>> good afternoon welcome to the land use and transportation committee san francisco board of supervisors for today monday july 20th. i'm the chair of the committee supervisor aaron peskin joined by supervisor ahsha safai and dean preston and joined by colleague supervisor hillary

ronen. do you have any announcements? >> due to the covid-19 emergency to protect board members, city employees and public, board of supervisors legislative chamber remain closed. committee members will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the meeting if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. both channel 26 and sfgovtv.org are streaming live. [indiscernible] >> supervisor peskin: , we lost you. are you there? erica? >> one moment, we're checking with her right now.

>> i'll go ahead and finish her announcements. number scrolling across the screen for public comment call in is 415-655-0001. when your item of interest come up, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. i believe those were end of the comments for today. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. if ms. major is still present, please read the first item.

[agenda item read]. i want to thank supervisor ronen for being here for the first three items. she has been doing dozens upon dozens of hours in the rules committee. the floor is yours. >> supervisor ronen: thank you members. i appreciate that very kind scheduling. this legislation seeks to establish a new temporary use permit that will make it ease for nonprofit agencies providing arts, cultural, philanthropic social services. provide to covid-19 public health pandemic, san francisco was reeling from affordability crises that was destabilizing our city business and nonprofit.

the global economic crises we find ourself in has exacerbated our condition. anywhere you go in the city you see dozens of empty storefronts lining our most commercial corridors and these will only be expected to grow in number. we begin the challenging process of restoring our economy, the blight these vacant properties create will undermine the healthy and vitality of the neighborhoods. this legislation seeks to create an efficient solution by establishing a new use permit, option that will allow nonprofit agencies providing arts and social services to operate in unused vacant storefront throughout the city for a period up to two years.

this new temporary use permit would offer faster and lower cost way of activating vacant store front properties with uses that support the health and well willing of the surrounding community. this legislation will help provide access to spaces which operate on either short or midterm basis that can assist during periods of transition and minimize construction to critical programs and services. for property owners, this permit option not only offers an official way of activating storefronts it will help avoid costly fees associated with light violation or registering as a vacant storefront as required under the city's vacant and abandon commercial storefront program. as we roll out this initiative, we will be partnering with the department of building inspection so that property owners can receive notices for vacant storefront are informed

about this new temporary use permit as a ways to supporting local nonprofit agency. we will also be partnering with the office of economic workforce development to develop supports that will connect nonprofit agencies that are risk to displacement between facilities to property owners who are willing to bring them in their storefront. we consulted with planning department staff to find bays to broaden scope of this legislation to be more responsive to needs. as such, we proposed amendments that define covid-19 such as food distribution, financial assistance and popup testing facilities. as uses that will be eligible for this new temporary use permit and would also be exempted from an application processing fee. that way service providers can use this new temporary use permit as a tool to quickly and

easily set up critical social services in our vacant storefront to assist our most vulnerable residents. we believe that by creating streamline process for bringing nonprofit activities into vacant properties, this new low barrier temporary use will help mitigate the presence of neighborhood blight, promote activities and bolster recovery throughout the city. i wanted to give a special thank you to paul and my office who's been working hard on this since february as well as ben blineman who sits on our entertainment commission has been advocating on many interventions to help small businesses throughout the city and came to us with this idea. i have distributed the amendments to you in advance that introduce the additional covid-19 relief and recovery use. i'm happy to answer any

questions. i know planning staff here. >> supervisor peskin: do you have any questions for supervisor ronen? >> i don't. i have a comment. is that okay mr. chair? >> supervisor peskin: yes, sir. >> i appreciate all the hard work, supervisor ronen has done on this. we went through a very similar process when i came into office. we did the planning process. we took a really strong look at a lot of the zoning and things that needed to be changed. one of the things that in our planning table that was not allowed, it was just not permitted at all. that was actually one of the first things we changed to allow

for art uses to be used in commercial spaces. it's been like that for a long time. it was a barrier for lot of organizations and nonprofits. we did put some additional controls in. we've already checked with planning that this compliments what we've done. i want to appreciate what you done and thank you for your work and i want to highlight arts activities. it's something that was not unique to our district. i know that supervisor chang when she was in office had to do the same thing for her corridor. my question to planning is, is the mission corridor mission 24th street area, is this temporary use something that will be continued? do they have the same issues that we had outer mission where

art uses was not committed? is this temporary fix or is this something that's made more >> supervisor peskin: ms. flores >> actually, i'm from the planning department. before i answer supervisor safai's question, i want to give the commission report if that's all right. the planning commission had this item june 25th and vote to approve it with the modifications that i believe supervisor ronen has proposed to you all today. >> supervisor peskin: two modifications right? >> correct. the finding covid-1 covid-19 --y also additionally propose to extend the initial approval period from one year to two years. to also extend the optional extension at the discretion of the planning director for

additional two years. the total permit time should not exceed four years. to supervisor safai's question, yes, this has been an issue. the planning code organization from several years back, unfortunately made art activity uses unpermitted in neighborhood commercial district. this legislation will not be a permanent fix for the disillusion of art activity. >> supervisor safai: i brought it up to highlight it in case it's something they wanted to do. thank you. audrey, my apologies. i'm working off the script that i have. my apologies.

i don't have questions. i want to thank supervisor ronen for her leadership on this and also for something that was good policy pre-pandemic. i think with everything that is going to be driving increasing vacancies, it could not be more relevant. i think that the amendment in particular really well taken in terms of broadening out who can use this as well as making sure that when this is utilized we're not up against a tight time line. i want to thank you and also move the amendment. >> supervisor peskin: before we vote on that motion, supervisor ronen, if you have no additional comments. why don't we open up to public comment. ms. major, do we have anything

in the queue? >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment call the number 415-655-0001. press pound and pound again. press star 3 to line up to spe speak. any callers in the queue? >> yes, i have two callers in the queue. hello caller, you may speak. >> yes, this is not the item. sorry. >> supervisor peskin: if you get back in the queue, we'll call on you when your item comes up.

>> this is item number one public comment. next caller please. >> i can't unmute. >> hello caller, you may speak for item number one. next speaker please. >> am i unmuted? >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. thanks. sorry. my name is sophia green, i'm a practicing visual artist in san

francisco. the first studio i rented was on the third floor of the building in san francisco mission district. the building was not protected from conversion but at the time, there wasn't any pressure for office space in the building was still with art and studio. after being there in the studio for about four years, the artist on the third floor no got notico vacate. i got another studio in the building on the second floor. however, the experience and disruption of being displaced caused me to start looking for studio face in th space buildind from conversion. it only matter of time the artist in the building will be kicked out. luckily, you was and to -- i was able to find a sublet that has a

lively artist community and is protected from conversion to office space. i've been there for two years and currently, this building has a wait list to get in that's very long and the building is very high demand. it's pretty clear you can get higher rent from office space than from artist space. if a building is unprotected, many building owners optimize income by converting their buildings to office space with continued artists displacement being the result. i'm asking please support this ordinance amending the planning code so we can stop displacement. >> we're on item number one. >> supervisor peskin: your comments have been noted for item number three. thank you very much.

>> sorry. >> supervisor peskin: are there any other members of the public who like to speak to this item number one? which relates to philanthropic and arts activities as temporary uses for period not to exceed four years. >> for the callers in queue, this is item number one. if you did press star 3, please press star 3 again to get out of the queue. members of the public who wish to speak on item number one, should press star 3 to line up to speak. if you're no line for item number one, please star 3 to get out of line. next speaker please.

>> that completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: public comment is closed. we have a -- [indiscernible] supervisor peskin and supervisor ronen's amendment. on that item, roll call please. [roll call] you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: ms. ronen that is your first. >> you have to forward it. >> supervisor peskin: you're right. on the item as amended, a roll call please. [roll call >> if i may, i like to

supervisor dean's amendment is substantive and requires continuance. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i was not aware of that. why aren't those amendments substantive? >> they don't require report back because they were discussed at the planning commission. they propose to amend the planning code to allow new uses since the covid-19 related uses. >> supervisor peskin: okay. i would like to make a motion to continue the item as amended to our next meeting on 27th of july one week from today. on that motion, madam clerk a roll call please.

[roll call] you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: let's move to a nonconforming parking lot. read the next item please. [agenda item read] members of the public who wish to provide public comment call the number 415-655-0001. if you have not done so already, press star 3 to line up to speak.

>> supervisor peskin: supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: the legislation before you today addresses a situation specific to one landmark site. by allowing a parking lot that has been serving this neighborhood commercial corridor to continue to operate for a period. at 2351 mission street is extraordinary landmark property in the heart of the san francisco mission district. while the interior has been damaged, its stunning failure to addresfacaderemains in tact. in addition to small storefronts and operating hotel in the two upper floors, the interior is gone. there's a much used parking lot that has been operating most recently as nonconforming temporary use. this legislation would extend temporary use period. right now in the midst of the

pandemic, there's no viable redevelopment of this site. with all the neighborhood commercial corridors struggling, it would be a disaster to blight this area where unused vacant lot. we cannot afford to stress our struggling small businesses right now by removing existing parking. this legislation will allow additional time to allow viable development plan for the site that celebrates and preserves the historic significance of a magnificent landmark property. this legislation has been heard by the historic preservation commission and planning commission and received unanimous support from both. i want to thank planning staff for their work. today, i ask for your support. >> supervisor peskin: thank you supervisor. are there any questions or comments from committee members? i don't see any on the roster.

if not, why don't we go to the planning department. i believe the planning commission approved this unanimously. i'm going to say to mr. sanchez, -- anybody from the department t of city planning who like to comment? now we got ms. flores. go ahead. >> thank you chair peskin. i want to reiterate that this item appeared into the historic preservation and planning commission last week. both commission did unanimously recommend approval of than ordinance. i'm available for any questions. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. my apologies. why don't we open up to public comment. any members of the public who like to comment on this item number two? >> we're checking to see if there's anyone in the queue.

>> there are no callers in the queue. >> supervisor peskin: seeing none, i would like to make a motion t forward this item to te full board with recommendation. is there any comment on that? public comment is closed. on that item, roll call please. [roll call] you have three ayes. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. that item is approved. next item please. [agenda item read]

>> supervisor peskin: i think we're all very familiar with this item. it's been before us in april and two times in may. we've been waiting for suggestions from supervisor ronen. the floor is yours. >> supervisor ronen: thank you chair peskin and to all members of this committee for being so patient with us on this legislation. the covid crises has kind of

thrown it into a difficult situation. we've been trying to figure out how to navigate it. you all have been so kind to hear this so many times. what this legislation is intended to do is to promote new housing and protect arts inside of these office -- instead of office uses. the eastern neighborhood planning was approved in 2009. among other zoning and policy changes, it converted industrial zone parcels to mixed use residential or what was then a new re defined urban mix use. it was intended to encourage transitional development pattern between commercial and residential districts in order to buffer potentially incompatible land uses. one stated goal was to protect the wide variety of art and light manufacturing spaces in these areas while opening potential for new housing. however, u.m.u. permitted upper

floors subject to controls. years later we now know that the u.m.u. designation is not working as envisioned. office does not serve the purpose of a buffer nor does it encourage residential development. that was not foreseen when the initial rezoning was done was that the real estate market would make it impossible for other users to compete with high rent offices. we've seen studios and workshops displaced. new development opting for office over other potential uses including housing. my legislation prohibits future office uses on upper floors except in landmark buildings which have limited other options. allows for certain public office uses on the ground floor under

conditional use authorization. i'm presenting one amendment today which has been circulated in advance to your offices. will not require this item to be continued. it is essentially limits the new prohibition on office uses with u.m.u. rather than to the entire eastern neighborhood. i want to acknowledge the planning who prepared staff report on this legislation and as part of that, thoughtful, racial and social equity. i wanted to thank planning who also prepared a thoughtful, racial and social equity analysis to limit the geography to the mission. by removing the potential for office in the mission, the city will be promoting the housing development that we need as well as retaining and protecting arts activities and light and

industrial uses. i do think that it is time for us to reexamine the controls we put in place more than a decade ago to see if this still make sense for our current needs. we are in a shifting world and how we work and live and travel will affect land use decisions. for now these amendments are needed to ensure we don't lose ground. i ask for your support. i wanted to thank amy beinart for not only representing me but her continued work. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor peskin: are there questions or comments for the maker of this ordinance? supervisors, any comments or questions. >> supervisor safai: i have one question. i think it was clarified. i can ask now or wait until after public comment. >> supervisor peskin: why don't you ask it so the public can comment on it.

>> supervisor safai: we received a number of emails and people calling about one project in particular, 2300 harrison. it sounds like from what i got from your staff this morning, this project appeal will be finished before the legislation goes into effect. can you talk about that for a second to clarify for the record? >> supervisor ronen: sure. >> supervisor safai: as i understand it, they were going through the entitlement process. you started this back before covid, continued through the process. now their closer to being done with their appeal. sound like appeal will be done so this legislation might not impact just this one project. >> supervisor ronen: this is

something that i've been struggling a little bit with throughout the process and part of the reason for many continuances. but only part. that appeal is set to go forward prior to covid, prior to this legislation being even heard at land use. as all of the appeals were continued at the board, it turned out this legislation went forward. i've been struggling with the word fairness. the project sponsor has -- many members of the planning commission have said it's not fair to move this item forward when it wasn't -- if covid haven't hit. it wouldn't have impacted the legislation. i want to say that there's very little that's fair in the world of development. it's also not fair that the

number of low and middle income latino residents to the tune of 10,000 have been displaced from this neighborhood over the past 10 years, become much more desirable and tech offices have moved in and pushed people out. there are many things that are unfair in the world. i actually would say that -- i take issue with that word being used in this context. however, as it turns out, we are now hearing items appeals at the board again. right now we have a tentative date for an appeal on the 2300 harrison site for august 18th. if that takes hold, i have no intention to seek to delay it. the missed item -- this legislation is passed by the board probably would not be in effect that time. we would hear the appeal.

none of this was designed in order to deal any particular one project. 2300 project did bring this to our attention that the density bonus can be used in a way to increase the amount of office space to a developer which no way meets the intention of the density bonus law which is to increase amount of housing. however, which then led to why we're allowing office use in the first place which led to the legislation. there is a relationship between them. again, we're not trying to play games. we're not trying to impact this project particularly. i hold firm that the policy objective of limiting office in u.m.u. zoning is the right policy move.

how it impacts any one project is up to state and whatever happens because of covid that we're all dealing with many circumstances beyond our control. you hope that answers your question. >> supervisor safai: i appreciate it. i know there's lot of moving pieces and when you doing legislation, you certainly don't want it to be about one particular project or one particular instance of injustice. you want it to have the most wide ranging impact in terms of its overall goal. i agree with you. having seen in my time what happened to the mission over the last 20 years and seeing the -- people throw around the word gentrification a lot. i think everyone has their own personal experience what that means. truly to see rampant

gentrification and displacement in the mission, it's extremely visible. that businesses, that's family, that's long time cultural institutions, that's housing, that's a community that was built and thrived and prospered for a long time. i understand what you're trying to do. that's often how legislation works. we're dealing with the now. we're dealing trying to have lasting impact going forward. with development, it goes through a process and everyone understands going in in san francisco. it's usually a cumbersome long process.

the housing is the housing. sound like the project got up to 25% inclusionary. we spent lot of time talking about what the impact of the density bonus would have and how we capture that value in san francisco. it's not necessarily always the best tools available. i think we came up with what we thought at the time was a good solution. that's good to hear. it sounds like things will work out. this seems to be the one that you spent time thinking about and ultimately, this sounds like it's going to work itself out.

>> supervisor peskin: let us be clear. none of this conversation will prejudice our quasi judicial hearing on the matter. however the board adjudicates the matter, it will be resolved prior to the effective day of the legislation. if the board rules one way, not to use sports analogies, it's a dead ball, board rules other way, it's a live ball. thank you for that clarity relative to the one issue around fairness on the 2300 harrison case supervisor ronen. supervisor preston, if you have no comments or questions. we can open up to public comment.

>> we have four callers in the queue. first caller. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm sharon. i'm asking you to support supervisor ronen u.m.u. code. in 2017, we were completely displaced by illegally zone tech offices. we lost our gallery workshop and 20 artist studios when new owner did legally move his business

there. he allowed the international corporation to take over half of the upstairs displacing 20 artists and he couldn't open plan office with entertainment space, computer workstations. then the following year, they took over the remaining 20 studios. we were completely displaced. during the two years around our displacement, we saw forced closures of lot of other mission and studios, hundreds and hundreds of artists. we tried to develop another large studio in mission but finding affordable space together was just impossible. eventually they were able to create a new studio near balboa park in excelsior.

if mission stop this predatory high end office use, artist like myself might be able to claim space and return to the mission. this will be impossible if high end office use is prohibited in our u.m.u. spaces and we have to have enforcement of p.d.r. zoning. i'm an artist working both traditional painting in digital medium. i know anyone can work on a computer anywhere. there are plenty of empty offices in the city. >> thank you. we have 27 listeners with 12 in queue to speak. next speaker please. >> hello.

>> this is a time for public comment. it's not q&a. what we'll do, if you can three-way them each -- >> they are here. >> you'll be passing the phone on? great. we'll set four minutes and go ahead. >> it's three testimonies. so that's six minutes. >> right, this is for spanish interpretation? >> yes. >> they will be given four minutes. >> i have three public comments.

[speaking spanish] >> i'm here to support the ordinance and i hope that the board of supervisors approves it because i believe that we must

keep our identity and dignity of our people. we do that by serving them and having businesses that serves them. [speaking spanish] >> i'm also a business owner and i have seen the effects of having laws benefit tech companies rather than benefiting small businesses like myself. this will be something that -- a step towards bringing more

equity to small businesses. [speaking spanish] >> this will help our community, our immigrant community that has tech businesses as well as working in our community. thank you. [speaking spanish]

>> i love my community. i love the diversity of my community. [speaking spanish] >> during my work in the last couple of years, -- now during covid, i seen how my community has been impacted. [speaking spanish] small businesses are the ones who establish our community and provide our services and provide the quality of life that we all

need. [speaking spanish] in our businesses, are the ones that implore our community and are the ones that bring back money to our community and boost our economy locally. [speaking spanish] what i would miss is being our business being displaced due to the rent and the cost and in. [speaking spanish] we need more spaces that serve our community and employ our community.

[speaking spanish] this ordinance is ordinance that allows for the businesses that create jobs for our communities. [speaking spanish] it helps us create organizations, businesses that serve the type of families that we serve. [speaking spanish] for this reason, i ask for your support of this ordinance so we can keep businesses that serve

us and employ us. thank you. i have one more testimony. this is a letter that i would like to read from a community member. dear members of the board of supervisors, i'm the other than of discount auto performance, auto motive shop that has been in business since 1992. during owning my business i have seen out of businesses as results of increase pricing epressures by office use and make it impossible for business owner to renew their lease. property owners are hesitant to renew leases to more than month

to month. .it has become impossible for me to find a location that is remotely affordable. despite my business being highly successful. i have been able to raise three wonderful children and send them to college to provide well-paying jobs for two mechanics and part-time work for my son. now i'm faced only having six week notice to find a new location as soon as my property owner brings them. i'm no hopeful that i will be able to find another location. i'm stressing that i will be to close and lay off my employees and find a job as a mechanic.

industrial manufacturing, nonprofit and artist uses in the mission need to be protected and these uses and all of the jobs that come with them will be gone. please approve this legislation so that the business that rely on industrial spaces will be able to remain and continue to remain in the mission. >> your time has expired. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. my name is hannah. i work for the nonprofit organization projects commotion. project commotion is in favor of

amending the code. we serve around 1600 individuals annually. we currently rent space on harrison street and have been at this location for 12 years. as programs have expanded, to include a bilingual preschool on site, we began to outgrow our space. we lack productive work space as well as any quiet space needed to take a true break and come back energized to work with families. we cannot find other affordable options in the mission district. we make it work. this is not the sustainable in the long-term. we are committed to staying in the mission and serving our target population, long time latino residents. it's becoming harder to do so. over 12 years in the space, our rent has increased over 50%.

our lease went up around 3% a year. this year it increased by 12%. this is a huge financial burden for us that we didn't feel we can push back. we were afraid of losing our space all together. we encourage all of you to vote in favor of ronen's u.m.u. ordinance amending the planning code. >> next speaker please. we have 28 listeners with 11 in queue. >> hello, good afternoon. thanks. i'm valerie, i'm code director at southern exposure.

has provided education programs and support for artist and has been important hub for the community and mission for 46 years. i'm calling because i'm concerned that upscale office space has been eliminating space for housing and studios and nonprofits for some time. particularly at this moment, it is the heart of the mission dips on the community organization. when we lose nonprofit and cultural space because of impact

on the most vulnerable communities, without clear restrictions on urban mixed use development, we'll be able to stop the displacement of artist, nonprofits and manufacturing jobs. i image you to pass this ordinance to help protect our artist, community members and nonprofit organizations that are very curable to the -- crucial to the well being of our community. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm calling in to support of the u.m.u. ordinance. supervisor hillary ronen noted 10,000 latinos have been displaced. it impact the cultural and

economic fabric of the mission. they've all been displaced leaving cultural void in the neighborhood. for example, over 20 of our -- artist have lost spaces in the last few years due to the displacement and the high cost of rental space. these artist have families and children had to on the streets, garages, backyards and night club sometimes.

increase in rent and decrease in resources to artist make it really hard for us to produce 30 plus year. over the past 40 years, we've been leveraging the power art culture and creativity. we think that the u.m.u. ordinance is a positive step forward to bring equity and justice to our community. >> next speaker please. >> my name is katie. i ask you to support the u.m.u. ordinance amending the planning code. i'm a visual artist and small business owner who was born and raised in san francisco. in the past five years, i have

been gentry if id out of two places. my art work is large scale that requires month to dry. it's worth noting during the covid-19 crises, office space across the city is sitting empty and probably will for a while. meanwhile, my manufacturing and artist all visited to making supplies to help the community.

because we're local, we're able to deliver products quickly, the i strongly urge you to protect p.d.r. thank you very much. >> next speaker please. >> hello, i have a textile and supply company.

i create commission art pieces. i say that accessing affordable stable work space in san francisco has been greatest challenge for me as a business owner and artist. i now lost my work space on four separate occasions. i've been forced to move on nearly annual basis due to p.d.r. and u.m.u. i have to move again finding new solutions. you have to shoulder the cost of moving significant stock. i have to set up new operation systems. the demand for my product has been growing steadily and i'm not able to keep up. i moved my inventory and all my shipping receiving to warehouse in san jose. i've been unable to find an affordable solution within our city. i felt the loss of our highly

dynamic creative community and artist that our neighborhood once supported. it's demoralizing. i feel there's no little to no protection to keep small businesses here. i'm strong supportive of u.m.u. ordinance amending the planning code. i you will see it as a vital step towards the protecting the small business ecosystem of our city. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm here to ask you to support the u.m.u. ordinance amending the planning code. i'm the owner of restoration workshop limited. we specialize in landmark restoration historic architecture. we work at the residential level, we also consult with public institutions like the g.s.a. and the city of san francisco as well as participate in restoration religious architecture. we manage restoration projects

but pull together coalition for many disciplines. we really are the last remaining of the skills and shop facilities to perform high level restoration of architectural murals in san francisco. we occupied space since 2008. we have been in business in san francisco for 16 years. that's been working in the trades for 30 years. my business employs 6 to 9 regular, employees at high level. we also take interns from the trades program. we are committed to providing jobs that allows them to remain in the bay area. we design, fullbac fabricate and

install. i'm very committed about -- i'm concerned about the influx of high end office use. p.d.rbusiness like mine force to leave the city, it never comes back. environmental and monetary costs operating from outside the city -- it no longer allow to continue.

having the space within the city being able to advocate and to adjust and work on projects as we go. i would urge to approve the ordinance. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this matter should call the number 415-655-0001. >> good afternoon supervisors, cory smith on behalf of the san

francisco national coalition. no real comments on the piece of legislation. in regards to the 2300 harrison street project that we mentioned earlier, we are requesting that a grandfathering clause be added and amended into this piece of legislation. couple of items that were mentioned, number one, supervisor ronen, this is such a chaotic world now. nothing is guaranteed. we very much appreciate the intent to try to have that appeal hearing prior to this legislation taking effect if something does happen to that timeline, grandfathering clause will ensure that this project in the pipeline is not affected. as mentioned earlier, specific relation to the inclusionary

legislation that was negotiated and grandfathering provisions was placed in that legislation. again, requesting that a grandfathering clause be included. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon chair and members of the commission. i'm representing 45,000 member here in california, 3800 members in the heart of san francisco. from the policy standpoint adopting adoption without grandfathering clause does nod bode well for the city.

the idea that the city will arbitrarily does not produce confidence in the process. the city adopts grandfathering rules like those on the jobs housing. since the project was introduced in 2016, the development team has done their due diligence to follow applicable planning processes, engage in discussions, designed under current zoning rules to make sure union trades represented on site. on april 23, 2020 the planning commission unanimously recommended approval staff modifications including

grandfather clause to submit applications to the planning department as the date of introduction. the city risk losing 24 units of housing. this will happen. unemployment rate is 12.5%. 2.5 shy of the state average. more than ever, every unit and every dollar and every job matters coming out of this pandemic. this is why it's imperative for the city not add to the challenges that already exist. in the world of uncertainty, we

respectfully ask that the proposed u.m.u. legislation will be amended to include a grandfather clause 2300 harrison. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i'm representing the project sponsor for 2300 harrison. we continue to support amendment to include a grandfathering clause. we have been told over tentative board of supervisors appeal date. that has not been confirmed. because of that, we also do not have a board of appeals date. we would still be racing against this legislation and the event any continuances or delays which are entirely possible especially today, this legislation could become affected and killed this project because we did not get through the appeals hearing in

time. there's no certainty that the appeals will be heard or finished. we have two different appeals, at two boards and no confirmed appeal dates yet. without a grandfathering clause, 2300 harrison will remain as a parking lot instead developed with mixed use project with 24 new residential units including six units on site. the city will forego $3.5 million in impact fee payments in order to preserve a parking lot. changing the rules in the will h hour, it is also unusual as the city typically includes a grandfathering clause so that rules are not changed after a project has spent years and substantial amounts of money in the entitlement phase. after already having received its first approval from the planning commission. it would be an exception for you not to include a grandfathering

clause and i think something that sets very uncertain precedent. the use of a density bonus program does not change the amount of permitted office of this project. two floors of office are permitted if arts activities five stor -- five story buildin. >> thank you. we appreciate your comment. next speaker please. >> this is sophia green. i wanted to do a brief recap of my comments in the appropriate agenda item. i think the big point of my comments was that i was in a building where about 50 artist was displaced to make office space. the point is, i was lucky enough

to find a new studio space in a p.d.r. protected building. i would encourage the planning commission to support more p.d.r. buildings in san francisco so that we can keep artist, nonprofits and makers and small businesses in the city because all of these things add to the social and economic vitality of san francisco. i think that about covers it. >> next speaker please. members of the public should call the number 415-655-0001. next speaker please.

caller, you're on the line. >> hi. my name jonathan wickman i'm project sponsor at 24455 harrison. i'm asking board of supervisors to reject this amendment as proposed. i agree with supervisors safai that said when we start -- developer starts the project team in san francisco, we are expecting long process to get something proposed and

developed. what we never anticipate this board changing rules about the land use during the entitlement process. i think that the proposed project would have adverse effects. you heard ronen said that the office space does not promote housing. one particular project, which is active use for retail, second floor office -- it is office spaces anticipated rent that allows our project to pencil and to provide for the five units.

we would not have the housing, we only have -- we will be able to add units -- three units of housing. what we'll have to do is scrap my project as proposed and build three luxury condos and sell them off to recoup my proceeds or my investment. in result of this legislation, would kill more projects such as mine which provide rental units for the neighborhood -- >> supervisor peskin: your time is up. it sounds like you have articulately your financial fallback position. next speaker please. are there any more people in the

queue? >> this completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: all right, thank you to all of the speakers. i did mean to antagonize the last speaker. there is an amendment on the table. that amendment which is not substantive in nature, i believe was proposed by supervisor preston, is that correct? >> from my understanding, it's an amendment from supervisor ronen. >> supervisor peskin: supervisor ronen cannot make amendment. >> right, i understand. sorry, i missed the part. >> supervisor preston: , i have not moved that amendment. i will be happy to move that amendment. >> supervisor peskin: as the previously described

non-substantive amendments on this matter that we've been hearing for a number of months, a motion has been made by supervisor preston on that motion, madam clerk, roll call please. [roll call] >> supervisor peskin: all right, that motion passes. are there any comments before we vote on the ordinance as amended? if there are month comments -- supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: can i ask one area i clarifying question,d like supervisor ronen stated this is set for hearing on the 18th. her intention is to have that hearing. she said that very clearly.

i don't understand what the confusion is. is there a difference of opinion in terms if that hearing is happening or not? >> supervisor peskin: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: no. what i would say, the hearing is set for the 18th. i don't anticipate that changes unless the clerk of the board for some reason, decides that date doesn't work. i guess my contention is that covid is not like any normal situation. i wish my daughter can be grandfathered and go back to school on august 17th. the world has turned upside down. this wasn't anticipated to delay any hearing.

>> supervisor peskin: i guess it wasn't clear to me until you restated it right now. >> supervisor preston: this hearing would have happened sooner. this hearing would have happened way before and the legislation will be following after it. i don't think that's clearly stated for the public. i was on the phone with a clerk this morning. we have about 15 appeals that are now in the queue that have been put on hold because of covid. they are all beginning to be scheduled. this one seem to be at the top of the queue. is that right mr. chair? >> supervisor peskin: i'm no longer the president of this board. let's just do timing relative to the 2300 harrison case and. i think we all understand the equity issues there. the reality is covid hit, supervisor ronen's legislation was stalled. their hearing was stalled. let's do the dates. which is if this committee

decides to send out the ordinance as amended today, it would go before the full board of supervisors for its first reading on 28th day of july. if we do not have a regularly scheduled meeting because we have one week off in august. it would go to its next hearing for second reading on the 11th day of august. if the board approves that, the mayor would have ten days to sign it. she can sign it earlier, not sign it or veto it. that gets us to about the plus or minus 21st day of august, legislation would not become matter of law until about end of september. >> supervisor preston: this is for clarity. >> supervisor peskin: approximat

ely 30 days after the law goes into effect. the only uncertainty, assuming that it leaves this committee, assuming that the board votes for it twice on the 28th and the 11th, i put my calendar down. then there's uncertainty around 10 days as to when the mayor takes receipt, whether the mayor signs it, doesn't sign it or vetoes it. assuming the mayor doesn't veto it and it goes into law, it will become law on or about the last date end of september. if this matter is not adjudicated on the full calendar date of august 19th, there's still month and a half for the board to hear this.

i'm not in any way prejudging this matter. i-- that it is dead.i think thet supervisor ronen make sense to me, the last time you heard this in late april, there were whole bunch of other people who wanted to get on 2300 harrison coat tail. they seem to have gone away. actually one of them sent an email. with that supervisor safai, the floor is back to you. >> supervisor safai: i want to be clear too. i'm glad you keep saying that. this is not about prejudging any appeal what happened. i'm trying to get on to the record what supervisor ronen had said and clearly state the date. that's all. if we vote on this as a board

and it comes for second vote after one week recess, then the mayor signs it on the tenth day, then there's about a month and sounds like there's a number of weeks that we can have in between. just for clarity, once the hearing is done that day, it's up or down. seems to me there's plenty of time in this time frame. supervisor ronen has stated her intention not to ask for any continuance on the hearing. i wanted to put that out there for the record. >> supervisor ronen: to clarify through the chair, i think we requested the date at the 18th. but the president's board has to okay that. it's ultimately his decision when to schedule it. i don't plan on asking for a different date.

or trying to delay it. >> supervisor safai: where did the 18th date come from? is they said they are offering you? >> supervisor ronen: i believe so, yes. >> supervisor safai: got it. okay. >> supervisor peskin: my totals for saying the 19th. 18th is the tuesday forkedly -- for clarification and record. if there are no further questions or comments, madam clerk, did we vote on supervisor preston's -- >> remaining balance of the motion. >> supervisor preston: i wanted to say one more thing. i want to reiterate couple of things that i said. i appreciate supervisor ronen. i understand so much of what was talked about today in terms of public comment. i think that's really important. i think that when people are trying to build, i think

certainty is a really important factor. i think that -- as yo you said, there's lot of things people dealing with result of this coronavirus. it's impacting many lives. lot of the delays were out of our control. certainty obviously in terms when you're building is an important aspect of deciding when to make your investment. the thing that makes me feel more comfortable, there's probably about four or five tuesdays in between the time that your legislation would go into effect. when we would have that hearing. that hearing is going to be the determining factor one way or another on this project. this legislation is not going to be the determining factor on this project. i feel lot more comfortable of that. if it were the other way around, i probably would have a different perspective. i have a lot of deference to the district supervisor. she knows her district better than anybody on this board and

is working with large constituency of people. i'm sensitive to certainty and when people are in the process of making an investment and certainly having affordable housing is important thing. as i stated, i think this project today would probably not be where we're proposed today based on where the economy is. i want to say that for the record. i think it's really important that we went through the calendar so that everyone understand where things are. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you supervisor safai. on the item as amended, i would like to make a motion to move this to the full board with recommendation. can we have a roll call please. [roll call]

you have three ayes. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much colleagues. >> supervisor peskin: next item please. [agenda item read] >> supervisor peskin: erica, you're frozen. last time is zakheim.

>> we may have lost her. [agenda item read] >> supervisor peskin: thank you madam clerks. i am the initiator of this resolution, initiating landmark designation for a set of frescoes that sit on property owned by the university of california san francisco which were done by mr. bernard zakheim that started approximately 85 years ago and finished approximately 82 years ago. bernard zakheim learned at the feet of diego rivera and is known for his works in many

other places with such radical artists as victor armtoff and george albert harris. i realized this is a remarkably complicated situation. i wanted to ask my colleagues on this panel and the board of supervisors to initiate landmark designation for these ten incredible radical works of art that sit on the university of california san francisco campus by way of background article 10 of the planning code allows the board of supervisors by resolution to initiate designation if this panel forwards this to board of

supervisors, the department of city planning and historic preservation commission would have up to 90 days to evaluate the historic worthiness and report back to the board unless they request an extension of that. this is one of the artistic treasures that the university has. i want to thank san francisco architectural heritage, mike bueller, their executive director and their membership along with many others who want to save these frescoes. most importantly, i want to thank zakheim family that is

alive and well. bernard zakheim's grandson adam has been seminal in this. her brother nathan has proposals that, do true, will be cost effective in saving these frescoes in whole or in part. i want to thank the department of city planning, marcelo for being on this call today. with that, we have two

presentations. one by san francisco architectural heritage by mr. mr. labounty. i realize this is a very small part of a much larger expansion of the u.c. campus that comes with very important policy considerations around urban design, transportation impacts, housing impacts. this is probably a financial rounding era in that discussion. all of that will be before us. i want to acknowledge my colleagues on this panel dean preston who cannot talk to about this because it's land use committee. he shares part of that campus with our board president, supervisor yee who shares the other part of that campus.

again, the other land use transportation issues that are part in parcel of this project will be forthcoming. this is the beginning of what is going to be a lengthy process, hopefully to confer landmark designation. unlike landmark designations on other properties in san francisco, i want to be clear about this, the state of california, university of california, which is subdivision of the state of california, is not subject to our local laws. i believe that these incredible radical ten part murals frescoes deserve that level and deserve that protection. with that i like to ask mr. labounty to come forward

with your presentation and we'll go to the owners. not exactly the owner but the caretakers of those murals. they are actually property of the united states of america. it was the united states that paid for them and actually interestingly enough, the general services agency of the united states has recently written a letter saying that this is actually a property of the united states. we will not go into level of ways. mr. labounty, foreclosure is yours. >> thank you supervisor peskin.

good afternoon, my name is woody labounty i'm from san francisco heritage. i'm here to share the significance of mural cycle history of medicine in california. created by artist bernard zakheim. from 1936 to 1938. the series is composed of ten pictorial panel and two panels on the walls of toll and hall. large lecture room within uc hall proposed to be demolished for a new research and academic building. on the right you can see the murals behind a class of nurses. bernard zakheim was one of the leading artist in this area who created major public art under

the new deal art program. polish jew, he was born in warsaw 1898. his family prepared him for the synagogue to be a rabbi. against the wishes of his family, he instead became politically active and began studying art. imprisoned in a concentration camp during world war i, he came to the united states when the war ended. he opened his own custom furniture shop in san francisco. before being invited abou by dio rivera. in san francisco in the early 1930s, zakheim organized exhibitions by jewish art it's and recognized for his work with water colours. he won an open competition to

create his first major pres freo jewish festival on california street. this piece by the way, was successfully removed and reininstalle in-- reinstalled iw building in 2004. zakheim was one of 26 artist to create the murals within quite tower. which represented first new deal air art project. zakheim has been credited with developing the concept of the art work within the tower and his own piece completed in 1934, is entitled library. library controversially contained leftist references including a copy of the regional communist newspaper, western worker. >> supervisor peskin: not to interrupt you, if you go back to the last slide, his daughter who i believe is 94, is in the

bottom left hand corner with the blue skirt on. >> also in 1934, zakheim created two frescoes for the emergency hospital and health centre. today san francisco city landmark number 272. the work there entitled community spirit and growth, depicted scenes of neighborhood life and maternal care with birthing imagery. this project attracted the attention of doctors at the university of california san francisco. the work's progress administration through the federal art project, commissioned zakheim to brighten a dark ugly cave with art work to educate medical students on the history of their field. the history of medicine in california was the result.

the murals are created in message reaching back as far as the italian renaissance which the painting is done on fresh plaster. u.csf faculty assisted in help guide zakheim's research and choice of subject matter for the frescoes. the history of medicine in california depicts founders, scientists and educators to breabreakthroughs in medicine. it acknowledges the skill and recognize medical expertise, african-american midwife biddy mason showing here attending to

a malaria patient with dr. john griffin. zakheim wrote, i did not take only the beautiful or heroic parts of history. the murals includes scenes of murders, am mutations and mutatm mutation an-- aamputation and a. zakheim's work had always been concerned with human values and human drama and his point of view has been sympathetic to human struggle and effort. how spanish soldiers spanning panels of native people was intentional composition, symbolic of the invasion of california. author anthony w. lee wrote, the

mural splite into a programmatic argument about class conflict and the super exploited races in people. his work has a real social value and that is charged with positive qualities of belief and protest rather than negative qualities of indifference. the murals supposed su subversie nature during the cold war. in 1948, ucsf covered the mural cycle with wallpaper. you can see in the back here during the 1953, lecture, the wallpaper that was covering the mural at the time. they were uncovered in the

1960s and underwent conservation treatment by the artist on nathan b. zakheim here on the right and jennifer walker in the 1970s. with funding from ucsf alumni faculty association. bernard zakheim on the left died in 1985. the importance of the history of medicine in california is acknowledged, recognized and undisputed even by the university of california san francisco. ucsf representatives described frescoes california treasure and the jewel of university art collection. ucsf draft environmental report issued last week on july 13, 2020 admits the series is a historical resource and the proposal to remove it, substituting a digital

representation would be a significant impact for purposes of the californian environmental quality act. beyond its high artistic value the history of medicine in california is -- exceptionally rare. the series is associated with the lives of persons significant to our past, bernard zakheim, ucsf dr. chauncey leek and not to mention historic figures. the frescoes represent his most significant work. thank you, that concludes my presentation. >> supervisor peskin: thank you mr. labounty. that's probably one of the more educational moments that this committee has gotten in quite

some time. thank you colleagues for your indulgence. mr. newman, your presentation is next. let me just be clear with my colleagues and members of the public. my conversation early on prior to introduction of this resolution to initiate with the university of california, mr. newman, was such that i'm very clear that u.c. would like to preserve, save,