hx!:

have 30s remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce up and take the next person queued to speak. please speak clearly slowly and if you care to state your name for the record, of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruptio also, i ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings and at this time i would like to take roll commission. president dimond here, vice president moore here, commissioner braun here. commissioner imper. so here. commissioner williams here. and welcome, commissioner mcgarry. thank you. first on your age commissioners, is consideration of items proposed for continuance items one, a and b for case numbers 2023. hyphen 003652c, u, and v are for the property at 3901 noriega street.

conditional use, authorization and varianceroposed for continuance to september 19th, 2024. item two. case number 2024 hyphen 00157e authorization is proposed for continuance to sept case number 2023 at 1310 junipero serra boulevard. conditional use continuance to october 17th, 2024 and item four, case number 2015. hyphen 006356q. hyphen zero two at 336 p authorization is proposed for an indefinitef the public. this is your opportunity to address the commission on any of these matters proposed for continuance only on the matter of continuance2j, you need to come forward. seeing none fore you. commissioners commissioner imperial, move to continue all items as proposed. second, thank you, commision to continue items as proposed. commissioner mcgarry

l i commissioner moore i and so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0 placing us under your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by thelanninmay be acted upon by a single roll call vote. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public or staff, so requests in which event removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing item five case number 2024. hyphen 003483c089001 bush street. unit numberditional use authorization item six. case number 2019 hyphen 007297qa at 2300 polk street. conditionaluthorization item seven, case number 2024 hyphen 002929q at 737 irving street. conditional use authorization and item eight case number 2024 hyphen 005931 code. corrections ordinance planning code and building8l code.

code amendments. members of the public. this is your to address the commission and request that any of these items be pulled off of consent and later today. again, you need to come forward. seeing none public comment is closed and your consent calendar is now before you. commissioners move to approve all items second, thank you, commissioners on that motion tonsent calendar commissioner mcgarry i commissioner. so i commissioner williams, i commissioner braun ii commissioner more i and commission president dimond i that motion passes unanimously 7 to matters for item nine. the land acknowledgment. the commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the sa peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost norforgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place,

as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and byghts as first peoples. thank you. item ten consideration of adoption draft minutes for july 18th, 2024, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commissioners on their minutes. seeing none public comment is closed and your minutes are now before you commissioners commissioner braun, move to adopt the minutes. second. thank you. commissionersthat motion to adopt the minutes, commissioner mcgarry i commissioner. so williams i commissioner braun i commissioner imperial i commissioner moore i and commission president d>ond i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. item 11 commission comments and questions. i'm going to start first i want to welcome our new

commissioner, sean tell you that i have considered it a to serve for the last five years, and i hope that youhank you. commissioner and with that, i know that this is my last hearing. have declined to accept the mayor's offer to renominate me for another term. as many of you know, ie two brand new baby grandsons in la old and one is three days old. flexibility to help out their parent being the granny nanny, or of absolutely love living in san francisco, but i do want the flexibility to be back up and to be a presence in, and that is inconsistent with the workload and the weekly schedulethis commission. for the past 40 years, it's been my delight to juggle career, kids, community and the last five years i've been able to prioritize public service by serving on this commission, and

it's been such an a number of thank you's, first of the mayor for me several times andfor having affirmed my seat on this commission. second, i will department, for allowing ss, and without the tech department, in conjunction with jonah's request to come up with better and better devices, i wouldn't to hear, and therefore i couldn't have participated. i want to thank director hillis miss waddy and all of the staff, for the conviction of their positions. the incredible analysis that they produce in the staff reports for us every week, and for answe never ending questions on every matter ensuring that this commission is just not to be believed. thank you for a special thank you to the public, for your letters. for your phone calls and for showing up. it's your

participation that makes this process what it is. and finally to my fellow commissioners for the respect that shown to each other and for the willingness and the openness, to other people's opinions before making decisions,t's been one of the joys and the hallmarks of this commission over the past have truly enjoyed that. i will miss it all.time when we're working so hard to use every land use two tool we have in the box to grow our economy, creater everybody, attract a special shout out to meet the needs of families. thank you all. okay, vice president moore commissioner dimond couldn't say it better. she will be a hard act to follow. she comes with experience.mes with a courageous voice, and she comes with a lovingrsonality

that cares. and i do understand that there are tim when we need to make a decision, and i truly and deeply respect personal path in her life after she has given community and a lot to this commission. i wish you the best, particularly her experience and mature voice is definitely needed to balance it out and we often c positions, but we deeply respect what we do and we consult with each oth a caring way to deliver the best we can. here as president, as vice president thank you so much. i will call you by your be seriously missed and i wish you all the best. but we because we know each other. thank you. so lovely. k you. commissioner braun first, i just want to say welcome. commissioner mcgarry. welcome to thet diamond sue, i've always been so impressed by your your commitment to service for thew that serving on this commission, you've said is, you know has been a lifelong dream. and

something i know you've taken very seriously. and so you're definitely i'm definitely going to miss you, and i'm going to i hopefully we'll still continue to have great conversations about, you know, what is best for san francisco and debatings appreciated that dialog that has been possible as you've served as president. so thank you so much. i really app you so much for those wonderful comments, commissioner imperial commissioner diamond, i will definitely miss you. i deeply respect you and the knowledgeat you have brought here in the planning commission. i truly enjoy the dialogs that we have, the debates although there are times that we don't see things eye to proud of what the commission can bring, to this city. and you're a big contribution to that four years or five years at this point0[ seems like long but it felt like yesterday, and i wish youould have continued, but i'm very happy for you and family, and you're really deserve it. so

i will miss you so moved. thank you so much, let's see. thank you. sue. i, you'o be deeply missed on this commission, you know your experience a knowledge, nothing gets past i appreciate that.i wish you all the.r you and your family. i, you know, i wish, like, like like. commissioner i wish youiá ommission, but having said that, i know that you have to have to do, you know? and so, i just dewarespect i respect you very much. and you know, thank you for serving our city. and just thank you. thank you. that means a great deal to me commissioner. so president

diamond, it's been ans onboarding experience with you. you have your warm welcome and extremely sure i know every button to push. so i really and i really wish you for the best. helping your daughter to raise two grand k probably harder than serve on the planning commission. and, we'll be here to help. offering nanny services if you need to. i am offering. i would like to go to la. but i really commissioners sensibility is your unique experti in your decades long service, both in pssional business and in your volunteerty, the land use subject matter expertise that youi, offer to our commission, it will be really, really missed, she had caught every single typo, every

single mng paragraph that we have in the last wee hours. i am ow, carry on the torch. so and i wish you feel the best and enjoy family. thank you so much, commissioner. so vice president, vice president moore i wanted to, actually welcome mr.i[ mcgarry, because in all of the focus on, president diamond we need to wholeheartedly welcome you to this g easy job and will be in the trenches, and we'll just do what we need to do. and welcome to the club. thank you yes. oh commissioner. imperials thank you, presideia, welcome, what's your last name? sorry.

mcgarry. mcgarry andarry. and, again, this is, we were looking forward, this is a very robust. we usually have a robust conversation here, and commission, i'm looking forward to hear your contribution here as well, but iwant to bring up, you know, a subject matter going to be in the recess soon, and i know that the planning department has been thinking of putting out informational hearings when it comes to the housing element, especially in the expanding program. and so i thought that and also we also received a letter from therá from one of the coalition reps of coalition talking about whether we can have informational hearings about the update on expanding housing choice, and particularly and this is also for me, i think we've brought up the issues

during the expanding housing choice hearings, the issn business and at the same time, the issues dpl also in theitions as well. so i'm hoping that the that put it in our calendar in september about and to do it in a separate forum, in a separate let's also in terms of small things that we have not thoroughly have a hearing about it. and we would like to have more updates on that as to what the department is actually doing for the protection, and also in terms of tenant displacement inct of the demolition as well. so, so that's i hope that that's something that the commission we can put in september, they're proposing in september 1926. but i also would like to hear what what our calendar would look like in september.. i want to give one other shout out. and that's to the city attorney's get incredible legal advice, and i have so much respect for the

legal guardrails that they that we can design conditions proposed legislation with confidence, that we're staying within the law. so thank you to both kristen and austin, commissioners, if you would moment to also echo the words of your fellow commissioners commission president diamond your thoughtful and calm voice was much so thank you and wishing you all the best in your in the next chapter in your life. thank you so much. department matters item 12 director's announcements. thank have any director's announcements but i would like to use this the, just appreciation. tremendousnd first, and foremost, i just really want to appreciate and thank you for how respectful you've been of staff staff has a lot on their plates, and i can tell you from the, like, most sincere place that staff really appreciates, the kindness and the effort with which you reach out to them

individually. so much so thateyt the spot so that they can prepare thoughtful responses to the very valid and t up. so i really wanted to thank you for that, we also always know, as a result of that that you actually read our packets because sometimes it feels like we spend a lot of time writing things that no one ever reads, so we always know that with you, i know that you have gotten all the way through them and you know everything that's in there. so i think that's really meaningful also to staff, and, and last last on sort of a personal note, it's been really meaningful to me how much it's clear that you really care about good government. we may from time to time, but you really do and hold us accountable for being, sort of good, good governance and really caring about our customers and the citizens experience working with us and so that's something that's very near and dear to my heart. andd= so i appreciate how much you bring it back to that and remind us oortant that is. so for all of that, we will miss are too too big to be filled,sed, but also an exciting chapter for you to

enjoy you grandbabies. thank you for those wonderful comments. i will say, i know that commissioner up here reads the staff reports. i'm just the biggest. i'm just the nudge. right. we know you read our staff reports thank you and then and then lastly, sean, welcome. we'rey have you as well commissioner mccarry, and clearly you'v$' here. so we're really excited to work with you in this nextsem" pha door closes, another opens. so welcome. and then just to follow up on commissioner imperial's request, i have not been in the loopthe, exact schedule but i will for sure relay it back to the housing?5 request for a september hearing. sure. okay. item 13, review of past events at the board of supervisors and the bas no historic preservation commission hearing yesterday, good afternoon commissioners. aaron star manager of legislative affairs. thank you, commissioner diamond, for your work. we've truly appreciated yourp there. you will be missed. welcome. commissioner mcgarry. i hope you find it to be some good crack on the planning commission. i doubt it, but, anyway, so this week,

the land use committee landmark designation of the rainbow flag at harvey milk plaza by gilbert baker. the hpc heard this item on may 15th and recommended approval to the board of supervisors, during the land use hearing, there were about a half dozen public commenters, all in support of the designation. supervis entire presentation and went over a revision that flag should fly at full staff for 24 hours. a day. this amendment was unanimously by the committee supervisor. preston asked tor, after which the ordinance was recommended unanimously to the ful board. this week, the mayoral appointment for amy campbell was adopted, as was the mayoral appointment for sean mcgarry. so as you can see, he's here, andth 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 administrator, and i have no report from move on commissioners to general public comment at this time, members of the public may

address the commission on items of int to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission, except agenda 0itemsrespect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission willd when the item is reached in the meeting. when the number of speakers exceed the 15 minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. hi. welcome commissioner mcgarry and commissioner president diamond bon voyage. good luck. maybe back when the babies go to kindergarten. so as something to think about. good afternoon. i'm georgia swedish we again, can i have the overhead, please? sfgov on the computer. oh there it is. so i want to put this on the big screen. this is what i sent to you on monday for generalabout alterations that are demolitions, which i'v talking about for a very long time, this one, you can see before, during and after it's currently for sale for $19 million. and my problem with this is that there were no demo calcs in the anywhere, either on the pim or at the dbi records. and it's been for sale for quite a while, so i don't knowwith

that, but i think it's part of the problem that]> years of section 317 where there was a lot of lax or scant oversight, and that's a problem, so as i , permit was only valued at $650,000, which is anotherssue that i've always had. this really got me started because when i see these alterations had these really low permit values and it just it's in d7 and it's one. and this is actually now they said it's off market. this is also $19,000. excuse me, wish $19 million. and itginally sold in 2013 for $1.8 million. and this is 9000ft!s and it's in d8 original house, which was third bay tradition. you if you go to the sf excuse me, redfin, you canee the origi is very interesting. and as i said, it was originally 3200ft!s. it's now 9700ft!s. both of these had horizontal and vertical expansions with facade change.

demo calcs, no demo calcs anywhere on the pym or in the plansmm. on concerning. i think now there's greater a problem. the clarifications haved but the demo calcs are still not stringent enough and here's why. this is a current project underway right now. it's demo calcs were very interesting. i can't have time to talk about will. some other point. here's another picture of it. okay was july 3rd. note the two sides, a little bit of original house left. it's only one piece left there on the left side. and here's the original house. it's a horizontal vertical expansion with facade change. and this to me is why the demo calcs need to be adjusted. if they'd beenss, as i suggested in my have been a demolition. so thank you very much. andt>bo that's it. good luckaá$(.ileen bogan, i'm here

representing the coalition for san neighborhoods. first commissioner dimond, not goodbye, farewell. we hope to u for your service. excited about your new life wit specifically to welcome,is. and we sort of met at the rules comm, thank you. and we look forward to the future. and even though commissioner campbell is not here, a welcome to her when she shows up. and in case commissioner so and williams feel left out. welcome although you're not, you know, new new you're sort ofhile but again thank you for your s. and commissioner mcgarry, thank you for what's going to be a hea taking this on. thank you.o newest commissioners and

farewell to outgoing commissioner sue dimond. cynthia gomez, senior research analyst, unite here. locallocal two for nine years, and in that capacityib i've been in this commission before, this commission countless times and i can'tr having to deal with the situation like the one i'm having to deal most of us, and i'm pretty sure most of all of you $3,200 a month hotel room with no common no kitchen, no shared space to be affusing, but that's exactly what the operators of the bay hotel on eighth street would like to haveon't even want to get you get a chance to weigh in. three and a half years ago, the operator of the bay illegally converted three of its floors to housing. enforcement staff got wind of this. the hotel was to to stop. they ignored that kept issuing new leases. anyway, and they were allowed the chance legalize this illegal conversion. they submitted plans that weren't in compliance the code. they were told their plans weren't in compliance. theyompliant plans. and then this process continued in a kind lather,

rinse, repeat. and during that whole they were entitled to have assessed against them wer this process continued for more than two an outside observer would be forgiven for seeing this as an attempt to game the system and avoid fine enforcement. this went on the hotel now is claiming that they're going to rent out at $3,200 a month. again, no common space, no open space, and they want this to be counted as a want their approvals to be grantedwithout intervention, they might get their wish. so we have setta up a meeting with the planning director. we've hired an attorney. we're fightinlfour members because our members aren't just hotel workers, they're cityand they've been insulted. they've been insulted by having their jobs taken away, by being told that a hotel room at this rate, is supposed to be far as affordable housing is concerned, and they're beingsulted by watching their employer violate the law without any repercussions. so i remember just last week here in this

commissionme very thoughtful and thorough questions about city residents and rams and so our members are hoping that there wi you all to hear this project and hear this case so that kinds of tough questions again, and so that you can fight for. for general public comment. seeing none general public comment is closed. and we your regular calendar for item 14. case number 2024.5624 pca. and oh, i'm sorry. go back to our continuance calendar, we failed to allow the acting zoning administrator continue. item one b. liz sorry. yes, on behalf of the zoning administrateptember 19th. thank you. now we can move on to your regular 14, case number 2024, hyphen 005624 pca and map for the central neighborhoods. large residents suedorona heights. large residents sued planning code and zoning map

amendments. thank you. audrey maloney, planning department staff f commissioner center, commissioner sean mcgeary. i am, a staff member with the legislative affairs division. and i will probably be seeing you very often at this commission. before i give the have some new resolutions that have small drafting error. these were distributed to you all via email, but those are hard copies for you as well, and then i believe from supervisor mandelman's office who will give a presentationhalf of the sponsor.in ho. i am a legislative aide for supervisor mandelman. the ordinance before you seeks to accomplish a few goals. firstly, following the redrawing of supervisorial districts in 2022, coal district eight. we want to expand the central neighborhoods sud to include this neighborhood so t district eight or all of district eight is covered by the sud. secondly, d similarities between the central

neighborhoods and corona heights as hoods, we would like to delete the latter and instead have the central neighborhoods should uniformly cover the district. this expansion will discourage the construction of. i'm going to interrupt forne second. can you slow down just a bit? yes. sorry about that, so secondly, due to the similarities between the central d corona heights suds, we would like to delete the latter and instead have, mly cover the district. this expansion will discourage construction of new monster homes in coal valley while also making it harder to construct these homes in parcels covered by the corona heights sud. nowfor some background, in 2017, former supervisor jeff sheehy establis corona heights. large residents sued after hearing concerns about the construction of monster homes in the neighborhood. in established the central neighborhoods large residents sud toster homes throughout the rest of district eight. these two suits are very similar in nature, and seek to accomplish the same goal of discouraging the creation of monster homes. they both contain the same purpose statement which is to protectance existing neighborhood character

encourage new infill housing at compatible densities and provide for thorough assessment of proposed large adversely impact the area and affordable housing opportunities. there were, however, some differences in how they went about achieving this goal. the cuired siu authorization if the building not unit, went bd 3000 set a maximum cap on the unit or building size. central neighborhoods. large residents should establish a threshold of 3000ft!s, or 1.25 f.a.r per unit above which siu authorization was re included a cap of 4000ft!s on unit size, and re size. although the mechanisms were different be goals are the same. 2023. following the passage of senate with planning staff and the mayor's office to include amendmonstraints reduction ordinance. the coah requirements under both suds will sunset on december 31st 2024, and after this date, i'm going to interrupt again. yes. you don't have a time limit and you're it's a very detailed presentation and we really want to get so sorry commissioners okay expansion or new construction of a residentialg or dwelling unit shall exceed

3000ft!s will be allowed, except for the expansions of less than 15% over the last ten years, that is my presentation, commissioners. and i'll be present for questions, i'll turn it back audrey. okay thank you. calvin. again. audrey maloney, planning department staff, as mr. ho already stated the proposed ordinance that's in front of you today would amend both our planning codan zoning map to expand the boundaries of the central neighborhoods district, or sud and apply its controls lots within the sud, rather than where they apply right now just rh zoned lots. it would additionally delete the corona heights large residence sud and as a result merge it large residence sud. i won't go too detailed into the background, since mr. ho already did 022 when that proposed ordinance was in front of the planningn in late 2021, the large home

controls would have applied citywide, not just those in district to disapprove the ordinance, and they also askee sponsor to focus these controls on areas of thethat actually need them, as well as looking into tenant protections and ways to encour. supervisor mandelman did end up taking these into consideration and as a result, created the sud that you see as proposed to before you today, over the past two and a half years, the staff responsible for implementing the sudnoted significant successes in curbing the size of large single family home expansions. despite 15 projects proceeding with applications for a cu to exceed the size limits, many below the threshold and incorporate an adu instead. that being remain a little bit skeptical about whether these adus will be initially rented out as separate units. as you know we have no control over what a property owner does with their extra unit in their home, and additionally, once the objective standards throughme effective

on january 1st, we also that that 3000 square foot hard cap may not . there's nothing in the propos 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 sud as it was originally created said, the department generally supports the purpose of this w central neighborhoods large residence study, which is to encourage new isities and scale and to curb the development of large single family residences. the department agrees that the projects seeking to expand their already large units without increasing their density should be discouraged. we also agree that generally, the size of a proposed unit is a sensible indicator of cost, but it's imperative that the city doesn't simply curtail theedy of units. we need to be encouraging the addition of otherwise a fairly low density, but yet resource part of our city. asn adopt a

recommendation for approval with modifications. we have three modifications we're recommending to you today. the fi to not include accessory garage space in the calculation of gr floor area. this was actually something we recommended in the took our suggestion and in the implementation in the last two and a half years we've seen it doesn't really have the effect we'd hoped. and in fact can be used to game the square footage calculations. the one dwelling unit in a project to be up to the project also adds a dwelling unit of ateast 800ft!s. again, we're hoping that this will be something that encourages objective standards become effective. on january are requesting that we specify calculating a units gross square footage in multi-unit buildings that shared spaces not be included. this is to help makeasier for staff in multi-unit buildings to not have to try togl divide up shared spaces when determining whether they've reached their cap forsquare footage. so with that i'm available for any

you should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. again you need to come forward. hi georgia. again, i don't know. hello. commissioner mcgarry received myp letter that i sent in to the commission secretary he was made the correspondence, so he got a copy of it, to give him this copy that i brought today, unless. would you the copy i brought today? okay, good. i'll try to remember what i wrote. okay. i i wanted to say in that in that memo, and i think i think, mrs. maloney wrote a really good memo because she broadened it out to look at everything. i don't agree with thed, square foot thing to get the 800 square foot out in the memo, i gave some examples of why that doesy, the one you had in april information on. i mean i even showed that today that everson project that started at 3200f it went to 9700ft!s. that's crazy.

especially when we heard miss gomez talking. what she talked about. i mean, it's all know, i think that the staff wantingkq to encourage moderately sized units is a good thing. and that's the democrats being on a parallel track. if the demo calcs are adjusted maybe it'll shift the paradigm, maybe it'll shift the paradigm, maybe people won't remove all of the house or most of the house and pretend they're doing an alteration and they'll s square foot house. think of the typical san francisco house throughout age. they'll take there. it's just as reasonable to expect that could happen as somebody would take a 4000 foot house and put a unit in and rent it out somebody's brother or sister you're going to spend 4 to $9 million on a house rent out an 800 unit square foot unit, or even a 1200 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 representative of the income8v inequality that we see in this city now in those rooms, i thin appreciated this memo. i appreciated the comments on sb 423. and any time thing because sb 423 and the w san francisco and no one else is really appalling and very unfair. it should never, ever, happened. and i don't understand why we'reomething when you've got all the housing in the pipeline that this commission has worked so hard to approve over the y it. thanks a lot. have a great summer 12th. thank you. it's nice to be here. my name is ellen friedman and i'm a resident of coal valle there for

over 35 years. i raised my kids e the neighborhood. and since we've moved to the neighborhood, we've seen enormous changes specifically with the lastars and the explosion of monster homes. specifically on belgrave avenue. but really aa7 a result, what we've also seen is the increase in and rental, rental units that live in that neighbod. when we moved in, it was mostly teachers, public servants, nonprofit community leaders, and most of them have left the neighborhood because thy. so this is really important. this issue of monster homes. so i do support the goal of the city to encourage more moderately priced residential neighborhoods. the building of these larg homes does not advance these goals. i can't see it. it hasn't happened in our neighborhood and it doesn't allow the city the diversity of residents income and public engagement that we need for our city to

thrive. so i do suppo passage. i do not support theansion of the, square footage torstand how that's going toss benefit the diversity of housing that we need and support more moderately priced homes. i would also like toder an additional special use fee on all homes over 3000ft!s in high resource compensate the city for the increased services thatese homes require in terms of utilities and theecase in the diversity in our neighborhoods. and perhaps that fee could be appliedat to supporting low income and more income housing. i would like to extend my supervisor mandelman for, really beingand his strong support for the need for diversital. hello, commissioners. my name is

mark lamborghini. i live inlley at 1254 stanyan street and i just wanted to speak in favor of, supervisor mandelman's you know, single unit dwellings to 3000ft!s, and there's kind of three issues that i see. one, of course is the n preserving as much as possible the neighborhood ch particularly in terms of smaller second is the affordability issue, as the homes are increased in size, it, housing. one example is tha 89 belgrave, which is up the street from us, whhe building of a number of monster homes, the homes, the previous homes sold f 2012, which is still high, but the after the demolition and the new the new home sold for was a 1010 times increase in the cost of that property. and there are

there aresals to do more of this in cole valley, on standing street that we have, a developer whots expand to build a monster home. does decrease affordability.t must do, you know, according to economics, is it'soto increase the land cost, the land prices if you can, if a developer knows they can buy a $1.5 million home,olish it and build a $20 million home that land cost has to be going up because of these homes in cole valley, especially on belgrave, but also on other streets. so i just see three issues neighborhood, character affordability and increasing the land cost i would support supervisor mandelman's, expansion of the sud to cole valley and also limiting, these large dwellings two 3000ft!s, not 4000ft!s. so thank you i'm gary peterson. i

also live on stanyan street. you know, we havehborhoods in san francisco where we're fortunate ande are attracted to them, and that's why they move in. i just feel that into a neighborhood, you were most likely attracted by qualities and what the neighborhood has to offer. so house and building these homes is taken away from that neighborhood characteru mark and i and some of our neighbors, al'v last years, and luckily, everybody around us has been very t what they did with their homes. they they honor the original style of the home, and we're respectful of their neighbors. we actually were able to remodel our home and double the square footage just staying within the footprint. so think people, if they want to expand their home remodel, modernize it, you know

they have the right t think with a clever architecture, they can be respectful of the maintain the contour and the quality the character of the neighborhood. so i'm all in support of the expansion of this. supervisor mandelman's thing here. so, hopefully we can protect this and maintain the quality that it has. thanks a lot. okay, last call for public commentj9. seeing none, public comment is closed and this matter is now before you commissioners start i'm focused primarily on staff's three recommendations. and the first pretty easy to me. they reflect staff's experience on how they reviewa and implement. and they need these in order to be able to continue to review and process in a sensible fashion, the

second one, as controversial, and, you know, i hear all of the neighborhood requests for preservation of neighborhood character, a term, by the way hcd has told us we're not supp and i recognize them that we number of levers that we can try to increase the amount of housing and try to keep it affordable and that we're experim supervisor mandelman is experimenting with tparticular 3000 square foot cap, but i'm equ by the fact thatw we need to increase the density in these neighborhoods, this is a pretty higheed to find ways to encourage people to add, good sized adus, not the 300 square foot studios that we sometimes see that are, it's really hard to believe those are ever going to be rented out but 800ft!s is a size two bedroom unit. and while iknow some of them may not be rented out by

the current be rented out by a subsequent owner, they could be used for adulte a very likely scenario. they could be used r in-laws, that i am intrigued by staff's suggestion worth you know, i, i would make the trade off staff's recommendation that we allow people to go to 4000 but only in return for badu is a really sound. way to understand see if we can actually get more useful infill housing. so i would be in support of theh the three recommendations. commissioner imperial president dimond, i support the, you÷ legislation by supervisor mandelmand, you know, we we've seen many cases here where a demolition or a tantamount demolition of a single family home which is being maximized that is twice of the size. and that affects the market. when we're looking into the s home market as well. in

looking into this> analysis and i appreciate this, the staff really put a good analysis on this, and looking into the racial social equity analysis, there is a statement here that says in san francisco, it's not a notably large and of course, i think we can, we know what a 3000ft!s look like. and it does, it is large. so i am actually baffled with that t number two, and i understand it the what we're you know, i also support in a way i would support a recommendation that's allowing up to 3000ft!s, in addition of 800 square foot. i 4000 square foot seems to be very large, a single family home. and, i don think it will serve as to what the original legislation is trying to do, so and i also with, you know, because we have also kindase

density and to add up another unit. and in the commission we have done that. so many times, but we're always negotiating on , on the, on the second unit what it looks likeb, i would, you know i support it recommendation number two if the, you know, if the maximize maximum maximum size and, and i think i get the logic. what why you're trying to do 4000 square foot. because that's kind of like the cap of the regional large size. and i think that you know, i, i think i understand the rationale in think in terms of the spirit of the legislation, which is to, you know, pretty much limit the master homes that we're trying to do. i think, you know, i we should align with. i do have a question onl$three in terms of the calculation of the gross square footage in multi-unit buildings and shared spaces included, where will that calculationif they will not be included? it's a uni sud, because it's something

where we'rehe units gross square footage for the cap. so it doesn't necessarily need to go anywhere. because of the fact that the limit here is3000ft!s per unit. so we really are just concerned with the independent living shared stairwell that isn't total for this purpose that's that's fine, so in terms of shared, so we're pretty much calculating just the livable units, the independent living example, the corona heights sud does calculate the entire buildisquare footage when it's looking at a cap. but the centraligs looked at the individual unit and that's what's made it multi-unit buildings to determine how to calculate that shared space, how you. so in staff recommendation, i su one and three. unless we we change the number to up to 3000ft!s. so that's where i'm at. i hope to hear what other commissioners say as well. thank you, commissioner braun. yes,

yo in general with the spirit of this, of you know, creating this hard cap of 3000ft!s and making this standard, we have had to navigatete the conditional use authorization process for larger units and i think we've done a good job as a commission in getting people to add additional units, but in some ways, i feel l#ike that was sort of a trade off that came from the proposals coming into the conditional use authorization, so i want to explore recommendation two and a!s little bit more detail in a second, but i first have some questions or recommendations of 1 in 3. so, on recommend one to not include accessory garage space in the calculation of gross floor area. i'm curious, i j want to make sure that, you know, to m i might be misunderstanding some of this, but to my mind there's a possibility that in a way, the unit is now getting even bigger. if the garage incorporated into the unit calculation. so now it's@ú 3000ft!s

on top of the garage. so is that is that an accurate understanding the way t work? you know previously the garage would have been included in that 3000. yes. it could be done either way. situation where you already have a garage let's say you have7÷n attached garage right now and you were applying to expand your home under today's law for the sud that unless you're trying to expand into that garage, that's what we were hoping would happen withhat people, instead of trying to expand the physical building envelope, would say, we don' really need a two car garage. let's actually just expand our livable space into the garage area because it won't count. it's already counted in our total living space, so it won't be considered an expansion because it's already included. the especially in multi-unit abuil might be a two car garage, or there might only be a one car garage or a garage space. parking lot parking garage with multiple spaces. the, smaller unit might

all of a sudden be designated as the entire garages that unit, or even the larger of the garageñ> spaces goes towards that unit, so that the larger unit on the property that might be proposing expansion as well doesn't have that counted against them. we don't normally count garage space when we're counting gross floor area for other purposes. in an experiment with this sud. but you are right, commis of this sud, because we're saying garage spaces wouldn't count. that's what we're proposing here. it could ex gross floor area if they already had a garage. and they areot wanting to expand their living space into that garage, that what that leads me to wonder is, this is where i just don't know the ins andaybe as well as i should but what are the limitations on making sure th with a very large garage, in addition to their 3000 square foot space? it seems like that previous control would have had an incentive to keep the garage

at a modest size. but, are there other controls that would place limitations on that parking maximums? yes, we for sure have parking maximums throughout the city, so that's alreadyce control that's in place, so yeah. so as long as we have that in tha comfortable with recommendation one. but i want to make+f sure i understood a little bit better. and sorry i didn't send these questions ahead of time, getting in the weeds as always, on recommendation number three. i'm i'm comfortable with the spirit of this recommendation, tolw not include shared spaces in the calculation. and i heard what said about how in one of the districts, the shared spaces already were calculation of the unit sizes i'm just want to check to make sure. can this i want to make aren't big holes in this that it can be gamed where now there is something being designated as a shared space that is quite large, but realistically being used by, you know, one of the units. so i guess i'm looking for reassurance that that wouldn't be the case with this. i'm happy to chime in, you know, i think we look at could pick

it apart. you know, i think storage space is the only thing, you know behind a garage. storage space would be the only thing, that, like, right now, again this is part of the reason we're asking to exempt it is sometimes there are these spaceat clearly discontiguous from the unit, but it's not clear exactly the real world it's going to be used. getting into these arguments with applicants of, you know, who is this is this being used? is it shared storage space for all of the tenants? is it deeded to one? and it and it, can lead, especially if it's not a condo building. it can lead into a challenging crsation. and so i think our thought on this is as we're opening up this legislation, looking ways that we can implement it better whatever the square footage is to really have it be the pure contiguous primary living space. and so that's that's why we had that recommendation. it just is going to make implementation a lot easier most of the time. what we're talking about is yknow there's a staircase up, there's a door to the side. you know it's pretty obvious that

that's not part of anyone's living space. but it wasn't clearly defined in the legislation that we're to exclude that. so part of this is a little bit of just clarifying the language. so that we're really clear that what we're lo in the unit, the storage spaces are kind of the more prickly ones,yn but that would be sort of my best answer to youti i know that there are plenty of examples out there where people might be gaming storage spaces, but that's a broader issue. andi'm in support of recommendation three. if it does pass with this recommendation i just suggest that we keephat's actually happening. as always. okay. and then i think i mostly just have comments for the second recommendation allowing up to 4000ft!s as an incentive to also add ansquare foot unit. i come down more on the side with that one that it really does seem in opposition to the intent and spirit of this legislation. we've gone from a, you know 3000 square foot per unit cap to something where now that let's family home property i would love to see a second unitt!s in the building, which is a pretty

substantial increase o 3000 square foot cap that was sort of intended behind this, so i, i'm open to other ways to craft that. i'm not quite sure what commissioner imperiale what you meant in terms of the if we keep it at 3000ft!s, i don't know what the incentive is to provide the second unit at that's working for me as some sort of alternative recommendation, unless i would like to hear more. but, r not leaning in favor of recommendation to. commissioner. so thank you. i have a just a basic math question here. if you don't mind answering my question just toúi clarify on your recommendation number two, that means a house can go up to 4800 square foot t a house could go up to 4000ft!s and have one 800 square foot at least 800 square foot cwunit. it could be more than

800ft!s, but there would have to be two units on the operty. the maximum size of the largest unit would be 4000ft!s. e of the second unit would in that parcel there's two units but total will be 4800. the building would be building 4800ft!s. okay. and then your recommendation number three is the share space. that doesn't count does it include the egress pathway. deck, it would be anything that's not dedicated as gross. what our fits, our definition of gross floor area. so i don't believe count in the definition of gross floor something that's within the interior walls, like as miss waddy mentioned, shared stairwells is the really the biggest one. so i is one common entrance with a hallway and then maybe one of the units, you have to walk up a set of stairs. that's what we're talking about when we say space. so the building in your example, you could have a 800 square foot or

larger second unit, a 4000 square foot unit. and that shared interior space that is meant for common access. it's accessible by both unitsg path that is requiredng code. correct. okay. so those will be all not counted. correct okay. so is it fair to say that this given parcel could kind of become likecause, fire code egress and the common staircase, you discount all the common staircase, the whole pathway to exit. yes. and it could be even larger than that, because again, the second unit, it's a minimum of 800ft!s. if they have the lot area let's say this lot of 5000ft!s. they could have as many as our allowable building envelope can fit that. the building large as that with the allowable densities for that zoning for the information. may i ask one thing? i'm sorry. i think you might want to chime in later, but just like in general for

thisghborhood, corona heights and the other that is in this proposal, would you say, what is the large lots and what are what are the average great question. i think what's interesting is when we first developed the corona heights sud, one of the reasons it was developed is because a lot of them were substandard lots because of all of the slopes on the lots. it's a very hilly neighborhood. this is a fairly expansive area, the area that the sud you can generally say that most lots in the flatlan;bds areoing to be your standard. by and large, yourt you might be able to elaborate more on whether this particular area has any anything more than our average of larger or smaller lots. sorry, i don't have the exact answer off the top of myu2 but this neighborhood is fairly diverse in its lot sizes. there del larger lots, particularly in corona heights. there's actually a lot here's frontages, both on the sort of the tops, you know, steeply

sloping part oe and a lot of those lots tendready have homes that are, you know, significantly larger than the ssholds established here, the other point i was just going top in mind this ordinance is also expanding beyond just rh districts and i there's not a ton of other properties that are outside of the rr. but we shouldn't presume that two units is the only number of units that building. so there could be a multi unit building as well. you in, i don't know if miss maloney sort of scanned all theáx zoning districts, but there could be zoning districts here that allow more more density than just two units. and this might be helpful. this is slightly out of date. it's from 2020 when we were first analyzing t original zoning controls, where they would apply to all rh districts citywide, zfthe said in in 2021 and i will say is not perfect data. this is the best we could do based on calculations we can do with what we have. but if iv the overhead, please& all right. so this is

not lot sizes. this is average unit size units buildings we're looking taking that what the assessor has given us as the building size and dividing it by the number of unnnits. the assessor tells us are in the building. so again very to include common spaces in this when we're dividing the calculations. but as you can see, certain neighborhoods have an average much larger than others. it can be an of lot size as well, though not always. so going down to this sud and i'll zoom in a little to make this slightly more readable. i'll try to get around the captions hereso it says that in, noe valley, the 1449ft!s.r twin peaks area it's slightly larger, but about the same at 1461 castro upper

market because we have a little bit higher density there 1342ft!s, and that matches some of our more hilly neighborho park and dimond heights. okay thank you. i have one last question. it's kind of related to what miss walti was mentioning. like some of the, lot here are not just for two units, so there will be possibility there will or so in those scenario, what with thisi recommendation. what is each of thema sure. so if i could get the overhead this is also in your case reports as one of the exhibits. so on the left we have where the sud currently applies, where it currently applies. and then on have where the

expansion would be not only withlso with our zoning districts. so anything that's not that you're seeing on the left are the new zoning districts.h includes a little bit of down in the southside. and all of our purple, which is our nc t and ncds, in our nts zoning is form based. so the money, the amount of units you can build on the lot depends on the size of your lot and in our ncds it'sa generally between it's generally about 3 to 5 units depends. it's not a straight okay. yeah. so our ncds like nc one which i'm not sure offhand if we have nc one here we might in cole valley, the lot maximums are numeric, just like our residential dist and the four plex ordinance does not apply there it does. so in our nc three districts you can build more

units. but again, it's numericacrolled. okay. yeah. and looking at this, justing map pulled up it looks like there's nc one. there's for sure nc three there's two, there's, r2, r3 r1 three and upper market nct. so there's a there's a pretty diverse swath of different types of zoning districts. some are density d controlled. okay. thank you. e proposed ordinance? all of them. s even in an nc rm so even inthree, your building maximums could still only it's unit per unit per unit. correct. and we did look aat when we were analyzing this. it's fairly rare that we have a proposal for a especially a single family home in an nc three district especially of a 3000 or more square footage, limit. and so this is per unit is the thing to

remember here. and i think that's particularly important. the fact that it is shifting over to covering more nc related districts. why recommendation one and three are especially important is we're going to see more multi-unit buildings applicable. thank you. commissioner williams. i want to thank the commissioners for all your thoughtful questions, i've learned just just listening to what's going on, up here, i've, i've got different insight, from reading the packet as, as far as equity, you know, i think theosal is good, keeping these homes down to a size that is not small, 3000ft!s is substantial, and so i think that's that's, that's reasonable, given your recomm 1 in 3 even kind of lifts some some, gives

more, more room, for that flexibility. and then, these monster homes impact neighborhoods. i think is, is really important to focus focus on because2e the price of family home is, is like completely out of reach aving, and, the pressures this is just becoming a town where, you you're not very wealthy you. it's very, i, imandelman's effort hered, i think thene and three are are good recommendations. i'm not going to recommendation two. i th, given the recommendation one and three i

think that's that's reasonableay. vice president moore, this is an extremely difficult issue, and i body's comments and more questions. you ask. the more complicated it gets., actually, miss swati, a few months ago, and i'm not exactly sure how manywhere that was was enlarged, claimed that there was an adu on the second while the third and first floor were occupied by the unit owner. however, these three units these by an elevator. and while o the elevator would not be going operable did connect potentially connects by stair and by throughout the building. how would you calculate that the stair? is that a common space or is that a whatever? we have seen several of those. and i'm kind ofthese little new tricks. sure could be interpreted.

this with saying this is not necessarily written go with my gut of how i think we would approach this. this think if the elevator was keyed as being limited to one unit only, which is often the case in this scenario that we see, that would be part of the primary units square footage. so we would count tha a stair that truly both, you know both households would to walk in from the street and walk the stairs to get into eir vvdoor, that would be excluded. so in this particular case, it was ambiguous because it could could be interpreted either way, i getting back to am very supportive of one an questions about a number two, particularly since this legislation does not, codify that the adu has to be immediately at completion of project. and for that reason, i do not i do not see any this as being another attempt to make a two and one and three, very very pleased that, supervisor mandelman opened this up to a

broader consideration that is also an easier for the department to administer. so[a points. i like to make a recommendation if weeady, can i ask one second and then i'l at other ways, to create in density? well maybe pass that over to miss maloney. thank you, president diamond. that's a great question. blem for a long time through many different efforts. some that come to us through ordinances from supervisors and some that we have led at the direction of the commission, i think we stand by our idea to incentivize density is to have the carrot and the stick to limit the home size, if you're going to build something that's a large single family home or oneon a lot that's zoned for more zoned r-2 or r-3, we should be only allowing you to go up to a certain essentially required to give us

other efforts in the past that have potentially maybe been a little too complica and simplify that in this scenario, what we saw in the firs t two and a half years of implementing this study is that when forced applicants would build an adu if that adu was under a questionable how it would be used to us with the project alreally proposed, creating an adu, especially of a livableze, it feels like that adu is more, for lack of legitimate. it's an adu that actually feels like a sizable home. it's not going to be used as an entertainment room or a we, and it actually may be used for multi-generational living, even if it won't be individually rented out. and so that's kohat we were trying to get at with this idea. 3000ft!s, we all agreelarge home. so the difference between a 3000ft!s and a 4000ft!s in terms of affordability and being accessible to the middle franciscan

doesn't feel like that great of a difference. but if we can encourage somebody to the in this same high resource neighborhood that opens up new doors to more middle class accessible housing. so that was our intent with that specific incentive. i appreciate the additional explanation. thank you, vice president laura, i'll go back to you because, i'm going to go on a limbarticularly i just came back from europe two weeks ago, and i was talking to people about densification in europe, and it's approached very diff capacity of cities. their infrastructure, their streets, theportation systems. they have. and in order to densify which has become a worldwide problem, people are starting to think about giving informed recommendatis on more efficiently live. in particular, unites. so you're starting to give the guidance b taking a little less space rathernding, because in order to accommodatee people with limited resources in

infrastructure, etc, there is a way of carefully guiding that we shrink our units totally livable, and they all are, but take up less accommodate more people. i need to say that point i would like to share with the department unit size livability that we may not have explored. so g+uoittion, on what's in front of us, and i like to, make a moto we support with may, may, may need to be an intent. because at this moment i think the motion is written with modifications. that's plural, not specifying one and three only. i think that modification can be made as part of the resolution. if this motion passes, i don't think we have to do a motion of can handle that. okay if there's no further deliberation, commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation with modi, but only those

recommended by the department. one and three on that motion commissioner mcgarry. i'm torn because the two is an ext unit that will not will not. so i for that reason, i would, approve, but staff recommendationsthe motion on the table is, is, motion to adoptrecommendation for approval only with recommendations one and three right so let me say that if this motion were to fail, no i would introdur motion with one, two and three. very good. okay thank you commissioner. so can you ask another one first. so table is a recommendation to approve with staff modifications, but only modificati and commission president diamond just indicated if this motion fails she will encourage to

make a motion that would adopt a recommendation staff's modifications including r a few more seconds to think. so ivote, no. commissioner williams. yes, commissioner braun. hi commissioner. imperial. hi commissioner moore i commissioner. president diamond. no. that motion passes 4 to 3 withg commissioners mcgarry. so. and diamond voting against commissi on item 15 hyphen 005622 pca laboratory mixed use zoning district planning codemendments. good afternoon, commi pnt staff and a brief welcome to commissioner mcgarry. and thank you to president, commissioner d is the laboratory uses in the urban mixed use or umu zoning district ordinance. this was s9tponsored by supervisor walton. and unfortunately, we do not have anyone from the office

attending the hearing today. but i am joined by miss laurel arvanitidis. she can,e correct the pronunciation for me later. she's from the office of economic and workforce development and she will share a few words, after my presentation the proposed ordinance and the first is to revise thenition of laboratory to include biotechnology in the listed examples, the second amendment is to makeab a not permitted use in the drafted, this legislation would impact the proposed laboratory development at 700 indiana stree. this is an item that you heard on june 13 approved. there has since been a ceqa appeal filed on this project scheduled for the board of supervisors in se by the large project authorization of appeals on october 9th. so whatever the outcome of osed project at 700 indiana

would no be vested through a building permit application in time or before the effective date of this legislation. other potentially impacted projects, but most or many of those are small enough to be approved over the and staff is just not aware of what those projects may be or how many not supp. it is inconsistent with the general plan, and staff recommends that you adopt a recommendation of disapproval. staff recognizes that the industry has changed and really the real world application of what people consider a laboratory, a lif in our current code and the way we define t, as currently propos the biotechnology activities within thew1 definition of laboratory does not changillustrates an additional example. but a lot of or all of this is already covered within the laboratory

definition, some examples of this testing, fertility specialists. so again all of this fits under the definition. the proposed amendment does change the implementation here does not resolve any of the confus overlapping definitions of laboratory versus life science, and the department hopes that future ordinances will, provide more effort to further clarify thodsion between these terms. the staff report did outline some potential solutions to avoidnfusing definitions and instead focusing the definitions based on. part of that solution would also be toe definition which again, just adds or continues to add to the confusion regarding prohibiting laboratory uses within the zoning district. i'll just start off by noting that the umu

district intended to promote a vibrant mix of uses and maintaining characteristics of the formerly industrial zoned serve as a buffer between residentially zoned areas and the production, distribution and repair, or pdr. the map in the staff report shows that the umvu districts are dispersed through various neighborhoods, so this amendment is really more fartaff believes that are larger unintended consequences here, spans the dogpatch mission bay soma, just to name a few neighborhoods. and so really, these are some of the neighborhoods that we do want to see. laboratory laboratories. and the concern is that by prohibiting laboratories within all of the umu districts, that this would then drive up the demand for nearby or pdr spaces in the potentially price out some of these industrial. the department has, you know, put in a lot of effort a

number of years to preserve pdr uses and pdr districts. so this l9proposed ordinance could unintentionally undo a lot of those efforts. it also make it harder for the city to attract ercial and industrial activity, and also assist newly emerging economic activities which goes against the general plan. additionally activities offer a full range of employment opportunities. so it's not just skilled technicians. there's also still some entry level laboratory just support positions that do not require advanced degrees or years of experience. so we wantl breadth of the employment opportunities here we do recognize that the wor jobs are now hybrid or even fully re positions laboratory uses and laboratory positi are one of the rare examples where employees really required to come in, to come

into the resea saw in many of the public comments some of the experiments or tended to 24 over seven or need to be easilyve accessible. so these employees are coming in to the facilities they really add to the street activation. they frequent our local businesses and they do boost the local economy, staff al hears and understands some of the concerns represented from the dogpatch and potrero communities, but believes that there are other legislative efforts that would betterñ achieve the types of uses that these neighborhoods want see in their communities and that these other legislative efforts could also still continue to preserve and attract laboratory uses, while alsoes and pdr districts, if the concern is the potential loss of an active commercialuire active ground floor commercial uses along specific streets. this could also be specifically called laboratory developments, and this and other potential

solutions were discussed in the staff report. again the recommendation today is that you adopt. and at this time i'd like t arvanitidis to also share a few comments. thank you. hi. i'm laurel auer, can you hear me with my mask on? okay. i'm laurrv. i'm the director of business development in theff o workforce development, and i thank you guys for allowing me to address you on , our team works to help businesses starty%, stay and grow in san francisco. we are successful at this when we can demonstrate both a business friendly climate in sanfrsco and an ecosystem which will be beneficial to the business. that's an ecosystem of support businesses better execute their mission and ecosystem of customers, and a strong workforce base in evaluating this legislation. we have concerns that this moves away

from all of the work that we've been doing together to further these goals of improving our economic climate and makingthat a diversity of businesses that employ people and provide in-person work opportunities can exist in san francisco. we've worked hard. we've passed proposition h we've passed the smalliness recovery act, we've passed the downtown streamlining permitting improvement legislation. we've done a lot of work on this and this legislation. we fear mak us step backwards. as we reviewed the legislation, as veronica mentioned understand what businesses would be told they couldn't locate iny. and these are businesses that support business, that. so, testing labs that test our food chain, that help food businesses understand how that help marijuana, cannabis businesses comply with testing regulations, labs that test medical devices they can safely be implanted in patients, medical labs that support our doctors with ivf treatments and other treatments, pregnancy tests. blood labs that help make

sure that the blood you donate can safely be used by a patient labs so that when we'requiring that windows and tall buildings be able to withstand to wind, we can confirmand they can comply with those regulations. here in san francisco. these are allyó these are all labs that support a diversity of other businesses and existing in san francisco. and they create jobs, jobs across the spectrum of workforce janitors engineers, all accessible jobs andobs for professionals with more education likecrobiologists, research scientists, ecologists biochemists. these are all very important to the city and disrupting this at this moment in time, as we're trying to bring business back to san francisco as possible, is concerning to us this ordinance so we can further the work we've been doing to make sure that our business climate can improve in san francisco. concludes

presentations. we should open up pupublic, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this ite chambers, please come forward and line up on the screen we sir. hello good afternoon. my na is helen chen. i am a molecular biologist and a business owner. my company is called alexia and we are developing colon and pancreatic cancer. i live and work in dogpatch. as an immigrant, i believe one of the biggest thing that america can do is innovation and diversity. and for scientists, havingd access to laboratories is like an engineer having a garage to do a crucial workshop to build prototypeso that we can improve human health by allowing small biotech businesses to thrive in san francisco with high quality laboratories, we can foster creation of groundbreaking innovatio. and for my company, i mean

developing a cancer drug takes 20 yfunding agencies. when i had a laboratory in davis, it's really hard to get anybody to come out. i moved to san fro. i got my co-founders here, and we were able to attract millions of funding because i can tell them come and look at my laboratory we do, is something that's tangible. and i had an investor who came in yesterday. he said, i will love my daughter, 13 year old daughter, to come and see a young scientist can come out and do the workys i really encourage you to consider democratizing health care, because i don't want to work for a large pharmaceutical company. i have my own ideas and it's great that we can have innovation being done here right here in san francisco, and also very supportive of my neighborhood. i talked to the shopkeeper, local liquor store from ramallah. i lined up the neighbor bakery and just enjoy all the local foods i don't. i hardly drive just because i live here, and i worry about the restaurants in my

neighborhood because, you come and go and i take my friends there and i can don't have to drive an hour just go to palo alto just to go to work. so,t, how laboratories can impact biologists in the ways we want to improve our human health andñó also how we love our community, just like everyone else. thank you. good veronica schober, and i am a senior scientist at biotech company based in san francisco. i 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 potentiallys legislation could have on both our global health system and our city. such a ban would significantly hinder ourlife saving medicines for our patients. for those of us in the biotech field, 24 over seven access to lab is

essential to our work. i believe that progres industry has made so far is largely due to the%d fact that able to live and work in the same place, in the same cit enacted, our company and startups will have to relocate from san francisco this would not only make it logistically challenging for us to perform our experiments, but also increase already high commercial and residential vacancy rate in the city. additionally, being based in francisco allows us to collaborate with other companies such institutions as university of san franciscopensive and essential laboratory equipment located there. we participate in scientific discussions, attend meetings.ese op research and staying in innovation. moreover, biotech companies oftenage with general public through events and outreach, and thisosters intellectually stimulating and vibrant community. icity of san francisco to recognize the significant value that biotech sector community, and

instead of adopting thision, i think you should consider developing policies that will support and nurture biotech industry in ther your attention. name is kathleen molnar and i'm a 12 as well as a phd scientist. i'm speaking in the urban mixed use, so when i arrived 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 just really cherished, like that, mixed use sort of zoning success. right? i knew t the same time i was able to walk at groceries and bike work. so the dogpatch is the same sort of bustling neighborhood, thagft exists for mixed use today. i think developments like the 953 indiana street, nbc biolabs really bring like, folks are saying, scientific jobs, to an area that's already, well connected with public transportation an area that's

walkable, you can grab coffee at pacino or at the cheese shop and a place where people really wantinnesota street art project. so it's a really diverse, wonderful mixed use area. so i fully support laboratori of this urban mixed use properties. and i think the neighborhood is flourishing because of that and not in spite of it. thank good afternoon, commissionersnd for all your public service and appreciate new commissioner. thank you, my name is mr. dennis williams

laboratory use in the umc zoning is not a good policy for the city of san francisco. excuse me? its residents or its small 700 indiana will help san francisco's bevy minds. excuse me on positive things. only positive things ca$n come from university students having close access to safe, technology based laboratory facilities in close proximity to their school, as well as their apartments. as a fellow uc graduate, time everything. san francisco must get back to being a b and hope for the rest of the world, especially through medical and health care. i wonder today what is supervisor shamann motives are as he induces introduces such legislation? excuse me eventhis amazing commission, i cry foul community advocates and several underfunded black small business owners up and down deplorable third street have all pleaded at different times with supervisor shamalation as, but not limited to the inclusion of qualified local black developers, general contractors and subcontractors to joint

venture luxury out of state developers and general contractorsbx corporations who take massive amounts of san francisco's finances to their own respective states, to no avail. he has. so why play a political game simply because you see some potentially gaining an equal playing field. it's downrightterproductive in my opinion. i just want to briefly thank i want to specif mr. robert of nbc bio labs mr. dewey, but most notably mr. ryan who has been diligently involved in our community outreach throughout dtn is very hard work. as you know, though, it's not in writing job training, mainte training and future employment opportunities in the biotech sector will beke this opportunity to emphasize the critical labs, prioritizing dtn residents and resident owned, and supporting our sf hyper local employment, business and contracting opportunities and not limited to just this future development. dewey land company and nbc bio labs dedication to

promoting diversity and supporting sf small businesses within the construction industry is our shared values of inclusivity and community. community support good afternoon, planning commission. my name is ma ludlum. i'm a biotech researcher, entrepreneur founder, ceo, parent and sf resident san francisco resident. i've lived and for over 20 years. i'm a resident of the mission. c a women owned small business early stage out of both the dogpatch and mission bay ove last ten years. i strongly oppose the proposed legislation, and i wouldike to briefly highlight three points to assist your deliberations.ents in zones negates a key advantage relative to developments outside of san francisco. the city the nation for walkability and fourth for biking, offering straightfor environmentally friendly access to work, educational contrast, laboratory developments outside o typically exist

in a relative desert of such resources. the proposed legislation would rob the city of a key competitive advantags, new businesses, entrepreneurs, and their associated echoing the findings of the office of economic development. in the current climate, we should be playing to our strengths or even better, doubling secondly, i'd like to highlight that early stage biotech provides exceptional education and training opportunities. many early stage technical companies%á including my own, are recipients of federal grants supplementary funding to support training opportunities for veterans high scho-l teachers. my company has also hosted students from thesional masters in biotech program, which places students in part time employment as part of their core course requirements. having these opportunities within convenient commute distance of local communitso they can attend both their work responsibilities and their educational, is key to finding suitable candidates for these roles, which for local biotech and technical businesses but also for thesedidates. lastly, i'd like to highlight

that the sharp decline of brick and mortar real estate retail and the dominance of remote work in& other sectors has allowed us in other business sectors, hasus all to the neighborhood risks of rapidly changing or easily disrupted businesss that leave a trail of empty shop fronts and vacant office. laboratory and biotech research are long term business endeavors that are not easily relocated on a whim a work. laboratory space developments thus offer antá opportunity to establish long term businesses that train and employ highly skilled workers on site attracting ecosystems of employees that are invested in the success of their neighborhoods. thank you for yourou to oppose this legislation. hello my n olguin, went to grad school in pittsburgh carnegie mellon for computer science, and eventually i came to san francisco in 2008, icorporate

research group focused in biotech in eventually i made the switch in 2016 or 17 to create my own startupf it wasn't for nbc, i wouldn't be here talking just so easy. as a parent of young children, then, to be able to, you know, follow your dream, we make biosensors,onsors, things like hydration tests, focus on athletes initially, but eventually the elderly and our children. and, i just, you just take my bike to take them to school and then go, go to work. that would just be impossible to do if i didn't have a space to start a company. we have received grants from sbir and i, y know, signed by people like nancy pelosi. so we're super excited that we're doing somethingnt, in general. but we think we also in our own little way to grow it. so, again, i wouldn't be able to do that if places like nbc were not able to

keep expanding and making it more easy for startup funders like us to keep keep moving forward. so thank you hi. good afternoon, as a proud longtime resident of san francisco,?eve we must preserve the ability to build laboratory space in our city, while remote work has reshaped our lives, as you've heard today lab work is necessarily in person, and labs create many jobs, right? not just for phd trained scientists, but also for technif. as well. biotech might seem complex for people outside of the field, but it's not so different from following a recipe or solving a puzzle that requires creativity diligence, persistence, and teamwork. is of the world's greatest challenges, while the can be intricate, the goals and

benefits i believe are profoundly impactf and relatable. startups are the true innovators by leveraging cutting edge research and taking risks companies can't and don't. san francisco's unique confluence of scientists, entrepreneurs, and capital makes it an ideal hub. but without the proper lab infrastructure, companies will have to go elsewhere. and that would be a real shame of nbc bio labs, we provide lab startups developing new medicines medical devices and technologies top combat climate change and promote sustainability. we strive to be good neighbors as well. our scientists have chosen to commit their life's work to improving health and the environment, so they're intrinsically citizens of our building. the neighborhood recently volunteered at a neighborho the past month alone, we've welcomed over 10 the world for tours and talks with our scientists and entrepreneurs. our companies are hosting over ais summer, giving many

their first taste of what would look like. so i hope this commission will continue to support the san francisco. and i recommend not approving the legislation. thank you for your consideration and for all that city. good afternoon commissioners. my name is christy carella and ianager for biocom california. biocom is the oldest and largest trade association for life over 1400 members with 620 of those members here in the bay area. i am here today to ask you to#e disapprove this legislation. i did submit a commentter on this agenda item, but i'll just emphasize some of the points that i made in that letter. viacom's recent economic impact report revealedat the life science sector generates over $8 billion of total output in san francisco. this includes over 25,000 jobs, both directly in

the sector and also supported by the sector. 25,000 total. the employees of these laboratories, which not only include scientists but employees at all levels of educatio often residents of san francisco living and working within theegral members of our community who contribute to the vibrancy and diversity of our city, both in the neighborhoods they live and the neighborxed use zones could potentially foe comp of the city undermining the iatn francisco prides itself on. i urge you to oppose%$ this legislation rather than creating barriers thatlandscape, we should focus on finding solutions that allow these vital maintaining the integrity of mixed use. good afternoon. i'm nicole kimes. i am the founder of schulte therapeutics, which is a spin out from ucsf. and i want t, one, for the honor of being here and day for at least two

of you. also to simply say thank you for all of the work that job is complex and it's hard, and you have to different levers to keep our cities vibrant and diversified and inclusive an easy task. and i would say it's ve7$ry are scientists who look at biological systems. they're complex networks where you have to really look at all of the multifactorial ways in which they interact. and it's important to think about all of the different pieces that are coming to this. i'm actually a reluctant ceo of a biotech. never once wanted to start a comp. it was never a dream of mine. but as a scientist atq! ucsf we started to learn that there wass in our microbiome and there was a way to actually address chronic, lifelong diseases by getting at the root causease. that means if we intervene early enough, we're proceventi. i was

dismayed to find out that much many of our large commercial want to do. they have a very they have a wonderful role to play in science, but agile, early development that takes 10 to 20 years before you get to a commercial product that they're so good at utilizing and helping wiy"th is an extremely important role beyond biotech. i think it's important to point out that as commission, you guys have done a lot of and figure out how we take two wonderful characteristics of san franci. one is our ardent support of grassroots work to keep our neighborhoodsmz vibrant and diversified, as well as this amazingv"e, to really reach out and innovate in a way that nobody else does. and those can be seen two competing entities. but this city haslways historically taken both of thoseld them

together and made ways to work with them. and youmu is one of those ways to do that. and we think laboratory use is a really&9ortant part of both grassroots and innovation. okay. last call for public comment. seeing none public comment is closed in. this matter is now before you commissioners several weeks ago this commission unanimously apo< proved the indiana9= project. and this hearing is somewhat of a rewind in terms of the testimony that we have heard and i am my head wondering if we have a solution to understand what the issue is that supervisor walton is trying to solve with this proposed legislation, and i, i'm not+w saying it. i mean we didn't hear any testimony about it. ther draft staff report, so i am, listening

to the staff report was exceptionally well done in trying to talk about the consequences of this particular piece of legislation myself, very much wanting to disapprove. reasons that are listed we have a 37% vacancy rate and everything we can to attract and retain businesses. the umu zone seems like it was designed uses. all that of analysis was 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 located that are only permitted to be located there the problem i see, which i talked about and we all talked about last time, is i think the code definitions are a mess on biotech and laboratory and they could use some cleanup, staff

proposed. i approach to doing that. and that's sensible, but that's completely differe particular piece of legislation does. if problem is activation along the streets then we have lan approaches we can design for that. concern about safety from laboratories, then we should be looking at if that's a real issue or if that's a fear, we could have more analysis on that to see if there real types of laboratory uses that might create understand whether or not there are already protocols in place to address those concerns. and if there aren't, then there may be life safety regulations adopt. but i'm not seeing this piece ofk legislation, as the way to approach this. and i think it sends a terrible message that are very at a time when we need , that it's trying to discourage it. commissioner. so thank you. address what president diamond mentioned about if it's a really a life

safety issue that we do have a lot ofd building code and fire code mechanism, actually designed to save lives.nd i myself had in my previous years of working for larger architecture firm, i did some lab building and man, they areeally expensive some of them are actually in ucsf. so i understand these challenges. why scientists can't move faster. i am thinking that not too longt hours on this particular ojd we had mentioned a lot of the good neighborhood outreach and community outreach and try to be a good neighborject that, made my opinion, kind of initiated this legislative proposal amendment in earnest believe, i hope the project sponsor is follow up with actually doing much more commitment on, not only elevating all the young

minds to continue to pick bioscience 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 the cost of this item today?had the luxury to attend a talk about health care, and i met quite a lot of innovators, scientists doctors that turn into, the space betweeni didn't really understand that. it really takes if there's 100 devices to try to get through fda only one will make might take them 10 or 15 years. so you guys are in it in the very fossil industry and government regulation, we're not creating we're not to do this like something doordash do. right. let's do another newiver groceries. this is actually

really going to save lives. and i think t current setup of our government isn't really, i mean, we could do a lot faster to help save lives and improve our, livability for everyone our loved ones. so to prohibit any more people to come to san francisco, where we have a robust venturehere to attract more people here to invent besides doordash, to actuallyáj see in land use matter,, really robust growth of not only hopefully you guys can actually 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 inspire our younger kids. and family, to

pursue bioscience career. so i really don't w to see more scientists sitting in this room spending the entire day coming to talk about why, you know, like, you know what? don't displace us, you know? so, so i really appreciate staff did a really good job. and alongsidebs food, share with us on such a really good report about unintended consequences it will come if we vote, if we don't vote in favor for staff's reenti i'm here in motion to adopt staff recommendation. second. commissioner williams, thank youciate everyone who came out today, and spoke, are your insights and your. i have different first of all, i to, unfortunately to use the bathroom during plannings, presentation. but was

was there any social economic equity? analysis done? regarding this proposal, thank you, commissioner williams. the staff report and our analysis did not go into specific data of what the socio economic impact would be, by really from a big picture standpoint, we do have concerns of what the resulting legislation would be and prohibiting all described the concerns from there. and if i may also just add clarification, becauseere might be some confusion in, in the room and what the legislation would do to existing businesses or existing just wanted to also clarify that this proposed legislation not directly impact those not require those legally established laboratories to close doors to vacate the premises, leave districts

or leave the city. what it made is, create or turn those legally established laboratories into non-complying uses. and from there, those laboratories would not be able tohey wanted to hire more staff, conduct more experiments, they wo expand anymore in the district. they also would not b 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 ofarify, existing legally established laboratories continue. they just would not be able to expand. they would not be able to get new laboratory neighbors if this wereafted. i have another question for you. how about the existing families and, and residences that live in the in the area, how more influx of, these biotechz

our existing residents? and, has there been any analysis on that in terms of our existing residents, let's say if they they would really benefit from the continued existence of the la. or if there's new staff, if thisyou guys, have you guys like done any impact reports sounds to me like,er no controls that that the biotech industry can, into this area. and i'm just wondering what the impacts are, going to be on the existing residents and how that how it's going to impact our social and racial, equity in the city. sure. the staff report does have an it. it talks more about the impact that's going to

have on jobs in. so one of our concerns is first, this would push laboçratory u city, then to our pdr disicts which then has a negative impact on our production, distribution, repair jobs wh have entry level labor and semi-skilled labor jobs there. so it could impact, away jobs for them. umu is a very mixed use district. it's not predominantly residential, but evenresidences there, they're out by umu because we have very robust controls to preserve housing in san francisco. so section 317 would use to demolish someone's home and displace themthen build a 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 statement, although this wouldn't impact existing legally established laboratory uses, there are, i believe three projects including theat you guys talked about robustly. you know, maybe a

month ago. and i believe,bb< not fully vested their permits. so this legislation passed. those projects could not proceed. so it would have the effect of undoing what few months ago. so it would have direct impact on think everyone here feel are consistent with our general plan and good economic drivers for the city. just, one more question. so how are we going to separate or how is how are we going to laboratories from, from residences where people think there's a concern about that as well. and i'm legislation addresses that, because that was something that came upike miss waddy during the last hearing where we did that that project. but i think that's a concern, too, for people that live i agoing to have a buffer? between residences and and laboratories? so i'm just

wondering, i guess i'm not sure what the conflict is with that. laboratories are pretty self-contained. they don't a lot of noise. and the umu district is intended. i don't i mean, i'm not sure of that. i appreciate that that you're mentioning that, but i'm not of that. well, it's difficult to understand what thiswe don't understand exactly what the supervisor is intendingo do other than prohibit labs in the umu entirely which is not justea, but extends also into several other areas of the city. so we're sort of responding to something we don't fully understand his concerns on. we have reached out to try to narrow in onso we're making educated guesses about what impacts labs coulde. but that hasn't been fully articulated to us. so when the umu was set up, it was intended district with a variety of different uses in it, even if this pas still true of a variety of different uses can still locate such as light manufacturing. i believe can also be there. so

the impetus on this noxious fumes or noise to res don't think that's why this ordinance was introduced, but at leastted to staff. i appreciate you. thank you. th. let's see. commissioner braun, i definitely i support, making the recommendation to dis disapprove this item. and there's a couple of reasons why some of which have been articulated already a know, at at first glance, banning laboratory uses throughout the entirety ofseems like a very broad brush approach to a zoning district that encompasses a very large geography, not just central, the centralt, also potrero hill, showplace square, mission, it and it has been, i think, selectively selectively approved for parts of the city based on the idea of maintaining that vibrant mix of looking

at, you know, what's on the ground today, making sure it's not likely displacement, at least not direct displacement. take to heart the idea that facilities really do support our economic diversity and our abil businesses. i think the point about, you know, what could happen with our, our areas that are actuallytill zoned as pdr for production, distribution and repair where we facilities that support things like construction and manufacturing an it's, the't want to create a situation where now we have a lot of lab uses who are trying to outcompete those types of businesses, for space in our pdr districts or commercial districts, especially becausemselves benefit, in a way, from having th businesses, lab based businesses in the city as well, you know, creating a diversity of job opportunities that are related and supported buildings, and then also, i'd hate to see a lot of these lab uses go to other cities as well. we are in a lot of

different places throughout the bay area, and we are a place where, it's a highly efficient place for people to get to. commutes are much easier, people have a wide able to access jobs in the city. and so, you know, i would like to keep those jobs here in the i will say i really appreciate the very detailed analysis done by department staff in the report an those ideas and recommendations,spg up our definitions in the zoning code, can maybe getrate from this, this discussion, so that maybe of us, i do agree. i support the adoption of the recommendation to disapprove. thank you, vice president. more i think mr. starr's comment just a few minutes ago, kind of my concerns. if staff is not able to fully understand what the supervisor intended, i

personally do not do not believe that i can opine onng that it's disapproval, but that i would encourage staff to sp supervisor rather than saying no. the reason that is as follows, for quite a w the potrero boosters have verbalized their concerns aboutthat is a very simple ent by residents being concerned about biosafety and biosecurity. i think there is still enough2ñ uncertainty about the potential leaks of covid from laboratories have different opinions about that. there's been a lot said and not said, and there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other, but that particular worldwide experience i think, created i'm sure, amonl1wg als, including our scientists here, a significa ncern about lab safety. and while i greatly appreciate all what you're

doing, and while i increasingly more important to into the future, i do believe that the p because they're the recipients of a large lab use in their concerned about it is zoning the right tool to regulate biosafe don't have any idea. there is probably an issue of oversight or coordination and coordinated oversigh d i do not know if this restrict from supervisor walton's office will help us with that. i do apprec mayor's office a strong stand, and i apologize for not clearly catching your name, it a great presentation, and everything you said i would be in support of. except i do believe that there are reasonable safety concerns that need to be addressed, and we do tools. perhaps it is in redefining our defitions and our code. perhaps mr. schwitzer could talk to that. i do not

know. you were, i think. were you intending to say something? it seemed to me that mr. stai was just going to speak to the intent of the umu district, would youd doing that? so that everybody has a strong grounding on that? i woul appreciate if you would. sure, sure, i'd be happy to. as mr. starr said, the umu district is not is not a residential district in the same sense of even a neighborhood mixed use district. it was land that was zoned purely industrial and then through the eastern neighborhoods process, we created this district to allow residential uses to enter an industrial district and creataixed use district. and it was always intended to have you know, pdr uses and industrial uses and lab uses and other side by side. and for those seeking a purely , moving into the umu district may not be the right. you know, the right block to move on to. these were really intended. these are the sort of the transition zones between industrial districts and more purely residential districts. they are the truly mixedricts and 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 be you i appreciate that. what do you mind? yeah. please, i'd lik to. laurel arvanitakis. i'd. i'd like to address your questions about, your statement about covid leakage, all of t. any lab that has any any sort of infections requires bslch goes through 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. it be owned by the government. it would not be in downtown san francisco. the kinds of san francisco are going for bsl one and bsl two licensing, like science lab has bsl licensing. these are3 it's not it's highly regulated by the federal and state government and not through land use through other laws, in building code. so i while that may be a

fear, i am confident that that a bsl four lab could not be licensed in the umu because of the makeup of the area around it. i appreciate that i'm familiar with th the classifications between bsl one and bsl four. ultimately, the devil is in the detail and it isand again, i believe that perhaps zoning is not the right tool. there are, massachusetts, which has basically of having a more safety overview$, overlaps as as a way to deal with community concerns about lab safety and i'm not an expert exactly how that can be achieved, i read about it and felt that there are other people trying to explore other frontiers. the one other issue anchitectural urban animation issue, is the fact that labward looking, inward looking buildings. when and pick up a crown from my dental lab, i'm walking wall because it's an interior

oriented use and the community that is potrero hill, and i'mnot speaking for them, but that that is one concern that i, about the lack of participation with street life as it becomes a more increased, larger use. they would have liked to see some forms of animation being acquired by planning, perhaps, of how to design and make these buildings more in, quote, face to the street. so nobody is here to repeat of what they said regarding the indiana streetdu lab, and i 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. and, commissioner, if i just may to that point we would be more tha down with supervisor's office to get a better understanding to ad a willingness to have a more in-depth conversation. and as you know, legislative,

legislation that's transmitted from the board of supervisors has a 90i4o be heard by 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,s is the we've run out of time to have that conversation. we have tried unsuccessfully with the supervisor to try to get at the further intentis is this is it. this is the only opportunity wswer for me one question, miss ward? and that is, aren't the supervisor so they're not even here? is that my proper understanding? are they still here? i would i would have to defer to folks in city hall or maybe laurel can answer. she's probably more. or aaron, this week they're still in session, so i called the office and there was nobodye. okay anyway, thank you. commissioner imperial, thank you, and thank you for all the come up, i with with the staff with this legislation that is being in front of us, you know, a big

you know, any recommendationy the staff, you know, we usually the plan i know that thening department does its analysis. and at the same time we would like supervisor's office as part of their analysis or what they're hearing from their neighborhood or from their district as well 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, the way we look into the racial of this is more about the land use, how the pdr is going to,of 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 commercial districts, the residential, you know, the access also and i,

you know, again, we're only speculating at this point of what the supervisors concern and i'm speculating as well that perhaps his concern is aboutt of it in terms of the residents or the real estate marketing real estate market, perhaps, that we don't haváñanalysis of that of the biotech perhaps the issue is it's going to be kind of a bust economy as well as the, at the dotcom market. again, i d know the biotech market. and, you know, and i do appreciate all the scientists that coming over here. same time, san francisco has a general we predicament of economic crisis as well. and, i feel like we also have to do our thorough analysis of whatally, but in the fabric of our of our city, because we're creating we've created a big p i'll go back the central soma it was zoned for office developme

all of those offices are vacant, and we're doing that kind of rezoning in response to the market, but we're not a in response on what would it look like, what it would mean to the residents and to the fabric of neighborhood. i appreciate the conversation that we had during the 700 indiana street, because made, you know, during that process lot of conversation for them, for public engagement, community engagement. and that's what we uld like to see that these kind of companies are comingoing to integrate into the fabric of social of san francisco the same time not displace current residents at the samose are very big issues that we're dealing with here am very cautionary about the disapproval a i'm and i'm also i'm also going to share my a supervisor could have given us more explanation but yeah, but that's where i stand. thank you, commissioner mcgarry. hello, everybody. there's no

better example of progress than science. and thank you here today, lab work and sign science will create opportunity for the community as a whole. local(íg0 community as well, not to mention my day job is for the carpenters urom a community standpoint, 700 in bay and all that work puts hundreds of people to wo hire, wages, benefits, working conditions, health care for not just the people working on it but their family, t investment in a community makes a community what it is. and the more investment any community can get, and if there's a concerns of this community being disenfranchized by that, i think ies overrides those concerns. so for that reason, i would be recommending the staff. was that a motion i would there we already

have a motion that has been seconded commissioner deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation that motion. commissioner mcgarry i for disapproval commissioner. so i commissioner i commissioner. imperial. no. commi more. no. and commission. president diamond i so moved commissioners that motion passes 4 to 3 with commissioners williaml and more voting against. and let's take a ten minute break item. welcome back to the san francisco planning commission hearing for thursday august 1st, 2024. commissioners, we left off under your regular calendar on the final item on your agenda today, number 16, case number 2023 hyphen 010863 coa forz the property at 400 through 402

murray street, a authorization. good afternoon. commission president diamond and commissioners. welcome. commissioner mcgarry. i'm maggie louch, planning department staff presenting a request for conditional use authorization pursuant to planning code sections 303 and 317 for the removal of an unauthorized dwellingv! unit, or ud at 400 to 402 murray street in an rh the bernal heights special use district. the propertial structure with two legal dwelling units, one at the second floor and one at the third. the ground floor is divided into two garagesyou.do. the project would remove the cooking facilities and restore the garage to its former use as off street parking. noions are proposed. the udu was first brought to the department's attention as the result of a dbi notice of violation and a planning enforcement case was openedolation. a permit was filed to legalize the udu, but that stalled after planning

approved it in january020. and then it kind of stalled during buildings review in november 2023. the subject application was submitted proposing to remove the udu instead of legalize it. the udu is not currently occupied. in the past ten years it saw a single tenant, a close relative o the udu from february to december of 2017. tha tenant the unit ever saw. in the staff report, the department received one comment inquired about the project and our udu removal policiesd not express support or opposition to the project itself. the project is, on balance, consistent with the policies ogh it wouldn't result in the legalization of housing. the space has only been rented by family members within the ten years preceding the application. the department also finds the necessary, desirable and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood ando be detrimental 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 department recommends approval. this concludes my presentation. it's a short one but i'm here for questions and i will now hand over to the fproject sponsor. project sponsor, you have five minutes. good afternoon commissioners fa, president diamond. and welcome president mcgarry)ñ, i heard an accent with you. i'm from scotland originally. i'm michael hanna from mimic architecture. i've been doing architecture in the,9 city for 20 years now, and among my design prtsec i also like to help out local citizens in need that maybe don't understand the dbi process that they can face when they seek a permit in this city to two very big issues in the previous items that you're wrestling with, and

i think they're very important. and i think this project can serve as a v in to the everyday realitylly happening beyond all the big ideas about forces and economy and jobs and. this is an example of, well, i was brought on to this, a year ago to help the client who went into the planning department crying after years of turmoil and confusion about this case. and in summary and from what i cancrtion in the project this is an example of the very important, successful adu and authorized unit sort of legislation. what i mean by that is this building is co-owned by, a cousin to

cousins, are below the unit in question, in the garage in the lower level where there's almost no light becausí# it's dug into the ground. it's just received daylight at the garage door, and the darks light. well, to the to the east. but what happened was the, the family who are from the middle east, the mother came to stay. there was a husband and wife in that unit. they put a kitchen very foolishly, put a kitchen downstairs in thehind the garage, without any of the human habitation light and ventilation requirements that you would need for a comfortable unit. and how someone lived down there. i'm not quite sure. but to call it you know, a habitable unit is, is a bit of a, the couple in question, the part owners of the buildingseparated, and it

appears that theplainant was the former husband and the people left holding the bag, the wife and the cousin next door who owned the building. received in 2017, the enforcement action. and through a series of, you know not fully understanding the enforcement action andy the unit was unauthorized and that had to be corrected. they were, they ignorantly, albeit thought that they were being forced to put a architects that they hired many thousands of dollars and never told them that they had options. the city staff never told them or weren't clear. it might have been in the documentation, but it wasn't clear that there were options and they went through 6 it would look like 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 them , no, they have a right to propose a project that isn't legalizing a unit. and paying almost half $1 don't have, they're both by the way, the cousin and the wife that are in the unit still, they're both city employees, one works for muni and one works ineve in this building. and she was just at a loss. and mohammed, the her cousin, was at a huge loss. and were worried that they were being forced to shell out $500,000 or 400,000 as the construction cost. but you pay architects, engineers permit fees, you're talkinghey were under the impression that they almost to build this unit, that they didn't sir, but that is your t think if the commissioners have questions, they'll they'll call you back. okay. with that, commissioners,

we should open up public comment. members of the public s your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. if you're in the cham forward. seeing none, public comment is closed. and this matter is now before you commissioners. question for staff. just just can i help just to confirm, no tenants were ever evicted. and they only people who ever lived here were family members. and one of the factors that the code allows us to, take into account when making, this decision is whether or not it was limited to family members. yes. that's correct. so the new findings un section 317 for the removal of a you-do are were there eviction!b, there. the rent board records show a 2007 owner move in eviction for a one of the legal units on the property unrelated to the unauthorized dwelling unit. i don't even know if it was the were no evictions related to the you-do and then the second

who lived in the unit andt talks about family, a direct sort of up or down relationship, parent child things of that nature. thank you. i don't have a problem with granting the see you, but i'm curious to hear what others say vice president moore, i believe that mr. hanna, i believe that mr. hanna's description fully explains the complicated but simple background of wha happening here. the plans are evident that there was no really attempt other than using a space which you think you could use not understanding. perhaps the codes and the procedures that go with it. and i'mupport and would approve with conditions. that is a motion.ing further. commissioners. there is a motion that's been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. commi commissioner williams i commis commissioner imperial i commissioner moore i and commissioner president diamond i so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0

final one all. >> usf donates 100-120 pounds of food a night. for the four semesters we have been running here donated about 18,000 pounds of food to the food ♪

>> i'm maggie. >> i'm nick. >> we're coe-chairs of the national led organization. what food rerycovecover and redistribute food that wouldo wasted and redistributing to people he community. >> the moment that i became really engaged inause of fighting food waste was when i just taken the food from the usf cafeteria four pans full size full of food petec be eaten and made the day before and that would have gonethe trash that night if we didn't recover it the next day.

i want to fight food waste because it economy, it's one of the largest greenhouse gases in the world. if it was a nation it would be the thirdar l china and the united states. america wbout 40% 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 have throut program in our center i go ahead and collect it and cool it down and every night i prep it up and the next day i'll heat it and ready forme i

love it i'm passionate about it and it's just been great. i believe it's such a blessing to have the opportunity 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 in shouldn't be looked at as work or a task, we're feeding people and it really means so much to me. i come to work and they're like nora do you want this, do you want that? and it's so great and everyone is truly involved. every day, every÷eriod of food breakfast lunch dinner i just throw it away. they don't even think twice about it ak as a whole as a community, as any community, if people just put a little effort, we could really help each other out.

that's how it should be. that's what food is about basically. >>hat meets is the san francisco knightta ministry we work with tuesday and thursday's. ♪ ♪ by the power ♪ ♪ of your name ♪ i have faith to move mountains because i believe in jesus. >> i believe it's helpful to offer food to people because as you know there's so much san francisco and california and states. i really believe that food is as well as our faith.

san francisco knight ministry has been around for 54 years. the core of the ministry a group of ordain ministers, we go out inv the middle of the night every single night of the year so for 54 years we have never missed a night. i know it'sn the united states but a lot of our people will say thive had in two days. i really believe it is a time between life or death because i mean wióe couland have church but, you know know how much we could feed or how many we could feed and this way over 100 people get fed every single thursday out here. it's not solely the food i tell you, believe me. they're extremelygrateful. >> it's super awesome how welcoming they are. afte or two times they're

like i recognize you. how are you doing, how isever been in the city it's overwhelming. you through the music the food, you get to know people. >> we never know what impact we're going to have on folks. if you just practice love kindness, it's a labor of love and that's what the foodk is and this is a huge -- i believe they salvageéú our mission. >> to the most important part is it's about food waste andydg people. the food recovery network national slogan is finding ways to feed people. it's prope scientific 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 re reimagining our city. our guest today is the director transportation of the sfmta and he's with us to talk about the agency's 23-24 budget with the muni equity strategy and new projects across the city. welcome to the show. be here. >> i see the sfmta's budget for 2023 and 2024 has been approved. how will it help provide a strong recovery during the next few yearsand staff? >> it has been aging couple of years. covid wiped out the basic fiesnc our agency is funded primarily from transit fares parking fees and a set aside for a general fund and covid has meantore than half of our parking and transit for

revenue.d to recover them until 2027. this budget takes a one-time federal release funding and spreads that out between now 2025. and our task is to rebuild trust wiot sfmta can actually deliver on their goals includes things like making muni faster, more frequent, and more reliable. includes safer and making everyone feel safe riding the bus. it means taking advantage of the amount of 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 franci i and 2024 in order to build trust with the voters and figure out how are we going to find muni 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 muni service is not fully recovered. this budget allows us to fully staff through 2024, which means weervice invest in safety, and invest in other programs in order to make the transportation system work better for everyone. >> can you talk about the mooney service equity s out of the pandemic, how has that plan been updated? i have heard there are elevator upgrades in progress. >> wen equity during muni's recovery. we have beenny. this is the plan we update everytwo years that looks at the changing demographics francisco and helps us direct our transit resources where people neede most. that means people with low income, people of seniors, people with disability, children all the folks who have the fewest choices.

during c to strip back the transit system, 13 quarters of the workforce were in quarantine, we directed all of the agency's resources to the equity places like the bayview chinatown, the mission the valley and even we have continued to deliver the best muni service's so -- most. right now we are still operating more frequent service in core lines in equity neighborhoods than we did precovid. and the extraordinarily high ridership. we are finding, for frequency and reliability on lines like the 22 fillmore that we are getting 133% of precovid ridership even when the overall system is only at recovery. that is 133%. that is on we are at about 96% ohiity lines weekdays.

we're also investing a whole va projects 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 thevators at the station. we have completed the elevator upgrade for the platform. we are now working on the westboat will modernize the elevators and make them a lot more reliable, and make sure that we can continue to prioritize people withst mobility choices. >> that's great. changing topics slightly, i understand the improvement project is halfway completed. have shared spaces made the product -- project more complicated? >>de the terminal project morecomplicated, 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 infrastructure of the streets

the underground utilities modernize all that infrastructure and make it more resilient, and make sure that:ee do not have to rebuild the street, hopefully in any of our lifetimes. we also learned about the collaborating particularly with neighborhood businesses and residents. we want to make sure that we are constructing the city's infrastructure in a time that the city is suffering and we are not adding to suffering. we're doing things like partnering with th mayor's office of economic workforce development to support neighborhood businesses through programming d,/urin we are also making sure that that create shared spaces in the parking lane, some of those need to be moved out of the way while the utility work is done underneath them. we are making sure that we will either move those platforms and outdoor eatins back as they 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, sfmta vision 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 buildre fast-moving projects using simple and cheap materials in order to redesst out new ideas and see how they work, as 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 know, curb extensions. what we have been finding is that our q projects are able to cut severe injury and fatalitiesw0 between 25 and 75% depending upon the location on the techniques that wetargeting streets that have the highest rate of traffic crashes particularly injury

crashes and fatalities. we focused on evans, which is really important connector for all modes of transportation between the bayview and the central neighborhoods of san francisco. also a street with a terrible track record of severe crashes. on evans what w paint and plastic posts for the time being, is taking the lanes that are out there right now, and converting them to one lane in each direction plus turn pockets. what we found on streets like valencia or south bend this, or -- south van nassp3 a street with one lane in each direction plus a term pocket can move just as much traffic as a street with two lanes in each direction. left turning vehicles meantwo lanes of traffic are never really available for through traffic. these road diets that we do have been tremendously effective for improving safety outcomes for all road users, without

exacerbating traffic. they do make all cars slow down to the speed of the most prudent this week we are getting started in partnership with the department of public works on work to restripe all of evans between third and cesar chavez, and ast of this work will be collecting a lot of data,nqto industrial users in the industrial district and talking to folks in the bayview commercial district and in the mission about how it is working. we will make some adjustments along the way and if it is successful, thent that is more capital-intensive to make it permanent. if it is not successful, we will turn it back the way that it was, h spent very little money. >> thank you so much. i really appreciate you coming on the show. time you have given us today. >> it has been great being thank you so much. >> that is it for this episode. we will be back shortly. you have been watching san [♪]b