will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotteannounce that your time is up and take the next person queued t and slowly and if you care to state your 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 off during these proceedings and at this time i would lik president dimond here, vice president moore here, commissioner braun imperial here. commissioner. so here. commissionermissioner mcgarry. thank you. commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for

continuance and b for case numbers 2023. hyphen 003652c, u, and are for the property at 3901 noriega street, authorization and variance are proposed for continuance to septemberer 2024 hyphen8 200 capp street conditional use authorization i 2024. item three, case number 2023hen 007010qa at 1310 junipero serrad. conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to october 17th, 2024 and item four, case num006356q. hyphen pierce street. conditional use authorization is continuance. members of the public. this is yourion on any of these matters proposed for continuanc matter of continuance, you need to come forward, public comment is closed and your continuance you. commissioners to continue all items as second, thank you, commissioners, on that motion to continue items as proposed., high commissioner. so iissioner imperial

i commissioner moore commissioner president diamond i so moved commissioners that passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar areby the planning commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote. separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and con a separate item at this or a future hearing item number 2024. hyphen number 502 conditional use authorization itemer 2019 hyphen authorization item seven, 002929q at 737 irving street. conditional use authorization and item eight case number 2024 hyphen 005931 pca for the 2024 code. corrections planning code and building code. code amendments. members of the opportunity to address the commission and request that any oesf ]fthi/ of consent and considered later today. again, you need forward. seeing none public comment is closed

and your consent calendar is now before you. commissioners commissioner imperialto approve all items. second, thank you, commissioners approve your consent calendar commissioner mcgarry commissioner williams, i commissioner commissioner imperial i commissioner more i and commission president dimond i so moved commissioners that motion passes u 7 to 0 placing us under commission matters land acknowledgment. the commissionunceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who territory as guests, we recognize that we working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respectsg the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank ten

consideration of adoption draft minutesuly 18th, 2024, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commiss. seeing none public comment is closed and your minutes are now before you commissioner to adopt the minutes. on that motion to adopt the minutes, commissioner mcgarr i commissioner imperial i commissioner moore i and co president dimond i so movedhat motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. item 11 commission comm start first i want to welcomeer, sean mcgarry, i will tell you that i 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 k my last hearing. after much thought, i have declined to accept the mayor's offer to renominate me for of you know, i have two brand new baby one is five weeks old and and i want

the flexibility to help out their parents. i have no intention of being of moving to la. i absol francisco, but i do want the flexibility to beence in their lives, and that is inconsistent with the and the weekly schedule of this commission. for the past 40 delight to juggle career, kids, community and public service and the last five to prioritize public service by serving it's been such an honor to do so. but for the next to prioritize my family. so a number of thank you's for having nominated me several times and to the board for having affirmed my seat on this i ill shout out to the tech department, for allowi me to hear what's going on. as most, i suffer from significant hearing loss, and without the with jonah's request to come up with better and have otherwise been able to hear, and therefore i couldn't have director hillis miss waddy and all of the conviction

of their positions. analysis that they produce in the staff reports us every week, and for answering my never endi jonas, your skill at that this commission runs smoothly is just not to be all your work and a special thank you to the for your phone callsor showing up. it's your participation that makes this process what it is. and finally to myt shown to each other and for the wil openness, to other people's it's been one of the joys and the five years. and i have truly enjoyed that. i will miss it all. especially at a time when we're working soar h use every land use two tool we have in the economy, create housing opportunities for everybody, attract visitors, and a special shout out to meet you all.

okay, vice president moore couldn't say it better. she will to follow, and i will personally very much miss her she comes with experience. she comes with a courageous voice, and she personality that cares. and i do times in our lives when we need to make a decision, andz i truly and deeply respect her to choose a personal path in her after she has given a lot to the community and a lot wish you the best. you will be missed mature voice is definitely needed to balance often come from different positions, but we deeply respect what we with each other in a caring way to deliver the best we can. here as president, as vice president thank you soou by your first name. you will be seriously missed and all the best. but we will not lose touch because we know each. thank you. so lovely. thank you. commissioner braun first, i just want to say welc commission,

president diamond so impressed by yourth city. and i know that serving on thisomion, you've said is, you know has been a lifelong dream. and taken very seriously. and so you're definitely i'm definitely going, and i'm going to i hopefully we'llllions about, you know, what is best fo debating that. and i've always appreciated that d served as president. so thank you so i really appreciate your service. thank you so much for comments, commissioner imperial commis definitely miss you. i deeply respect you and the knowledge that you have brought here in the planni. i truly enjoy the dialogs that weat we have, and although there are times that we don't see things eye to eye, i. i'm very proud of what the commission can bring, to this big contribution to that as well. and so years at this point seems like long but it felt like you could have continued,

but i'm very spending time with your family, and you're really will miss you so much. thank you. so moved. thank you much, let's see, commissioner williams. thank you. sue. i, you're going to be deeply missed on this commissionnce and your knowledge, nothing gets past you, and, you know i and, i wish you all the. well, you know the best for you and your you know, i wish, like, like like. commissioner didn't have to go because i think there's big hole in the commission, but having to do what you have to do, youust want to say, thank you. i respectect you very much. and you know, thank you for and just thank you. thank you. that means a great deal to president diamond, it's been honor to

have this onboarding experience shown your warm welcome and extremely detail oriented to make sure i know everyo push. so i really appreciate that. you for the best. helping your daughtere two grand kids. it's probably harder than serveo help. offering nanny services if you need to offering. i would likego to la echo with my fellow commissionersréensibility is your unique expertise in your decades long service, both in your professional businessvolunteer capacity for our city, the land use subct offer to our commission, it will be really, re missed, she had caught every single typo, every single missing paragraph that we have hours. i am just so appreciated and i hope that we kind of you know, carry on the torch.

so you never left us. and i wish you feel the best and enjoy your family. thank you so much, commissioner. so vice president, vic moore i wanted to, actually welcome mr. mcgaruse focus on, president to wholeheartedly welcomeis group it is not an, and we'll just do what we need tond welcome to the club. thank you. yes. oh commissioner. imperials thank you, president diamond? sorry. mcgarry. mcgarry and welcome commissioner mcgarry. and,ing forward, this is a very robust. we usually have a robust conversation here, andg forward to hear your contribution here as well, but also want to bring up, you that i know we're going

to be in the recess i know that the planning department has been of putting out informational hearings when it comes to thet, especially in the expanding housing choice program. and so i thought that and also we from the from one of the coalition talking about whether we can the update on expanding housing choice, and particularly and this isfor me, i think we've brought up the issues during the expanding hearings, the issue on the small same time, the issues of the tenant displacement, also in 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 inrate forum, in a separate hearings, because let's also in of small business, i think there are things that we not thoroughly have a hearing about like to have more updates on that as to

what theection of the small businesses, and also in terms the in the subject of the demolition as. so, so that's i hope that that'sthing that the commission we can put in in the month of september, they're proposing in september 1926. but i also would like to hear what what calendar would look like in september. i want to give one other shout out.rney's office, we get incredible le, have so much respect for the le that they provide with us so that we can design conditions proposed legislation with confidence, th staying within the law. so thank you tohx. if there's nothing further indulge me for one moment to also echo the words of yournt diamond your thoughtful and calm voice was much appreciated in this chamber. so thank you and wishing you all the best in your in the next chapter thank you so much. department matters item 12 director's announc

you. jonas, i don't have any director's announcements but i would time to also, echo the, just appreciation. tremendous appreciation for you commissioner diamond first, and want to appreciate and thank you for how respectful you've been staff staff has a lot on their plates, and i from the, like, most sincere place that staff really appreciates with which you reach out to them they're not put on the spot so that they can prepare thoughoughtful questions that you've brought up. so i really wanted know, as a result of that that you apackets because sometimes it feels like we spend a lot of time writing things that ner reads, so we always know that with you, i know that you have gotten all and you know everything that's in there. so i think that's really meaningful last lastly on sort of a personal note, it's been r how much it's clear that you really care asagree on policy matters fr but you really do always bring us back and hold us accountable for good, good governance and really caring about ournd the citizens of san francisco's experience working with us and

so that's something that's to my heart. and so i appreciate how much you bring it remind us of how, how important that is. so for all of t you, your your shoes are too too big to be filled, and you will be missed, but also an exciting chapter for you to enjoy your grandbabies. thank you for those wonderful comments. i, i know that every commissioner up here reads the staff reportsst the biggest. i'm just the biggest nudge. right. we know you , so we appreciate that. thank you and then and thenexcited to have you as well big shoes to fill here. so we're really excit you in this next phase when one when one door closes, another opens. just to follow up on commissioner imperial's been in the loop on the, exact schedule but i will for sure to the housing choice team and relay your request for a september hearing. sure. it 13, review of past events at the board of supervisors and the board of appeals. there was no historic preservation commi yesterday, good afternoon commissioners. aaron star manageairs.

thank you, commissioner diamond, for your work. we've truly appreciated your voice up there. you will be missed. welcome. it to be some good crack on it, but, anyway, so thisnsidered the landmark designation of the raiat harvey milk plaza by gilbert baker. the hpc heard this item on may 15th and recommended approval to the board of supervisors, during thhere were about a half dozen public commenters, all intion. supervisor mandelman made the entire prese specifies the flag should fly at full staff for 24 approved unanimously by tom be added as co-sponsor, after which the ordinance was unanimously to the full board. then the full board. this wal appointment for amy campbell was adopted, as was the mayoral appointment for sean mcgarry. so as you can then the landmark designation for the rainbow flag at harvey milk plaza passed its first street. and that's all i have for you today. i don't see the zoning administrand have no report from him, so we can move on comment at this

time, members of the public on items of interest to the public that are within the subject commission, except agenda items with respect to agenda items, your opport be afforded when the item is reached in speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. hi. welcome commissioner mcgarry and commissioner president diamond bon voyage. good luck. maybe you'll come back kindergarten. so anyway, that's something to think about. good afternoon. georgia swedish welcome again, ? sfgov on the computer. oh there it is. so this on the big screen. this is whatt s public comment. this is my commentary about alterations that are demolitions, which i've been talking about for a very long time, this one, you can see the before, during and after it's currently for sale for $19 million. and my problem with this is tlcs in the record anywhere, either on the pim or at the still for sale. it's been for sale for quite anow what the story is with that, but i think it's part of the problem that happened in the early years

of section 317út w lot of lax or scant oversight, and that's a said, oh, and the permit was only valued another issue that i've always had. this really got me that were demolitions, they had these really low permit values always amazed me. and it's in d7 an seven over 7000ft!s. so here's the other one. and this is actually now they said it's off market. this is also $19,000. excuse me, $19,000 i wish $19 million. and originally sold in original house, which was third bayad can see it on if you go to the sf excuse me, redfin, you can see the original house, which is very interest, it was originally 3200ft!s. it's now 9700 horizontal and vertical expansionsith facade change. this one two. no demo calc on the pym or in the plans odbi records. that's con

there's greater scrutiny, but it's still aroblem. the clarifications have been fixed but the demo calcs enough and here's why. this is a current project underway right now. it's demo calcs were veryout that, but i will. some other point. so the first one was july 3rd. note the tw a little bit of pieces of the original house left. it's only one piece left there on the left side. and here's te. it's a horizontal vertical expansion with facade change. and this to me is why the demo. if they'd been adjusted, as i suggested in letters, this thing would have been a demolition. so thank you very much. and that's it. good luck eileen bogan coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. first commissi, not goodbye, farewell. we hopeep in touch with you. thank you for your service. excited your

two grandchildren, here specifically to welcome, commissioner mcgarry. and we e rules committee, thank you. and we look f t working with you in the future. and here, a welcome to her when shein case commo j and williams feel left out. welcome although you're not, you know, sort of still you've been here a while but againnk you for your service. and commissioner mcgarry, thank you for what's heavy lift. but thank you for taking this on. thank you. good afternoon. also welcome to newest and farewell to outgoing commissioner sue dimond. cynthia gomez, seniorre. local two. so i've been at local and in that capacity i've been in this commission before, this commission countless t remember having to deal with the situation like now. so most of us, and i'm pretty sure most would not consider a $3,200 a month

hotel room with no common space no kitchen, no shared space to affordable housing, but operators of the bay hotel on eighth street wouav happen, and they don't even want to get you to for you all to get a chance to weigh half years ago, the operator of the bay illegally converted th inofiolation of the planning code. enforcement staff got windis. the hotel was told to stop. they ignored that kept issuing new leases. anyway, allowed the chance to legalize this illegal conversion. they sance with the code. they were told their plandeadlines to submit code compliant plansd of lather, rinse, repeat. and duringha time, any fines that they were entitled to have assessed against them were frozen. andued for more than two years. an outside observer would be forgiven for attempt to game the system and avoid fine until this year, when the hotel now is 56 of these rooms at $3,200 a month. ag open

space, and they want this to be counted as a quote unquote affordable housing project. they want theirrovals to be granted by right and without intervention, they might get ps. so we have set up a meeting with the planning director. we've fighting this on behalf of our members because our members aren't just hotel residents. and they've been insulted. they've been insulted by havingng told that a hotel room at this rate, is supposed to be considered good enough for them as far as affordable housing iserned, and they're being insulted by watching their employer violate repercussions. so i remember just last week here , asked some very thoughtful and thorough questions about citytheir access to affordable housing programs and so ou be an opportunity for you all to hear this project and hear you can ask those kinds of tough questions again, and so that you can fight for them. thank you. okay. last call for general public general public comment is can move on to your regular calendar for item hyphen 005624 pca. and oh, i'm sorryugh the

chair. if we may go back to our calendar, we failed to allow the acting zoning administrator continue. item one b. liz if you could. i'm sorry. yes, onistrator will continue that item to september 19th. thank you. now we can move calendar for item 14, case number 2024, hyphen 0 for the central neighborhoods. large residents sued and corona heights. large res code and zoning map amendments. thank you. audreying department staff for our new commissioner center, commissioner seanx mcgeary. i am, a stafftive affairs division. and i will probably often at this commission. staff presentation, i do have some new resolutions that have one small drafting error. these we email, but those are hard copies fo i believe we have calvin ho from on behalf of the sponsor. good afternoon, commissioners. my

name is calvin ho. i am a legislative aide for supervisor mandelman. the ordinance before you se goals. firstly, following the redrawing of supervisorial districts in valley was added to district eight. we want to expand the central neighat all district eight or all of district eight is covere to the similarities between the central neighbods an like to delete the latter and instead have toods should uniformly cover the district. this expansion will discourage going to interrupt for one second. can you slow down just a bit? yes secondly, due to the neighborhoods and corona heights suds, we would like to deleteave, central neighborhoods should uniformly cover the construction of new monsterho it harder to construct these homes in p c corona heights sud. now for some background, insor jeff sheehy established the corona heights. large residents from residents about the construction of monster homes in the! neighborhood. in 2022, supervisor mandelman established the central neighborhoods large resident address the issue of monster homes throughout the rest of districtsilain

nature, and seek to accomplish tgo of discouraging the creation of monster homes. they both contain the same which is to protect and enhance existing neighborhood character encosities, and scale and provide for thorough assessment of propos l scale residences that could adversely impact the area and affordable housingome differences in how they went aboutorona heights large residents study required siu authorization if the building not went beyond 3000 square foot limit, it did not set a unit or building size. central neighborhoods. large residents should establish a, or 1.25 f.a.r per unit above which siu authorization was required. it also included a cap ofunit size, not the building size. although the mechanisms two suds, the overall goals are the same2023. following the passage of senate bill 423, supervisor mandelman worked with planning staff and;y office to include amendments to these suds. as part of the constraints reduction ordinance. t both suds will sunset on december 31st 20 to interrupt again. yes. you don't have and you're it's a very detailed presentation and wey want to get it all. so just slow down a bit. so sorry commissioners okay, so after this date no

expansion or new construction of a residential building or dwelling unit shall exceed 3000ft!s w for the expansions of less than 15% over t that is my presentation, commissioners. and i'll be present for questions to audrey. okay thank you. calvin. again. audreyg+ maloney, planning department staff, as mr. ho already stated the proposed ordinance that's in front of both our planning code and our zoning map to expand the boundaries of th. large residence, special use district, or sud to all of the lots within the sud, rather than which is just rh zoned lots. it would corona heights large residence sud an result merge it into the central neighborhoods large residence sud?g. i won't go too detailed into the did so, but just to reiterate that the original sudd in april of 2022 when that proposed ordinance was commission in late 2021, the large home to all rh districts citywide, not

just those eight. at that time, the commission voted toe the ordinance, and they also asked the sponsor to focus these controls on athe city that actually need them, as well as looking int to encourage density. supervisor mandelman did end up taking these into consideration and as a result, created the s before you today, over the past two and a half years, the staff responsible for implementing the sud have noted significant succ large single family home expansions.applications for a cu to exceed the size others opted to stay below the threshold and incorporate an said, we remain a little bit skeptical abwhethe rented out as separate units. as you know we control over what a property owner does with their extra u and additionally, once the objective standards through sb 423 become effective on speculate that that 3000 square foot hard cap may effectively encourage increasing densityll

incentivize the addition of adus or other units, as there was with the cu process that the planning commission had the review over in the sudreated. all of that said, the department generally central neighborhoods large residence study, which is to encousing at compatible densities and scale and to curb family residences. the department agrees that the projects alreadlarge units without increasing their density shouldiscouraged. we also agree that generally, the size of a sensible indicator of cost, but it's imperative that size of units. we need to be e moderately sized units in what is otherwise a fairly low high resource part of our city. asch, thdepartment recommends that the commission adopt a re with modifications. we have three modifications we're. the first is to not includehe calculation of gross floor area. this was original study. the sponsor took our suggestion in the last two and a half years we've seen it doesn't fact can be

used to game the square footage lc second is to allow one dwelling unit in be up to 4000ft!s. if the project also adds a least 800ft!s. again, we're hoping that this will be so increases in density once the objective standards become effective. first. and lastly, we areor the purposes of calculating a units gross square multi-unit buildings that shared spaces not beed. this is to help make it easier for staff in multi-unit buildings to not figure out how to divide up shared spaces when determining whether they'ved their cap for their maximum square footage. so with that i'm available for any questions, as is mr. ho. thank you. okay. with that, we should open up public comment. members is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. again you need to come forward. hi georgia. again, i don't know the correspondence, so he so i don't have to give him this copy that i brought like. would you like the copy i

brought today? okay, good. i'll try at pretty much said everything i wanted to sayn that memo, and i think i think, mrs. mal good memo because she broadened it out to look at everything. i d

san city, one level over garage. they'll take they'll put a unit in there. it's just as reasonable to expect that could happen as somebody would take a 4000 square foot house and put a u to somebody's brother or sister. it's not likely, if you're going to spend 4 to $9hat you're going to rent out an 800un square foot unit, you put your gym equipment down there. whatever you put your media room down there, you put whatever thing you have that was, to me, a inequality that we see in this city nowthat's it. i really appreciated this memo. i comments on sbs called out, that's a good thing because sb it was imposed on san francisco and no one else is really appalling and very unfair never, ever, ever have happened. and i don't u being punished for something when you've got the pipeline that this commission has worked so hard, and

i guess that's it. thanks a lot. have a great summer break. september 12th. thank you. it's nice to be name is ellen friedman and i'm a resident i've been a resident there for over 35 i love the neighborhood. and since w to the neighborhood, we've seen enormous changes specifically with the last few years and the explosion of ho specifically on belgrave avenue. but reallyll around the neighborhood. and as a result housing prices and rental, rental of diversity of people in that neighborhood. when we movedt in, it was mostly teachers, public servants, nonprofit community leaders, and most of them have leftd because they can't afford to stay. so this is really important. about, capping the development of do support the goal

of the city to encourage more moderand infill of current resti homes does not advance these goals. i can't see it. it hasn't happened in our neighborhoodallow the city to benefit from the diversity of residents income that we need for our city to thrive. ordinance and urge its expansion of the, square footage to it's really hard for me to understand how that's going to benefit the diversity of housing that we need and supportderately priced homes. i would also like to suggest that the commission consider an additional special use homes over neighborhoods in order to compensate the city for some of these homes require in terms of utilities and the diversity in our neighborhoods. and perha fee could be applied to supporting moderately income housing. i would thanks to supervisor mandelman for, really beingvailable to talk

about this issue and his strongr the need for diversity in our neighborhoods. so thank you.ssioners. my name is mark cole valley at 1254 stanyan street and in favor of, supervisor mandelman's you know, to 3000ft!s, kind of three issues that i see. one, of neighborhood character, preserving as much asaracter. particularly in terms of small, smaller homes. second is the affordability homes are increased in size, itcreases the cost of housing. one example is that, 89 belgrave, which is up the street froms, which has seen the building of a number of, the previous homes sold for 2.5 million in

2012, which is still high, but after the demolition and the new the new million. so that was a 1010 times increasen the cost of that property. and there are there are proposals to do more of this in cole valley, oneet itself that we have, a developer who wants to, you know expand so it does decrease affordability. the third thing that i think it must do, you know, according t land cost, the land pricescan, if a developer knows they can buy a on home, demolish it and build a $20 million home that be going up because of these homes in cole valley, esp, but also on other streets. so i just see character affordability and increasing the land cost in cole valley. so i would support supervisor mandelman's, expansion of thell and also limiting, these large dwellings

two 3000ft!s, not 4000ft!s. so i'm gary peterson. i also live on stanyan street. you know, we have such unique neighborhoods in san francisco where we're fortunate and people are attracted to them, and that's why they move that if you come into a neighborhood, you were its unique qualities and what the neighborhood has to and tearing down a house and building these homes is taken away fromnow mark and i and some of our neighbors, we've all we've remodeled our homes in the luckily, everybody around us has been very tasteful and respectful in what they did with their homes. they they original style of the home neighbors. we actually were able and double the square footageithin the footprint. so i think people, if they want to model, modernize it, you know to do it.

but i think with a clever architecture, they can neighborhood and maintai and the character of the neighborhood support of the expansion of this.ervisomandelman's thing here. so, hopefully we can protect this neighborhood and maintain the quality that it has. thanks a lot. okay, last call for. , public comment is closed and this matter is now b. thank you, i'll start us off here i'm rily on staff's three recommendations. and the first and the third seem pretty easy to me. they reflect staff's review and implement. and they need these i continue to review and process in a sensible fashion we've heard, is more controversial, and, you know, i hear all of the neighborhood requests foron of neighborhood character, a term, by the wayot

supposed to use anymore. and i have any number of levers that pull in order to housing and try to keep it affordable and supervisor mandelman i this particular 3000 square foot cap, equally, affectedn= by the fact that we need to increase the density in these neighborhoods, this is a pretty high resource neighborhood, and we need to find ways sized adus, not studios that we sometimes see that are, it's r to believe those are ever going to be rented out a can be a family size two bedroom unit. recognize that, you know some of them may not be rented owner, but they may be rented out by a sub children, which seems like a very likely scenario. they in-laws, that i amstaff's suggestion and i think it's worth you know, i, i would mak, and i think that staff's people to go to 4000 but

only inan 800 square foot adu is a really sound. situation. and see if we can sized infill housing. so i would be in support of the ordinance with the three recommendations. commissioner imperial, thank you, president dimondth know, the original legislation by supervisor mandelman. and, you know, we we've seen a demolition or a tantamount demolition of a home which is being maximized that is twice of the size. and that affects the market. wheng into the single family home market as well.his staff analysis and i appreciate put a good analysis on this, and looking into the there is a statement here that at 3000 square foot in san francisco, it's not a notably of course, i think we , we know what a 3t does, it is seem large. so i am actually baffled

with tha. with the recommendation number two, and i understand i think what the what we're you know, i also way i would support a recommendation that's allowing up of 800 square foot. i the 4000 square foot seems, a single familye. and, i don't t original legislation is trying to do agree with, you know, bee of like the goals here to increase density and to add the commission we have done that. so many ti always negotiating on the, on the, on the sece, i would, you know i mean, i would support recommendation number two if the, yo maximize maximum is 3000 square foot, and, and i think i get the logic. what why you're trying to do 4000 squareot. because that's kind of like the cap of the regional hat you

know, i, i think i understand the rationale that, but i think in terms of the spirit of the legislation limit the master homes that we're trying to think that's something that we should align with. i do have number three in terms of the calculation of the gross square footage in multi-unitred spaces shall not be included, where will that calculation go if they will not be includednique situation for this sud, because it's something talking about the units gross square footage for th that shared space doesn't necessarily need to go anywhere. because of the fact that the limit here is 3000ft!s per unit. so we really are just concerned space. if there's a calculated into the total for this purpose tha of shared, so much calculating just the livable units, the independent living space. correct. so for example, the corona heights calculate the entire building square footage when it's looking

he central neighborhoods sud has always looked at the individual unit and hard for staff in multi-unit buildings to determine how to ca divide it up. thank you. so in one and three. unless we we change the number to up to 3000ft!s. so that's where at. i hope to hear what other commissioners say as wellknow, i'm i'm in favor in gene you know, creating this hard cap of a much more objective standard, we have conditional use authorization process for larger uni de a good job as a commission in getting pe add additional units, but in some ways, i feel like that was just sort of a trade off that came fonditional use authorization, so i want to explore recommendation a little bit more detail in a second, but i first hav of 1 in 3. so, on include accessory garage space in the calculation i'm curious, i just want to make sure that, you know, to my mind,

i might be misunderstanding some of this's a possibility that in a way, the unit is now getting even bigger. space is not being incorporated into the unit calculation. so n 3000ft!s on top of the garage. so is that is that an would now work? you know previously the garage would have been included in that 3000. yes. it could right. so in the situation where you already have a garage an attached garage right now and expand your home under today's law for the garage counts against you. into that garage, that's what weing would happen with this, is that people, instead of trying to expand the physical building envelopeq, would say, we don't really need a two car garage. let's actually jule space into the garage area because it won't count.coour total living space, so it won't be considered an expansion because result, unfortunately, was especiallys, when there might be a two car garage, or th one car garage or a garage space. parking lot parking garage with multiple spaces. might

all of a sudden be designated as space goes towards that unit, or even the spaces goes towards that unit, so that the larger might be proposing expansion as well doesn't have that countedmally count garage space when wross floor area for other purposes. in planning applications. it was an experiment with this sud. bucommissioner that for the purposes of this sud, because we're saying garage spaces wouldn't count. that's what we're proposing here. itowable gross floor area if they already not wanting to expand their living space into that ga that what that leads me to wonder is, this is where i just don't outs of the planning code. maybe as well as i should but what are somebody doesn't come in with a very large garage, in additione foot space? it seems like that keep the garage at a modest size. but, ar there other controls that would place limitations on that parkingximums? yes, we for sure have pa a

control that's in place, so yeah. so that in place, then i'm comfortable sure i understood a little bit better. and sorry i didn' time, getting in the weeds as always, on recommendatir three. i'm i'm comfortable with the spirit of this recommendation, to not include shared spacesio i heard what you said about how in one of the districts, the not included in the calculation of the unit sizes double check to make sure. can this sure there isn't there aren't big holes in this that it can there is something being designated as a shared space that is quite large, but realistically being used by, you know, one of the units.i'm just looking for reassurance that that wouldn'. i'm happy to chime in, you know, i this too, where people could pick it apart. you know, i thinkraou know behind a garage. storage space would be the only thing, again this is part of the reason we're asking to exempt it is clearly discontiguous from the unit, bu exactly how in the real world it's and we

end up getting into these arguments with applicant space deeded to? how is this being used? is it shared storagetenants? is it deeded to one? and it and it, canilding. it can lead into a challengingi think our thought on this is as we're openg this legislation, looking at ways that we can implement it better whatever that we land on, to really have it be the pure contiguous primary living space and so that's that's why we had that to make implementation a lot easier most of the time. what we common vestibule, you know there's a staircase up, it's pretty obvious that that's not part of anyone's living space. in the legislation that we're to exclude that. so part is a little bit of just clarifying the language. so that we're real looking at is in the unit, the storage spaces are kind if you will. but that would beon. okay. and i know that there are plenty of examples with storage spaces, but that's a broader issue.port orecommendation three. if it does pass with this recommendation i justuggest that we keep an eye on what's actually happening. as always.

okay. and then i think i mostly just have comments of allowing up to 4000ft!s as an incentive 800 square foot unit. i come down more on th really does seem in opposition to the in legislation. we've gone from a, you know 3000 square foot per unit cap to something where now say it's a single family home property i would love to see a second unitn it but we're talking about 4800ft!s in the building, which is a pretty 3000 square foot cap that was sort of, so i to craft that. i'm not what commissioner imperiale what you meant in terms of the if we it at 3000ft!s, i don't know what the incentive is to provide that point. so i'm not sure that that's working for me as some sort of would like to hear more now i'm not leaning in favor of recommendation thank you. i basic math question here. if you don't mindy question just to clarify on your recommendation number a house can

go upal. no, it means that a house could go up one 800 square foot at could be more than 800ft!s, but there would be two units on the property. the maximum size of the largest be 4000ft!s. the minimum size of th be 800ft!s. okay, so in that parcel there's two be 4800. the building would be buildi recommendation number three is the shar space. that doesn't count does it include the egress pathway. and deck, it would be dedicated as gross. what our fits, our definition floor area. so outdoor decks i don't believe count in the area. but something that's within the interior wallsiss waddy mentioned, shared stairwells is t entrance to this building is one common entrance with a hallway and then mayb of the units, you have

to walk up a set of stairs. that's what we're talking shared space. so the building in your a 800 square foot or larger second unit, a maximum 4000 square foot unit. and that is meant for common access. it's accessible by. that's including exiting path that is required by building code. correct. okay. so those will be okay. so is it that this given parcel could kind of 5000ft!s or 5500 because, require two means of egress and the common common staircase, the whole pathway toyes. axi it could be even larger than that, because againnit, it's a minimum of 800ft!s. if they have the lot area is an overly large lot of 5000ft!s. they cou many as our allowable building envelope can fit that. the building itself could be as large as that with the allowable densities for that zon district. okay. thank you for the information. may i ask one thing? i'm sorry. i think you might want to chime in later,

but for this particular, neighborhood, corona one that is in this proposal, would you say percentage of like really large lots and what are what are the average lot sizes? that's a great question is when we first developed the corona heights sud, one of developed is because a lot of them were substandard lots becausef all of the slopes on the lots. it's a very hilly a fairly expansive area, the area that the sud covers. so i think you can generally say flatlands are going to be your standard. by and large,2500 square foot lot miss what you might be able to elaborate more any anything more than our average of lar lots. sorry, i don't have the top of my head, but this neighborhood is fairly diverse in its lot sizes. there are definitely, some much larger lots, particularly in corona heights. of through lots where there's frontages, both on the sort of the tops, y lot and the bottom and a lot of to exceed 2500ft!s and already have homes that are, you knowstablished

here, the other point i going to mention is to keep in mind this ordinance is also expanding beyond into other zoning districts. there's not a ton of other properties that are you know, rh is here, but we shouldn't presume that two uni could be in a building. so there could be a multi unit know, if you were in, i don't know if miss maloney sorts, but there could be zoning districts here that allow more more density than j two units. and this might be helpful. this is slightly out of date. it's from analyzing this original zoning controls, where they would apply to s citywide, the caveat that i said in in 2021 again, is that this is not perfect data. this is the best we the assessor information and the calculations we can do with what we get the overhead. sfgovd, please. all right lot sizes. this is average unit sizeso in multi units buildings we're looking at slightly you know takinghe asor has

given us as the building size and number of units. the assessor tells us are in t very imperfect is going to include common spaces in this calculations. but as you can see, certain unit size that is much larger than other indication of lot size as well, though not 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 captions here. so it says that average home size is 1449ft!s. whereas our twin peaks area about the same at 1461 castro upper maet, which makes sense because we have a little density there is,1342ft!s, and that matches with some of neighborhoods like glen park and dimond heights. okayhank you. i have one last question.t's kind of related to what miss

walti was mentioning. lhe, lott just for two units, so there will be possibil be a four plex or so in this recommendation. what is each of the unit maximum size could be sure. so if i this is also in your case reports as one of the exhibits we have where the sud currently applies, where it currently applies. and then on the right we have where the only with the boundaries but also with our zoning districts. so anything that's no pale yellow, like what you're seeing on the left ares would apply to which includes a little bit of do south west side. and all of our purple, which i our nc t and ncds, in our zoning is form based. so the money, the amount units you can build on the lot depends on the size of

your lot and in generally between it's generally about per lot. but again it just depends. it's not a straight okay. yeah. so our ncds like nc one which i'm not have nc one here we might in cole valley, lot maximums are numeric, just like our districts, and the four plex whereas in residential districts it does. so nc three districts you can build more units. numerically controlled. okay. yeah. andt this, just with the zoning map pulled up it looks like there's nc one. there's for re& there's two, there's r1, r2, r3 r1, rm two, nc three and upper marketere's a pretty diverse swath of different types of density controlled and some are density d controlled. okay. tha. and the 3000 foot limit which of those districts under the proposed ordinanceof them.

so even in an nc nc three, your building it's unit per unit per unit. correct. and we did look at that when we were analyzing this. it's fairly rare that we have a proposal for a especially a single familthree district especially of a 3000 or. and so this is per unit is the thik that's particularly important. the fact that it is shifting over to congveri why recommendation one and three are especially important is more multi-unit buildings applicable. thank you. commissioner williams. i want to thank the commissioners for all learned just just listening, up here, i've, i've got different insight packet, i mean, as far as, as far as equity, you know spirit of the proposal is good, keeping these homes do size that is not small, substantial so i think

th reasonable, given your 1 in 3 even kind ofme, gives that flexibility. and then, you know, how, how neighborhoods. i think is, is really important to focus foon the price of of, of a single family home is, is likedq c, we have to do that, families are leaving this is just becoming know, if you're not very wealthy you. it'sve here. and so, i, i appreciate, supervisor mandelman's, and, i think the recommendations one and three are are going to support recommendation two.00,

given, given the.7 i think that's that's reasona. and so that's all i want to say. vice president moore, this is an extremely difficult issuem?, and i appreciate everybody's comments and more questions. you ask. th i want to ask, few months ago, and i'm not exactly sure weeks we had a building where that was there was an adu on the second floor while the third and first floor were occupied by the unit owner. however,ese two units were connected by an elevator. and while one can say that the elevator would not be going operable to floor two, it did connect potentiallyor throughout the building. how would you calculstair? is that a common space or is that a whatever? we have seen several of those. and i'm kind of curious how these little new

tricks. and i will preface this with saying thisn anywhere, but i'm going to go with my gut of how presented to me, i think if the elevator was keyed as being only, which is often the case in this scenario that we see, that part of the primary units square footage would count that if there was a stair that truly both, you know both households w have to walk in from the street and walk the star door, that would be excluded. so in this particular case, it could could be interpreted either way, i getting backin front of us, i am verythree. i do have big questions about number two, particularly since this codify that the adu has to be used as an adu immediately at completion of project. and for th see any i do not see anying a backdoor for this as being another support of one and two and one and three, very very pleased supervisor mandelman opened this up to a broader consideration that is

also an easier for theso those would be my points. i like to makeqw are ready, can i ask one secon you. did staff look at other ways, to createentives to encourage the increase in density pass that over to miss. thank you, president diamond. that's a great question. we've been examining this problem for a long time through many dif come to us through ordinances from supervisors and direction of the commission, i think we stand that the best way to incentivize density carrot and the stick to limit the home size, if you're going to try to build something that's a large singlehome or one unit on a lot that's zoned for more zoned , we should be only allowing you to go size before you are essentiallyf at least a minimum size. we were trying to take that same seen in other efforts in the past that have potentially maybe beennd simplify that in this scenario, wha in the first two and a half years

of implementing this s@ forced applicants would build an adu if that adu was under awas questionable how it would. but applicants that come to us with the project already as originally proposed, creating an adu, especially size, it feels like that adu is a better word legitimate. it's an adu that actually feels like a sizable home. it's not going to be used as an em, and it actually may be if it won't be individually rented out. and so that's kind of what we were trying to get at with this idea.00ft!s, we all agree is a very large home. so the difference between 4000ft!s in terms of affordability and being class, san franciscan doesn't feel like t difference. but if we can encourage somebody an 800 square foot home in this same high resource doors to more middle class accessible housing. soour in with that specific incentivetetional explanation. thank

you, vice president i interrupted, i'm going to go here, particularly i just came was talking to people about densification in europe, and it's approached very differently. so here's a current capacity of cities. their infrastructuren systems. they have. and in order tokq tions on how people could more efficiently live. in sizes. so you're starting to give the, perhaps taking a little less than expanding, because in order to accommodate more people with limited resources in infrastructure, etc, there is a way of carefully guiding that we sh still make them totally livable, and they all are space in order to accommodate more because at some point i would like to share with the, design and approaches to livability that we may not have explored. so i'm going to get to making a motion, on what's in front of

us, and i like to, make a motion that we support with modification one and three second. as may, may, may. because at this moment i think the motion isten with modifications. that's plural, not spand three only. i think that modification can b of the resolution. if this motion passes, i don't think we a intent. i think staff can handle that. okay if there's no further delibera is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a, but only those recommended by the department. one and three on that motion commissioner mcgarry. i'm torn because the two unit that will not exist going this way, approve, but staff recommendations one, two and three. so the motion on the table is for approval only

with recommendationsree right now. so so let me say that if this motion i would introduce another motion with one, two and commissioner. so. can you ask the motion on the table is a recommendation to approve with staff modifications, but only modifications one and three. andndicated if that if this motion fails she will someone else to make a motion that for approval with all of staff's modifications includingnumber two. thank you for giving me a few more seconds to think. so i vote, no. commissioner williams. yes, commissionerissioner. imperial. hi commissioner moore i and commissioner. president diamond. no. that motion passes 4 to 3 with commissioners mcgarry. so. and diamond voting againstll place us on item 15 for case number

2024. hyphen 005622 pca laboratory. uses. in the urban mixed use zoning district planning code amendments. goodoon, commissioners veronica flores, planning department staff and a briefe mcgarry. and thank you to president, commissioneriamond, the item before you is the laboratory mixed use or umu zoning district by supervisor walton. and unfortunately, we do not have anyone from the officethe hearing today. but i am joined by miss laurel arvanitidis. s correct the pronunciation for me later. she's from office of economic and workforce development and she will share amy presentation the proposed ordinance does primarily two things and the first is to revise the definition of laboratory to include biotechnology in listed examples, t to make laboratory uses a not permitted use in the zoning district as drafted, this le

proposed laboratory. this is an item that on june 13th and unanimously approved. been a ceqa appeal filed on this project and it has been scheduled for the b september, followed by the large project autho appeal at the board of appeals on october 9th. so appeal process, this proposed project at be vested through a building permit application in before the effective date of this legislation.kv$ there may also be other potentiallyed many of those are small enough to be counter and staff is just not aware of what those projects may be the department does ordinance. it is inconsistent w the general plan, and staff recommends that you adopt a recommendation of disapproval recognizes that the industry

the real world application of what people consider as different than what we have in our current code an, as currently biotechnology actie definition of laboratory does not change the definition. it merely illustrates an of this or all of this is already covered definition, some examples of this medical research, food chain testing, fertility specia again all of this fits under the definition.e proposed amendment does not change the implementation here. additionally, this amendment confusion between the overlapping definitions of laboratory versus and the department hopes tha, provide more effort to further clarifyr than just elongating the confusion between these terms.he staff report did outline some potential soti avoid these confusing definitions and instead focusingsed on land use. part of that solution w eliminate the life science

definition which again, just to the confusion regarding prohibiting laboratory uses within the zonit. i'll just start off by district is really intended to promote a vibrant mix ofaracteristics of the formerly industrial areas. it's meant to serve as a buffer betweenhe production, distribution and repair, octs within the eastern neighborhoods. the map in the shows that the umvue dispersed through various neighborhoods, so this amendment is really more far reaching and staff believes that are larger unintended consequenc, spans the just to name a few neighborhoods. an some of the neighborhoods that we do want to encourage laboratories. and the co is that by prohibiting laboratories within all of the umu districts, that this would then for nearby or pdr spaces

in the45uu proximity, and we would potentially price outms from the city. the department has, you know effort a number of years to preserve pdr uses and districts. so this proposed ordinance could unintentionally undo a lot of efforts. it also make it harder for theto attract and maintain commercial and industri newly emerging economic activities which goes against the. additionally laboratory developments and these types of activities employment opportunities. so it's not just those highly skilled technicians. there's also still technicians and other just support positions thatad degrees or years of experience. so weto be able to maintain the full breadth of the employment . and further, we do recognize that theronment has changed many jobs are n or even fully remote positions laboratoryses and laboratory positions are one of the rare

where employees really are required to come in, t saw in many of the public comments some research need to be tended to 24 over seven or need to accessible. so these employees areoming in to the facilities they really add to the street our local businesses and they do boost the local economy÷, staff also hears and und concerns represented from the dogpatch and potrero communities, but believes that there are other legislative achieve the types of uses that these neighborhoodses and that these other legislatix6 still continue to preserve and attract laboratory uses, while also protecting our pdr uses and pdr concern is the potential loss o corridor, zoning could require active along specific streets. this could also be sp out or required for laboratory developments, and this and other potential solutions were discussed in in the

recommendation today is that you a recommendation for disapproval. and invite miss laurel arvanitidis to also share a few comments. thank you. hi. i'm laurel auer, can you hear me with my laurel arvanitidis. i'm the director of office of economic and workforce development, and i thank you guys for allowtem, in my role, our team works to, stay and grow in san francisco. we areessful at this when we can demonstrate both a business friendly climate in san francisco and an ecosystemb which will be beneficial to the business. that's ansupport businesses that help them better execute their mi customers, and a strong workforce base$5 in evaluating this legisla that this moves away from af the work that we've been doing together to further these goals of improving our economic

climate and making sure that a diversity of businesses that employ in-person work opportunities can exist in san with you on this. we've passed proposition h business recovery act, we've passed the downtown streamliningn. we've passed the small business permitting improvement legislation. we' a lot of work on this and this us step backwards. as we reviewed the mentioned we were trying to understand what businesses would be told this part of our city. and these are businesses that businesses. so, testing labs that test our food chain, that helpheir nutrition labels that help marijuana, cannabis sies testing regulations, labs that test medical devices so that they can safely be implanted in patients, medical labs t doctors with ivf treatments and other treatments, pregnancy testse sure that the blood you donate can safely be used byspecimen testing labs material testingat windows and tall buildings be able to withstand

can confirm that and they can comply with those regulations. here in san t these are all labs that support a diversity other businesses and existing in san francisco., jobs across the spectrum of workforcelab technicians, field service jobs for professionals with more microbiologists, research scientists, ecologists very important to the city and disrup this moment in time, as we're trying to bring and get as many in-person workers as possible, is concerning to uspò, please consider disapproval of this ordinance so we can make sure that our business climate can improve in san francisc okay. thank you. that concludes public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to a. if you're in the chambers, please come forward the room. sir. hello afternn. my name is helen chen. i am a molecular biologist

and a business owner. my company is called alexia and we are new drugs to treat colon and pancreatic cancer. i live and w. as an immigrant, the biggest thing that america can do is innovation and diversity access to laboratories is garage to do a crucial=t workshop to build prototypes so that we can improve human hein biotech businesses to thrive in san laboratories, we can foster creation of nnovations. and for my company, i mean developing we need funding agencies. when i had as, it's really hard to get anybody to i moved to san francisco. i got my co-founders here, and we wer millions of funding because i can tell them come and look at my+ because this is what we do, is something that's tangible. and i came in yesterday. he said, i will love old daughter, to come and see a young scientist can come out believe is true, and i really encourage you to consideroc, because i don't want

to work for a large pharmaceutical company. i have my own ideas and it's great t all this innovation being done here right here in san and also very supportive of my neighborhood. i talked to the shopkeeper, local liquor store from ramal bakery and just enjoy all local foods i don't. i hardly drive just because i live here, and i worry about the restaurants in my@ause, you know restaurants come and go and i take my friends do that because i don't have to drive an hour just work. so,you sincerely think about, how laboratories can biologists in the ways we want to improve our human health and also how we love our community, just like everyone good afternoon. my name is veronica schober, and i am biotech company based in san f appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today regarding the proposed

legislation to ban laboratory use in the urban mixed use district. actually i'm deeply concerned about this potential potentially negative consequences this legislation could have on both our globalys. such a ban would significantly hinder our collective effort to develop life saving medicines for o the biotech field, 24 over is essential to our work. i believe that progress that biotech industry has made so far is fact that scientists are able to live and work in the same place, in. if this legislation is many other startups will have to relocate from san only make it logistically challenging for us to perform our experiments, but also increase already high cial rate in the city. ad san francisco allows us to and such institutions as university of san francisco. very often we use very expensive and essential laboratory equipment located there. we participate in scientific discussions, attend meetings.

these opportunities are vital for advancing ourtion. moreover, biotech companies often engage with general public through events fosters intellectually stimulating and vibrant community. i urge the city of san francisco to recognize the significant brings to our community, and instead of restrictive legislation, i think you should consider support and nurture biotech industry in the city. thank you for your attention. hello. good afternoon. my name is kathleen molident of san francisco as well as a phd scientist. i'm support of laboratories in the urban mixed use in san francisco, i had the great fortune of landing on page street in the haight. and those four years that i lived there, i justerished, like that, mixed use sort of zoning successl my neighbors, but at the same time i was able to walk or take muni to work. so the dogpatch is the same sortts for mixed use today. i

think the 953 indiana street, nbc biolabs really bring like, folks are saying jobs, to an area that's already, well connected with public transportation an area that's walkable, you can grab or at the cheese shop and a place to linger. so the minnesota street art project. so i diverse, wonderful mixed use area. so i fully support laboratories being part of this urban mixed use properties. ande neighborhood is flourishing because of that and not in you. good afternoon, commissioners appreciate you, miss diamond for all your public new commissioner. thank you, my name is williams, junior, a board of supervisor, awarded community leader, local micro developer and the head of plaza eastum and long time resident of san francisco. please commission, i hope you adopt a no approval on

this matter. p revise definitions that were thoughtfully put in place projects in your district. this egregious attempt to in the umc zoning is not a goodyn for the for the city of san francisco. excuse me? its residentscro businesses. 700 indiana will help san francisco's bevy of sf's brightest creative minds. excuse me on positive ob come from university students having close, technology based laboratory facilities in close proximit apartments. as a fellow uc graduate, time management for students is everything. san francisco must get beacon of light and hope for the rest of the world, health care. i wonder today what is supervisor shamann motives are introduces such legislation? excuse me evenr the hard work completed by this amazing commission, i cry foul community advocates and several underfunded black small business owner down deplorable third street have all pleaded at different times withsupervisor shamann to introduce such legislation as, but not limited to local black developers, general contractors and partnerships with luxury

out of state corporations who take massive amounts of san states, to no avail. heas. so w play a political game simplysome of your own people potentially gaining an equal playing field. it'sig counterproductive in my opinion. i just want to briefly thank ihank excuse me, mr. douglas crawford. mr. robert of nbc bio labs most notably mr. ryan who has been community outreach throughout dtn is very hard work. as you know, though, it's not in writing job training, maintenance and even training and future employment opportunities in the biotech available. i take this opportunity tothe critical importance of nbc bio labs, prioritizin businesses, and supporting our sf hyper local trades contractors collective. in all employment, business and contracting to just this future development and nbc bio labs dedication tos+ supporting sf small businesses within the construction industry is commendable and aligns with our shared values of inclusivity

an. thank you. good afternoon, planning commission. my name is mary ludlum. i'm a biotech researcher, entrepreneur founder, sf resident san francisco resident. i've lived and worked in umu districts for over 20 years. i'm a you speak? and i own a women owned small business early stage biotech company that's run out of both the dogpaantch m last ten years. i strongly oppose the proposed legislation, and i would like to briefly highlight three points to assist your delibera. firstly, banning laboratory developments in zones negates a keo developments outside of san francisc ranks number one in the nation for walkability and fou and environmentally friendly access to work, educationalresources in exist in a relative desert of such resourc. the proposed legislation would rob the city of a key advantage to attract new entrepreneurs, new businesses, entrepreneurs, and their associated economic benefits.

echoing the findings of the officein the current climate, we should be playing to our st down on them. secondly, i'd like to highlight that early stage biotech provides exceptional education and training opportunities. many earl technical companies including my own, are recipients of federal grants that offer access to supplementary funding to support trainin students, and teachers. my company has a usf professional masters in biotech program, whichart time employment as part of their core course opportunities within convenient commute distance of local communities so that they can attend both their work responsibilities and their educational obligations, is key to finding suitable candidates forh are a win win both for local biotech and technical trainee candidates. lastly, i'd likehe sharp decline of brick and mortar real estate retail and the dominance other sectors has allowed us in other business sectors, has the neighborhood risks of rapidly changing or easily disrupted models that leave a trail of empty shop buildings in their wake. laboratory and biotech

research are lon term business endeavors that are not easily and that necessitate on site work. laboratory space developments opportunity to establish long term businesses that train ands on site attracting ecosystem invested in the success of their neighborhoods. thank time and i urge you to oppose this legislation. name is carlos olguin, originally from mexico. i carnegie mellon for computer scienc came to san francisco in 2008, i ran a corporate research groupch in a large company, and eventually i made the in 2016 or 17 to create my own. and i would just say if it wasn't for nbc, i wouldn't you because it was just so easy. as a parent of young children, , to be able to, you know, follow your dream, we make consumer facing biosensors, things like hydration tests, focus on, but eventually the elderly and our children know,

sometimes i would just take my bikeand then go, go to work. that would just be impossible have the chance to, have a space to start a. we have received grants from sbir and i, you know, signed by people like nancy pelosi. so we're super exci that we're doing something important, in general. but we think we also are helping, you know, in our own the city and reactivate it. so, again, i wo that if places like nbcep expanding and making it more easy like us to keep keep moving forward. so., as a proud longtime i believe we must preserve the ability to build laborator city, while remote work has reshaped lab work is necessarily in person, and labs many jobs, right? not just for phd trained scitechnicians and support staff. as well. biotech

might seem for people outside of the field, but it's from following a recipe or solving a diligence, persistence, and teamwork by a desire to understand the worl to solve some of the world's greatest challenges, while the techniques that we use can be intricate, the goals and benefits impactful and relatable. startups are the true innovators developing life saving technologies by leveraging cutting companies can't and don't. san francisco's unique confluence of scientists, entrepreneurs, and=[ ideal hub. but without the proper lab infrastructu will have to go elsewhere. and that would b. as chief operating officer of nbc bio support for biotech startups developing new medicines diagnostic tests medical devices and help combat climate change and promote neighbors as well. our scientists hato commit their life's work to improving health and thetrinsically conscientious

citizens of our building. the neighborhood and the city, we recently science festival, and in the past month alone, visiting students from around the world for tours and t entrepreneurs. our companies are hosting over ar, giving many their first tast a career in biotech would look like. so i hope this commission will co growth of biotech in san francisco. and i recommen legislation. thank you for your consideration and for all that you do and have done for the city. commissioners. my name is christy carella and i the bay area policy manager for biocom state's oldest and largest trade asio sciences, representing over 1400 memberse members here in the bay area. i am here today to ask you to disapprove this legislation. i did submit a comment letter on this agenda

item, but i'll just emphasize that i made in that letter. viacom's recent economic impact report revealed that the life science sector generates over $8 b output in san francisco.00 jobs, both directly in the sectore sector. 25,000 total. the employees of these laboratories, which not only include scientists but employees at allation, are often residents of san francisco living and working of our city, both in the neighborhoods they live a. banning labs from mixed use zones could relocate outside of the cityundermining the innovation that san francisco prides itself on. i urge you to oppose this legislation rather than creating barriers thatould harm our city's economic landscape, we should focus on finding solutions that industries to thrive while maintaining the integri. good afternoon. i'm nicole kimes. i

am the founder of schulte therapeutics, which is a spin out from ucsf. and i want to thank you, one, for the honorpeaking to you on this big day for at least two of simply say thank you for all of thek you guys do. your job is complex and it's hard, and levers to keep our cities vi and diversified and inclusive. and that's not an easy task. and i would say to those of us who are scientists who look at biological systems. they're where you have to really look at all 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 wanteda company. it was never a dream of mine. buts ucsf we started to learner things in our microbiome and there was a wayess chronic, lifelong diseases by getting at of disease.

that means if we intervene early. i was dismayed to find out that much many of ourentities, that's not what they want to do. they have a wonderful role to play in science, butt is not the innovative, agile, early 10 to 20 years before you get toct that they're so good at utilizing andelping with health. so biotech is an extremely important role beyond biotech. i think it's important to point out and as a planning commission, you guys havek to try and figure out how we take two wonderful. one is our ardent support ofots workied, as well as this amazing strife, strife, to really in a way that nobody else does. and those ca as two competing entities. but always historically

taken both of those with them. and youmu is one of those ways to do that. and we think laboratorya really vital, important part of both grassroots and innovation. thank you very much public comment. seeing n is closed in. this matter is now before several weeks ago this commissionm)ni project. and this hearing is somewhat of a rewind in terms of the testimony that we have scratching my head wondering if in search of a problem, i am trying to understand wh that supervisor walton is trying to solve with this proposed legislation, and i, i'm saying it. i mean we didn't hear any testimony about it. there's nothing in the draft staff report, so i am, listening to the arguments. i think the

staff report wasto talk about the consequences of this particular piece of myself, very much wanting to disapprove. for all of the reasons that are listed we have a 37% vacancy rate need to be doing everything we can to attract and retain zone seems like it was desd specifically for, laboratory s done in the past. if we don't allow labs in the umu zone, then they have to go to the pdr zone, which price increases on facilities in the pdr zone crowding out other uses that could be permitted to be located there the problem i, which i talked about and we all talked about last time code definitions are a mess on biotech and laboratory some cleanup, staff proposed. i approach to doing that. and that's sensible, but that's completely particular piece of legislation does. if the problem is activation along the streets

ha use solutions and approaches we can design if the issue is concern about safety from if that's a real issue or if we could have more analysis on that to see if therees of laboratory uses that might create issues and understand whether or not there are alreadyls in place to address those concerns. and if there aren't, then there may that we need to adopt. but i'm not seeing this piece oflation, as the way to approach this. and i think it sends a are very at a time when we need more business, that it's trying to discourage it. commissioner. so thank you. like to quickly addif it's a really a life safety issue that we do have building code and fire code mechanism, actually designed t had in my previous years of working forr architecture firm, i did some lab building are robust. so and reallyan expensive some of them are actually in

ucsf. so i understand these challenges. why i am thinking that not too long ago we had spent hours on this had mentioned a lot of good neighborhood outreach and community outreach and try to be a good neighbor ative proposal amendment from supervisor walton. and i really in earoject sponsor is follow up with actually doing much more commitment on, not only minds to continue to pick bicience as a career but also specifically in d10. i would like to see some commitment for that. i really try to grapple with what is us looking at this item today? to attend a talk about health care, and i met quite a lot of innovators, scientists into, the

space between technology and healthcare. ily takes if there's 100 devices to try to get through fda only one will mak might take them 10 or 15 years. are in it in the very fossil regulation, we're not creating we're not trying to let you to do this like something doordash do. right. let's this is actually really going to save lives. and i thin of our government isn't really, i mean, we could do a lot faster and improve our, livability for everyone our loved ones. sot to prohibit any creativity in encouragingrancisco, where we have a robust venture attract more people here to invent besides doordash, to actually really

save lives. so i don't see we should prohibit a new, really robust growth of economic industry that, n create something faster and quicker that we don't have to wait for 25 years to get fda it will actually stimulate local businesses, workforce development and our younger kids. and family, to pursue bioscience career. so to see more scientists sitting in this room spending the talk about why, you know, like, you know displace us, you know? so, so i really appreciate my staff did a really good job. and along with food, share with us on such a reallyt kind of unintended consequences it willwe vote, if we don't vote in favor here in motion to adopt staff recommendation. second. commissioner williamsk you.

i just want to appreciate everyone who came out today, and are your insights and yourny is well taken different first of all, to, unfortunately to use the bathroom during. but was was therel economic equity? analysis done? regarding thissal, thank you, commissioner williams.sis did not go into specific data of what the socio economipa would be, by really from a do have concerns of what the resulting legislation would be and prohibiting alltories within umu. and so we described the concerns from if i may also just add clarification, because might be some confusion in, in the room andgislation would do to existing businesses or existing to also clarify that this proposed

legislation would not directly impact those existing laboratories. it would not require those legaljalybf established laboratories to close doors to vacate the districts or leave the city. what it made is, create or turn those legally established non-complying uses. and from there, those laboratories would not be expand, let's say, if they wanted to hire more staff, conduct more not be able to expand anymore in the district. they able to accommodate larger, specialized equipments or facilities. if it did require an expansion in that expansion that way. so those would be the again, just for in response to some of the comments today, just to clarify, existing lel be able to continue. they just would not be able to expa would not be able to get new laboratory neighbors if td. i have another question for youthe existing families and, and residences that live the

area, how how would more influx of, these biotechs, how would that impact our existing residents? and, has there been any analysis on that in terms of our existing residents, let's say if they are small business owners, they would really benefit from the continued existence. or if there's new staff, if thisyou, have you i mean, have you guys, have you guys like done any impact reports sounds to me like, no controls that that thel biotech industry can come in more into these, into just wondering what the impacts are, going to be on the existing r how that how it's going to impact equity in the cityf report

does have a more about the impact that's going to have our pdr district. so one of our concerns is first, this outside the city, but if not outside the city, then to our has a negative impact on our production, distribution, repair have entry level labor and semi-s jobs there. so it could impact, for them. umu is a very district. it's not predominantly residential, but even if there are residences there, they're going to be pushed out by umu because we have very robust controls to preserve housing in san francisco. so section 317 would to demolish someone's home and displace them 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 point, i just want to clarify, following up on veronica's s this wouldn't impact existing legally established laboratory uses, there are, i believe three projects including the talked about robustly. you know, maybe a month ago. and i believe vested their permits. so this

legislation passed could not proceed. so it would have the effect of you unanimously approved a few months ago. so it would havmp projects. i think everyone here feel are consistent with ourdrivers for the city. just, one more questionqvt. so how are we going to separate or how is how are we going to s laboratories from, from residences where people think there's a concern about that a wondering if this legislation addresses that, because that was something that came up during the last hearing where we did that that project. but i think that's a concern, too, for people that live in this area. how are we going to have a buffer? between residences and and laboratories? so i'm just i guess i'm not sure what the conflict is with that. laboratories are pretty

self-contained. they d a lot of noise. and the umu district i intended. i don't i mean, i'm not sure of that. ii'm not sure of that. i appreciate that that you're mentioning sure of that. well, it's difficult to understand whatislation is for because we don't understand exactly what prohibit labs in the umu entirely which is , but extends also into several other areas of the city. so we're sort of responding to something we don't fully understand his reached out to try to narrow in on concerns. so we're making educated guesses about what but that hasn't been fully articu. so when the umu was set up, it was intended district with a variety of different uses in it, even still true of a variety of different uses can still there, such as light manufacturing. i believe can also be there. so i don't think is noxious fumes or noise to that's why this ordinance was introduced, but at to staff. i

appreciate you. thank you. let's see. commissioner braun, i definitely i support, making the recommendation to dis disapprove this couple of reasons why some of which have been articulated already a know, at at first glance, banning laboratory uses throughout the entirety of a very broad brush approach to a zoning large geography, not just central, the central but also potrero hill, showplace square, mission, it and it has been, i think, selectively selectively approved for par idea of maintaining that vibrant mix of you know, what's on the ground today, making sure it's not likely, at least not direct displacement. take to heart the idea that that these laboratory facilities really do support our economic diversity and to attract innovative businesses. i think the point abou happen with our, our areas that are actually

for production, distribution and repair where facilities that support things like construction and manufacturing and distribution. it's, the i don't want to create a situation where now we have a who are trying to outcompete those types of businesses, for space i districts or commercial districts, especially because benefit, in a way, from having businesses, lab based businesses in the city as opportunities that are related and supportedin, and then also, i'd lot of these lab uses go to other cities as well. competition with a lot of different places throughout the bay area, and a highly efficient place for people to get to. commutes are much easier, people have a wideo access jobs in the city. an, you know, i would like to keep those jobs here in the city as well, i will say i really appreciate the very detailed analysis staff in the report and i hope that those ideas and

recommendations, our definitions in the zoning code, can maybe get this, this discussion, so that maybe nuanced fix that could be pursued in the f the legislation that's in front of us, i do agree. i support the adoption of the recommendation to disapprove. thank you, vice president. more starr's comment just a few minutes ago, ki my concerns. if staff is not able to fully understand what the supervisor ided, believe that i can opine on just saying that it's disapproval, but that i would more time with the supervisor rather than saying no. the that is as follows, for quite a the potrero boosters have verbalized their concerns about is a very simple residents being concerned about think there is still uncertainty about

the potential leaks of covid from laboratoriesfferent opinions about that. there's been a lot said a no conclusive evidence one way or the other particular worldwide experience i think, created of us, including our scientists here, a about lab safetygreatly appreciate all what you're doing, and while i increasingly more important to into the future, i do believe that toters because they're the recipients of a large lab use in about it is zoning the right tool don't have any idea. there is probably an issue ofight or coordination and coordinated oversight th i do not know if this restriction comes from supervisor walton's office will help us with that. i do appr the mayor's office a strong stand, and i apologize for not clearly catching yourv#

presentation, and everything you said i would be irt of. except i do believe that there are reasonable safety concerns that need to be addressed, and we do not pererhaps it is in redefining our defin a our code. perhaps mr. schwitzer could talk to that. i do not know. you were, i think. weing? it seemed to me that mr. starr going to speak to the intent of the umu district, win doing that? so that everybody has a strong grounding on that? i wouldq sure, sure, i'd be happy to. as mr. starr said, the u district is not is not a residential district in the same sense of even a neighborhoodommercial district. it is truly a mixed use district. it was land that was zoned purely then through the eastern neighborhoods process, we created this district tollow residential uses to enter an industrial district a it was always intended to have you know, pdr uses and industrial uses and lab uses and other uses continue to sit side by side. and for those seeking a purelialíntext,

moving into the umu district may not be the right block to move on to. these were really intended. theseor the transition zones between industrial districts and more purely residential districts. they are the truly mixed so to start carving out some of the pull them back is to is really towhat the whole nature, what the whole purpose of a umu district is to begi so good. thank you i appreciate that. what do you mind? laurel arvanitakis. i'd. i'd like to address yourt, your statement about covid leakage, all of these. any lab that has any infections requires bslthrough a number of state and federal organizations in the united states, something that would have something like ebola or like that would be bsl four. i san francisco are going for bsl one and bsl two licensing, like e science lab has bsl licensing. these are it's not

it's highly regulated by the fe÷3de and state government and not through land use other laws, in building code. so while that may be a fear, i am confident bsl four lab could not be licensed in the umu tions between bsl one and bsl four. ultimately, the ñp devil is in the detail and it is that perhaps zoning is not the right tool. there areça, massachusetts, which has basicallyving a more safety overview, overlaps as as a way to deal with communityrns about lab safety and i'm not an expert exactly how that can achieved, i read about it and felt that there trying to explore other frontiers. the one other issue an urban animation issue, is the fact that lab looking, inward looking buildings. when a crown from my dental lab, i'm walking

basically by a blank wall because it's an interior oriented use and the community that is potrero hill, and i'm for them, but that that is one concern that i, about the lack of participation withas it becomes a more increased, larger use. they woul some forms of animation being acquired by planning design and make these buildings more in, quote, friendly of how they show their face to the street. so nobo repeat of what they said regarding the indiana street am actually perhaps not to, to vote for disapproval because the department to spend more time with, supervisor walton to really get to the bottom of what we are supposed to disapprove or approve here. commissioner, if i just may to that point we would be more down with supervisor's office to get a better understanding to datee to have a more in-depth conversation. and as legislation that's transmitted from the board of supervisors has a 90 the planning

commission. this is the last hearing to have before the 90 day clock is up. so unless the supervisor gave us an extension, which he has not this is the we've run out of time to have have tried unsuccessfully with the supervisor to try to get at the further intent this is it. this is the only opportunity we haveyo one question, miss ward? and that is, aren't the supervisors al not even here? is that my proper understanding here? i would i would have to defer city hall or maybe laurel can answer. she's probably week they're still in session, so i called the office and there was nobody anyway, thank you. commissioner imperial, thank you, and thank you for all the come up, i with with the staffendation and with this legislation that is being in front of us, you know, a big you know, any reco know, we usually the plan i know that the its analysis. and at the same time we would likeor's office as part of

their analysis or what from their neighborhood or from their district as well, so i do take precaution in a way of doing a recommendation of disapproval without those analysis that would make me more informed about my decision. the racial social equity analysis find that i wish that the department could have explored more, the way we look into the racial is more about thed use, how the pdr is going to, competing land uses, of pdr and how it. however, it does not look into the other know, when you look into the map, the, you know the residential, you know, the access to parks, and also and i, youe only speculating at this point of what the supervisorsm speculating as well that perhaps his concern is about in terms of the residents or the real estate market estate market, perhaps,

that we don't have anal of that of the biotech perhaps the issue is it'sau going to be kind of a bust economy as well as the, at the dotcom market. know the biotech market. and, you know, and i doappreciate all the scientists that coming over here. same time, san francisco has a general we are p economic crisis as well. and like we also have to do our thorough analysis of what means, not just economically, but in the fabric of our of ourting we've created a big i back the central soma it was zoned for officel of those offices are vacant, and we're doing that kind of in response to the market, but we're notr1 a in response on what would it look would mean to the residents and to the fabric of neighborhood. i appreciate the we had during the 700 indiana street, beca made, you know, during that process of

conversation for them, for public engagement, community engagement. and that's what we would like to see that these kind of companies are coming into the fabric of social of san francisco neighborhood and at the same time not displacedi current residents at the are very big issues that we're dealing with here am very cautionary about the disapproval and i'm and i'm also i'm also going to share my frustration that i wish a supervisor could have given us more explanationbout this. but yeah, but that's where i stand. thank you, commissioner mcgarry. he. there's no better example of progress than science. and thank you here today, lab work and sign science will create for the community as a whole. local community as well, not to mention my day job is is a business agent for the carpenters community standpoint, and all

that work puts hundreds of people t hire, wages, benefits, working conditions just the people working on it but their family, their fams investment in a community defines a community and makes a community what it is. an any community can get, and if there's a concerns of thi being disenfranchized by that, i thinkca overrides those concerns. soi would be recommending the staff recommendations. was that a motion i would there we already have a motion that has been seconded. but if that concludes a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation commissioner mcgarry i for disapproval commissioner. so i commissioner i commissioner. imperial. no. commissione more. no. and commission. president diamond iso moved commissioners that motion passes 4 to 3 with commissioners williammpg against.

and let's take a t welcomeo the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday august 1st, 2024. commissioners, off under your regular calendar on the final item on your number 2023 hyphen 010863 coa for property at 400 through 402 murray street, a conditional use authorization. good afternoon. commission president diamond and commissioners. welcome. commissioner mcgarry. i'm maggie louch, planning department staff presenting a request foruse authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 317 for the removal of an unauthorized dwellingni at 400 to 402 murray street in an rh heights special use district. the property contai structure with two legal dwelling units, one at the se the third. the ground floor is divided into two garagesich was converted into a you.do. the project would remove

the cooking facilities a restore the garage to its former use as off street parking. n proposed. the udu wast to the department's attention as the result of a dbi a planning enforcement case was opened in oc permit was filed to legalize the udu, but that stalled after planning approved it in janua 2020. and then it kind of stalled during buildings review in november 2023. the subject application wasoposing to remove the udu instead of legalize it. the udu is not currently occupied it saw a single tenant, a close relative owners, occupied the udu from february to december of 2 the only tenant the unit ever saw staff report, the department received one commentquired about the project and our udu removal policies support or opposition to the project itself. the project is, on balance, consistent with the policies ofwodn result in the legalization of unauthorized unit as net new housing. the space has only been

rented by the ten years preceding the application. the department also finds th, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. it meets the requirements of the planning code and conforms with the residential design guidelines so the dept . this concludes my presentation. it's a short one but i'm here for questions and i will now h. project sponsor, you have five minutes. good afternoon c, president diamond. and welcome president mcgarry heard an accent wiou. i' i'm michael hanna from mimic. i've been doing architecture in the city for 20 years now, and also like to help out local citizens in need that maybe don't understand the dbi process that they can they seek a permit in this city i've listened to two very big previous

items that you're wrestlinge[i think they're very important. and i think this project can serve as in to the everyday reality happening beyond all the big ideas about forces and economy and jobs and all these things. this is an example of, well, i was brought on to this, a year ago to help the client who theng turmoil and confusion about this in summary and from what i c in the project this is an example of the weaponization of the very important, successful adu andauthorized unit sort of legislation. what i mean by that isng is co-owned by, a cousin to cousins, are below t question,

in the garage in the lower level where there's it's dug into the ground. it's just received e garage door, and the darks light. well, to thee . but what happened was the, the famil from the middle east, the mother came to stay. there was a husband and wife in that unit. a kitchen very foolishly, put a kitchen downstairs in the lower level behind the garage, without any of light and ventilation requirements that you would need for a comfortable unit. and howwn there. i'm not quite sure. but to call itnow, a habitable unit is, is a bit of s, the couple in question, the part owners of the building appears that theformer husband and the people left holding thext door who owned the building. received in 2017, the enfct and through a series

of, you know understanding the enforcement action and unauthorized and that had to be corrected. they were ignorantly, albeit that they were being forced to put a un architects that they hired many thousands of dollars and never told them that they had options. the city staff never tol. it might have been in the documentation, but it wasn't cleaé there were options and they went through 6 of paying architects, paying all these, trying to deal with worrying about the fines, doing all these things until they got my name. and i informed, no, they have a right to propose aject that isn't legalizing a unit. and paying almost half $1 don't have, they're both by the way, then and the wife that are in the unit still, they're both one works for muni and one works in and

she was just at a loss. and mohammed, the her cousin, was at they were worried that they were being forced to shell out $500,000 or 400,000 as the construction you pay architects, engineers permit fees, you're talking were under the impression that they were compelled by law almost to build this unit, that they didn't sir, but thatwá is enough. okay. yeah. i think if the commissioners have questions, they'll they'llh that, commissioners, we should open up public comment. members opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if you're in the ch seeing none, public comment is closed. and this matter is now beforey7ng. question for staff. just just can i help just toants were ever evicted. and they only ever lived here were family members. factors that the code allows us to, take into account when making, this decision is whether or not it was limitedy members. yes. that's correct. so the new findingsder section

317 for the removal of a you-do are were there evic, there. the rent board records show a 2007 owner move in eviction the legal units on the property unrelated to the don't even know if it was were no evictions related to the you-do and then the second who lived in the unit and specifically it talks about family, a direct down relationship, parent child things of that n. i don't have a problem with granting the see you, but i'm curious h8 hea vice president moore, i believe that mr. hanna, i believe that mr. hanna's description the complicated but simple backgroun happening here. the plans are evident that there was no really attempt other than using a space which you think t understanding. perhaps the codes and the procedures that go wi would approve with conditions. that is a motion. further.

commissioner seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. commissioner i commissioner. so i commissioner williams i braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so moved commissioners that motion passes final

running here donated about 18,000 pounds of food to the food rec ♪ >> i'm maggie. >> i'mnick. >> we're coe-chairs of national led organization. what food does is recover and redistribute food th wasted and redistributing to peohe community. >> the moment that i became really eng of fighting food waste was when ijust taken the food from the usf cafete four pans full size full of food to be eaten and

made the day before and that would have gone trash that night if we didn't recover it the next day. i want to fight food waste beeconomy, it's one of the largest gases in the world. if it was nation it would be the third nation behind china and the united states. americayé w40% of the food we create every year $160 billion worth and that's made up in the higher cost of consumers. no matter where you view the engaged with the issue of food waste. ♪ access edible food that we havehrouch program in our center i go ahead and collect cool it down and every night i prep it and the next day i'll heat it and ready for del

it's really natural for me i love it i'm passionate and it's just been great.s such a blessing to have ty to actually feed people every day. no food should go wasted. there's someone who wants to eat we have food, it's definitely hand and it shouldn't be looked at as work feeding people and it really means so much to me. work and they're like nora do you want this, doat? and it's so great and everyone is truly involved. every day, every food breakfast lunch dinner i me people just throw it away. they don't even think twice think as a whole as a community, as community, if people just put a little effort, really help each other out. that's how itfood is about

basically. >>hat meets is the san francisco knight ministry we wor with tuesday and thursday's. ♪ ♪ by ♪ of your name ♪ >> i have faith to move mountains because i believe in jesus. >> i believe it's helpful to offer food to people beyou know there's so much san francisco and california and i really believe that food is as well as our faith. san francisco knight ministry has been around for 54 years. ministry a

group of ordain ministers, we go out in middle of the night every single night the year so for 54 years we have never missed a night. i know it'sifficult to believe maybe in the united states but a lot of our people will say is the first meal they've had in two days. i really believe it isime between life or death because i meand have church but, you knowuch we could feed or how many we coway over 100 people get fed every single thursday out here. it's not solely the food i you, believe me. they're extremely >> it's super awesome how welcoming they are. or two times they're like i recognize0 you. how are you doing, how is in the city it's overwhelming. youet to know people and through the music

you get to know people. >> we never kno we're going to have on folks. if you just practice love kindness, it's a labor of love and that's what the food is and this is a huge believe they salvage our mission. >> to the most important part is it's about food waste andpeople. the food recovery finding ways to feed people. it's propertyientific and human element into the situation. >> you are watching san francisco rising. today's special guest is jeff tomlin.ng san francisco rising. to show that is focused on restar%g reimagining our city.

our guest today is the director on of the sfmta and he's with us to talk about the agency's 23-24 budget with the muni new projects across the city. welcome to the show. be here. >> i see the sfmta's budget for and 2024 has been approved. how will it help provide a few years for >> it has been a challen of years. covid wiped out the basic is funded primarily from transit fares parking fees and set aside for a general fund and covid has meant we of our parking and transit for revenue. recover them until 2027. this budget takes a one-time federal release and spreads that out between noww 2025. and our task is to rebuild trust wifmta can actually deliver on their gls and that includes things like making muni faster, more frequent, and more reliable.

includes and making everyone feel safe riding the bus. it means taking advantage of the change we're going to experience in order to advance equity so that we invents invest the most amount of money in communities that need our services the most. it also means supporting san fran basically and 2024 in order to build trust with thed figu muniorward because it is in 2024 the one-time federal release fund went out. up? >> as a result of covid, we have 1,000 vacancies in the organization. that is why is not fully recovered. this budget allows us to fully staff through 2024, which means wetore muni service invest in safety, and invest in in order to make the transportation system work better for everyone >> can you talk about the mooney service equity strategies pandemic, how has that plan been updated?

r upgrades in progress. >> we equity during muni's recovery. we have been b work on the muni equity strategy. this is the plan we update every at the changing demographics francisco and helps us direct our transit resources where people neede that means people with low income, people of seniors, people with disability, children all the folks who have the fewest choices. during cen we to strip back the transit system, 13s of the workforce were in quarantine, we directed all of the agency's resources to the equity the bayview chinatown, the mission the valley and even t we have continued to deliver the best muni service's so -- to the nght now we are still operating more frequent service in core neighborhoods than we did precovid. and the extraordinarily high ridership. we are finding, for e1úency and

reliability on lines like the 22 fillmore that getting 133% of precovid ridership even when at aboutvery. that is 133%. that is on weekend we are at about 96% of pr weekdays. we're also investing a whole varits aimed at making transit work better, particularly for people wit disabilities. on the market street corridor, our elevators to the subway station date back to the 1970s and need significant renovation. right now we are busy working on renovating the the station. we have completed the elevator upgrade for the platform. we are now working on the westbound elevators and make them a lot more reliable,e to prioritize people with choices. >> that's great. changing topics slightly, i understand the improvement project ipl have shared spaces made the product -- project more complicated? >> yes. the

terminal project more including things like covid and supply chain on the first phase of the terra vale project which rebuilt the street from sunset boulevard to the zoo cl infrastructure of the streets the underground utilities t modernize all that infrastructure and make it more resilient, and make sure t have to rebuild the street, hopefully in lifetimes. we also learned about theng particularly with neighborhood businesses and residents. we want to make sure that we are infrastructure in a time that the city is suffering and we are not adding to suffering. we're doing things like partnering with the office of economic workforce development to support neighborhood businesses through programmmesure thatwy create shared spaces in the parking lane, some of those need to the way while the utility work is done underneath them. we are making sure that we will either move those platforms and outdoor eating ar back as were, or help local merchants rebuild them so that

we are not adding to the burden of local businesses and that we help challenging time. >> quite right. finally,on zero quick build projects have been well received. can you talk about the evans street project? the things we did during covid was dramatically expand the rate of what we call quick build fast-moving projects using simple and cheap materials in order to redesign streetsee how they work well as get a lot of feedback from community before moving into a larger capital project that converts plastic stuff into concrete and trees and, you extensions. what we have been finding is ui able to cut severe injury and fatalities5% depending upon the location on the techniques that wet have the highest rate of traffic crashes particularly injcrashes and fatalities.

we focused on evans, which is really important connector for all modes of transportation between the bayvieweighborhoods of san francisco. also a street with a terrible track recor on evans what we ar and plastic posts for the time being, is taking that are out there right now, and converting them to one lane in each direction plus turnkets. what we found on streets like valencia or south bend this, orth van nass with one lane in each direction plus a term pocket can move just as much two lanes in each direction. left turning vehicles meare never really available for through traffic. these road diets that we do have been tremendously effective for improving safety outcomes : exacerbating traffic. they do make all cars slow down the speed of the most prudent driver.this week we are getting started in partnership with the department of public works on woo rest all of evans

between third and cesar chavez, and as of this work will be collecting a lot of data, in the industrial district and talking to folks in the bayview commercial district and in the mission about how it is working. we will it is successful, then capital-intensive to make it permanent. if it is notl, back the way that it was, having very little money. >> thank you so much. i really appreciate you coming on the show. th time you have given us today. >> it has been great being much. >> that is it for this episode. we will be back shortly. you have been watching san♪]

san francisco police department i would like tofaly and friends and members of our cit family and will our department members to our officer of the month i like to welcome our mayor, mayor breed a police bill scott and thank our mayor, w front every award ceremony making sure we are here on balcony and veal have a nice event. your support. this afternoon we'll recognize san francisco police department members of northern station. investigation unit. and fromtation.

>>