addressed the commission in favor of adoption. Speakers asked the commission to prioritize durable funding and to ensure results reach the most affected neighborhoods (Fillmore, Tenderloin, Bayview, Mission and cultural districts). Several commenters pressed for strong, enforceable affordable‑housing outcomes when the department supports rezoning or incentivizes development.

Implementation and accountability: Staff said they will publish the full plan and the equity dashboard this summer and that phase‑2 actions will be evaluated at 1‑, 3‑ and 5‑year milestones. The plan includes a pilot neighborhood data hub and staff training to “consistently” apply equity tools across divisions.

Commissioners’ response: Commissioners from across the board praised the work, thanked staff and community council members, and emphasized the need for stable budgetary support to implement the strategies. Several commissioners said they will watch implementation at the 2‑ and 5‑year checkpoints.

What to watch next: Staff expects to post the full plan and dashboard in the summer and to begin monitoring implementation; commissioners and the equity advisory council will use future meetings to evaluate progress and may seek budgetary priorities with the mayor’s office to fund the plan’s actions.

Ending note: Commissioners described the adoption as a significant institutional step, but several commissioners and public speakers underscored that adoption is only the start — sustained funding, interagency coordination and transparent reporting will determine whether the plan changes outcomes in neighborhoods with concentrated need.","The Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt phase 2 of the department’s racial and social equity action plan, endorsing strategies for equitable housing, cultural preservation, environmental justice and community‑centered engagement and directing staff to publish monitoring metrics and an equity dashboard.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Prologis previews 20‑acre railyard master plan centered on new underground Caltrain station

Developers preview SB 423 density‑bonus project at 668 Guerrero; neighbors raise view and affordability questions

Planning Commission continues Community Investments Toolkit and approves consent agenda item

Planning Commission denies request to merge two units at 301 Main Street, citing housing‑loss concerns

Planning Commission adopts phase‑2 of racial and social equity action plan; staff to publish monitoring metrics