indicating your time is almost up. when your allotti reached, i will announce that your time is up and take the next person queuopeak please speak clearly and slowly and if you care to state your name for the record, i will

remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. also, i ask that we silence any mobile device off during these proceedings, and at this time i would like to te imperiale, commissioner braun here. commissioner. so here. welcome, commissioner mcgarry. thank you. first on your agenda, commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance iton a and b for case numbers 2023. hyphen 003652c, u, and for the property at 3901 noriega street. conditionalse, authorization and variance are proposed for continuance to september 19th, 2024 case number 2024 hyphen 001579q8 200 capp street conditional use authorization fo september 19th, 2024. item three, case number 2023 hyphen 007010qa at 1310 junipero serrae

authorization is proposed for continuance to october 17th, 2024, and item four, case number 2015. hyphen 006356q. hyphenro . conditional use authorization is proposordefinite continuance. members of the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these matters proposed for continuance onthe matter of continuance, you need to come forward. seeing none, public comment is closed and your continuance calenr you. commiso continue all items as second, thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue items as proposed.sionh commissioner. so i comssioner williams i commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner moorend i commissioner president diamond i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0

placing us r calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are routine by the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call votee discussion of these items unless puic or staff, so requests inhe which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing itemive se number 2024. hyphen 00trt. unit number 502 conditional use authorization item six. case number 2019 hyphen07 street. col use authorization item seven, 0q at 737 irving street. conditional use authorization and item eight, case number 2024 hyphen 005931 pca for the 2024 code. corrections ordinance planning code and building code. code amendments. membersthpu. ty

to address the commission and request that anythtems be pulled off of consent and considered later today. again, you need to come forward. seeing none public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you. commissioners commissioner imperial move to approve all items. second, thank you, commissioners,th approve yt calendar, commissioner mcgarryir williams, i commissioner commissioner imperial i commissioner more i and commission president dimond i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us under commission matters for itene land acknowledgment. the commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous, and in accordance with their

ever ceded, lost norytush ohlone forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their trnalit territory as guests, we recognize that we benefit from ling working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects b acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone affirming then you. item ten consideration of 18, 2024, members of the j public, this is your opportunity to address the commissioners on theimi. seeing none public comment is closed and your minutes are now before you to adopt the commissioner minutes. sec t on that motion to adopt the minutes, commissioner mcga ir. s i commissioner williammmisoner bri commissioner imperial i

commissioner moore i and commission president dimond i so movedrshat motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. item 11 commission comments and questions. i start, first i want to welcome our new commissioner, sean mcgarry, i considered it a privilege and an honor to serve for the last five years, and i hope that you feel the same way. welcome thank you. commissioner and with that, i want to let everyone know that this is my last hearing. after much thought, i have declined to accept the mayor's offer to renominate me for of you know, o brand new baby, one is five weeks old and one de flexibility to help out their parents. i have no intention of being the granny nanny, o of moving to la. i absolutely love

living in francisco, but i do want the flexibility to be back up and to be a presence in their lives, and that is inconsistent with the w and the weekly schedule of this commission. for the past 40ars,o juggle career, kids, community and public service, and the last five years i've been a to prioritize public service by serving on this comss it's been such an honor to do s. but for the next little while, i'm z) to prioritize my family. so a number of thank you's t mayor, for having nominated me several times and to the board for having affirmed my seat on this mm second, i will shout out to the tech department, for allowing me to hear what's going on. as most of u , i suffer from significant hearing loss, and without the tech depa with jonah's request to come up with

better and better uldn't have otherwise been able to hear, and therefore i couldn't have pci thank directo, miss waddy, and all of the staff, for the conviction of their positions. the incree analysis that they produce in the staff reports for us every week, and for answering my never ending questions on everyat, jonas, your skill at ensuring that this commission runs smoothly is just not to beank yr work and a special thank you to the for your phone calls, and f g up. it's your participation that makes this process what it is. and finally, to my fellow commissioners for thet shn to each other and for the willingness and openness, to other people'ss, it's been one of the joys and the hallmar

commission over the past five years. and i have truly enjoyed that. i will misst all. especially at a time when we're working so hard to use every land use two tool we have in the box to grow our economy, create housing opportunities for everybody, attract visitors, and a special shout out to meet tha. okay, vice president moore, commissicoul't say it better. she will be a hard act to follow, and i will personally very much miss her. she comes with experience. she comes with a courageous voice, and she comes with a loving personality that cares. and i ds in our lives when we need to make a decision, andgp■" respeca personal path in her life after

she has given a lot to the community and a lot to this common wish you the best. you will be missed, particularly her experience a voice is definitely needed to balance it out often come from different positions, but we deeply respect what wet with eaa caring way to deliver here as ps vice president, thank you so. ir first name. you will be seriously missed and i wish yo the best. but we will not lose touch because we know each other. thank you. so lovely. thank you. commissioner braun, first, i just want to say welcome. commissionerlce to the, president diamond so impressed r the city. and i know that serving on this c has been a lifelong dream. and

something i know you'v taken very seriously. and so you're definitely i'm definitely going to miss, and i'm going to i hopefully we'll still continue to havereat conversations about, you know, what is best for san debating that. and i've always appreciated that dg possible ad as president. so thank you so much. i really appreciate your service. thank you so much for those wonderful comments, commissioner imperial commissioner diamond, i will definitely miss you. i deeply respect you and the knowledge that you have brought here in the planning. i truly enjoy the dialogs that we have, the debates that we have, and dot see things eye to eye, i. i'm very proud of what the commission can bring, to this city. and you're a big contribution to that as well. and so four year years

at this point seems like long, but it felt like you could have, but i'm veryappyor you and spending time with your family, and you're reallyes will miss yk you. so moved. thank you so much, let's see, commissioner williams. thank you. sue. i, you're going to be deeply missed your experience and your knowledge, nothing gets past you, and, you know, i aat. and,. well, you know, the best for you and your family. i, you know, i wish, like, like like. commissioner, i wish you didn't have to go because i think there's going to be a big hole in the commission, but having said that, iw at you have

to do what you have to do, you just want to say, thank you. i respect i ret much. and you know, thank you for serving our cind, just thank you. thank you. that means a great deal to me, commissioner. president diamond, it's been an■); honor o have this onboarding experiencer warm welcome and extre detail oriented to make sure i know every button to]% push. soi really appreciate that. and i really wish you for the best. helping your daughtero rae two grand kids. it's probably harder than serve on the planni. to help. offering nanny services if you need to. i am

offering. i would likeo . but iy fellow commissionersensibility is your unique expertise in your decades long service, both in your professional business and in your volunteer capacity for our city, the land use subjecter to our commission, it will be really, really missed, she had caught, evy single missing paragraph that we have in the last wee hours. i am just so appreciated and i hope that we all together kind of, you know, carry on the torch. so, you never left us. and i wish you enjoy your family. thank you so much, commissioner. so, vice president, vice president moore,

i wanted to, actually welcome mr. mcgarry, because in all the focus on, president diamondy welcome you to this group, it is not an easy job and will be in the trenches, and we'll just do what we need to the club. thank, commissioner. imperials thank you, president diamond, welcome. mcgarry. mcgarry and welcome commissioner mcgarry. and,his ,g forward, this is a very robust. we usually have a robust conversation here, and commlooksig forward

to hear your contribution here as well, but i also want to bring up, you sject matter that i know we're going to be in the recess i know that the planning department has beeng of putting out informational hearings when it comes to the hog eciay in the expanding housing choice program. and so i thought that and also we also received a letter from the from one of the coalition reps of coalition talking about whether we can hes about the update on expanding housing choice, and particularly and this is also me think we've brought up the issues during the expanding housing choice hearings, the issue on the small business and at the same time, the issues of the tenant displacement, also in the

terms of demolitions as well. so i'm the commission, we can put it in our calendar in these two topics and to do it in a separate forum, in a separate hearings, because let's also in termsall business, i think there are things that we have not thoroughly, have a hearing about it. and we wo like to have more updates on that as to what the department ct doing for the protection of the small businesses, and also in termst in the in the subject of the demolition as well. so, so that's i hope that that's someg he c in the month of september, they're proposing in september 1926. but i also would like to hear what what our calendar would look like in september. i want to give one other shout out. and that' citye

get incredible legal advice, ane legal guardrai that they provide with us so that we can,d legislation with confidence, that we're staying within the law. so thank you to both kristen a. if there's nothing furtherco indulge me foe moment to also echo the words of youriors commission president diamond, your thoughtful and calm voicews chamber. so thank you and wishing you all the best in your in the next chapter in your life. department matters item 12 director's announcements. thank you. jonas, i don't have any director's announcements, but i wouldhi time to also, echo the, just appreciation. tremendous appreciation for you, commissioner diamond first, and foremost, i just really want to appreciate and thank you for how

respectful you've been of has a, and i can tell you from the, like, most sincere place that staff really appreciates, the kindness and the effort with which you reach out to them individually. s they're not put on the spot so that they can prepare thoughtful responses to ter valid and thoughtful questions that you've brought up. so i really wanted to thank f that, we also always know, as a result of that that you actually read our et because sometimes it feels like we spend a lot of time writing things that no onew that with you, i know that you have gotten all the way through them and you know everything that's in there. so i think that's really meaningful ao , an sort of a personal note, it's been really meaningful how much it's clear that you really care about g government. we may disagree on policy matters from time to time,ut you really do always bring us back and hold us accountable for being, sort of good, good governance and really caring

about ournd t citizens of san francisco's experience working with us and so that's something that's very near aea to my heart. and so i appreciate how much you bring it back to that and remind us of how, how important that i. so for all of that, we will miss you, your your shoes are too, too to filled, and you will be missed, but also an exciting chapter,enjo your grank you for those wonderful comments. i will say, i know that every commissioner up here reads the staff reports. i'm just the bst i'm just the biggest nudge. right. we know you read our staff, so we appreciate that. thank you, and then and then l really excio have you as well, cly, you've gt big shoes to fill here. so we're really excited to work with you in this next phase when one when one door closes, another opens. so welcome. and then just to follow up on commissioner imperial's request, i have not been in the loop on the, exact schedule, but i will for sure

relay it back the housing choice team and relay your request for a september hearing. sure. okay. item 13, review of past events at the board and thf appeals. there was no historic preservation commission hearing, commissioners. aaron star, manager of legtiairs. thank you, commissioner diamond, for your work. we've truly appreciated your voice up there. you will be missed. welcome. commissioner mcgarry. inde it n thei doubt it, but, anyway, so this w comme considered the landmark milk plaza by gilbertnbow flag baker. the hpc heard this item on m 15th and recommended approval to the board of supervisors, during the land use here were about a half dozen public commenters, all in support of the designation. supervisor mandelman made the entire presentation and went specifies the flag should fly at full

staff for 24is amendment was approved unanimously by the committeen ae added as co-sponsor, after which the ordinance was recommended unanimously to the full board. then the full board. this week, the m campbell was adopted, as was the mayoral appointment for sean mcgarry. so as you can see, he's he, then the landmark designation for the rainbow flag at harvey milk street. and thati have for you today. i don't see the zoning administrator, and i have no report from him, so we can move on commissioners to gel comment at this time, members of the public may address the commissi on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdictionf to agenda items, your opportunity to address t be afforded when the item is reached in the meg. nber of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment

agda. hi. welcome commissioner mcgarry and commissioner president diamond bon voyage. good luck. maybe you'll come back when the babies gnderrten.s something to think about. good afternoon. i'm georgia swedish, welcome again, can i havehead, e computer. oh, there it is. so tg screen. this is what i sent to youmoay for general public comment. this is, my commentary about alterations that are demolitions, which i've been talking about for a very long time, thise the before, during and after it's currently for sale for $19 million. and my problem with this is that there were no calcs in the record anywhere, either on the pim or at the dbir sale. it's been for sale for quite a while, d know what the story is with that, but i think it's part of the probles

of section 317, where there was aotf lax or scant oversight, and that's a problem said, oh, and the permit was only valued at $650,000, which is another issue that i've always had. this really got me started because when alterations that were demolitions, they had these really low permit values and it just always amazed me. and it's in d7 and it's seven over 7000ft!s. so here's the other one. andkdctuay now they said it's off market. this is also $19,000. excuse me, $19,000 i wish $19 million. and it originally sold in 2013 for $1.8 million.nd this is 9000ft!s and it's in d8 original house, which was third bay tradition. you can see it on, if you go to the sf excuse me,re sl house, which is very interesting. and as i said was originally 3200ft!s. it's nw

9700ft!s. both of horizontal and vertical expansions with facade change. this one two. no demo calcs, no demoer on the pym or in the plans on dbi records. that's concerning. i think nowet it's still a problematns have b, but the demo calcs are still not stringent enough and here's why. this is a current project underway right now. it's demo calcs were very interesting. i can't haveime to talk about that, but i will. some other point. here's another picture of it. okay so the first one was july 3rd. note the two sides, pe original house left.only one piece left there on the left side. and here's the original us horizontal vertical expansion with facade change. and this to me is why the demo calcs need to be

adjusted. if they'd been adjusted, as i suggested in my letters, this thing would have been a demolition. so thaou mucd luck. eileen bogan, i'm here represen coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. first commissioner dimond, not goodbye, farewell. we hope to keep in touch with you. thank you for your service. excited abyo with your two grandchildren, here ecifically to welcome, commissioner mcgarry. and we sort ofet committee, thank you. and we look forward to working with you in the future. and even though commissioner campbells not here, a welcome to her when shee commissioner so and williamselmh

you're not, you know, new new you're still you've been here a while but again thaouur d commissioner mcgarry, thank you for what's going to be a heavy lift. but thank you for taking this on. thank you. good afternoon. also welcome to newest commissioners and fag commissioner sue dimond. cynthia gomez, senior research analyst, unite here.ocal two. so i've been at local two for nine years, and in that capacity i've been in this commission before, this commission countless times, and i can't remember having to deal with the situation like the one i'mav now. so most of us, and i'm pretty sure most of all of you would not consider a $3,200 a month hotel room with no coon space, no kitchen, no shared space to be affordable housing, but,

that's exactly what theoperatorn eighth street would like to have happen, and they don't even want to get you to for you all to get a chance to weigh in.ee half yer of the bay illegally converted three of its floors to housing this was in violation of the planning code. enforcement staff got wind of this. the hot was told to stop. they ignored that, kept issuing new leases. anyway, and they were allowed the chance to legalize this illegal conversion. they submitted plans that werenance with the code. they were told their plans weren't in compliance. th bledeadlines to submit code compliant plans. and then this processnd of lather, rinse, repeat. and during that whole time, any fines that they were entitled to havet them were frozen. and this process continued for more than two years. an outside observer would be forgiven for seeing this as an attpt to game the system

and avoid fine enforcement. this until this year, when the hotel now is claiming that they're going 56 of these rooms at $3,200 a month. again, no commpa open space, and they want this to be counas quote unquote affordable housing project. they want their approvalsbe by rightt intervention, they might get their wish. so we have set up a meeting with the planning director. we've hired an attorney. we're fighting this on behalf of our members because our members aren't just hotel workers, they're city residents. and they've been insulted. they've been insulted by having their jobs taken away, by hotels rate, isupe considered good enough for them as far as affordable housing is concerned, and tre being insulted by watching their employer violate the law without any repercussions. so i remember just last week here in this is, asked some very thoughtful and thorough anidtheir access to affordable

housing programs and so our members are will be an opportunity for you all to hear this project and hear this case so that you can ask those kinds of tough questions again, and so that th. okay. last call for general public comment. seeing ne general public comment is closed. and we can move on to your regular calendar for item 14. case number 2024. hyphen hold on through the chair. if we may go back to our continuance calendwew e acting zoning administrator continue. item liz if you could. i'm sorry. yes, on behalf of the zoningistror will continue that item to september 19th. thank you. now we can move on to your regular calendar for item 14, case number 2024, hyphen 005624 pca and map for

the central neighborhoods. large residents sued and corona heights. large residents sued planning code and zoning map amendments. thank you. audrey stf for our new commissioner center, commissioner sean mcgeary. i am, a staff membeegir tive affairs division. and i will probably be seeing you very often at this commission. before i gihe staff presentation, i do have some new one small drafting error. these were distributed to you all via email, but those are hard copies beeve we have calvin ho from supervisor mandelman's office who will give a pre on behalf of the sponsor. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is calvin ho. i am a gi supervisor

mandelman. the ordinance before you seeks to accomplish a few goal firstly, following the redrawing of supervisorial districts in 2022, coal valley was added to district eight. we want to expand the central neighborhoods sud to include this neighd sohat all district eight or all of district eight is covered by the sud. sdl to the similarities between the central neighborhoods and corona heights asoo like to delete the latter and instead have the central neighborhoods shouldly cover the district. this expansion will discourage the construction of. i'm going to in one second. can you slow down just a bit? yes. sorry about that, so secondly, due to the similarities between the central neighborhoods and corona heights suds, we would like to delete the latter and instead central neighborhoods should uniformly cover the district. this expansion willthe construcr making it harder to construct these homes in parcels covered by the coronagh sud. now for some background, in 2017, former supervije sheehy established the corona heights.

large residents sued after hearing concerns from residents about the construction of monster homes in the neighborhood. in2, supervisor mandelman established the central neighborhoods large residents sud to address the issue of monster homes throughout the rest of district eight. these two suits vy similar in nature, and seek to accomplish the same goal of monster homes. they both contain the same purpose statement, ect and enhance existing neighborhood character, encourage new infill housing at compatiben scale, and provide for thorough assessment of proposed large scale residences that could adversely impact the area and affordable housing opportunities. there were, ome differences in how they went about achieving this goal. the corona heights large residents study required siu authorization if the building, not unit, went bond 3000 square foot limit, it did not set a maximum cap on the building size. central neighborhoods. large residents should establish a threshold of 3000!s 1.25 f.a.r per unit, was required. it also included a

cap of 4000ft!s on unit size,d e building size. although the mechanisms werffn the two suds,e overall goals are the same. 2023. followthf senate bill 423, supervisor mandelman worked with planning staff and the mayor's officthese suds. as part of the constraints reduction ordinance. the coah requirements under bot suds will sunset on december 31st, 2024, and after this date, i'm goin to interrupt again. yes. you don't have a time limit a you're it's a very detailed presentation and we really want to get so sorry commissioners okay, so after this date, no expansion or newon building or dwelling unit shall exceed 3000ft!s will be allowed, except for the expansions of less than 15% over the last ten years, that is my presentation, commissioners. and i'll be present for questions, i'll turn it back to audrey. okay thank

you. calvin. again. audrey maloney, planning department staff, as mr. ho alrest the proposed ordinance that's in front of you today would amend both ournn code and our zoning map to expand the boundaries of the central neighborhood. large residence, special use district, or sud, and apply its controls tall of the lots within the sud, rather than where they apply right n, which is just rh zoned lots. it wouldddhe corona heights large residence sud and as a into the central neighborhoods large residence sudi detailed e background, since mr. ho already did so, but just to reiterate inpril of 2022 when thats proposed ordinance was in front of the plain commission in late 2021, the large home controls w to all rh districts citywide, not just those in district eight. at that time, the commission voted

to disapprove the ordina aey aoo city that actually needareas of them, as well as looking into encourage density. supervisor mandelman did end up taking these into consideration and as a result, created the sud that you seeexpa before you today, over the past two and a half years, the staff responsible for implemein have t successes in curbing the size of large si family home expansions. despite 15 projects proceedingatio for a cu to exceed the size limits, many others opted to stay below the threshold and incorporate an adu instead. that being sai we remain a little bit skeptical about whether these adus will be units. as you know, we have no y owner does with their extra unit in their home, and additionally, once the objective standards

through sb 423 become effective on january 1st, we also speculate that that 3000 square foot hard cap may not effectively encourage increasing density. there's nothing in the incentivize the addition of adus or other units, as there was with the cu process t had the review over in the sud as it was originally creed said, the department generally supports the purpose of this central neighborhoods large residence study, which is to encourage nusinat compatible densities and scale, family residences.elopment of the department agrees that the projects seeking to expand their already large units without increasing their density should be discouraged. we als agree that generally, the size of a proposed unit is a indicator of cost, but it's imperative that the city doesn't simply curtail theize of

units. we need to be encouraging the addition ofatelsized units in what is otherwise a fairly low density, but yet high resource part of our city. assus that the commission adopt a recommendation for approval have modifications we're recommending to you today. the first is to not include accessory garage space in tal floor area. this ws actually something we recommended in the took our suggestion and in the implementi in the last two and a half years, we've seen it doesn't really have the effectoe used to game the square footage calculations. the second is to allow one dwelling unit in a project to beft!s. if the project also adds a dwelling unit of at least 800ft!s. again, we're hoping that this will be something thases in density once objective standards become effective. on january first. and lastly, we are requesting that

we specify, for the purposes of calculating a units gross square footage in multi-unit buildings that shared spaces not be included. this is toke it easier for staff in multi-unit buildings to not have to try tour divide up shared spaces when determining whether they've reacheei their maximum square footage. so with that, i'm available for anytionk you. okay. with that, we should open up public comment. members of the publi is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. again, georgia. again, i don't know. hello. commissioner mcgarry ce letter that i sent mad aware of all of theretary, correspondence, so he got a copy of it, so i don't have to give him this copy that i brought today, unless. would you like. would you like the copy i brought today? okay, good. i'll try to remember what i wrote. ok pretty much said everything i wanted to say in

that in that i think, mrs. maloney wrote a really gme broadened it out to look at everything. i don't agree with the 4000 and, square foot thing to get the 800qu unit. as i laid out in the memo, i gave some examples of why that work. 363 jersey, the one you had in aprilnd the one that i showed the information on. i mean, i even showedt today that everson project thatt to 9700ft!s. that's crazy. especially when we heard miss gomez talking. what she talked about. i mean, it's all connected as you all know, i think that the staff wanting to encourage moderately sized units is a good thing. and that's why i talk about the democrats being on a parallel demo calcs are adjusted, maybe it'll shift the paradigm, maybe it'll shift the pig remove all of ther

most of house and pretend they're doing an alteration and they'llith 1600 square foot house. think of the typical san francisco house throughou c. they'll takegarage and they'll put a unit in there. it's just as reasonable to expect that could happen as somebody would foot house and pt in and rent it out to somebody's brother or sister. it's not likely, if you're going to spend 4 to $9 million on a househat you're going to rent out an 800 square foot unit, you puteven a your gym equipment down there. whatever you put your media room down there, you putha that was,, a representative of the income inequality that we see in this city now, in those rooms, i

it. i really appreciated this memo. i appreciated the comments on sb 423. and any time thas called out, that's a good thing, because sb23 it was imposed on san francisco and no one else is really appalling and very unfair. it should never, evever ve happened. and i don't understand why we're being punished for something when you've got all the housing in the pipeline that this commission has worked so hard to approve over the, and i guess that's it. thanks a lot. have a great s break. september 12th. thank you. it's nice to be here. my name is ellen friedman and i'm a resident of coal valley,

i've been a resident there for over 35 years. i raised my kidse neighborhood. and since we've moved to the neighborhood, we've seen enormous changes, specifically wth years and the explosion of monster homes. specifically on belgrave avenue. but really ands a result, what we've also seen is the ire housing prices and rental, rental unilof people that live in thatnee mov, it was mostly teachers, public servants, nonprofit community leaders, and most of them have left the neighborhood because than afford to stay. so this is really important. this issue about, capping the development of monster homes. so i do support the goal of the city to encourage more moderately pricedsingnd infill of current residential neighborhoods. the building of

thesrg homes does not advance these goals. i c't see it. it hasn't happened in our neighborhood and it doesn't allow cinefifrom the diversity of residents income and public engagement that we need for our city to thrive. so i doordinance and ur. i do not support the expansion of the, square footage to 400 it's really hard for me to understand how that's going toeg that we need and support, more moderately priced homes. i would also like to sug t consider an additional special use fee on all homes over 3000ft!s in high resource neiborhoods in order to compensate the city for the increased services that some of these homes require in terms of utilities and the the diversity in our neighborhoods. and perhaps that feul to

supporting, low income and morei would like to extend myhanks to supervisor mandelman for, really being a ttalk about this issue and his strong support for the need for diversity o neighborhoods. so thank you. hello, commiss. my name is mark lamborghini. i live in valley at 1254 stanyan street, and i just wanted to speak in favor of, supervisor mandelman's ordinaim, you know, single unit dwellings to 3000ft!s, and there's kind of three issues that i see. one, of course, is the preserving as mus possible the neighborhood charte particularly in terms

of smaller, smaller homes. second is the affordability issue, as the homes are increased in size, itgr, tly inf housing. one example is 89 belgrave, which is up the street from us the building of a number of monster homes, the homes, the previous homes soldlionn 2012, which is still high, but, the after the demolition and the miion. so that was a 1010 times increase in the cost of that property. and there are there aredo more of this in cole valley, on standing street itself that we yoknow, expand to build a monster home. does

decrease affordability. t third thing that i think it must do, you know, according to economics, is it's gse to land d prices, if you can, if a developer knows they can buy a $1.5 million home,emolish it and build a $20 million home that land cost has toup becausen cole valley, especially on belgrave, but also on other streets. so i just see three issues neighborhood,ract, affordability and increasing the land cost in cole valley. so i would support supervisor maelf the sud to cole valley and also limiting, these large dwellings, two 3000ft!s, not 4000ft!s. so thank you. i'm gary peterson. i

also live on stanyan street. you know, we have such unique neighborhoods in san francisco where we're are attracted to them, and that's why they move in. i just feel that into a neighborhood, you were most likely attracted by its unique qualities and what the neighborhood has to offer. so ng and tearing down a house and building these homes is taken away from that neighborhood character, kno, mark and i and some of our neighbors, we've d our homes int years, and luckily, everybody around us has been veryt they dd with their homes. they they honor the original style of the neighbors. we actuallyful of and double the square footage just staying within the footprint. so i think people, if

they want to expand their home remodel■ñ, modernize it, you kn, they have the right to t. thinkr architecture, they can be respectful of the neighborhood and maintain the contour and the quality and the character of the neighborhood. so i'm all i support of the expansion of this.visomandelman's, thing here. so, hopefully we can protect this nbo and maintain the quality that it has. thanks a lot. okay, last call for public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you commissioners. thank you, i'll start us ofre i'm focused primarily on staff's threeions. and the

first pretty easy to me. they reflect staff's experience on how theyimplent. d these in order to be able to continue to review and process in a sensible fashion, the second one, as we've heard, is more controversial, and, you know, i hear all of the neighborhood requests for preservation of neighborhood character, way, hcd has told us we're not supp t usenymore. and i recognize them that weave any number of levers that we can try tol iorder to, increase the amount of housing and try to keep it affordable and that we're experimenting, an supervisor mandelman is experimenting withicar 3000 squ, but i'm ely by the fact that w the density in these

neighborhoods, this is a pretty highe nehborhood, and we need to find ways to encourage people todd studios that we sometimesuare see that are, it's really hard to believe those are ever going to be rented out, but 800ft!s is a size two bedroom unit. and while i some of them may not be rented out by the currentwn, but they may be rented out by a subsequent owner, they could be used for adult children, which seems like a very likely scenario. they could be used for in-laws, that i am intrigued by staff's suggestion, and i think worth you know, i, i would make the trade off#q$á staff's recommendation that we allow peopl to go to 4000, but only in return for building an 800 square foot adu is a really sound. way to understand situation. and see if we can

actually get more useful sized infill housing. so i would be in support of the ordce three reco. commissioner imperialthsint dimt the, you legislation by supervisor mandelman. and, you know, we we've seen many cases here where a demolition or a tantamount demolition of a single family home which is being maximized, that is twice of the siz and that affects the market. when we're looking into the single falyet as well. in looking into this analysis and i appreciate this, the staff really pthis, and looking into e racial social equity analysis, there is a statement here that says a3000 square foot in san francisco, it's not a notably large and of course, i think we

can, we know what a 3000ft!s lok like. and it does, it is large. so i am actually baffled with thatwi number two, and i understand i think what the what we're you know, i also support, in a wouldupport a recommendation that's allowing up to 3000ft!s, in addition of 800 square foot. i the 4000 square foot seems to be very large, a single family home. and, i don think it will serve as to what the original legislation is trying to do, so and i also agree with, you know, because we have also kind of like the goals here to increase density and to add up another unit. and in the commission we have done that. so many times, but we're always negotiating on the, on the, on the second unit,

what it looks liked, you know, i support i mean, ild support recommendation number two if the, you know, if the maximize maximum, maximum size is 3000 square foot, and, and i think i get the logic. to do 40e foot. because that's kind of like t cap of the regional large size. and i think that you know, i, i think i understand the rationale inha think in terms of the spirit of the legislation, which is to, you know, pretty much limit the master homes that we're trying to do. i think, you know, i think that's something that we should align with. i do have a question on number three in gross square footage inne multi-unit buildings and shared spaces shall not be included, if they will not be included?

it's a unique situat for this sud, because it's something where we're talking about the units gross square footage for the cap. so it doesn't that shared space doesn't necessarily need to go anywhere. because of the fact that the limit here isy are just concerned with the independent livingpa shared stat isn't cla total for this purpose, that's that's fine, so in terms of shared, so we're pretty much calculating just the livable units, the independent living example, the corona heights sud does calculate the entire building footage when it's looking at a cap. but the central neighborhoods looked at the individual unit and that's what's made it multit buildings to determine how to calculate that shared space, how toe itp. thank you. so in staff recommendation, i

suppor one and three. unless we, we change the number to up to 3000ft!s. so that's where i'm at. i hope to hear what other commissioners say as well. thank you, commissioner braun. yes, you know, in general with the spirit of this, of,, creating this hard much more objective standard, we have had to navigate the conditional use authorization process for larger units, and i think we'vea good job as a commission in getting people to add additional units, but in some ways, i feel like that was, justort of a trade off that came from the proposals coming into the conditiation, so i wano explore recommendation two and bit more detail in a second, but i first have some questions or recommendations of 1 in 3. so, on recommendation

one to n include accessory garage space in the calculation of gross floor area. i'm curious, i just want to make i might be misunderstanding some of this, but to my mind, there's a possibilthn way, the unit is now getting even bigger. if the garage incorporated into the unit calculation. so now it's 3000fts on top of the garage. so is that is that an accurate understanding the way this wor, previously the garage would have been inclu00inyes. it could be done either way. righ s situation where you already have a garage, let's say you have an attached garage right now and you were applying tor today's law for the sud that garage counts against you. unless you're trying toanha gare were hoping would happen with this, isple, ttnstead of trying to expand the physical building envelope, would say, we

don't really need a two car garage. let's actually just expand our livable space into the garage area because it won't count. it's already counted in our total li sce, so it won't be considered an expansion because it's already included. the result, unfortunately, was especially in multi-unit bungn there might be a two car garage, or there might only be a one car garage or a garage space. parking lot, parking garage with spaces. the, smaller unit might all of a sudden be designated as towards that unit, or even the larger of the garagepacegoes towards that unit, so that the larger unit on the property thas well doesn't have that counted against them. we don'tmay count garage space when we're counting gross floor area for other purposes. in planning apat an experiment with this sud. but you are right, commissioner,

thatposes of this sud, because we're saying garage what we're proposing here. it could expand someone's allle gross floor area if they already had a garage. and they are not wanting to expand their living space into that garage, i see. so then that what that leads me to wonder is, this is just don't know the ins and outs of tla maybe as well as i should, but what are the limitations on making sure thatn't me in with a very large garage, in addition to their 3000ar foot space? it seems like that previous control would have had an incentive to keep the garage at a modest size. but, are there other controls that would place limitations on that parking maximums? yes, we for sure ha parking maximums throughout the city, so that's already control that's in place, so yeah. so as long as we have that in that then i'm comfortable with recommendation one. but i want to make sure i

understood a little bit better. and sorry i didn't send these questions ahead of time, getting in the weeds as always, on recommendation number three. i'm i'm comfortable with the spirit of this recommendation, to not include shared spaces in the calculation. and i heard what youd about how in one of the districts, the shared spaces already were calculation of the unit sizes, i'm just want toe check to make sure. can this i want to make se there isn't there aren't big holes in this that it can be gamed wre is something being designated as a shared space that is quite large, but realistically being used by, y know, one of the units. so i guess i'm jt looking for reassurance that that wouldn't be the case with this in, you know, i think we look at could t apart. you know, i think storage space is the only th y, bind a e space would be the only thing, that, like, right now,gain,

this is part of the reason we're asking to exempt it is sometimes there are these spaces that are clearly discontiguous from the unit, but it's not clear exactly how in the real world it's going to be used. getting into these arguments with applicants of, you know, who is this is this being used? is it shared storage space for all of the ntit deeded to one? and it and it, can lead, especially if it's not a condoba challenging conversat n.i think our thought on this i, as we're opening up this legislation, looking atays that we can implement it better, whatever the square footage is the to really have it be the pure contiguous primary living space. and so that's that's why we had that recommendation. it just is going toe implementation a lot easier most of the time. what common vestibule, you you walk know, there's a staircase up, there's a door to the side. you know, it's pretty obvious that that's not part of anyone's living space. but it wasn't clearly defined in the

legislation that we're to exclude that. so part of this is a little bit of just clarifying the language. so that we're really clear that what we're looking at i in the unit, the storage spaces are kind of the more prickly ones,you ll. but that would be sort of my best answer to your ti okay. and i know that there are plenty of examples out there where people might be gaming this with storage spaces, but that's a broader issue. and so n three. if it does pass with this recommendation, i just suggest that we keep actually happening. as always.ay just have comments for the second recommendation of allowing up to 4000ft!s as an incentive to also add an 800 square foot unit. i come down more on the side with that one th really does seem in opposition to the intent and spirit of this legislation. we've gone from a, you know,300o something where now that let's e

property, i would love to see a second unit on it, but wg aboute building, which is a pretty substantial increase ovee 3000 square foot cap that was i, i'm open to other ways toso craft that. i'm not quite sure what commissioner imperiale,wh e if we keep it at 3000ft!s, i don't know what the incentive is to provide the second unit at that's working for me as some sort of alternative recommendation, unless i w ke to hear more. but, rhtnow m f recommendation to. commissioner. so thank you. i have a just a basic math question here. if you don't mind answering my question justo clarify on your recommendation number two, that means a house can go up to 4800

square foot toteans that a house could go up to 4000ft!s a one 800 square foot, at least 800 square f coun 800ft!s, but there would have to be two u o the maximum size of the largest unit would be 4000ftthize of tht would in that parcel there's two units, but total will be 4800. the building would be building 4800ft!s. okay. and then your recommendation number three is the shareit include the egress pathway. deck, it would be anything that's not dedicated as gross. what our fits, our definition of gross floor area. outdoor decks i don't believe count in the definition of gross floor aa. but something that's within the interior walls, like mddy mentioned, shared

stairwells is the really the biggest one. so if th entrance to this building is one common entranceith a hallway and then maybe one of the units, you have to walk up a set of stairs. that's what we're talking about when we say space. so the building in your example, you could have 800 square foot or larger second unit, a maximum 4000 square foot unit. and that shared interior spac is meant for common access. it's accessible by both units. that's including exiting path that is required correct. okay. so those will be all not counted. correct okay. so is it fair to say that this given parcel could kind of become like 5000ft!s or 5500 because, fire code require two means of egress and the common staircase, you discount all thee

pathway to exit and it could be even larger than that, because again, the second unit, it's of 800ft!s. if they have the lot area, let's say thisverllarge lot of 5000ft!s. they could have as many as our allowable building envelope can fit that. the building itself could be as large as that with the allowable densities for that zoning district. okay. thank you for the information. may i ask oneou might want to chime in later, eighrhood,ike in general for corona heights and the other one that is in this proposal, would you say, what is the perntage of like really large lots and what are what are the average lot sizes? that's a great question. i think what's interesting is when we first developed the corona heights sud, one of the reasons it was developed is because a lot of them were substandard lots because of all of thethe lots. y

area, the area thats a fairly the sudovers. so i think you can generally say that most lots inhere gng to be your standard. by and large, your2500quare foot lot miss what you might be able to elaborate more on whether this particular area has any, anything more than our average of larger or smaller lots. sorry, i don't have the exact answer off the tf t this neighby diverse in its lot sizes. therer lots, particularly in corona heights. there's actually a lots frontages, both on the sort of the tops, you know, steeply sloping paf lot and the bottom and a lot of those lots tend to exceed 2500ft!s and already have homes that are, you know, significantly larger than the sablished here, the other point i was just going toeep in mind, this ordinance is also expanding beyond just rh districts and intoth there's nof

other properties that are outside of the rr. you know, rh is here, but we shouldn't presume that two units is the only number of units tha could be in a building. so there could be a multi unit building as well. you know, if you were in, i don't know if miss maloney sort of scannll districts, but there could be zoning districts here that allow more, more density than just two units. and this mht be helpful. this is slightly out of date. it's from 2020 when we were first original zoning controls, where they would apply to all rh districts city, caveat that i said in in 2021, and i will sayin, that this is not perfect data. this is the best we could do based onhe assessor information and the calculations we can do with what we have. but if i cld get the overhead the overhead, please all right. so this is not is average

unit sizeso imulti units buildings we're looking at slightly you know taking t asses as the building size and dividing it by the nr assessore in the building. so againer to e common spaces in this when we're dividing the calculations. but as you can see, certain neighborhoods have an av unit size that is much larger than others. it can be an indication of lot size as well, though not always. so going down to the area that's affected by this sud and i'll zoom in a little to make this slightly more readable. i'll try to get around the says that in, noe valley, the 1. whereas our twin peaks area,

it's slightly larger, bu about the same at 1461 castro upper market, which makes sense because we have a little bit higher density there 1342ft!s, and thatat with some of our more hilly hb park and dimond heights. okayou. i have one last question. it's kind of related to what miss walti was mentioning. like some of the, lot here are not just for two units, so there will be possibility there willplex or s, what withs recommendation. what is each of theximu size could be sure. so if i could get the overhead this is also in your case reports as one of the exhibits.

so on the left we have w t sud currently appliesrrently apn the right we have where the expansion would be noty daries,h our zoning districts. so anything that's not thatale yellow, like what you're seeing on the left are the new zoning districts. this would apply to which includes a little bit of down in the. and all of our purple, which is our nc t and ncds, in our nts zoning is form based. so the money, the amount of uni on the lot depends on the size of your lot, and in our ncds it's generally between it's generally about 3 to 5 units per lot. but again it just depends. it's not a straight okay. yeah. so our ncds like nc one which i'm not

re, we might in cole valley, the lot maximums are numeric, just like our residen and the fx ordinance does not apply there, whereas in residential districts it does. so in our nc three districts you can build more units. but again, it'sntrolled.. with the zoning map pulled up,t it looks like there's nc one. there's for sure nc three there'o, r1, r2, r3, r1, rm two, nc three and upper market nct. so there's a, pretth of different types of zoning distri density controlled and some are density d controlled. okay. thank you. s in which of those districts under the proposed ordinance?

all he even in an nc, rm so even in an nc three, your building maximums could still onlyt's unit per unit per unit. correct. and we did look wn we were analyzing this. it's fairly rare that we have a os a especially a single family home in an nc three ri of a 3000 or e square footage, limit. and so this is per unit is the thing to th's particularly important. the fact that it is shifting over to covering more nc related distri why recommendation one and three are especially important is we're going to see more multi-unit buildings applicable. thank you. commissioner williams. i want to thank the commissioners for all your thoughtful questions, i've learned just just listening to what's going on, up here, i've, i've got different insight, from reading th packet, i mean, as

far as, as far as equity, you know, i think the spirit of the proposal is gooee homes down to a sth is not small, 3000ft!s is, substantial, and so i think that's that's, that's reasonable, given yours,re 1 inn kind of some some, gives more, more room, for flexibility. and then, you know, how, how these monster homes impactghbooods. i think is, is really important to focus focus on because, the price of, of, of a single family home is, is like completely out of reacho

something abouthat, f■=amilies are leaving, and, the pressures, this is just becoming a town where, youw, i you're not very wealthy, you. it's very to ve here. and so, i, i appreciate, supervisor mandelman's effort here, and, ie and three are are good recommendations. i'm not going to support recommendation two. i th30ven, given the recommendation one and three, i think that's that's reasonable. and so that's all i want to say. vice president moore■e, this isn extremely difficult issueprecias

and more questions. you ask. the more complicated it gets. i wt to ask, actually, miss swati, a few months ago, and i'm not exactly sure how many wee we had a building where that was, was enlarged, claimed that there was an adu on swhile the third r we o by the unit owner. however, these three units, these t units were connected by an elevator. and while one can say that the elevator would not be going operable did conney connects by stair andor throughe building. how would you calculate that the stair? is that a common space or is ta whatever? we have seen several of those. and i'm kind of curious how these little new tricks. sure could be interpreted. a i will preface

this with saying this is not anywhere, but i'm going to go with my gut of how i think we would approach this presented to me, i think if the elevator was keyed as being limid only, which is often the case in this scenario that we see, that parte primary units square footage. so we would countt there was a stair that truly both, you know, both households would have to walk in from the street and walk the stairs to get intor doe excluded. so in this particular case, it was ambiguous because itould could be interpreted either way, i getting back to what is in front of us, i am very supportivee d three. i do have big questions about atwo, particularly since this legislation does codify that the adu has to be used as an adu immediately at completion of project. and for that reason, i do not see any i

do not see any,ayf opening a backdoor for this as being nsion. so in support of one and two and one and three, very, very pleased that, supervisor mandelman opened this up to a broader consideration that is also an easier for the department to administer. those would be my points. i like to make a recommendation if we are ready, can i ask one second and then'l you. did staff look at other ways, to create incentives to encourage the increase in density? , passs maloney. thank you, president diamond. that's a great esbeenxamining this problem for a long time through many different efforts. some that come to us through ordinances from supervisors and some that we have led athe direction of the commission, i think we stand by our idea that

the best way to incentivize densitys carrot and the stick to limit the home size, if ye ttry to build something that's a large single fy unit on a lot that's zoned for more zoned r-2 or r-3, we should be only allowing you to go up to a certain size before you are essentially required to give usa minimum size. we were trying to take that same concept that u' seen in other efforts in the past that have potentially maybe been and simplify that in this scenario, what we saw in two and a half years of implementing this study is that when forced applicants would build an adu, if that adu was under ain size, it was questionable how it would be usedlg. but applicants that come to us with thenally proposed, cg

an adu, especially of a livable size, it feels like that adu is more, for lack of a better word, legitimate. it's an adu that actually feels like a sizable home. it's not going to be used as an entertainment room or a÷■y if it won't beti-generational individually rented out. and so that'shawe were trying to get at with this idea. 3000ft!s, we a home. so the dife between a 3000ft!s and a 4000fts in terms of affordability and being accessible to the middle class, san franciscan doesn't feel like that great of a difference. but if we can encourage somebody us an 800 square foot home in this same high resource neighborhood that opens up new doors to more middle class, accessible housing. so that wasc incentive. i appreciate the additional. thank

you, vice president laura, i'll go back to you because i interrupted, i'm going to go on a limb here, particularly i just came back from europe two wee we about densification in europe, and it's approached very. so het capacity of cities. their infrastructure, their etnsportay have. and in order to densify, which has become w problem, people are starting to think about giving infodatis one could more efficiently live. in particular, unit sizes. so you're starting to give the apsid taking a little less space rather than expanding, because in order to accommodatee people with limited resources in infrastructure, etc, there is a way of carefully guiding that we shrink our units still make them totally livable, and they all are, but take up less space in order to accommodate more

people. i need to say that because at some point i would like to share with the department unit size, design, and approaches to livability that we may not have explored. soo get to making a motion, on what's in front of us, and i like to at we support with modification one and thr second. as may, may, may need to be ainmoment, i think the motios written with modifications. that's plural, not specifying one and think that modification can be made as pars motion passes, i don't think we have to do a motion of intent. i think staff can handle that. okay if there's no further deliberation, commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation with di, but only those

recommended by the department. one and three on that motion, commissioner mcgarry. i'm torn because the two is an extra unit that will not will not exist, going this way. so i for that reason, , approve, but, staff recommendations one, two and three. so the motion on the table is, is, motion to adopteny with recommendations one and three right so let me say that if this motion were to fail, no i wou ir motion with od three. very good. okay thank you mmer. . can you ask another one first. so the motion on the table is a recommendation to approve with staff

modifications, but only and commission president diamond just indicatf this motion fails she will encourage someone else to make a motion that would adopt a recommendation for approval with all of staff's modifications, including recnumb two. thank you for giving me a few more seconds to think. so i vote, no. commissioner williams. yes, commissioner braun. hi, commissioner. imperial. hi, commissioner moore, i and commissioner. president diamond. no. that motion passes 4 to 3 th commissioners mcgarry. so. and diamond voting against commissionll pce us on item 15 for case number 2024. hyphen 005622 pca laboratory. uses. in the urban mixed use zoning district plng amendments. good

afternoon, cssin department staff and a brief welcome to commissioner mcgarry. and thank you to president, commissioner ditem before you is the laboratory uses in the urban mixed use or umu zoning district ordinance. this by supervisor walton. and unfortunately, we do not have anyone from the office attending the hearing t but i am joined by miss laurel arvanitidis. she can correct the pronunciation for me later. she's from the office of economic and workforce development and she will share a few wmy psentation, the proposed ordinance does primarily two things, and the first is to revisef laboratory o include biotechnology in the listed examples, the second amendment is to l a not permite

ning district as drafted, this legislation would impact the proposed laboratory development at 700 indiana street. this is an item that you heard on june 13 unanimously approved. there has since been a ce uled foriled on this project, the board of supervisors in folwed by the large project authorization appeal at the board of appeals on october 9th. so whatever the outcome of appeal process, this proposed project at 700 indiana wono be vested through a building permit application in time or before the effective of this legislation.e other poy impacted projects, but most or many of those are small enough to be approved over the and staff is just not aware of

what those projects may be or how many the department does not s prorosed ordinance. it is inconsistent with the general plan, and staff recommends that youdo disapprov. staff recognizes that the industry has changed and really, the real world application of what people consider a dierent than what we have in our current code and the way we define tse, as currently proposed biotechnology activities within the definition of laboratory does not change merely illustrn additional example. but a lot oy covered within the laboratory definition, some examples of this medal research, food chain testing, fertility

specialists. so again all of this fits under the definition. the proposed amendment doesot change the implementation here does not resolve any of the coio the overlapping definitions of laboratory versus life scienc department hopes that future ordinances will, provide more effort to further clarify t r than just elongating the confusion between these terms. the staff report did outline some potential solutions to avoidconfing defind instead focusing the definitions based on. part of that solution would also be to the life science definition, which again, just cousion regarding prohibiting laboratory uses within the zoning district. i'll just start off by noting that the umu

dist intended to promote a vibrant mix of uses and maintaining characteristics of the formerly industrial zoned eas. it's meant to serve as a buffer between residentially zoned areas and t production, distribution and repair, or pdrn neighborhoods. the map in the staff report shows that the umvu districts are dispersed throughs amendment is really more far reac a staff believes that are larger unintended consequences here, spans the dogpatch mission bay soma,ust to name a few neighborhoods. and so really, these are some of the neighborhoods that we do want to see. laboratoryse to encourage laboratories. and the concern is that by prohibiting laboratories within all of the umu districts, that this would then drive up the

demand nearby or pdr spaces in the proximity, and we would potentially price out some of these industrialir city. the department has, you know, put in a lot of effort a number of years to preserve pdr uses and pdr districts. so this op unintentionally undo a lot of those efforts. it also make it harder for the city to attract anain commercial and industrial activity, and also assist newly emerging economic activities, which goes against the general plan. additionally devopments and these types of activities offer a full range of employment opportunities. so it's not just technicians. there's also still some entry level laboratory teci just support positions that do not require advanced degrees or to maintain the fullso we want

breadth of the employment opportunities here. and further, we do recognize that the went ky jobs are now hybrid or even fully remote positions, laboratory uses and laboratory positions are one of the rare examples wherelo required to coe into the research as we saw in many of the public comments, some of the experiments or research need to be tended to 24 over seven or need to be easily cessible. so these employees are coming in to the facilitey t cal businesses and they doour boost the local economy, st heae of the concerns represented from the dogpatch andro communities, but believes that there are other legislative efforts that would better

achieve the types of uses that and thatghborhoods want to see, these other legislative efforts could also still continue to preserve and attract laboratory uses, while alsouses and pdr dif the concern is the potential loss of an active commercial corridor, zoning could require active ground floor commercial uses ang specific streets. this could also be specifically called out or required for laboratory developments, and this and other potential solutions were discussed in the staff report. again the recommendation today is that you adoptsappval. and at this time, i'd like to invite miss laurel arvanitidis to also share a few laurel auer, can you hear me

with my mask on? okay. i'm laurel arvanitis. i'm the director of business development in the offic e workforce development, and i thank you guys for allowing me to address you on this item,n my role, our team works to help businesses start, stay and grow in san francisco. we are essf at this when we can demonstrate both a business friendly climate in san francisco and an ecosystem which will be beneficial to the business. that's an ecosystem of support businesses better execur mission and ecosystem of customers, and a strong workforce baseng this legislation. we have concerns that this moves away from all of the work that we've beenof improving our economic climate and making sur ersity of businesses that employ people and provide

in-person work opportunities can exist in san francisco. we've worked hard witu . we've passed proposition h, we've passed the small business recovery act, we've passed the downtown streamlining legiio psed the small business permitting improvement legislation. we've done a lot of work on this and this legislation. we fear makes us step backwards. as we reviewed the legislation, as veronica mentioned, we were tryingoh understand what businesses would be told they couldn't locate in this part of rity. and these are businesses that support business, that support. so, test help food businesses understand how tutrion labels that help marijuana, cannabis businesses comply with testing regulations, labs that test medical devices so thaty can safely be implanted in patients, medical labs that support our doctors with ivf treatmentsen, y

tests. blood labs that help make tingabs materialed by a patient. testing labs so that when we're requindoirin and tall buildings be able to withstand to wind, we can confirmhathey ce regulations. here in san francisco. these are all these are all labs that support a diversity ofd isting in san fra. and they create jobsi, jobs across the spectrum of workforce janitors, lab assist, technicians, field service engineers, all accessible jobs and jobs for professionals with more education like esearch scientists, ecologists, biochemists. these are all very important to the city and disrupting this at this moment in time, as we're trying to bring business back to san francisco-person workers as pos, consider disapproval of this

ordinance so we can further the work we've beein make sure that our business climate can improve in san francisco. okay. thank you. that concludes presentations. we should open up puic, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item chambers, please come forward and line up on the screen side the room. sir. hello good afternoon. my name molecular bit and a business owner. my company is called alexia and we are developing new d t colon and pancreatic cancer. i live and work in dogpatch. as an immigrant, i believe one ofest n do is innovation and diversity. and for scientists, having access to laboratories is like an engineer having a garage to

do a crucial workshop to build prototypescanth improve human health by allowing small biotech businesses to thrive in san francisco with high qualityab, we can foster creation of groundbreaking innovat. compan, developing a cancer drug takes 20 years and we need funding agencies. when i had a labora is really hard to get anybody to come out. i moved to san francisco. ié got my co-founders here, and we were able to attract millions ofndin, come and look at my laboratory s something that's tangible. and i had an investor who came in yesterday. he said, i will love daughter, to come and see a young scientist can come out and do the work twe true, and i really encourage you to consider democratizing health care, because i don't want to work for a large pharmaceutical company. i have my own ideas,

and it's great that we can have all this innovation being done here, right here in san francisco,f my neighborhood. i talked to the squortore from rai lined up the neighbor bakery and just enjoy all the local foods i don't. i hardly drive just because i live her and i worry about the restaurants in my neighborhood because, you know, restaurants come and go and i take my friends there and i can don't have to drive an hour just go to palo alto just to go to work. so, i hope that sincerely think about, how laboratories can impact biologists in the ways we want to improve our human health and love our community, just like everyone else. thank you. good veronica d

i am a senior scientist at startup. biotech company based in san francisco. i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today regarding the proposed legislation to ban laboratoryan mixed use district. actually, i'm deeply concerned about this potential, potentially negatgislation could have on both our global health system and our city. such a ban would significantly hinder ouroldevep life saving medicines for our patients. for those of us in the biotech field, 24 over seven access to laboratoryk. i believe that progress that biotech largely due to the fact that scientists areble to live and work in the same place, in the same cityif enacted, our compano

relocate from san francisco, this would notnly make it logistically challenging for us to perform our experiments, but also increase already high commercial and residential vacancy rate in the city. additionally, being based in san francisco allows us to collaborate with other companies and such institutions as university of san francisco. veryen very expensive and essential laboratory equipment located there. we participate in scientific discussions, attend meetings. these opportunie for advancing our research and staying in the forefront of in. moreover, biotech companies often eneral public through events and outreach, and this fosters intellectu stimulating and vibrant community. ie e city of san francisco to recognize the significant value our community, and instead of adopting this restrictive legislation, i think you should

consider developing policies that will nurre biotech industry in the city. name you your attention. is kathleen molnar and i'm a 12 year resident sanrancisco as well as a phd scientist. i'm speaking inportf laboratories in the urban mixed use, so when i arrived in n francisco, i had the great fortune of landing on page street in the haight. four years that i lived there, i just really cherished, like that, mixed use sort of zoning success. right? i knew all at t, i was able to walk at groceries and bike work. so the dogpatch is the same sort of bustling neighborhood, that existsor use today. i think developments like the 953 indiana street, nbc biolabs

really bring like, folks are saying, scientifico an area that's already, well connected with public speahat's walkable, you can grab coffee at pacino or at the cheese shop and a place where people really want to linger. so the minnesota street art project. so it's a really diverse, wonderful mixed use area. so i fully support laboratories being partf this urban mixed use properties. and i think the neighborhood is flourishing because of that and not in spite of it. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners, appreciate you, miss diamond, for all your public service and appreciate youssior. thank you, my name is mr. dennis williams, junior, a board of supervisor, awarded community leader, local microoper, and the head of plaza east

development advisory committee and long time resident of san francisco. please comio adopt an this matter. political officials should not be allowed to revise definitions that were thoughtfully put in place, especially simply to halt projects in your district. this egregious attempt to ban laboratory use in the umc zoning is not a good policythe ty of s. excuse me? its residents or its small micro bus 700 indiana will help san francisco's bevy of sf minds. excuse me on positive things. only positive things can come from university students having close access to safegy bed laboratory facilities in close proximity to their school, as well as their apartments. as a fellow uc graduate, time management for students is everything. san francisco must get back to being a beacon of light and hope for the rest of the world, especially through today what is supervisori

shamann motives are as he induces4 introduces such legislation? excuse me even tek completed by this amazing commission, i cry foul community advocates and several underfunded black small business owners up and down plorable third street have all pleaded at different times with supervisor shamann to introducet limited to, the inclusion of qualifiedoc developers, general contractors and subcontractors to joint venture parer luxury out of state developers and general contractorsorporations who take massive amounts of san francisco's finances to their own respective states, to no avail. heso w play a political game simply because you see some of your own peopl potentially gaining an equal playing field. it's downrightct. i just want to briefly thank i want to specifically thank exglas crawford. mr. robert of nbc bio labs, mr. dewey, but most notably mr. ryan, who has been diligently

involved in our community outreach throughout dtn is very hard work. as you in writing job training, maintenance and even training and future employment opportunities in the biotech sector will be this opportunity to emphasize the critical impore labs, priorn residents and resident ownedppor sf hyper local building an rs collective. in all employment, business and contracting opportunities and not limju this future development. dewey land company and nbc bio labs dedication to promoting diversity and supporting sf small businesses within the construction industry is c our shared values of inclusivity and community. community suppor. an. good afternoon, planning commission. my name is

mary ludlum. i'm a biotech researcher, entrepreneur, founder, ceo, parent and sf resident san francisco resident. i've lived and worked in umu st for over 20 years. i'm a resident of the mission. can you sp a i own a women owned small business early stage otech company that's run out of both the dogpatch and mission bay over theast ten years. i strongly oppose the proposed legislation, and i would like ts to assist your deliberations. firstly, banning laboratory inlo zones negates a key advantage relative to developments outside of san francisco. the city r n the natr walkability and fourth for biking, offering straightforward and environmentally friendly access to work, educational, shopping and dining resour in contrast, laboratory developments outside of the city typicall exist in a relative desert of such resourcesthe proposed legislation would rob the city of a key competitive

advantage to attract new businesses, entrepreneurs, and their associatedts. echoing the findings of the office of economic development. lima, we should be playing to our strengths or even better, doubling them. secondly, i'd like to highlight that early exptional education and training opportunities. many early stage technical companies, including my own, are recipients of federal grants that offer accesso supplementary funding to support training opportunities for veterans, high school students, and teachers. my company has also hosted students from thesf professional masters in biotech program, which places students p time employment as part of their core course requirements. having these opportunities within convenient commute distance of local communities so that responsibilities and their educational oblio to finding suitable candidates for these roles, which are for d technical businesses, but also

for these tinee candidates. lastly, i'd like to highlight that theha decline of brick and mortar real estate retail and the dominance of remote work iner sectors has allowed us in other business sectors, has alerted us all to the neighborhood risks of rapidly changing or easily disrupted businessve a mod trail of empty shop fronts and vacant office buildings in their wake. laboratory and biotech research are longs th are not ey relocated on a whim and t work. laboratory space developments thus offer an opportunity to establish long term businesses that train and employ highly sks on site, attracting ecosystems of employees that are engaged with and invested in the success of their neighborhoods. thank you for your time and i urge you to oppose this legislation. hello, my name is olguin,

originally from mexico. i went to grad school in piur, carnegie mellon for computer science, and eventually i came to san francisco in 2008, irese, focused in biotech in a large eventually i made the switch in 2016 or 17 to create my own startupann't for nbc, i wouldn't be here talking to becse it was just so easy. as a parent of young children, then, be able to, you know, follow your dream, we make biosensors, consumer facing bios like hydration tests, focus on athletes initially, but eventually the elderly and our children. and, i just, youno juy bike to take them to school andd just be impossible to do if i didn'te thchance to, have a space to start a company. we

have received grants from sbir and i, you know, signed by people like nancy pelosi. so we're super excited that we're doing something, in general. but we think we also ir own little way to grow the it. i wouldn't be able to do that if places like nbc were not able tt more easy for startup funders like us to keep keep moving forward. so thank you. hi. good afternoon, as a proud longtime resident of san francisco, believe we must preserve the ability to build laboratory space in our city, while remote work has reshaped our lives, as you've heard today, lab work is necessarily in person, and labs create many jobs, right? not

just for phd trained scientists, but also for technicians and s well. biotech might seem complex for people outside of the field, but it's not so different from ow recipee that requires creativitynce, ped teamwork. and scientists are byd thworld's greatest challenges, while the techniques that we can be intricate, the goals and benefits i believe are profoundly impactful and relatae. startups are the true innovatorsevogs by leveraging cutting edge research and taking risks that larger companies can't and don't. san francisco's unique confluence of scientists, entrepreneurs, and capital makes it an proper lab infrastructure, companies will have to go elsewhere. and that would be a real shame. as chief operating officer of nbc bio

labs, we provide lab space and suortech startups developing new medicines tes, medical devices and technologies to help combat climate change and promote sustainability. we strive to be good neighbors as well. our scientists have chosen to commit their life's work to improving health and the environment, so they're intrinsically conscientious citizens of our building. the neighborhoode recently volunteered at a neighborhood sci f the past mon, we've welcomed over 100 visiting students from around the world for tours and talks with our resident scientistd entrepreneurs. our companies are hosting over a dozen interns th s giving many their first taste of what a career in biotechould look like. so i hope this commission will continue to support the i san fd i recommend not approving the

legislation. thank you for your consideration and for all that you do a have done for the city. good afternoon commissioners. my name is christy carella and i am theaner for biocom california. biocom is the state's oldest and largest trade association for lifeces, representing over 1400 members, with 620 oos members here in the bay area. i am here today to ask you to disapprove this legislation. i did submit a comments ag lda item, but i'll just emphasize some of the points that i made in that letter. viacom's recent economic impact report revealed that the life science sector generates over $8 billion of total economic output in san francisco. this includes over ,0 jobs, both directly in

the sector and also supported by e sector. 25,000 total. the employees of these laboratories, which not only ilude scientists but employees at all levels of education, are os ofa, living and working within thents of our community who contribute to the vibrancy city, both in te neighborhoods they live and the neighborhoods they work. banning labs from mixed use zones could potentially force companie relocate outside of the city, undermining the innovation that san francisco prides itself on. i urge you to oppose legislation rather than creating barriers that could harm our city'slascape, we should focus on finding solutions that allow these vital industriesrivehile maintaining the integrity of mixed use zones. thank you good afternoon. i'm nicole kimes. i

therapeutics, which is a spin out from ucsf. and i want to thank you, one, for the honor of being here and speaking yhis bo of you. also, to simply say thank you for all of the work that guydo. your job is complex and it's hard, and you have to balance many different levers to keep our cities vibrant and diversified and inclusive. th easy task. and i would say it's very similar to are scientists who look at biological systems. they're complex networks where you have to really look at all of the multifactorial ways in which they interact. and it's important to think about all of the different pieces that are coming to this. i'm actually a reluctant ceo of a biotech. never once wanted to start a company. it was never a dream of

mine. but as a scientist at, we started to learn that there was things in our microbiome and there was a way to actually dr lifelong diseases by getting at the root cause of disease. that means if we intervene early enough, we're preventing disease. i was dismayed to find out that much many of our large commercial entities, that's not whaey want to do. they have a very theye onderful role to play in science, but it is not e innovative, agile, early development that takes 10 to 20 years before you get to a commercialct tt they're so good at utilizing and helping with health. so biotech is an extremely important role beyond biotech. i think it's important to point out that as a city comu

guys have done a lot of work ae two wonderful characteristics of san francisco. one is our ardent support of gots rk to keep our neighborhoods vibrant , as well as this amazing striflytr reach out andn a way nobody else does. and those can be seen two competing entities. but this city has always historically taken both of those, held themtk with them. and youmu is one of those ways to do that. and we think laboratory use is a really vital, i both grassroots and innovation. thank you very much. okay. last call for. seeing none public comment is closed in.

this matter is now before you commissioners. several weeks ago this commission unanimously approved the indiana project. and this hearing is somewhat of aewind in terms of the testimony that we have heard, and i am scrin my head yi to understand what thelution issue is that supervisor walton is trying to solveh oposed legislation, and i, i'm not saying it. i mean, we didn't hear any testimony about it. there's nothing in the aff report, so i am, listening to the aen staff report was exceptionally well done in trying alt the cons particular piece of legislation, and i find myself, very much

wanting to disapprove. for all of the a 37% vacancy rate and need to be everything we can to attract and retain businesses. the umu zone seems spifically for, laboratory uses. all that of analysis was ne the past. if we don't allow labs in themu zone, then they have to go to the pdr zone, which puts increased pressure, and price increases on facilities in theone crowding out other uses that could be located that are only , the problem i seei talked about and we all talked about last time, is i think the code definitions are a mess on biotech and laboratory, and they could use cleanup, staff proposed. i think, a land use approach to doing that. and that's sensible, but that's

completely different than what this particular piece of legislation does. ifbl is activation along the streets, then we have land approaches wer that. if the issue is concern about safety from laboratories, then we should be lookat that's a real issue or if that's a fear, and we could have more analysis on that to see if there really are concerns about particularypes of laboratory uses that might create safety issues and understand whether or not there are already protocols in pla those concerns. and if there aren't, then there may be life safety regulations adopt. but i'm not seeing this piece ofis to approach this. and i think it sends a terrible message that we are very at a time when we need more business , to discourage it. commissione. so thank you. i think i'd like t

president diamond mentioned about if it's a life safety issue, that we do have a lot of goodldincode and fire code mechanism, actually, designed to save lives. and i had in my previous years of working for a larr architecture firm, i did some lab building and man, they are robust. nd expensive, some of them are actually inndee challenges. why scientists can't move faster. i am thinking that not too long ago we had spent hours on this particular project and wead mentioned a lot of the good neighborhood outreach and community outreach and try that, made myeighbor from this opinion, kind of initiated this legislative proposal amendment

fromer i really in earnest believe, i hope por is follow up with actually doing much me commitment on, not only elevating all the younger minds to continue to pick bioscience as a career, but also specifically in d10. i would like to see some commitmeor that. i really try to grapple with what is the cost of us looking at this item today? i had the lu to attend a talk yesterday about health care, and i in that talk i met quite a lot of innovators, scientists, doctors that turn into, the space between technology and healthcare. i didn't really

understand that. it real takes if there's 100 drugs or devices to try to get through fda, only might take them 10 or 15 years.t so you guys are in it in the very fossil industry and government regulation, we're not creating we're not to do this lg doordash do. right. let's do another new app and deliver grocer this is actually really going to save lives. and ofur government isn't really, i mean, we could do a lot faster to help save les and improve our, livability for everyone, our loved ones. so i don't want to prohibit anyreatity in encouraging more people to come to fco, where we have a robust venture capitalist

funding here to attract more people here to invent something really save lives. soe in land e should prohibi, really robust growth ofmic industry that, not only hopefully you guys can actuallyd quicker that we don't have to wait for 25 years to get fda approval, but also immediate it will actually stimulate local businesses, workforce development and inspire our yor family, to pursue i really don't wante re scientists sitting in this room, spending the entire day coming here t talk about why, you know, like, you knowt? d w't displace us, you know? so, so i really appreciate my staff did a

really good job. and alongside with food, share with us on such a really good report about explaining what unintended consequences it will come if we don vote in favor for staff's moon to adopt staffm recommendation. second. commissioner williams, thank yo. i just want toe everyone who came out today, and spoke, are your insights and your testimony is t. i have a different first of all, i had to leave.■i to, unfortunate, to use the bathroom during plannings, presentation. but was was there any social economic equity? analysis done? regarding

this proposalanyou, commissioner williams. the staff report and ourly go into specific data of what the socio economic impact of this would be, by really from a big picture standpoint, we do have concerns of what the resulting legislation would be and prohibiting all new laboratories within umu. descrim there. and if i may also just add clarification, because i, i think there might be some confusion in, in the room and just the public of what gisliong businesses or existing laboratories. to also clarify that this proposed legislation would not directly impact thoseould not require those legally established laboratories to dooe

premises, leave the districts, or leave the city. what it made, what it will do i create or turn those legally established laboratories into non-complying uses. and from there, those laboratories would not be able to expand, let's say, if the wanted to hire more staff, conduct more experiments, they would expand anymore in the district. they accommodate larger, specialized equipments or facilities. if it did require an expansion in that respect. so a physical impact, expansion that way. so those would be the again, just for in response to some of the comments today, just, existing legally established laboratories would still be able continue. they just would not be able to expand. theyld to get new laboratory neighbors if this were enacted as drafted.

i have another question for you. abouthe existing families and, and residences that live in the in the area, how how would more influx of, these biotech companies,owmpac the been any analysis on that, in terms of our existing residents, let's say if they are small business owners, would really benefit from the continued existence of the laboratories. or if there's new staff, if this have you, haveyoe you guys like done any impact reports or, because it's, it sounds to me like, if there is

no controls that that thebiotecn more intoto this area. and i'm jus impacts are, going to be on the existing residents andow tt how it's going to impact our social and racial, equity in the city. surt does have a racial social equity analysisit more about the impact that's going to have on jobs in our pdr distric. so one of our concerns is, first, this would push laboratory users if not outsidee city, then to our pdr districts, which then impact on our production, distribution, repair jobs which tend to entry level labor and semi-skilled labor jobs there. so it could impact, those communities by taking ay jobs for them. umu is a very mixed use district. it's not

predominantly residential, but evene redences there, they're not going to be pushed out by umu because we have very robust controls to preserve housing in san francisco. so section 317 would not allow a laboratory demolish someone's home and displace them, and then build laboratory there that would be reviewed by you all. and i 100% guaranteed you wouldn't allow that to happen. so and the one other want to clarify, following up on veronica's statement, although this wouldn't impact existing legally established laboratory uses, there are, i believe, three projects, including the one that you guys talked about robustly. you know, maybe a month ago. and i believe two others that have vested their permits. so this proceed. sopassed. thoseld n it would have the effect of undoing what you unanimously approved few months ago. so it would have direct impact on projects. i think everyone here

feel are consistent with our general plan and good economic driverr just, one more question. so how are we e or how is how are we going to separate, these laboratories from, from residences where people live? i me think there's a concern about that as well. and i'm nd legislation addresses that, because that was something that came up at, like miss waddy during the last, hearing where we did approve, that that project. but i think that's a concern, too, for people that live in this area. how a w to have a buffer? residences and, and laboratories? so i'm just wondering, i guess i'm not sure

what theis wh that. laboratories are pretty self-contained. they don't a lot of noise. and the umu not district is mean, i'm not sure of that. i mean, i'm not sure of . that te of that. well, it's i'm not difficult to understand what this legislatis we don't understand exactly what the supervisor is intending to do othern prohibit labs in the umu entirely, which is not just the dogpatch area, but extends also into several other areas of the city. so we're sort of responding to something we don't fully understand his concerns on. we have reached out to try to narrow in on those■sog educated guesses about what impacts labs could have. but that hasn't been fully articulated to us whethe umu was set up, it was intended as a mixed use district with a variety of different uses in it,

even if this passes, that's still true of a variety of different uses, can still locate there,h asight manufacturing. i believe can also be there. so i d t the impetus on this is noxious fumes or noise to residents. i don't thinkordince was introduct least that hasn't been articulated tstaff. i appreciate you. thank you. that's it. let's see. commissioner braun, i definitely i support, makingon to dis disae reasons why, some of which have been articulated already a first glance, banning laboratory uses throughout the entirety of the umu seems like a very broad brush approach to a zoning large geography, not just ay

central, the central waterfront, but also potrero hill, showplace square, mission, it and it hases of the city based on the idea of maintaining that vibrant mix of uses and looking at, you know, what's on the ground today, making sure it's not likely to lead to residential , ateast not direct displacement. and, you know, i take to heart the idea that that these laboratory facilities really do support our economic diversity and our businesses. i think the point about, you know, what could happen with our, our areas that are actually still zoned as pd for production, distribution and falities that support things like construction and manufacturing and distribution.e a situation where now we have a

lot of lab uses who ary outcompf businesses, for space in our pdr districts or commercial districts, especially because those businesses themselves benefit, in a way, from having these lab businesses, lab based businesses in the city as well, you know, creating a divof jerse related and supported to all these lab, and then also, i'd hate to see a lot labr cities as well. we are inetion f different places throughout the bay area, and we are a place where, it'shly ficit place for people to get to. you can travel. thear much easier, people have a wide, range of occupations. they'reo . and so, you know, i would like to keep those jobs here in the city asy i really appreciate the very detailed analysis done by department staff in the report,

and i hope that those ideas and recommendations, especially around cleaning up definitions in the zoning code, can maybe get some traction, separate from this, this discussion, so that maybe there's a more nuanced fix that could be pursued in the future. but with the legislation that'se recommendation to disapprovepree i think mr. starr's comment just a few minutes ago, kind of expressed my concerns. if staff is not able to fully understand what the supervisor intended, i personally do not do not believe that i can opine on that it's disapproval, but that i would encourage staff to spend supervisor rather than saying no. the foows, for quite a while,

particularly, the potrero boosters have vbalized their concerns about, lab use in umu and at is a very simple comment by residents being concerned about biosafety and biosecurity. i think there is still enough potential leaks ofl can hert opinions about that. there's been a lot said and not said, and there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other, but that particular worldwide experience i think, created, i'm sure, among all of■?ncluding our scientists here, a significant amount of concern about lab safety. and whili appreciate all what you're doing, and while i consider it to bencreasingly more in the future, i do believe move

that the potrero boosters, because they're the recipients of a large lab use in their neighborhood, are concernedab zt tool to regulate biosafety? i don've idea. there is probably an issue ofrs cooinatid oversight that would do a better job. and i do not know if this restriction as it comes fro supervisor walton's office, will help us with that. i do appreciate the mayor's office a no catching yourd i apologize name, it was a great presentation, and everything you said i would be inpo i do beliee are reasonable safety concerns that need e addressed, and we do not perhaps have thes. phn

redefining our definitions and our code. perhaps mr. schwitzer could talk too t know. you were, i think. were you intending to say something that mr. starr covered the topic. i was just going to speak to the intent of the umu district, would you mind doing that? so that everybody has a strong grounding on that? i would appreciate if you woulds mr. starr said, the umu district is not is n rstrict in the same sense of even a neighborhood commercial district. it is use district. it was land that was zoned purely industrial and thenou neighborhoods process, we created this district to allow rent enter an industrial district and create a truly mixed use district. and it was always intended to have, you know, pdr uses and industrial uses and lab uses and other uses continue to sit se by side. and for those seeking a purely residential context, moving into the umu district may not be the

right. you know, the right block move on to. these were really intended. these are the sort of the transition zones b industrial districts and more purely residential districts. they are the truly mixed use districts and s srvin out some n residential uses to pull them back is to is really to rethink what the whole, what the whole purpose of a umu district is to begin with. so good. tha o you mind? yeah. please, i'd like to. laurel arvanitakis. i'd. i'd like to address your questions about, your statement covid leakage, all of these. any lab that has any, any sort of, infections requires bsl licensing, whi g a number of state and federal organizations in the united states, something that would have something like ebola or that would be bsl four. it would only be owned by thevernnn

downtown san francisco. the kinds of labs you're seeing insl one and bsl two licensing, like the high school science lab has bsl licensing. these are they're much smaller. they'renot it's highly regulated by the federal and state government and not through land use through other laws, in building code. so i think i whi that may be a fear, i am confident that that a bsl four lab could not be licensed in the umu area simply because of the makeup of the area around it. i appreciate that i'm familiar with with the classifications between bsl one and bsl four. ultimately, the devil isn e detail and it is. and again, i believe not the rit tool. there are communities like cambridgeachutts, which has basically, leaned to the

sideha a more safety overviewoverlaps as as a way to deal with community concerns about lab safety and i'm not an expert exactly how that can berd felt that there are other people tryingfrontiers. the one other , and that is more architectural, urban animation issue, is the fact that lab buildings mostly are inward, inward looking buildings. when i need to go and pick a crown from my dental lab, i'm walking basically by a blank wl because it's an interior oriented use and the community that is potrero hill, and i'm not speakingor that is one concern that i, a member, also spoke about the lack of participation with street life becomes a more increased, larger use. they would have liked to seeome forms of animation being acquired by planning, perhaps,

of how to design and make these buildings more in, quote, pedestrian friendly of how they show their face to the street. so nobody is here to what they said regarding the indiana street lab, and i am actually perhaps not going to, to vote for disapproval because perhaps i expect, the department to spend more time with, supervisor walton to really get to theottom of what we are supposed to disapprove or approve here. and, commissioner, if i justat point, we would be more than happy to sit downpervisor's office to get a better understanding to date, we have not had a willingness to more in-depth conversation. and, as leslation that's transmitted from the board of supervisors has a 90 day clock for it to be heard by the planning commission. this is the last hearing to have before the 90 day clock is u the supervisor gave us an extension, which he has not,'ve t run out e

that conversation. we have tried unsuccessfully supervisor to try to get at the further intent. so it's this isy opportunity we have. could you answer for me one question, miss ward? and that is, aren't the supervisors already on recess? so the not even here? is that my proper understanding? are they still here? i would i would have to defer to folks in city hall or maybe laurel can answer. she's probably more. or aaron, this week they're still in i called the office and there was nobody there. okay anyway, thank you. commissioner imperial, thank you, and thank you for all the comments, because it doesomi wif recommendation and with this legislation that is being in front of us, you know, a, you know, any recommendation by the staff, you, we usually

the plan i know that the planning department does its ys the same time, we would like to hear what the supervist of their analysis or what their, you know, what they're hea from their neighborhood or from their district as well, so i do take preution in a way of doing a recommendation of disapproval without those analysis that would make me more informed about my racial social equity analysis is something i do fish that the department could have explored more, the way we look into the racial socioeconomic analysis in part of th is more about the land usethe r is going to, in a way of competing land uses, pdr and how it affects the job, employmentt es not look into the other parts of the you knohe into the

map, the, you know, the commercial districts, the residential, you know, the access to parks, and also and i, you know, again, we're only speculating at this point of what the supervisors concern, and i'm speculating as well, th p his concern is about the impact of it in term of the residents or the real estate market or the housing real, perhaps, that we don't have analysis of that of the biotech, and its impact, perhaps, the issue is it's going to be kind of a bust economy as well as the, at the dotcom mke. again, i do not know the biotech market. and, you know, and i do appreciate all theen that coming over here. but at theancisco has a general we are put in a predicamen economic crisis

as well. and so in order to do that, i feel like we also have to do our thorough analysis of what it means, not just economly fabric of our of our city, because we're creating, we've created a big part of it. and i'll go the central soma, it was zoned for office developments. and now all of tre vacant, and we're doing that kind of rezoning the market, but we're not doing it in a in response on what would it look like, what it would mean to the residents and to the fabric of neighborhood. i appreciate the conversation that we had during the 700 indiana street, because we actually made, you kndu that process, there were a lotm, for public engagement, community engagement. and that's what weoe kind of companies are coming here, are going to integrat into the fabric of social of san francisco neighborhood and at the same time not displace, not

further displace, current residents at the same time. and those are verysss that we're dealing with here. and that's why i am very cautionary about the disapproval and i and i'm also i'm also going to share my frustration that i wish a supervisor could have given us more explanation about this. but yeah, but that's where i stand. thank you, commissioner mcgarry. hello, everybody. there's no better example of prre and thanl coming oute work and sign science will create opportunity t community as a whole. local community as well, not to mention my day job is, is a business agent for the carpenters union. so from a community standpoint, 700

indiana, mission bay and all that work puts hundreds of people to work local benits, wog conditions, health care for not, but their family, their families as well. so, investment in a community defines a community andakes community what it is. and the more investment any community can get, and if there's a concerns of this community being disenfrch i thi, basically tho uld be recommending the staff i recommendations. was that a motion already have a motion that has been seconded. but if that concludes commissioner deliberation, there is a motion that has seconded to adopt a recommendation for disapproval on that motion. i for disapprovl

commissioner. so i commissioner williams. nay, commissioner braun i commissioner. imperial. no. commissionerore. no. and commission. president diamond i so moved commissioners that motion passes 4 to 3 with commissioners william imperial and more voting against ten mink before the final item. welcome back to the san francisco planning commig for thursday, august 1st, 2024. commissioners, we left off under your regular calendar on the final item on your agenda today, number 16, case number 20 property at 400 through 402 murray street, a conditional us.

commission president diamond and commissioners. welcome. commissioner mcgarry. i'm maggif presenting a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 317 for the removal of an unauthorized dwelling unit, or udu, murray so zoning district and the bernal heightecistrict. the property contains a three story residential dwelling unitt the second floor and one at ird. the ground floor is divided into two garages, one of which was converted into a you.do. the project would remove garage to its formeres and use as off street parking. no other exterior alterations are proposed. the udu was first attention as the result of a dbi notice of violation and enforces opened in october 2017 to abate the violation. a permit was

filed to legalize the udu, but that stalled after planning approved it in january 2020. and then it kind of stalled during buildings review of that project application was submitted proposing to remove instead of legalize it as a new unit currently occupied. in the past ten years s single tenant, a close relative of the property owners, occupied the udu from february to december of 2017. that was the only tenant the unit ever saw. as described in the staff report, the department received one comment from a neighbor who inquired our udu removal policies, but did not expresso the project itself. the project is, on balance, consistent with the policies of the general plan, although it wouldn't result in the legalization of the unauthorized unit as net new housin space has only been

rented by family members within the ten years preceding thehe do finds the project to be necessarydesirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental properties in the vicinity. it meets the requirements oth code and conforms with the residential design guidelines, so the department recommends approval. this concludes my presentation. it's a short one, but i'm here for questions and i will now hand over to the sponsor, you have five minutes. goodernoon commissioners, farewell, president diamond. and welcome president mcgarry, i heard an accent with you. i'm from scotland originally. i'm michael hanna from mimic architecture beedoing architecture in the city for 20 years n, among my design projects, i also like to help out local citizens in need that

maybe don'tnderstand the very complicated planning and dbi process that they can face when, i've listened to two very big at you're wrestling with, and i think they're very important.n serve as a very good window in to the everyday reality that sometimes is really happening beyond all the big i a economy d all these things. this is an example of, well, i was brought the client who, went into the planning department crying after years of turmoil and confusion and from what i can glean fromy

my participatione project, this is an example of the weaponization of the very important,uccessful adu and authorized unit sort of le mean by that is that this building is co-owned by, a cousin to cousins, the unit in question b, in the garagee lower level where there's almost no light, because the ground. it's just received daylight at the garage door, and th light. well, to the to the east. but what the, the family who are from the middle east, the mother came to stayer husband and wife in that unit. they put a

kitchen very foolishly, put a kitchen downstairs in the lower level behind the garage, without any of the human habitation, light and ventilation requirements that you wouldee aw someone lived down there. but ta unit or a, you know, a habitable unit is, is a bit of a stretch. and unfortunately, the couple in question, the o the building, separated, and it appears that the complainant was the former husband and the the bag, the wife and the cousin next door who owned the building. received in 2017, t enforcement action. and through a series of, you know, not fullyandi

the enforcement action and obviously the unit was unauthorized and that had to be corrected. they were, they ignorantly, albeit thought that they wereorceto put a unit in. and unfortunately, the■ architects that they hired thsands of dollars and never the city staff never told them or weren't clear. it might have been in the documentation, but it wasn't clear that there were options andhey went through 6 or 7 years. it would look like of paying architects, paying alh worrying about the fines, doing all these things until they gotm that, right to propose a project that isn't legalizing a unit. and paying almost half $1 million. they

don't have, they're both, by the way, the cousin and the wifethe, they're both city employees, one works for muni and one works in the finance department. i she was just at a loss. and mohammed, the her cousin, was at a huge loss. and they worried that they were being forced to shell out $500,000 or 400,000 as the construction cost. but once you pay ch permit fees, you're talking half $1 million. they w impression that they were this unit, that they didn't want to thank you, sir, buth is your time. that's enough. okay. yeah. ith commissioners have questions, they'll they'll call you back. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the cois this matter. if you're in the chambers, you need to come

forward. is closed. and this matter is now before you commissionersaf. just just can t to confirm, no tenants were ever evicted. and they only people who ever e family members. and one of the factors that the code to, take into account when makinget, thrt was limited. the use was limited to family members. yes. correct. so the new findings under section 317 for the removal of a you-do are were there evictions, there. the rent board records show a 2007 owner move in eviion for a one of the legal units on the property unrelated to the unauthorized dwelling unit. i don't even know if it was the same ownership at that time. there were no eviction to the you-do, and then the second finding is d

specifically it talks about family, a direct sort of up or down relationship, parent child, things of that nature. thank yo. i don't have ah granting the see you, but i'm curious to hear what others say, vice president moore, i believe that mr. hanna just, i believe m hanna's description fully explains the complicated but simple background of what is enre. e plans are evident that there was no really attempt other than g which you think you could use, not understanding. perhaps the codes and with it. and i'm in full support and would approve with coio that is a motion. second. there's nothing further. commissioners. there is a motion that's been seconde a matter win that motion. commissioner geary i commissioner. so i commissioner williams i commissioner braun i

commissioner imperial i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so moved commiss tha motion passes unanimously 7 to .

>> ■b(music). >> >> landing at leidesdorff is as the newc scol in downtown san francisco for people to come together f lunch and weekends a new place to enjoy the architect and our culture. >> landing at leidesdorff one of several initiatives road map for the initiatives al and networkironnts to 0 invite people adopted not just to the office but any time of the day. >> it shows there is excitement and energy and people wore to enjoying the space that people may want tond up in downtown.

>> we've been operatingncial with the treasury coming up we had a small surge in business and in about the financial district and a time to grow here. >> as a small business the leidesdorff is making us being being part of in project. for me makes we to be part of san francisco. >> for me represents hope for san francisco and the sense t this is become such a safe welcoming area we local artists and exercise boxesive music but the hub ofculture. >> the downtown has a studio in san francisco. they 6 locations

throughout the downtown area we come tth new activity and spaces. >> is betweens a place to tell our own story and history. >> t w named after a san francisco before that was of called san francisco he was the first treasurer of the city and commercial a cross street the hifblg original shoreline of san frsansc just a few feet behindre2357b8z around opportunity to bring people to locations we an opportunity to tell stories and locfor businesses. >> >> >> >> >> >> my name is bal. and

raised in san francisco. cable car equipment, technically i opk at the cable car (indiscernible) and been here for 22 years now. i grew up around a little can i. my mom used to hang in china town with her friends and i would get bored and they would shove me out of the door, go play and find something to do. i ended up wandering down her w was a kid and found thesethings.

♪ [ music ] ♪ ♪ >> fascinated by them and i wanted to be a cable car equipment from the time i was a littled. i started with the emergency he 1988 and drove a bus for a year and a half and i got ly timing and got here at cable car and at that me, it really took about an average five to maybe sevenn a bus before you could build up your seniority to come over basically, this is the 1890s verse ever a bus. this isr basic public transportation and at the time at its height, 1893, there were 20 different routes ask t powerhouse, there -- and this powerhouse, there were 15 of themo city. >> i work at the cable car division and bunch muni for 25 years and working with cable cars for 23 years. because thes

things are horses and work hard so they have to have a place to sleep at night.joking. this is called a barn because everything takes place here and the powerhouse is -- that's downstairs so that's the heart and soul of the system and this is where the cable cars sleep or sleep at night so you can put a title there saying the barn. since 1873 andk day it was driven by a team and now it's electric but it has a good ah. >> i am t s of cable car vehicle maintenance. and we are on the and a half floor of the cable car barn where you can see there moving at nine and a half miles an hour and that's causing the little extra we're hearing

now. we have per cars and 12 california cars for a total of 40 revenue■6 with have two in storage. there's four gear boxes.s gears of the motor. they weigh close to special system to get them out of here because when they put em, the barn was opened up. we did the whole barn that year so it's diffit a first of time project, we changed it one at a time and now they a monitors that play the speed and she monitors them and in se of an emergency, she can shutdown all four cars if she needs to. that soundrd y there, that's a gentleman building, c weighs four hundred pounds each and they lost three days bore t cable car grips, the b undergro

cable. it's a giant buy stripse they pull itback. the cable car weighs 2,500 people wi people so it's heavy, emergency pulling it offer the hill. if it comes offer the ll unravels, it turns into ay cannot let go of it because it opens that wide and it's a billion pushing the grip which is pushing the whole cable car and there's no way to let go s to shutdown in emergencies and the wood brakes last two days and wear out. a lot of maintenance.

♪ >> rail wonsired to be the old thing. rubber tires, buses, that's new. there were definitely faster and there's no question about that. here at san francisco, we went through the same thing. the ma decided we don't need cable cars (indiscernible), we with buses. they are faster and economical and he was right if you look at the dollars and cents part. hwas right. >> back in 1947 when they voted th, surprised base of the technology and the chronicle paper says cab out. that was the headline. that was the

demise of the c ablecars. >> (indiscernible) came along and said, stop. no. no, no, she was the first one to say we're going to fight city hall. she got her friends together and they started from a group the save the cable car community, 1947 and managed to ge the ballot. are we going to keep the cable cars or noead turned nationwide and worldwide and city hall was completely unprepared for the amount of backlash they got. by came out and said 3-1, if i'm not mistaken, we want our cs and her group managed to save what we have. and if it wasn't for them, there would be no cable ple saw something back then that we see today that you can't get rid a historical monument at the time and now it is, and it was part

of san francisco. yeah, we had freight back then.e have that anymore. this is the number one tourist francisco. it's historic and the only national moving monument the world. >> the city of san francisco did keep the cable car so it's a fascinating feel of having somethin historic going up and down these hills of san francisco. andly, everyone knows san francisco is famous for their [laughter] and who would know and who would guess that they were trying of s a crazy idea at the time becau taking the place of the cable cars and getting rid of the cable car was the best thing for the city and cunty of san francisco, but thank god it . >> how soon has the city changed? the diverse of cable cars -- when i first came to cable car, sandy was the

first cable car. we have three or four being a gr fwriping cable cars is the most toughest and ch job in the entire city. >> i want to thank our women who operate our cable cars because they are a crucial space of the city to the world. we have wonderful women come on forward, yes.s anapplause] these ladies, theseis is what it's about. continuing to women. >> my name is willa johnson is and i've been at cable car for ancisco when i was five years old. and that isrst time i rode a cable car and i went to see a christmas tree and we rode the cable car with the christma time i rode the cable car and

didn't ride again untilorke here. i was in the medical field for a while and i wanted change. some people don't do that but i started with the sep over to cable car in 2008. it was a general and that's when you can go to different divisions and i signed ups conductor and came over herend been here since. there were a fewhat were over at woods that wanted to come over here and we had decided we wanted to leave woods and come to a different division and cable car was it. i do know there has been only four women that work the cable in the 150 years and i am second person to represent the cable

car and i als know that during the 19, i think 60s and women were not even allowed to ride o the side of a cable car so it's exciting to know you can go from not riding on the side board of a cable car to and driving the cable car and it opened the door for a lot of people to have the opportunity to do what they inspire to do. >> i have some people say i wouldn't make it as a conductor de i conductor and the best thing i did was to come to this division. it's a good division. and i like ripping cable cars. i do. i think she just tapped into th general feeling that san francisco tend to have of, this

is ours, is special, it's unique. economically and you rt make sense? not really. but from here, if you thinkro here, no, we don't need this but ifm here, yeah. and it turns out she was right. so.... and i'm grateful to very grateful. [laughter] >> three, two, one. [multiple voices] [cheers and applause] >> did i -- i did that on purpose so i wouldn't. ♪ [ music ] ♪ book. thank

you. >> (music). my name is orla owner and operator of pizza. >> pizza is my expansion growing up i loved pizza and loved to cook and been in corporate banking jobs my that whole life wanted to own a pizza or and moved san francisco 45 years ago and couldn't find like so one day of saving and trying to figure out

i would like to do to fulfill my dream and to literally must be that it out on my own toes interesting things skills i again have to working on changet product and came up with something i enjoy and continue it. the positive important thing in years and years and years of trying to get it where i like it is for the sauce i use a unique sauce to bring out the flavors have tos and capital improvement plan any and using use a high of cheese the products work together mor important to me have a high quality and made with love and what i try to keep it

a comfortable foods or food and that's i try to over and offers having a really bus illegal day in the co rile appeal to me and that's what i was accomplish i have thought when i got into pizza the main if i can, make a great cheese pizza he can do anything like growing and now called san francisco

>> good afternoon and welcome to regularly scheduled board meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors today, july 30, 2024. our last meeting befo the summer recess. madam clerk, would you pleads call the roll? thank you mr. president. supervisor chan, present. supervisor dorsey, present. superv supervisor mandelman, present. supervisor melgar, present. ervisor peskin, present. supervisor preston, present. supervisor ronan, present.