San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Good afternoon, and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, 10/23/2025. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have thirty seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will announce that your time is up and take the next person queued to speak. There is a very convenient timer on the podium where you can see how much time you have left and watch your time tick down. Please speak clearly and slowly, and if you care to, state your name for the record. I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And finally, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. At this time, I'd like to take role. Commission president

[Lydia So (President)]: So? Present.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commission Vice President Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Braun? Here. Commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So (President)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Here.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Present. And Commissioner Williams? Here. Thank you, commissioners. First on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. Item one, case number 2020Five-twelve17CUA at 175 Margaret Avenue. Conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to 11/06/2025. I have no other items proposed for continuance, so we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their continuance calendar only on the matter of continuance. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed and your continuance calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Move to continue the item as proposed.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to continue item one to November 6, commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero, placing us under your consent calendar. All matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may 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 the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. Item two, case number 2025 hyphen 8,757 PCA appeal timelines for zoning administrator actions, business and tax regulations, and planning code amendments. Item three, case case number twenty twenty Five-eight 636 PCA, state mandated accessory dwelling unit program, planning and business and tax regulations codes amendments. Item four, case number twenty twenty five, hyphen zero zero three zero three one CUA at 310 Through 312 Columbus Avenue, conditional use authorization. Members of

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these consent calendar items be pulled off and heard

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: under the regular calendar today. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and your consent calendar is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Braun.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Move to approve items two, three, and four. Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt recommendations for approval on items two and three and approve item four, commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. Commissioner Williams. Aye. Commissioner Braun. Aye. Commissioner Imperial.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So (President) [time-bound override]]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Placing us under commission matters for item five, the land acknowledgment.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I'll be reading 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 San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as their 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, elders, and relatives of the relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Item six, consideration of adoption draft minutes for 10/09/2025. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on their minutes. Again, you need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. Your minutes are now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Move to adopt the minutes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Second. Thank you, commissioners. On that motion to adopt your minutes, commissioner Campbell?

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore. Aye. And commission president Soh.

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Item seven, commission comments and questions. Okay. So Do

[Lydia So (President)]: you think it's something I actually, do you think I should say something about this what happened this week? So I'm pretty delighted that that this week, along with the World Economic Forum, we initiated the Davos Baccator Alliance initiatives. San Francisco is one of the six cities that was chosen to join Alliance globally with Kuala Lumpur, Utrecht, Medellin, and Montreal, Canada. So this is something that's more like a, think tank. And our director, Sarah Dennis Phillips, was one of the keynote speakers in there. And it was exciting that our city continue to, take on these initiations. The topic focus for San Francisco in this particular, Davos Boccator Alliance initiative. It's about addressing our sea level rising and climate resiliency. Of course, this also touches a lot about land use and transportation and how we can move forward together with the rest of the world and learn to be inclusive and also driving the future of our city in a global level. So and Sarah had, spoken eloquently in the executive roundtables and continued to be one of the keynote in the entire, summit. So I'm really proud of her and, proud of her representing San Francisco planning department and also city at large. Thank you, Sarah.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If there are no additional commissioner comments or questions, we can move on to department matters. Item eight, director's announcements.

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: I'll just add briefly. And commissioner Soh, thank you very much. Definitely, it's the city of San Francisco, not me, that's up there speaking. But, thank you for that acknowledgment. I I think, as commissioner Soh just talked about the World Economic Forum being here this week with so many partners from, other countries and other international cities and getting impact from them, we're able to launch two we're launching two public realm projects that I think are worth noting here just over the long term that so you know we'll be working on them that we're pretty excited about. The first is really amping up our efforts to cooperate and partner with the port on their seawall, restoration efforts. And I think one of the things, as commissioner so mentioned that we'll be doing under the Balcouture Pioneering Places program, which is something that the World Economic Forum is setting up across six cities so that we can collaborate, is really honing in over the next year on our near term efforts to improve Embarcadero Plaza and the public realm on the land side of our kind of front door of downtown with the longer term resilience and sea level rise efforts that are happening on the water side of the port and making sure that, what we're doing in the short term is also pointing to the longer term infrastructure and transit related improvements that we need to make so that the city, gets better today, but also has an eye towards the long term, placemaking and infrastructure work that we need to do as we replace that seawall. So we're excited about amping up those efforts and that collaboration with the port. The other one that we'll be amping up and that has already been underway, but will be as the planning department amping up our efforts is, looking at the 16th Street BART Plaza. I mentioned last week that I had an opportunity to tour the mission with many of our community partners. BART has, an intention underway to remake that as a better place for the community. There are whole there's already been both from our great staff efforts in soliciting community input about what they wanna see there and some of BART's early efforts in soliciting community input, some early seed ideas. So we're excited about embarking and partnering with BART on that urban design project moving forward as well. And then the last thing I'll note, and this is more just a plug, we this Friday, the city has one of its outdoor Diwali celebrations that we're really excited about. Bongaram Beats, which was one of our very first downtown activation efforts coming out of post pandemic. So that'll be this Friday downtown. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Item nine, review of past week of past events at the Board of Supervisors. There is no report from the Board of Appeals or the Historic Preservation Commission.

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, SF Planning)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Aaron Starr, manager of legislative affairs. This Monday, the land use committee heard the mayor's family rezoning plan. This suite of ordinances would amend the planning code, zoning map, local coastal plan, and general plan to implement the rezoning necessitated by the, recently adopted housing element. The goal of which is to increase the city's, zoning capacity to meet our arena targets. During the hearing, the three members of the land use committee were joined by six members of the board, with only supervisor Dorsey being absent. As is typical, staff start off with their presentation, followed by public comment, which lasted for several hours, as I'm sure you can imagine. At the end of the hearing, the original unamended zoning map ordinance was continued to November 3. The committee also duplicated the zoning map ordinance and amended it to remove specific parcels. Those amendments were proposed by supervisor Cheryl Cheyenne Chen and supervisor Connie Chan. Supervisor Cheryl proposed to first lower the proposed local program height on the Marina Safeway site from 65 feet to 40 feet, so back to the existing height limit. The second was to lower the proposed base height and local program heights on two parcels on the North Side Of Geary at Emerson And Wood, just West of Masonic from the 7140 to fifty eighty five. And third, to lower the proposed local program height of Ghirardelli Square from 65 feet to 40 feet, and lower the proposed local program height on the North Side Of Northpointe between Larkin and Hyde from 65 feet to 40 feet. Supervisor Cheyenne Chen proposed to remove all parcels in the priority equity geographies SUD from the rezoning, so that includes over 1,100 parcels. And this includes all areas of Fisherman's Wharf, several blocks along the southern portion of Venice and Polk, the whole area of the Hub and D 6, the area around the Balboa Park, BART station, all parcels along Brotherhood Way west of Junipero Serra, and several parcels adjacent to Stone's Town along 19th And Eucalyptus. Supervisor Connie Chan's proposed amendments would first remove the rezoning from 122 parcels in D 1 within the coastal zone, Two, lower the proposed height limits in various neighbor commercial districts in District 1, including the Inner Clement, Outer Clement, and Outer Balboa. And on various non named in sea parcels, lower the height from 65 feet to 40 feet to retain the existing height limit. She also proposed lowering the height limits on all proposed RTOC parcels. And third, she proposed to remove the s f SFMTA bus lot at Cabrillo And La Playa from the SFMTA SUD. Next, the original planning code amendment ordinance was amended to exclude parcels with, three or more rent controlled units from the local program, which was supervisor Melgar's proposed amendment, and to provide incentives for warm shell commercial space and replacement of existing storefronts, which was supervisor Sauter's proposed amendment. It was then duplicated twice with the original ordinance, was continued to November 3. The first duplicated, planning code amendment ordinance was amended, by the request of supervisor Mandelmann to prohibit lot mergers of any lot citywide that contains a historic resource unless it is part of a proposed project that maintains the historic resource for the life of the project. This amendment will be re referred to this commission and is tentatively scheduled to be heard on November 20. The second duplicated planning commission ordinance was amended to include amendments from supervisors Connie Chan, Cheyenne Chen, supervisor Melgar, Cheryl and Sauter. Cheryl and Sauter's amendments add an additional incentive to the local program for provisions of two bedroom units above the minimum requirement. Supervisor Melgar's amendments would prohibit any local program project from demolishing or converting any portion of an existing tourist hotel. And supervisor, Cheyenne Chen's amendments would revise the unit mix requirement in the local program to revert to existing standards and not allow any modifications to unit mix. Her second amendment proposed would add pre application requirements on SFMTA sites that are included, that include a feasibility study for 100% affordable housing and at least one pre application public meeting. Supervisor Connie Chan's amendments would first substantially expand the categories of historic resources and potential historic resources that would be ineligible for the local program. Second, to prohibit the demolition of any existing dwelling unit as part of the local program project. Third, revise the geography of off site and land dedication for local program projects to only be within half a mile of the primary project, as opposed to anywhere in the family zoning plan area. Four, create a new codified thirty month shot clock for procuring a permit for any local program project. And five, remove all changes that would implement form based density in the base zoning changes and revert all districts to existing density limits, including making the new RTOC a density limited district instead of form based. This duplicated ordinance was then also continued to November 3. Supervisor Mandelmann also had another amendment to the map ordinance. It would remove from the rezoning all parcels that currently contain at least a listed article 10 landmark or a contributor to an article 10 district. This wasn't ready for the, this week's hearing, but it is going to be submitted at the November 3 land use transportation hearing for consideration. Hope you got all that. That's a lot. So the full board this week, 530 Samson Street project passed its second read. That includes a planning code, zoning map, and a general plan amendment. And then supervisor Mahmood's development impact fees for residential development ordinance passed its second read as well. Supervisor Connie Chan's ordinance that would permit outdoor handwashing, vacuuming, and detailing in the Gary Boulevard NCD past its first read. And also, the board passed all of supervisor Mandelmann's landmark designation, initiations. These will now go to the HPC for their review and comment. That's all I have for you today. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I I just want to, like like to thank you, for that detail. There was a lot there. Yeah. Is there any way we can get a copy of all of that information?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yeah, I can

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, SF Planning)]: forward the PDF to you.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Okay. Just because there's a lot of information there, and a lot of it's important. But thank you again. You're also

[Lydia So (President)]: starting. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: I do have a question, mister Star Star, again, around the family zoning. Are any of those changes proposed if they are passed, are they going is is there a time limit that some of it will come back to the planning commission? I'm

[Aaron Starr (Manager of Legislative Affairs, SF Planning)]: My understanding is that supervisor Mandelmans is the only one that needs to come back to you, but I can defer to the director.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you,

[Maria Soloveyshka (Public commenter, biotech founder)]: Erin.

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: That is absolutely correct. I think the other thing that's worth noting, commissioner Imperial, is that, the the majority of the changes, that were proposed were discussed at enough of a level, maybe not a robust discussion, but enough of a level that they don't require coming back. We aren't sure how many will actually move forward, and there will be there are projected to be two more hearings, a minimum at the Land Use Commission to review these changes. There also will be, a robust conversation that I know the chair of the land use commission is interested in having with HCD. I think she is very, interested and concerned that what she helps move forward through this process, will be accepted by our our state legislators so we can, actually have a compliant housing element. So that's kinda what will happen next.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. Well, to clarify that was on the land use committee. Yeah. That's okay. Thank you. You have one more?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Oh, okay.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I have one

[Lydia So (President)]: too. Commissioner Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I wanted to thank mister Star for the detailed presentation, and I wanted to acknowledge that the nuances which seem to be coming through with these changes much reflect many of the discussions and challenges which were expressed also in front of this commission. And I'm delighted to see that they are being heard, that they're being potentially integrated, and I look forward to seeing some positive nods where even Sacramento will help us to do the right thing without losing view of what our obligations are. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I have a question around HCD. And just out of curiosity, what how do you know as far as, like, transparency, how how are we, to understand what their criteria is and what their threshold is as far as all all the the latest developments that have come out of the family zoning plan. Is is there I I'm just wondering, you know, because because there's a lot at stake, and so it's just just a question that came to mind.

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: So to be clear, HCD is not actually reviewing all of our amendments. We need to bring them to them and and discuss those, but we will do that. I think one of the things that both staff and decision makers have been great about over the past year since we adopted the first part of the housing element, which this commission adopted, is having a a continuous feedback loop so that we make sure we're working the whole purpose is to stay in compliance with state law. We wanna make sure we're staying in compliance with state law. So I think the best guide it'll be an iterative conversation. We can't know for sure, and and, you know, we'll share that conversation with you if when we get any clarity. We don't always know what clarity we'll get through those conversations. But the best indication that we have from HED is the preliminary letter that we approved right before this commission adopted the family zoning plan earlier this year. And I can recirculate that to all of you, but the primary point there was not reducing, likely capacity. So making sure that we we continue to maintain sufficient capacity as directed by HCD. So that's our our best gauge at the moment.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Is just just one more question too. Is there any chance that someone from HCD can actually come here and and maybe answer some questions that the public might have. Has there been any discussion around that? Because since this whole process has started, since I've been here on the commission, I've we I think there's a lot of questions that that the public has around, a lot of these requirements, from HCD. And and I've never had the public hasn't had a chance to hear from them directly. And so I just was wondering if if if that if if that could happen or if that was ever in conversation.

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: I I don't know for sure. I can say that I am not aware of HCD presenting before. As you as you know, we are on the latter half of of housing element requirements. There are a number of cities that went before us, and I am not aware of HCD attending any of those meetings. However, commissioner, we are happy. We do have many materials in writing that have been provided through this process, so we're happy to share those with you. I think that's been their primary method of communicating with us.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good, commissioners. If there's nothing further, we can move on to general public comment. At this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. When the number of speakers exceed the fifteen minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: agenda.

[Monica Morse (Public commenter)]: Hi. I'm Monica Morse, longtime resident of San Francisco and chair of the land use committee of the west of Twin Peaks central council representing thousands of homeowners, families, and neighborhood associations West Of Twin Peaks. I'm here to provide general comment to request that SB 79 impact analysis be completed and delivered to the land use committee with sufficient enough time before November 3 when the land use plans to vote on the family zoning plan. State law already did the upzoning job that you all worked so carefully over the last several months to do to do. SB 79 just upzoned within half a mile of every transit stop in San Francisco to fifty five and seventy five feet that more than fulfills Sacramento's housing mandate as wildly inflated as it is. The family zoning plan goes way beyond s p 79. It is a fifty year plan, not a five year plan, we've been told by planning. It added on density control for every parcel, pushing demolition and speculation deep into San Francisco stable family neighborhoods and places intention these are places intentionally left untouched by state law 79. Planning staff said Monday at land use that s b 79 will apply to all of San Francisco in 2032, and s b 79 may actually apply to upzoned areas, these priority equity geographies, as soon as it goes into effect this coming July. That's the entire city up zone to entice development, so it seems like very critical information for the board of supervisors before they transform San Francisco forever. One of mayor Lurie's priorities is transparency and good governance, which would go a long way to restore the trust of homeowners and tenants. So I urge planning to urge to ensure that city hall has the information it needs to make informed decisions affecting the lives of residents. And as you just heard, this is incredibly complicated, but I did not hear the update on s p 79 in the in the recap you just got from staff. So we look forward to hearing it here, and that ensures that it gets to the board of supervisors and land use in time. Thank you.

[Henry Collins (Project sponsor, 149 Cole St.)]: My name is Henry Collins, and I'm requesting, due to health reasons, if I can be scheduled prior to the scheduled time.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Sir, you're referring to item eighteen for one forty nine Cole Street?

[Henry Collins (Project sponsor, 149 Cole St.)]: Yes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: K. That's that will be up to the chair.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you for spending your effort to come here today, and I am we don't want to impose any more undue hardship on your health condition, so we will be, extending our courtesy to, grant you your request to hear your item first.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: First under the regular calendar.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Mhmm.

[Lydia So (President)]: Yes.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good. So we'll we'll be taking your matter out of order next.

[Henry Collins (Project sponsor, 149 Cole St.)]: What is it?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: We'll be taking your item out of order next.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Okay.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Last call for general public comment.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Mhmm.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: You need to come forward. Seeing none, general public comment is closed. We can move on to the regular calendar. And as just stated, we'll be taking item 18 out of order for case number 2023Hyphen002463CUA for the property at 149 Cole Street, conditional use authorization.

[Michelle Taylor (SF Planning staff)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Michelle Taylor for planning department staff. This proposal is a request for conditional use authorization to allow the removal of an unauthorized dwelling unit. 149 Cole Street is a two story over garage residential building comprised of two legal units and one unauthorized dwelling unit. The project site is located within an RH two zoning district and a 40 x height and bulk district within the Haight Ashbury neighborhood just north of the Panhandle. The proposed project would remove an unauthorized dwelling unit from the area behind the garage of the residential building at 149 Cole Street. The project includes removal of the kitchen and conversion of the unauthorized unit into storage. The building would retain the two existing legal dwelling units. The unauthorized unit has been vacant since March 2022. It is approximately 565 square feet, has a full kitchen, a full bathroom, and has a total lack of visual spatial connection to other units on the property. I would like to acknowledge that the planning department would not typically favor the removal of residential units that demonstrate a path to legalization. However, after carefully considering The U unique challenges of the property owners, the department recommends approval with conditions of a conditional use authorization. We recommend this largely as an effort to evaluate request with equity and thereby consider the unique circumstances related to an applicant situation. In this case, the project applicants are 95 94 years old and 97 years old, both with disabilities. They are requesting approval of the removal due to emotional, physical, and psychological hardship. And although a formal evaluation of deficiencies has not been conducted, it's estimated that such work will not only cost tens of thousands of dollars, but also a significant amount of time that exceeds the applicant's resources. The department has not received any public comment for the removal of the unit. For these reasons, the department finds that the project is unbalanced, consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. Although the project results in a loss of a dwelling unit, conversion of the unauthorized unit back to storage is necessary to eliminate design functional and habitability deficiencies that cannot otherwise be corrected without significant emotional cost to the applicants. The department also finds that the property to be or the project to be necessary, desirable, and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. This concludes my presentation. I'll be available to answer any questions. I'll now hand it over to the property owner, mister Collins. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Henry Collins (Project sponsor, 149 Cole St.)]: Thank you for providing me this opportunity. I'm saying that due to my age, 94, disabled, wife, 97, disabled, and at this time, at this point in my life, taking on a task with that would be have some emotional, psychological, and of course, some financial hardships would be the death penalty for me to take on that kind of challenge. So I'm honorably asking you to permit me to return the unit, the appointment unit I'm making reference to is for you is originally used as a garage. And I would appreciate some serious consideration of my request. Thank you very much.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. That concludes the your presentation. We should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is not before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I have a question for miss Taylor. I I looked at the drawings that were prepared with this particular case, and it seemed to me that the the issue of the unit as being behind the garage, including the fact that the access from the garage was actually non code compliant

[Michelle Taylor (SF Planning staff)]: That's right.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Which would create alterations, including reductions in unit size that will be very expensive.

[Michelle Taylor (SF Planning staff)]: Right. We there's been no formal evaluation, but we do expect that it would require changes to that access hallway to the back of the unit. Yeah.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I'm curious to hear from, my other fellow commissioners. While we normally are very conscientious and very watchful about, approving, the removal of an unauthorized dwelling unit, I see the hardship here, and I also see the implied difficulties of rescuing this unit and making it a livable unit. And for that reason, I would suggest staff's recommendation approval of its conditions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Is that a motion?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: That's a motion, yes.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Seconded that motion.

[Lydia So (President)]: Great. And then we have commissioner Blond, do you wanna Blond, do you wanna comment?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. Folks who see me on this commission know I'm pretty gung ho when it comes to preserving existing units that can be legalized. And so when I reviewed this item, I spent a lot of time paying attention to are there unique circumstances in this situation that are very extraordinary. And to me, there really are. I was concerned about setting a precedent, but I don't recall ever seeing a situation in which the property owners are well into the mid to late '90s. And so from my perspective, I don't think this is a precedent, and I'm happy to support the item.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If there's nothing further, commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner) [time-bound override]]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commission President Soh?

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commissioners, that will now place us, on item 10 for case number 2025Hyphen008758 PCA adaptive reuse of historic buildings, planning code amendments.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: And I have a presentation which I believe oh, perfect. Jonas is distributing them right now. The Oh, perfect. Great. Thank you, Jonas.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: Okay. Good afternoon, commissioners. Lisa Gluckstein, planning department staff. Today, I'll be presenting an ordinance intended to support the continued use and preservation of San Francisco's historic resources by standard standardizing and expanding the city's existing use flexibility programs for historic buildings. This ordinance is part of Mayor Lurie's permit SF initiative to make common sense changes to San Francisco's permitting and land use systems. The purpose of this ordinance is three four threefold. First, it supports the adaptive reuse and long term preservation of historic buildings by making it easier to establish viable uses within them. Second, it updates and consolidates three existing use flexibility programs into a single streamlined framework. And third, it applies this framework citywide, replacing the current patchwork of district specific provisions with a consistent and predictable approach. So first, this ordinance standardizes eligibility. It applies to all buildings already defined as historic buildings in the planning code, and this includes article 10 landmarks, contributors to historic districts, article 11 significant or contributory buildings, and buildings listed on or eligible for the state or national historic registers. And that's historic buildings as currently defined in section one zero two of the planning code. Second, it's it establishes a consistent approval pathway for buildings that seek to qualify for this program. The planning director must determine that the proposed use enhances the feasibility of adaptive reuse of that building. Staff must review the building for compliance with the secretary of interior standards. And while HPC review is not required, staff will continue con continue to consult with the commission as appropriate, as it currently does under existing programs. And third, this ordinance would expand the geography and confer other benefits to historic buildings citywide. So, it extends use flexibility and makes a few other allowances tailored to each zoning district. It also introduces a few different benefits. First, it waives nonresidential use size limits outside of neighborhood commercial and NCT districts. It provides exemptions from PDR replacement requirements in Eastern neighborhoods mixed use districts and allows for more flexibility in temporary uses, extending the period for temporary use authorizations up to six years with a possible six year extension subject to director's approval. So I'll provide a little bit of detail on those zoning district specific changes. Use allowances vary by zoning district, and our intention was to continue with a tailored approach that took into account the specific characteristics of each zoning district. So starting in order from most residential, perhaps, to most commercial, in our districts, we are keeping the provisions under the existing program that's currently in place under the under under the planning code. So we're not changing the way that we're allowing for use flexibility in our districts. And that standard is that any use that is principally or conditionally permitted in the N C 1 district is conditionally permitted in our districts. So any use subject to this program still must receive a conditional use authorization, because of the increased sensitivity in residential neighborhoods. In residential districts in Eastern neighborhoods, we're providing a little more flexibility, and this is also the existing program under the Eastern neighborhoods flexibility program. So arts activities, community facility uses, public facilities, and school uses will be principally permitted, while retail sales and office uses are conditionally permitted. And that's, again, the existing program. And in mixed use mixed use districts and commercial districts, this is where we're standardizing much on a much more widespread level, and we're saying that all uses will become principally permitted. And I should note also that, industrial uses, heavy industrial uses are not allowed to benefit from this program. The thinking behind that being that industrial uses are not appropriate in all districts across the city. They're really meant to be located in only certain parts of the city. And so we're limiting those uses in particular from the benefits of those program. However, we are allowing for light manufacturing and alcohol excuse me, agricultural and beverage processing one, which is an industrial use and that those are things like lower impact beverage processing kind of industrial uses like a fermentation operation, for example. I don't know if a bespoke sauerkraut business wants to locate, they could do that. And then in NC districts, we are using this concept where you're we're reducing restrictions by one click, if you will. So uses that are conditionally permitted in that district would become principally permitted, and uses that are not permitted would become conditionally permitted. So kind of loosening restrictions slightly based on the characteristics of each district. So that applies in NCs and all other districts. I wanna provide a few examples of properties that have or would benefit from these types of provisions. So starting with the top left, Saint Joseph's church was transformed into the Saint Joseph's art society, went from a vacant church that had been vacant for, I believe, close to three decades into arts and nighttime entertainment venue. And that's currently in operation. It went through quite the process to get fully approved, and it kind of illustrates the complexity of properties that wanna benefit from programs that actually had to go through two separate approvals because the underlying zoning changed. And so we wanna simplify that process for properties like Saint Joseph's Church. 572 7th Street is an industrial building in the UMU District, and was adapted for office use. To give you a different example, the Greg Angelo Museum was a landmark residential property where kind of a funky art space, entertainment space, and museum type use, was operating out of a person's home, Greg Angelo's home, and it was permitted as a general entertainment venue, through the our district program that currently exists. And then lastly, the Tenderloin Museum is currently in the process of submitting an application to expand its museum use to over 13,000 square feet, and under current rules, this would require a CUA due to the size limits, huge size limits in the RC 4 District, and this proposed ordinance would allow this proposed expansion to proceed without a CUA. So there are very tangible benefits, to existing projects that would, that are hoping that this pro proposal passes so that they can proceed with their expanded museum function. So to summarize, this ordinance is a good government reform that simplifies the planning code, supports the economic viability of historic buildings, and and promotes their continued use, activation, and preservation. We have received two letters of support for this proposal, one from the Tenderloin Museum, and another from the Melody of San Francisco, which is a business operating out of the Our Lady of Guadalupe church, which is just above the Broadway Tunnel. And they have similarly I believe they were before you recently, but they are converting a church into a general entertainment use as well. So thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. With that, we should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I appreciate the analysis and and the the clear description of this. You know, I I looked at this pretty closely, and and I don't really have any questions because right now I'm pretty comfortable with the legislation as is. But there are some things I looked at and wanted to make sure I was comfortable with, and so

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: I just wanted to kind

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: of talk about those for a second. First of all, you know, the fact that conditional use authorization is still required in the RHRM, RTO, and RTOM districts was really important to me, so it would still come before the commission. And I want to make sure that we were respecting the sensitivities of those more residential areas. You know, we kind of seen that recently. I think it was maybe applicable for a couple of the items that came to us. Another great Angelo Museum was one of them. The other I also had to give a second look to the principally permitting all uses except for the heavy industrial and the mixed use districts, because that's quite a wide range. And honestly, I think one of the uses that had me hesitate for a second is the fact that automotive uses are included in that list, as well as self storage uses or storage uses. Now on storage uses, as I recall, we recently had a project before us that it was a storage use that was the path through which that historic building was going to be used and reinvested in and maintained. And so in the end, that use is one of the things that my initial reaction is, oh, that feels a little off. That's actually an example we've had where it has succeeded in the goal well, I don't know if it's moved forward yet. But in theory, it can succeed in the goal of actually preserving the historic building. And so to me, that seems like a positive, even if in some ways, it's maybe not my favorite use for the building itself in the meantime. And then, you know, so I had a similar concern about automotive uses as well. But, you know, I I to me, those are not especially likely in a lot of the types of buildings that would be coming forward. Or if they are, it might be a similar situation in which it's getting reinvested in. I think the one thing I would say is that even though I'm not gonna suggest a change or request for modification on this, I think some of the nightlife and entertainment types of uses are another potential issue and just something that needs to be monitored over time to see if principally permitting nightlife entertainment uses would have any many impacts if they're principally permitted. I know there will still be the entertainment commission oversight, as we heard with Melody, for example. But even so, that's that's the one where I could see potential issues cropping up in the future. So those are my thoughts. But in general, I I am supportive of the legislation.

[Lydia So (President)]: Alright. Thank you. And, miss Wautie, you have some comments?

[Unidentified Planning Department Deputy Director]: Yeah. I just wanted to add one more point for color, obviously. With, with the family zoning plan that's gone through, there's been a lot of scrutiny on historic resources and and a lot of concerns about, you know, a lot of concerns about potential risks or concerns about us losing our architectural gems in this city. And so one of the things we were really looking at as part of this is what carrots could we provide so that property owners who own these really special buildings in our city have additional financial tools in their toolkit to lever that puts them at a different sort of platform as compared to maybe a property next door. Right? What can give them a little bit of an economic advantage so that they don't have maybe the development pressures put upon them, but instead they've got other ways that they can adaptively reuse these buildings. And keep in mind, it's not just just the adaptively reusing the buildings. There's an obligation to restore these buildings and maintain them. And so I agree with you, you know, none of us as planners love self storage. But I think it's a great example of balancing policy priorities. And sometimes we we can't always get a 100% win wins. And so I think in these instances, being able to say, in this situation, which is, you know, a really small subset of properties in the city that are these historic buildings, but for those, this is where maybe the the scales, the balancing scales should tilt towards preservation of our historic resources and giving those property owners as many tools as they have to to ensure that those can stick around. And so if that is at a use that maybe we don't love quite as much, normally, carte blanche, but in these situations, it seems to be a good policy trade off. So that was part of our thought process, on this as looking at ways we can provide that carrot, to historic property owners. So I just wanted to add that color.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Well said.

[Lydia So (President)]: That's great. Commissioner Imperial?

[Emily Brough (Public commenter, real estate attorney)]: Thank

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: you. I have question. And, you know, I I think in the past, I've there are some there are projects that have also supported in terms of the ad adaptive reuse. And also in in those processes, I appreciate the historic preservation commission input. So I'm wondering in this case, how is the the process with this with the HPC? Because it's it says consultation as needed. Does that mean that yeah. What will be the process like when it comes to that consultation?

[Unidentified Planning Department Deputy Director]: Sure. So what we wanted to do is we wanted to keep that in when we feel like we could really use their advice. So a lot of these projects, again, we have a very, very robust team. We're a CLG certified department. We have a lot of historic preservation experts. So for a lot of projects, we have utter confidence in what the appropriate preservation plan is for a building. And our our historic preservation staff are very used to reviewing those maintenance maintenance plans and making sure we hold people accountable to those. There are, however, again, historic buildings tend to be some of the most unique buildings in the city. And there are from time to time certain buildings that have really different qualities and characteristics to them. And so for those buildings that maybe aren't your typical just mid block building or sort of a typical building that we we have a really good sense of, we may really wanna live lean into the HPC and get their insight on certain features. Or if there's a property owner who isn't proposing some component in their maintenance plan and and we've got concerns about that and we wanna be able to leverage the Historic Preservation Commission. So we wanna be strategic about when we use them. We don't wanna waste anyone's time when we know, like, this is pretty, you know, plug and play type of a of a maintenance plan. But we also wanna I'm sorry. For lack of a better term, preserve. Our ability to use the HPC when there are, more unique circumstances at play. And we do know there will be a good number of those, and so we wanna, be able to do that.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: And my other question is, as part of the wave of use size limits, what's the the for NC and NCTs, what would be it it would still remain the size limits.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: Correct. Use size limits would continue to exist in the NCs and NCTs. The waiver would only occur in other districts.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: And then just to speak to your HPC question, I neglected to mention this that this went to the HPC last week Mhmm. And received a positive unanimous recommendation from that commission.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you so much.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: In principle, I am supportive of expanding uses that are already approved to be that that would apply to historic buildings. I I do believe that common sense is an appropriate description. However, the devil is always in the details. And it is for me in the approval requirements. I always thought of the historic preservation commission of being the public voice of watching over the public's public's interest in historic preservation. And I feel that in the approval requirements, for them to be basically delegated to only being consulted when necessary is not perhaps, the way it reads, it could be perhaps be done a little bit more diplomatically. If you could would comment on that, I'd appreciate that.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: Yeah. Thank you, commissioner Moore. Happy to speak to that. So, we thought about this and considered that, but one of the things that one of the main criteria that we considered when deciding not to have HPC review every single application that was benefiting from this program is that any the the HPC still retains its authority to issue certificates of appropriateness or permits to alter. So any proposal that would alter at all the character defining features of a property would still be before the HPC for their review and approval. What we're talking about here are just uses that would not at all adversely impact the historic qualities of that property. And thus, that's why we pulled back HPC review in those instances, but, of course, HPC would continue to review any project that were to impact, the historic qualities of a property.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. Thank

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: you on that question. I have a few other comments. Could you talk to me a little bit more about the temporary use extension from six years to twelve years? That sounds very long. The people who approved it have forgotten by the time the twelfth year comes around, so I would be curious. Yeah.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: It's a it's a six year extension of the temporary use authorization window, and it would have to be re reauthorized by the director before it could be extended to the full twelve years. And the thinking behind that is, an example is the church of eight wheels is actually authorized as a temporary use right now, and I think we at least I think of that as the use that's de facto happening there, but it gives applicants flexibility to use to institute those sort of creative uses, and it would still be subject to the director's review and approval to extend it to the full twelve years, but, the logic is the same for that temporary use authorization extension as it is for the entire ordinance. We just wanna create some more carrots, give these buildings a little more flexibility, to be creative about what sort of uses can occupy them.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: If there would be public complaints, however, about the use, there would basically be the first which would consider these uses to continue.

[Unidentified Planning Department Deputy Director]: Absolutely. And and a great example, we actually do have one a property right now that has a a temporary use authorization, and we've received some complaints about it. And they've come in to renew, and we've disapproved that TUA extension. So that is very much a number one criteria that we look at when looking at extensions is is their public support or opposition.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: And that would go hand in hand with the restriction we put on the lady of Guadalupe the other week that if there would be a complaint, that would be rescinded. Yeah. Okay. That sounds good. And the only thing that's left for me is, and it's a tough one, in neighborhood commercial districts where we had a lot of pushback in other discussions about the change in neighborhood commercial district that we are now seeing principally permitted users that are conditionally permitted in that district are allowed, which is which is perfectly fine. However, that there are other users which would require a CU because by current status, some of these users are not allowed. I have a difficult time with that.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: The the latter part of that?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yes, I do.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: Well, the thinking behind that is that those proposals would still be before you, and you would have the authority and agency to disapprove them if you do not feel that they were appropriate for that property. So there's still a safeguard in place for the commission to consider whether that use is appropriate for that location and disapprove of a project. We're not talking about, residential projects which are obviously subject to different safeguards under state law. These would be largely commercial projects. And the commission retains significant authority to disapprove of projects if, there are considerations that mean that it's not appropriate at that location.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I appreciate your explanation. I for me personally, it is remains a difficult portion of the legislation in front of me.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: I I have a question about about use. Formula retail, could you could you explain to me how is is formula retail gonna be an accepted use?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: My understanding is that formula retail safeguards would still remain in place. In addition to, other locational specific criteria, so for example, criteria that apply to cannabis, cannabis retail locations not being within a certain distance of other cannabis locations, as an example, those conditional use requirements would continue to apply.

[Unidentified Planning Department Deputy Director]: And and maybe another I can put it is really what we were looking at if you look in the zoning table, it's sort of the uses as opposed to some of the use characteristics effectively. So, like, formula retail in and of itself isn't like a land use per se. Right? It's sort of a additional quality on top of the land use, and so we aren't touching those. We're really touching, you know, is it a is it a restaurant? Is it a bar? Is it retail? Those sorts of land uses. Mhmm.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: And the only reason I mentioned that is because there's there's been a lot of community questioning, you know, around the formula retail issue around the city. I see this, and in its face it seems logical that we want to do something. But for me, it feels like we've we keep taking away bit by bit the the community, this input, on what gets decisions that happen in the in in in our city. And while I know this isn't a huge these properties aren't everywhere and there are just a few around, I just feel like every time I come and sit down here, that more and more decision making is being taken away from the community and from the residents around what gets done in their city. And I just want to highlight that because it's noticeable. And I think that, fundamentally, I think that people that live in a community should have a say. The conditional use authorization is one of those vehicles where people could voice an opinion. And I think more and more, we're taking that away, and saying, well, we're streamlining this. We're making it easier. But in reality, we're taking we're taking something away also from the public. That's concerning to me. And so while I understand the thrust or the reasoning behind this, I do want to highlight that.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: Would you like me to respond to that?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: No. That's okay. You don't have to respond. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I move to adopt a recommendation for approval.

[Lydia So (President)]: I commission oh, come okay. Thank you. I would like to commend this proposed planning code amendment for this adaptive reuse of historic buildings. This effort to standardize eligibility and streamline the approval process is a meaningful step forward towards consistency and clarity. It sends a clear message that our city values both preservation and progress. So by creating a more predictable and transparent framework, we can restore confidence in San Francisco's commitment to culturally respectful, economically balanced, and sustainable growth. So I'm supportive of this planning amendment. I think we have, retained the right of to vote.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: There is a motion that has been seconded, commissioners, to adopt a recommendation for approval on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Nay. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? No. And commission president so? Aye. So moved, commissioners. That motion passes five to two with commissioners Williams and Moore voting against. Commissioners, that'll place us on item 11 for case number twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero eight four zero zero PCA permitting parking and driveways planning code amendments.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: Hello again, commissioners. Lisa Gluckstein, department staff. This ordinance is also part of mayor Lurie's permit SF initiative, and it would amend the planning code to permit parking of up to two operable vehicles in residential driveways. Currently, the planning code prohibits parking in required front required front setbacks and yards, Instead, requiring that all off street residential parking be screened and enclosed, typically in a carport or garage. This ordinance would propose to legalize a widespread, but currently non compliant practice, allowing up to two operable vehicles to park in existing driveways, provided that they do not encroach on the public right of way. To provide you an overview of the key provisions, as I mentioned, it's it requires that vehicles be operable, meaning that they can be moved and are not falling into disrepair in a driveway. And additionally, boats, trailers, RVs, mobile homes, and buses would remain prohibited. No encroachment in the public right of way is allowed, that's governed by the California vehicle code, not the planning code, and we do not want to create any accessibility challenges or safety challenges for pedestrians in the city. Screening requirements would not apply in these driveways, meaning that you no longer would have to screen vehicles from view, from the sidewalk, and this driveway parking would not count towards maximum parking limits. To provide a little background on this ordinance, the prohibition on driveway parking dates back to the very 1979 downzoning ordinance, which has been discussed much of late, and this ordinance obviously also restricted multifamily housing in our districts. That ordinance, as you know, prioritized aesthetics and neighborhood character, in a way that's rather inconsistent with the values that we are pursuing now as a city. Today, the city's policy priorities have shifted towards increasing housing density and reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, and this ordinance aligns with those goals by legalizing a common sense use of private property and removing disincentives for converting garages into housing. As I mentioned, the practice of parking in one's driveway is quite right widespread. It just takes a little bit of walking down the avenues to see, many cars that are parked in a way that is currently prohibited by the planning code. Planning code has received numerous complaints about driveway parking, but enforcement is inconsistent. Some residents face citations while others do not, depending entirely on whether a complaint is filed. And oftentimes, one property will have received a complaint and the neighboring several properties will have cars that are parked in a very similar way, and those properties are not subject to these violations. So this ordinance would reduce inequitable enforcement and unnecessary fines for residents who park in a manner that would be permitted by this ordinance. Importantly, this ordinance does not change state law prohibiting vehicles from obstructing sidewalks. As I mentioned, enforcement will continue from from SFMTA and the police department of violations that involve the public right of way. The planning department recommends approval of the ordinance with three key modifications, and forgive me because these get a little technical, but I'll try to spell them out. So first would be to clarify that parking is allowed only in driveways that previously provided access to enclosed parking, And that would ensure that homes that have converted garages to ADUs or livable space are not penalized from doing such conversions. We want to encourage housing production in the city and garage conversions are one way of accomplishing that. Second, we wanna restrict applicability to existing driveways so that we don't incentivize new curb cuts or parking pads, which could reduce on street parking and compromise pedestrian safety. And then third, we'd like to state explicitly that driveway parking under this ordinance is not considered the addition of parking that would trigger compliance with landscaping and permeability requirements. The ZA recommended this correction to ensure that legalizing parking doesn't unintentionally create new enforcement questions, namely violations of landscaping requirements. So in summary, this ordinance reflects current city values, supports housing production, reduces inequitable enforcement, and legalizes a very widespread practice without compromising without compromising pedestrian safety or environmental goals. The department recommends that the commission adopt a recommendation of approval with the proposed modifications. Thank you. Happy to take any questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

[Emily Brough (Public commenter, real estate attorney)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Emily Brough. I'm a real estate attorney here in the city. I'm appearing here today to ask the commission to consider, an additional amendment or tweak to this legislation. A few months ago, the commission, well, the commission and the board and then the board of supervisors passed ordinance two five zero two eight four regarding unpermitted non complying and accessory structures in required yards to provide a pathway to legalize and rebuild longstanding, a couple over a couple decades old, unsanctioned structures in those required yards in certain residential districts. That ordinance amended planning code section 188 and added new section 188.1, which now requires that residential structures and yards that were built without permits over a couple decades ago be considered non complying structures under the code, and owners are generally permitted within certain limits to replace those noncompliant structures as they existed when they were built. That new planning code section one eight one one eight eight point one refers to required yards, but it doesn't expressly include front yard setbacks. If the legislation before you now authorizes parking in existing driveways and front yard setbacks, then the planning commission should consider creating a similar pathway through planning code section one eight eight to legalize reconstruction of, again, long standing unsanctioned structures in required front yard setbacks in those same residential districts, such as fences, carports, decorative structures that could shade or could, excuse me, conceal vehicular uses. And this additional amendment would actually be consistent with past zoning administrator code interpretations, for section planning code one four two regarding screening of vehicles, understanding that screening is not required under this ordinance. But notwithstanding, some years ago, a question was raised about whether screening for parking was required in front of a building that was beyond the setback, but within the buildable era, but not within the building. And the zoning administrator determined while it was not expressly in the code that it was required in that case. So in some, adding this additional amendment to as part of this legislation to allow legalization and reconstruction of long standing unsanctioned structures and required front yards and setbacks could close the loop on this legislation and allow owners who have these unpermitted structures in front yards to preserve them for purposes of screening, their cars that they're now allowed to park in their driveways. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Miss Gluckstein, could you comment on the question that was just raised? Because you seem to be saying that in your modifications, I I I read that part of his address, but I do not quite understand it.

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: We wouldn't legalize existing nonconforming structures. I think we're open to that if that's a direction that this commission would like to go, but I I we have not considered that as part of this ordinance. It's kind of beyond the scope of what we were trying to do, which was fairly narrow. It's just you park in your driveway, we want it to be legal. We're not trying to do a larger thing of of legalizing a bunch of different structures across the city, and it's frankly something we haven't studied extensively to the at this point. There could be justifications for doing that, but that's beyond the scope of what we looked at in this particular ordinance.

[Lydia So (President)]: And director Dennis Phillips, you might wanna chime in.

[Sarah Dennis-Phillips (Planning Director)]: Thank you, commissioner. So just to add on to that, I I think, what, what Lisa said is is very clear, but that is a bridge too far. This is a a very modest amendment intended to legalize a widespread practice that is happening. I think with regard to the comment that was just raised, there is a specific case there, which our planners are are speaking with the supervisor who oversees the district about that specific case, and we think that is the right way to look at infractions, you know, things of this scale rather than legalize them in a widespread manner.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Thank you. I was not quite finished yet, president. So, a follow-up with a question for you. There are SUV type vehicles that look like delivery trucks these days. Like, there's a Mercedes type SUV that is so tall that it's taller almost than the house itself. Are we having any comments on those particular type of vehicles sitting in those spaces?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: Yeah. It's a good I guess you're you're thinking about, like, a sprinter van type

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: One of

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: these large. Yeah. One of these large. We don't permit buses under the ordinance. It's perhaps a little ambiguous as to how we would treat vans, large size vans. We didn't wanna go in and prescribe specific dimensions. I mean, we know that some people do rely on van type vehicles to run their business, for example, and we want to be able, you know, especially in working class neighborhoods where this practice is quite widespread, people might be parking in their driveway with those vehicles because they don't fit in their garage. I know that garages are quite small in San Francisco and so we don't wanna put people in a hard place who might rely on those vehicles. I there's a big difference between an RV and a large, you know, a larger van that that's used for getting around the city and or a large pickup truck, for example. And so I think we tried to avoid getting into the specifics there and didn't wanna become just start slice splitting hairs as to what vehicles what personal vehicles were allowed versus disallowed.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: One quick additional question. Driveways, with ADUs now often in encouraged to be in the backyard, unobstructed access by the fire department actually needs to leave those driveways open. How are those how is that restricting the use of this particular ordinance?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: So this ordinance only permits you to park in the driveway portion of your front setback. You wouldn't be permitted to park kind of to the side obstructing doorway access or one of the main access points. There's, some illegal parking that's currently happening that we would not legalize if if people are obstructing an access point. But if you're parking in front of the garage, you know, the the doorway or what was formerly a doorway to a parking space, designed for the ingress and egress of vehicles, we're saying that's permitted and the fire department, would still have other points of entry around those vehicles.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Okay. And we are not taking any issue that many homes have used the garage simply as storage space, not as an ADU, but as a storage space, and and that is not what we're addressing here. No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I I I think overall, I'm very supportive of the legislation and it makes sense.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Just to open with the issue raised in the public comment, I agree that the idea of well, maybe something that could be explored in future legislation or some aspect of it. It's just too broad for what we're trying to do here. I have a couple of questions about the legislation. The first one is, this kind of raises some interesting questions to me because it's it's a planning code sort of issue, and yet vehicular enforcement generally is not that much of a planning department issue. So I'm curious about a couple of things. One is do we have and and just looking at the language of the legislation, it refers to things like recreational vehicles. Is there anywhere in our code or elsewhere that that defines these vehicles? To commissioner Moore's comments, you know, where is that line between a conversion van and a recreational vehicle? Who's sort of determining that? Where where those definitions come from?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: Yeah. It's a good question. I don't believe they're defined. Certainly not in the planning code. They might be defined in California vehicle code or elsewhere. So there are some definitional questions that we'll probably butt up against when we're when we go to enforce this ordinance. And there is probably space for for some more clarity. Frankly, you know, we are trying to solve for a fairly narrow problem which is the vast majority of cases where it's someone's, you know, run of the mill car in their driveway and we're trying to legalize that. But if if it seems like there is a lot of ambiguity when we're going to enforce or check-in on the legality if we're receiving complaints, we're certainly open to creating more clarity definitionally in the code if that becomes necessary.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Yeah. I would say I think it's really important to think that part through and have if it's possible for legislation to later I I don't know if we wanna kinda hem ourselves in right now with the definitions, but still, I think it would be helpful as this moves forward to have some reference to what we're talking about, whether it's something in the vehicle code for the state or something that defines these vehicles that we're referring to. My other question is, let's say well, I guess this question, first of all, is do we have definitions that state what constitutes a driveway? What I'm thinking about is there's a lot of parts of the city where the entire front area has been covered in concrete. I mean, vast swaths of the city, really. And I don't even know personally if that's legal or not under our code. But to the point about fire access and safety, if people are able to park cars across the entire front of the home as they do, that seems like it could be a challenge. And so how do how are we defining a driveway versus where you shouldn't be parking the car?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: It's it's a very valid question and that's what those proposed modifications, get to the heart of, although in a rather admittedly confusing way. The definition of driveway is pretty circular. It's defined as a act it's a driveway is an access to parking. And so that's why we had to include those modifications around ADU conversions because the parking no longer exists. So can you define that concrete paved portion of a property as a driveway anymore? And so we wanted to specify that through the modification. And then to answer your question around paved over where this front setback is entirely paved over, that's currently not compliant with our landscaping and permeability requirements. Mhmm. I believe that 50% of the front setback has to be has to meet permeability requirements and 20% has to have landscaping on it on it. There are a lot of properties that obviously don't meet those requirements currently, and we're not trying to throw them into a situation where they have to correct those violations immediately by virtue of continuing with the parking that's already happening on those driveways. However, if they were to have a project on their property, they would need to come into compliance with those requirements. And to get your to your point, there are some situations where the entire front set there are like three cars on a front setback parked some offset from the curb cut. So people are hopping a curb cut to park kind of on the side of their property on the to the left or right of their driveway. We're not intending to legalize that type of parking through this ordinance. We don't wanna encourage people to create larger or more curb cuts. We don't wanna create hazards for pedestrians. We don't wanna create issues as you mentioned and commissioner Moore mentioned for fire access, and that's why we're we're limiting it to two cars. And we didn't wanna make reference to curb cuts because that gets us into, as you mentioned, vehicle code issues and public works code issues which is kind of outside of the scope of what the planning department currently, oversees. And so that's why we limited it to areas that provided formerly provided access to an enclosed vehicle parking area. So it it's a little complicated, but we were trying to get to the heart of the issues that you mentioned.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Yeah. Thank you for that. And and I guess my last question, sort of, along the same enforcement lines. We're talking about things that move vehicles. Sometimes they're there, but sometimes they're not. Sometimes they're not. If there is enforcement claim that that are I I guess, actually, you already have experience with this at this point. I mean, if there's an enforcement claim under this legislation that there are three cars in the driveway or that somebody's parking in a space that doesn't technically constitute a driveway, maybe there's no answer to this. But I guess what's how do we enforce that from sort of a zoning and land use perspective or planning perspective, maybe?

[Lisa Gluckstein (SF Planning staff)]: Is your question just about the enforcement process status quo?

[Lydia So (President)]: I guess

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: so, and the challenges that we've seen. I suppose the one thing this will do is at least remove a lot of those enforcement complaints, which is

[Unidentified Planning Department Deputy Director]: probably the thing. Step in here. I'd say a couple of things. One, you know, we always send out a notice of complaint, like an alleged complaint when we get one. That's usually the first pass. And a lot most of the time, people will reply when they get those kinds of notices, and we'll have to explain it. Again, oftentimes because things are movable, we do have a a decent success rate of somebody taking that seriously, and then not parking in their driveway and having to find parking elsewhere in their neighborhood on the street. Good. However, we do also take site visits and go check. And it does become tricky for that reason where maybe when the complaint was made, the car was there. And when we go out on the site visit, the car is not there. So it's hard on these to, like, always definitively close it out. But what I can say right now is we have about a 135 active complaints that this ordinance would close out. And and this is one of those ordinances that I know our staff have a really difficult time having to have the conversation with a homeowner who gets one of these complaints to explain why they're in violation of the law. And so it's we're also trying to, again, bring a level of practicality to people who are, you know, trying to take their kids to a school that might be across town or get to a job where maybe they don't have great public transit access and just trying to kinda live a tough city life sometimes, and they park in their driveway. And so that we really heard this as a pain point from a lot of customers where it just didn't feel like it made sense. And so we wanted to be responsive.

[Lydia So (President)]: And I I think that also there's one thing about the once you're if anything, not just recall, intrude over a clear pathway for accessibility on the sidewalk Yes. You automatically gotta take it from SFMTA. So

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Well, it's complaint based, but yes.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: And then So I think that that that

[Lydia So (President)]: that was that will be fast. I might have gotten some of those tickets. So

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: And just to add on to provide a little more context on the enforcement issue, because like miss Marty said, we we already deal with this a lot. There's actually a lot of planning code complaints that are dealing with activities that are a bit ephemeral. Right? It's it's very different than if you built a building without permits. That's pretty it's pretty static. And the way we deal with that typically is, you know, we have a lot of discretion in the enforcement process. And we can use that discretion when we see repeat violations. Right? So to take this example, if someone is parking multiple cars, like, throughout their property, not just in the driveway or in their garage, whatever it may be, and that's confirmed, that can be documented through the enforcement process. And we can also provide formal written notice, basically, essentially saying, like, we don't have to send the courtesy notices before we go straight to notice of violation. That's that's something we do out of our discretion. So the next time it's, you know, that happens and it's a confirmed violation, we can go straight to notice of violation, etcetera. So we can basically progressively increase the pace and type of enforcement for repeat offenders when we have things like this that kinda are on again, off again. So that's how we kinda deal with it now. I it is kind of a challenge because it's different than kinda static issues, but that's the general process we use for those types of situations.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Those are my my only questions. And I just wanna recognize, you know, there is a benefit to this in the sense of even though, I don't have the idea of an entire front yard being covered in vehicles and I have concerns about a lot of curb cuts, As the point has been raised by Ms. Waddi, there's an equity component to this. There's a lot of folks who work jobs that have hours that aren't well served by transit that do truly need vehicles. And so I just want to recognize that that issue exists. I am supportive of the legislation. I just want to one thing I was thinking about a lot with this was making sure we're not incentivizing creating a whole bunch of new curb cuts and a whole bunch of new front yard parking pads. Those privatized are on street parking supplied by making it just about private access. They diminish our streetscape and protection of pedestrians in the sidewalk from vehicle traffic. And they also imperil so they imperil pedestrians. And so I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of the staff recommended modifications one, two, and three, but especially two that restricts applicability of driveways that previously provided access to the screened parking space. So with two, yeah, this definitely has my support. And I would just pass along my comments, though. It would be helpful to clarify and refine the vehicle definitions as part of this. And I don't know if there's anything else to think about with the definition of what a driveway is and what we're really talking about. And, I'm actually gonna make a motion to, recommend approval with the staff modifications.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Second.

[Lydia So (President)]: Great. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I think commissioner Braun said a lot of the things that I'm feeling about this, which is supporting it, but not it doesn't give me warm fuzzies. Like, when I close my eyes and think of a really pedestrian friendly city, it it's not there's not cars everywhere. But I appreciate this from a common sense perspective, and people should be able to park in their driveway. I had a lot of questions as well that I think just got clarified as well around, like, what makes a driveway and, you know, how we're gonna enforce it and all that. So I think I'll just opine for a second, which I don't normally do, but I did live in Copenhagen for a few years. And it was really telling to me, how few cars there were. And I do think of San Francisco as a very car centric city, and I just would love to see us move, move away from that. And I know it's a complex web and things like this aren't going aren't going to necessarily fix it. But I do think in a in a small way, it does incentivize more cars because there's that many more places to put a car and I don't think that's gonna necessarily free up spots on the street. I think it's gonna incentivize people, maybe getting a car and parking there because there's even more spaces. So, would love to see a future where, there's more cars and, less cars and more transit and bikes and scooters and people walking. And, I I think the reason that Copenhagen is like that is because it's very expensive to have a car. It's a luxury and there's a a lot of taxes on cars, and then it's actually very expensive just to park your car. So when there's no place to really put it, I think that that helps a lot. So just get off my get off my little soapbox, but but I also support the legislation.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thanks for all the comments here from our fellow commissioners. I support the legislation. I think it's common sense. And just thinking about everything that's been said, parking is a real issue, especially in my neighborhood. It's if people sit and wait for a parking spot, and, it it can get very, testy with neighbors. And so I'm glad this this is gonna alleviate, some of the so some of the, complaints that a lot of, citizens have had about parking in their own driveways. I think everything that was said is valid. I, I just like to add, that, you know, it seems to me in the last decade or so, even longer, we're seeing fewer and fewer parking spaces around town. And, And so this is something that we're gonna be wrestling with moving into the future. I have mixed feelings about it because on the one hand, I feel like it's important that we get away from driving cars that pollute our environment. But then there's also like a lot of seniors and people with disabilities, and we have 48 hills. It's not a very flat city. And we actually, you know, need vehicles, to get around, especially as you as you age in San Francisco. And so I I would, you know, as well as parking, parking is very important, along our commercial quarters. I know this isn't about that, but I've just noticed that, you know, our small businesses, need people to to frequent them along our commercial quarters, and when they can't find parking, sometimes they go elsewhere. So there's just this tug, there's this given, you know, there's there's this, this friction, And it doesn't have anything to do with the parking in your driveway, but it just came to mind. And thank you for the legislation. I think it's, again, commonsensical, and I thank all the discussion around this issue of parking. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner McGarry.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I'd also agree, and I thank you for the legislation. I'll try and bring the warm and fuzzy, if you were to. I don't think this will work for me. I'm somewhat in between what will be allowed and won't be allowed in my own house. I have a little driveway down. If I was driving this little mini here, I might be able to make it that is not allowed in your picture, but my Ford Escape will probably still be sticking out a little bit. But if I was driving that Mini, I would probably save the planet two gallons a week because when I can't find parking, I'm moving, and when I'm moving, I'm burning gas, and I'm not the only one. So anybody and everybody who's moving around the town looking for a parking spot is burning gas. So, basically, thank you for this. Hopefully, we can do something with SFMTA and the enforcement. If you're right on the bumper line there, between a a Mini and a Ford Escape, that would be great. But, yeah, thank you for this.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Commissioners, if there's no further deliberation, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve, or excuse me, adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications. On that motion, commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry? Aye. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved. Commissioners, that motion passes unanimously seven to zero And we'll place us on item 12 for case number twenty twenty five hyphen zero zero eight four one four PCA planning fees, planning code amendments.

[Veronica Flores (SF Planning staff)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Veronica Flores, planning department staff. This next item is the planning fees ordinance introduced by the mayor. The proposed ordinance does primarily two things. First, this would shift the timing of fee collection for our department from the issuance of a building permit to the submission of a development application, really bringing up the collection to the front and the beginning of the process. This allows planning to recover staff costs more closely to the time of our review. This also ensures that the department is compensated for its work even if the project does not ultimately pursue or proceed to the permitting process. Secondly, the proposed ordinance includes changes to environmental review fees under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. Of note, large projects with estimated construction costs of $100,000,000 or more would now be charged a flat fee instead of a scaling cost based on the additional construction costs beyond $1,000,000 This change makes the fee structure more predictable. And if needed, the department still has the ability to charge for additional time and materials. Additionally, the proposed ordinance would remove the separate fee schedule for class 32 categorical exemptions and consolidate this with other categorical exemptions in the fee schedule. This change simplifies the fee structure and ensures consistency across project types. The department supports the proposed ordinance because it proves transparency, predictability, and fairness of the department's fee structure. By aligning fee collection with the timing of staff review, the ordinance also ensures the department is compensated for its work in a more timely fashion. The proposed ordinance also simplifies and modernizes the fee structure by consolidating tables, removing outdated provisions, and clearing the basis for fee calculations. These improvements align with the city's permit SF goals under efforts to streamline permitting and reduce administrative burdens for applicants. This concludes the staff presentation. Again, the recommendation is that you adopt recommendation of approval.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: With that, we should take public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is not before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: My note my notes I just wrote, this is common sense cleanup and modernization, and I would make an adoption, a motion to recommend for approval with Second. Yeah. Recommendation for approval. Thanks.

[Lydia So (President)]: Great. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I am supportive as well. I just have a couple of clarifying questions to help me out, though. So the let's see. One question is that in the write up of this item, there's a comment there's a note that well, I guess there's a conflict that I saw, but maybe I'm not understanding properly, about when planning department fees are charged. So are those fees being charged at the time of the environmental evaluation or at the time of building permit issuance? Because I saw it both ways, but I might be mixing things up a little bit.

[Veronica Flores (SF Planning staff)]: So the really, it's the timing that would change now. Currently, the department receives our fee allocation from the Department of Building Inspection when the permit is issued. There under this ordinance, we are creating a new proposed definition for a development application. So I think that's a little bit of what you're seeing where we are revising those, those narratives instead of it being referencing environmental evaluation. We will now reference our new definition of development application, and that is our department's application. That will, so that's at the beginning of the submittal process. And then it's during that time, again, at the beginning of planning's review, that we would be able to collect these fees.

[Unidentified Planning Department Deputy Director]: And and if I can just add, I think one of the challenges that we're facing is that we made some process changes back in, I believe it was January 2024, where we really bifurcated out the planning department's review from the building permit process. So we now have folks file their project application with us well before filing a building permit. We do all of our review, any noticing, any CEQA historic preservation, and the output is now an actual approval letter to make sure that our approvals are much more documented. These tend to be for things that aren't going to the planning commission. Whereas previously, we literally had, like, a one inch space to scribble any detail or any conditions, and it was and it was difficult. There were a lot of other practical reasons. The difficulty though is people now file those applications with no money. So we are doing all of that review, all of that staff time, all of that with fingers crossed that hopefully sometime soon, they will file a permit and not just file a building permit, but pull their building permit and start construction. And it's only when that milestone happens that we get fully compensated. And as you all know, that can be three years down the road or never. And so we are just wanting to align our fees, the sort of the punch line of this ordinance, although there's some other smaller components to it. The punch line of this ordinance is really having our fee collection align much more with how entitlements happen. So for a conditional use that comes before you, they pay full freight when they file their conditional use. We process it, the end. And so we're wanting to change that for things that also don't go to the planning commission.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. And that part is wild to me, that the fee payment was so misaligned with when the department's doing its work. And I wish I knew that every time I looked at the budget over the while I've been on the commission because, like, cost recovery number has always been something I focus on. And wow, like, that's a serious cash flow problem. So okay. And I one of the questions is, historically, DBI has been the time at which fees were paid. How do we handle billing for fees? I mean, does the department have its own process, or does that go through something that's still just a centralized database? Again, just point of curiosity where they

[Unidentified Planning Department Deputy Director]: Well, again, we're already doing it for entitlements. So we already have a finance department. We already have the mechanism built into our internal back of house permit processing system. So the infrastructure is all there for us to be able to do it. If anything, it actually makes it clearer when it comes directly to us rather than it being paid to DBI and having to have them do, like, a journey trans a journal transfer to us on the back end. So it actually takes out an administrative step by not having it go through a different agency.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: That's great. And then one last question. The the flat fee for large project environmental review, I'm I'm curious about does that fee get adjusted on an annual basis or any sort of regular basis, like based on, I don't know, CPI change? And if not, when was the last time it was updated?

[Unidentified Planning Department Deputy Director]: Or It is. Like all fees, all of those get CPI'd every year. And I think on this one, what we were looking at is there are some really, really large projects, and there are some in the pipeline that, you know, rail yards, projects that have huge infrastructure costs, it seemed really disconnected with the actual, the likely or anticipated right now level of work and also a bit of a deterrent to actually file an application. And so what we were doing is to set that at what we feel is it's still incredibly high fee, but a more pragmatic fee that we think will cover a good amount, you know, years worth of amounts of time of of staff time to be able to work on it. But we're still keeping a TNM provision, a time and materials provision. So if for whatever reason we do end up going over that initial fee, we will be made whole. But also, we're not collecting such an exorbitantly

[Emily Brough (Public commenter, real estate attorney)]: or asking for such

[Unidentified Planning Department Deputy Director]: an exorbitantly high amount that it's hard for people to pull together that sort of, like, upfront dollars to be able to file the application. We would rather get that slightly lower amount, but still hundreds of thousands of dollars, like, this fiscal year or next fiscal year, rather than those fees being kicked down the line maybe two, three, four years. And so we felt like that was, again, a good sort of realistic threading of the needle of, we'll ultimately get full cost recovery, but we have it be at a more sort of accessible price point for these massive projects that have huge fees.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. That seems fair. And also with the time and materials on top of that for the really, really big projects, it makes perfect sense. So this this has my support, and I I appreciate you answering my questions.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Moore.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: This is a long time coming, because I remember under the leadership of Tiwaktor Rayom, the commission often asked the question about fee collection, when and how and why not seeing an incremental cost of living increase year by year. And I'm glad we're at the point, and I'm glad that, miss Vadi provides a detailed, narrative of what historically has been a long push into the right direction. And there is the work we do, and there is compensation for the work we do. And so I I think we had a great point, and I would like to make a motion motion to adopt recommendation for approval.

[Lydia So (President)]: And and commissioner Imperial, you like to comment?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yes. Yeah. I also support this legislation, and the timing. And I also actually, my question first was around the large project fees. And thank you for that, for that explanation. I think it it is fair to have some form of deposit. I I would think of it as a deposit, especially if it's, we're dealing with, years long kinds of, project. I do have one question in terms of just clarification for me around the community plan fees, and that seems like it would be exempted and under the general plan. Yeah. Can that be correct?

[Unidentified Planning Department Deputy Director]: Sure. Those are actually just different names for different levels of environmental review. Mhmm. So for example, in Eastern neighborhoods where we've had an area plan and we've had an EIR cover the area plan, there's a community community plan exemption evaluation. I always get confused on the e. But anyhow, there's this the community plan is the level of environmental review. And so there have been new versions of that. So tiering off of the housing element, there's a reduced level of environmental review called it is the general plan exemption is what's listed there. And so right now, just lit literally, we don't cite that general plan exemption. Mhmm. But they're basically function and are pragmatically a very similar level of analysis. So we wanna make sure that our our fee schedule acknowledges both of these charge that kind of fee. Yeah.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you so much for that clarification.

[Lydia So (President)]: Yeah. Well, thank you for doing the work, and thank you for doing the numbers. And I do remember it was, during our budget review cycle, and I see some of our finance people are here. It was identified as, like, many of my commissioners do share the same sentiment. Like, if we've done the work, when would we get paid? Sometimes I remember the question and say, well, it might be twenty years later. So now let's let's hope that is not the case anymore. And it is simply a well balanced. And if we if we done the work, then we should get compensated just like everybody else. So I I'm in supportive of this, and I believe we are ready for a vote.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Very good, commissioners. There is a motion that has been seconded to approve or excuse me, adopt a recommendation for approval on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry. Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission present so? So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Item 13, case number 2025 hyphen zero zero three three three nine PCA twenty twenty five code corrections ordinance, planning code amendment.

[Veronica Flores (SF Planning staff)]: Good afternoon. Veronica Flores again. This next item is the adoption of the 2025 code corrections ordinance. Commissioners, you initiated this corrections ordinance on September 18. Again, this is a batch of code corrections, including grammatical errors, unintentional cross references, and accidental additions and deletions. This proposed ordinance would improve the overall quality and readability of the planning code, making it easier for the public and staff alike to use. The proposed ordinance also includes an amendment related to massage establishments to align the planning code with the Department of Public Health's practices. Namely, this would prohibit massage businesses within residences. There's been inconsistency between the planning code and the public health's review, which has created confusion, and the proposed amendments helps to rectify that. So it's really clear for proposed applicants. Since the initiation hearing, the department realized a proposed amendment would create inconsistencies with our upcoming legislation and proposes the following modification. That is to eliminate the proposed amendment That is to eliminate the proposed planning entitlement application definition. The proposed family housing ordinance includes an amendment to update section three eleven references to planning entitlement application to development application instead. Thus, the proposed definition under this current ordinance in front of you is no longer required. So the department recommends that the commission recommend approval with modification of the proposed ordinance. This concludes the staff ordinance. This concludes the staff presentation, and I'm again available for any questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Public comment, if any. You need to come forward. Seeing none, public comment is closed. This matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Brown.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: This looks fine to me. I appreciate the responsiveness to a couple of issues I recall arising. For example, the general grocery reference to I think it was in that floor area instead of grills floor area, things like that. And so I make a motion to, adopt recommendation for approval with staff modification.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Second.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioners, there's a motion that has been seconded to adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modification on that motion. Commissioner Campbell? Aye. Commissioner McGarry? Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Placing us on item 14 for case number 2025Hyphen009522, IMP for the UC Law institutional master plan informational presentation. This is a voluntary IMP, but I would still suggest at the end, if you are satisfied, to simply go through the process of acknowledging and closing the public hearing. I do. And I believe, Commissioner Braun, you have a disclosure.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. Yeah. I might not even need to make this disclosure since this is just informational and, voluntary. But just out of an abundance of caution, I'll I'll say, you know, based on the credits to the, firms involving institutional master plan, I've seen that the architecture and design firms Perkins and Will and Stantec is or were part of the project sponsors team. My employer, Strategic Economics, is currently a subconsultant to Perkins and Will and Will on multiple projects, none of which are located in San Francisco or being completed for the city and county Of San Francisco. I am principal in charge on one of those projects with Perkins and Will, which is an area plan for the city of Petaluma. My employer and I have also, in the past, worked as a sub consultant to Stantec for projects, none of which were ever located in San Francisco or completed for the city and county of San Francisco. And also, neither I nor my employers have worked on the institutional master plan before the commission, and these relationships won't impact my ability to be impartial on the matter.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you.

[Elizabeth Junk (SF Planning staff)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Elizabeth Junk here of planning department staff. I'll quickly introduce the item before you, which as Jonas mentioned, is an informational presentation on the UC law IMP. As a reminder, UC law is a state educational institution and is therefore not subject to the planning codes IMP requirements. However, as in years past, UC law is providing a voluntary presentation to the commission to outline their development goals for the foreseeable future. This presentation provides an opportunity for a public hearing and commission discussion on the institution's plans. There's no commission action required. I'll now turn the presentation over to the UC law team. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: You have five minutes.

[Monica Morse (Public commenter)]: Oops. One second. Let me get my clicker here.

[Rhiannon Baylard (Chief Operating Officer, UC Law SF)]: Alright. Good afternoon, honorable commissioners. My name is Rhiannon Baylard, and I'm the chief operating officer at UC Law San Francisco. And it is a pleasure to be here with you all today. So what I'm going to do today, let's see if I can click through, is just briefly cover who we are, our recent major campus developments, and then talk through our plan for the future, specifically within the context of what we call our academic village, which is the sharing of our campus from both a academic and residential perspective. So who are we? So for those that may not be familiar with our founding, we were initially founded in 1878 as the original law school of the University of California. But despite that founding, what many people don't know is that we are not a part of the UC system. We are instead an affiliate of the UC system. We don't roll up through the regions. We don't belong within the office of the president. We have our own board of directors. And so that provides us quite a bit of autonomy but comes with its own challenges as well, but oftentimes folks don't know that, so I always like to be clear on that. Additionally, although we've moved all around, we started our Civic Center campus in 1953. And even though we've enhanced and expanded the campus since that time, we've essentially been in that same location since 1953. And, of course, we're referring to ourselves now as UC Law. We were formerly UC Hastings, and that change occurred in 2023. So let's click through. There we go. So in terms of our existing property, we have five buildings, although one of them is currently under renovation, which is our McAllister Tower. We are bounded by Larkin and Leavenworth as well as Golden Gate and McAllister. And what you see here is that starting from left to right, we have 400 campus parking spaces. We constructed an academic building called the Cachette Law Center that was opened in March 2020. We implemented major renovations to our Caine Hall, which were completed in 2021. And then in 2023, we opened the Academia 198, which is a 14 story mixed use campus housing building that provides 656 housing units that are allocated as part of that academic village concept, not only to our own students, but also to students from other higher education institutions. Notably, UC the UC system has 35% of those units primarily held by UCSF UC Davis, and they are residing on our campus. In terms of our on-site partnerships, I mentioned from a housing perspective, we also have academic programming. Currently, UC Davis and UCSF have academic programs offered on our campus. And starting in 2026, SF State is gonna be relocating some of their programs from the downtown campus to UC Law. So oh, and then the final thing I would just say there, we've got a list there, but, really, the community, we are committed to being an institutional anchor and to being a good neighbor. And so one of the items I would just point out there is we provide fifty thousand hours of pro bono and legal services to the community on an annual basis. So where are we going? Academic Village, the concept is that anyone any institution that is providing academic programming on our campus has the run of the campus, has that built in San Francisco campus similar to the residents. They achieve the same opportunity by living on our campus. What this means from a population per perspective is that we are actually planning at UC Law our own enrollment. We are gonna be holding that relatively stable. You can see there there might be a little bit of an uptick, but relatively stable. Where we anticipate some growth is through those partnerships are on campus enrollment. Again, SF State and expansions with other academic partners. Where we're really gonna have some intentional growth as well is with respect to our on campus beds. And so in terms of our near term projects, just being cognizant of time, I'm just gonna focus specifically on housing. At the McAlester Tower, we are doing a comprehensive seismic upgrade and renovation of a historic high rise that we've been using for campus housing since 1980. This will bring an additional 277 beds available online, both for our own institution as well as other academic village partners. 2027 is anticipated there. And then from a longer term perspective, we also have completed our CEQA analysis and have an option agreement for the Unite Here Local 2 site, where we plan to, when financing and market conditions change, be able to provide a hiring hall as well as up to 200 to 400 additional campus housing beds. With that, we remain committed to partnership with the city and county of San Francisco and are grateful for our time. I'm here to answer any questions as well.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. We should take public comment.

[Rhiannon Baylard (Chief Operating Officer, UC Law SF)]: Oh, I will move.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: If any, members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Commissioner Moore? Five minutes presentation. Do not do justice to real to reading the incredibly well written master plan from beginning to end, which I did. And it was actually quite touching to see it over a time frame from 1953 to today, being in a neighborhood that is really focus of many of the, issues that, are part of what we're discussing in this commission. And I'm delighted to see, the thorough, and cohesiveness by which this institution has moved forward. I strongly remembered in this room for ten years attending to the CPMC hospital overview that this institution provided pro bono in collaboration with the citizens, and it was amazing that in ten years each year, they came again and, held up their commitment to being a leader of that particular effort. I'm I'm delighted to see this and and acknowledge this update on the institutional master plan as being complete way within what we typically see and actually going even further. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I'll second those comments. It's a very well written document given that it's voluntary. I mean, it's it's more thorough and and communicative than some of the ones that we require, so I appreciate that. And I also just want to express my gratitude to UC Law SF for continuing to invest in the civic center area and to build out and to bring in more residential beds as well for students and collaborating with other institutions in the city. It's really wonderful to see. And and, yeah, I'm looking forward to the tower being sort of fully completed. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: So I walked around and I've seen that in these past, I would say, eighteen months, the whole city felt like it just every other place, everything was on hold in terms of construction. But I can always look around and look at UC camp look, UC law campus. There's still a crane, and that crane is moving. And it's moving up and down because construction keep on going. And thank you for continuing your commitment to do your massive academic village. And today, you share your vision to all of us and also on in public. It is remarkable and also insightful. It is truly exciting to see and feel the momentum building to reinvent the Tenderloin. I particularly appreciate your proactive partnership with our community groups and stakeholders, especially given that you're not under our city and county's jurisdictions. But we truly appreciate your continued support and the partnership of our city and also uplifting everybody around us. We need more of you. So I here like to, give my gratitude to, the UC law chief operating officer, Vienna Ballard. And also, sitting next to her is the UC Law chief financial officer, David Sewell, for spending your time with us today. And, I will, have Commissioner Williams, finish his comment before I close this item properly per my secretary's advice. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Just wanted to say thank you again to, UC, formerly Hastings, was a building that I passed by a lot as a kid running through the neighborhood there. And so, and it always intrigued me because I knew that good things were happening there as far as legal issues.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: And

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: it's, so obviously you guys are a great asset to to San Francisco and and all the work that you do. And I just as someone who's grown up here, I just wanna say thank you. Take this opportunity like my other commissioners and say thank you very much.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: I want to echo my fellow commissioners, and I really want to thank you for your commitment to San Francisco, not just, UC Hastings as I remember it. And on behalf of the men and women, who basically are doing the work and have done the work, I know all your projects there, many of whom I represent on my daily basis. I actually work for plant construction, plant architecture, would work with the contractor you have in there. They're probably one of the only companies that can actually do that, kind of. Everyone says they can, but when the rubber hits the road, they kinda run because yours is your job is that one there is pretty special. For a time, they said San Francisco, we were we were down, but you're a great example. We were not out, Especially in this part, specific part of town, basically, you doubled down and you you went forward. And for that, I really have to commend you. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: So by closing this item, I announce that the public comments, it's closed.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Commissioners, that will place us on item fifteen fifteen and sixteen. We'll be calling these items together for case numbers 2025Hyphen005918DES, 2020Five-five930DES for the Alert Alley Early Residential Historic District and Chula Abbey Early Residential Historic District. Both of these items are for your review and comment only.

[Pilar LaValle (SF Planning staff)]: While I get my presentation up and running, I'll cede the floor to supervisor Mandelmann's aide, Calvin Ho, who is the supervisor is sponsoring these designations.

[Calvin Ho (Legislative Aide to President Rafael Mandelman)]: Thank you, Pilar. Hi, everyone. Good afternoon, presidents, so on commissioners. My name is Calvin Ho. I'm a legislative aide to president Mettleman. The items before you will advance the historic landmark district designation of the Chula Abbey and Aller Alley early residential historic districts in the Mission Dolores neighborhood. The identification and designation of these two districts has been many years in the making. In 2022, the Mission Dolores contact statement and survey was completed by SF Planning and the Mission Dolores Neighborhood Association. The historic context statement documents the history, development patterns, and physical features of the Mission Dolores neighborhood. So we've identified two periods, the early neighborhood development era from 1864 to nineteen o six, and the nineteen o six earthquake and reconstruction era from nineteen o six to 1915. The Chula Abbey and Aller Early Aller Alley early residential historic districts were both identified as areas that tell the story of, the neighborhood's development before and after those fires. Pilar will tell you more about the actual, contributors to these two districts. I wanna thank Pilar for her work on this as well as Ritsukre from planning, and Peter Lewis and Erin Vils from MD and A. These items passed with recommendation from the HPC last week with unanimous, support. Commissioners asked for your support for these two items as well. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you.

[Pilar LaValle (SF Planning staff)]: Thank you, Calvin. Good afternoon, commissioners. Pilara Valley department staff. And I apologize there'll be some overlap in what you've just heard with some of my cast statements. But before you today are two landmark does district designations, Allard Alley and Tula Abbey early residential districts in the Mission Dolores neighborhood. Both designations have been recommended for approval by the Historic Preservation Commission at their hearing last week. Per the charter in article 10 of the planning code, districts recommended for approval by the Historic Preservation Commission are referred to the Planning Commission for review and comment with specific reference to addressing consistency of the proposed designations with the general plan and priority policies section one zero one point one, particularly provision of housing to meet the city's regional housing needs and provision of housing near transit corridors to identify whether there are any amendments to the general plan that would be necessary to fulfill facilitate these designations, and also to evaluate whether the designations would conflict with the sustainable community strategy for the Bay Area. As you've heard, these districts are the outcome from work that has been undertaken since 2005 by the Mission Dolores Neighborhood Association for a neighborhood context statement and survey project. An initial version of that context statement and survey was adopted in 2010 and then was revised and updated resulting in a final version that was adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission in July 2022, which at that time included the identification of the Alert Alley and Chula Abbey districts that we see here as eligible. Here's the the dark line is the boundary of that survey area and context statement, and then the red dash lines are the two districts that were identified. Oh, and I'm sorry. I have actually I have handouts of the presentation. In making their recommendation for approval, the Historic Preservation Commission found both districts eligible for designation as distinct groupings of primarily residential buildings that physically illustrate the neighborhood's historic development patterns pre and post nineteen o six. Both districts are also architecturally significant as a distinctive grouping of residential and a couple mixed use buildings in the Victorian and progressive area architectural styles generally applied to modest working class dwellings. The districts are characterized by smaller buildings on narrow alleys and larger buildings on primary streets. The smaller buildings and those built prior to nineteen o six were often single family, while larger and post nineteen o six buildings were generally multifamily. Many of these single family buildings of all sizes have actually been converted over the years to multiple dwellings. Here on this slide is the close-up of the Allert Alley early residential district, which is centered on Allert Alley and Lander Street between 15th, 16th, And Dolores Streets. It has a period of significance of 1890 to 1910, contains 21 buildings, 17 of which are contributing and four non contributing. The Tula Abbey District, the larger of the two, centered on Tula Lane and Abbey Street between 17th with 17th Street and Dolores Street being the primary streets, has a period of significance of eight of 1865 to 1910 is comprised of 52 buildings, 37 of which are contributing and 15 are non contributing. In a previous version of the draft ordinance that was in supporting district documentation heard by the Historic Preservation Commission last week that contains several errors about the number of non contributing properties and addresses. Those errors have been corrected per the HPC's recommendations in the draft ordinance and other supporting documentation. So the numbers I just gave you are the correct numbers for that district. So before you today is reviewing common about general plan and priority planning policies. So on balance, the department finds that the proposed district designations are consistent with policies embodied in the general plan and priority policies section one zero one of the planning code. Particularly policies of the urban design and community and industry elements that promote preservation recognition and his preservation of historic resources. Under the priority policies, proposed designation will further policy number seven, which states that landmarks and historic buildings will be preserved, as well as policy number two, which recommends that the conservation of existing building stock and to maintain to maintain diversity of housing types and unit sizes. In making their recommendations for approval, the Historic Preservation Commission adopted findings consistency with the general plan and priority policies of the planning code and also noted that it will serve the public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to planning code section three zero two and as well as the department's analysis. Specific to the we do not believe that the the designations will require amendments to the general plan. We say find it will preserve and protect existing housing near transit and will not impede the provision of housing to meet the city's regional housing needs. It does not and nor does it conflict with the sustainable community strategy of the Bay Area. The department requests that the planning commission adopt the draft resolutions in your packets with comments on these matters. And that completes my recommendation. As noted in your packets, there are draft resolutions with comments. We would welcome your acceptance and adoption of those resolutions as well as any other comments you might like to add. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: So, is there any public comment?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Thank you. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this on either of these two matters. Again, you need to come forward. Last call, seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Campbell.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I have a question. And this both of these alleys are very close, not too close, but close enough to my house that, in my house, called them the Skinny Streets because we would walk that way to drop my kids off at preschool many years ago. So I'm very familiar with, with with these alleys, and they are incredibly charming. And I one question I have and I think what sparks my question is because there's there's so many non contributing houses, in these districts is is how we go about deciding whether we're going to make this a district landmark a district versus just look at individual buildings. Because there are some, like, real non contributors in in adjacent to here and in the district. So just kind of if you could walk us through how we make that decision.

[Pilar LaValle (SF Planning staff)]: So I think first off, we just look at the significance. And here the significance is really related to both architectural styles and how those are expressed as well as the periods of development that have been identified as significant. And those are that early development period, sort of eighteen sixties ish to, like, pre earthquake, so nineteen o six, and then nineteen o six to 1915. And so within that with that framework, then we evaluate sort of what is there a representative grouping of properties that contain and retain integrity to represent that you could still sort of have a representation of that significance? I think what you see from the the way that the sort of you know, it's not just a a box that we've drawn. And so we've really been careful to make sure that we've drawn a district boundary that contains as many buildings that represent that significance and retain integrity so that we also end up with a district that is the more majority con contributing properties. So that I think is representative of how of how that map is drawn to make sure that we're we're striking that balance.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: In in the case of the Chula Abbey District, for the folks that own the buildings that are not pink I should know this because I was on

[Lydia So (President)]: the HBC for, like, eight times.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: But can you can you remind me and the public sort of how being in the district impacts their properties?

[Pilar LaValle (SF Planning staff)]: So the buildings that are not highlighted with a color, and Tula Abbey, they're pink in that map, and I think they're violet or something in the Allard Alley. The the the ones that are grayed out would be considered non contributing buildings. So usually that means that they were either built after the period of significance or they were have been so altered as they don't represent that history. So within districts, there are there are provisions for preservation entitlements called certificates of appropriateness. Typically, those are triggered when there is a exterior alterations that require a permit. Actually, they're not typically that is the trigger. That's the requirement. Non contributing buildings do also have that same entitlement requirement, but the the way they are reviewed is different in the sense that we're not trying to protect historic features. We're essentially looking at their work for as for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. For these particular districts, it wasn't included in the information I, well, it was. It's in the draft ordinances. We actually have also provided some additional provisions that will allow for more work to go forward on those non contributing properties that would not require a certificate of appropriateness. So to to lessen that burden for those properties that are not in there. And then I think the other important thing as we're discussing housing so much is those those non contributors would not be considered historic buildings and historic properties. So they would have they would be they would be differently subjected to, like, the state housing laws or they wouldn't be limited as a historic building under the state housing laws.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Those are all my questions.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: That was a helpful explanation about how the district is sort of formed. I was curious too, especially as somebody who actually rents an Italian cottage that's sort of off on its own in the backyard. And I thought, interesting. How would that fit into a historic district? And it looks very similar. I also appreciate you teaching me how to pronounce Alert Alley, which I've been saying alert all these years. I've also lived pretty close to this area off and on for a long time. So So thanks for that. I guess my I really only have one question, which is the Tanfran Cottages near 15th And Dolores. There are Article 10 landmarks. They're not included in the district. And I'm just curious about the mechanics of why an individual resource would not be included in in the district.

[Pilar LaValle (SF Planning staff)]: So, thank you for that question, commissioner. The so as you know, the Tan 4 And Cottages, which are directly adjacent, I think the rear property line abuts the the district boundary, are designated already under article 10 as individual landmarks. They would, in this case, actually meet the same significant associations because of their dates of construction and their architectural styles as this district. Although there are cases where that wouldn't be true. You have an individual landmark that's significant, you know, for Art Deco architecture. And then the district adjacent to it would not it wouldn't make sense to include it. Here, there are those associations, so it could be included. But typically, our approach is that if something has already been designated either individually or as part of another local landmark district that we wouldn't extend additional resources, department resources or staff resources to then add another level of designation because they already have that protection.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I see. Okay. So it's just So

[Pilar LaValle (SF Planning staff)]: it's really more just of a a procedural or sort of logistical, thing in this case.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: It creates a duplicative Yeah. Layer of process. Okay. Yeah. That that's a very helpful explanation. I appreciate that. I, you know, big picture, I I I'm looking forward to seeing more historic district designations come through when they're appropriate, given that, you know, this is part of our major work plan and something that, we need to think about as as we try to also promote housing development. And I don't have concerns about this being an obstacle in that sense. And I agree with the with the findings involved in this. We have a resolution. I see that our action is review and comment. But do we need to adopt the resolution?

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yes. I'm sorry. I apologize for that, Commissioner Braun. Thank you for that clarification in the question because indeed, you the request is for you to adopt a resolution with your comments. And there is a draft resolution with some comments already attached. So if you have any additional comments, you would need to verbalize those.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I don't have any additional comments on the resolution. But, I see Commissioner Williams wants to speak. So we'll hear

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: from him.

[Lydia So (President)]: Hey. Commissioner Williams.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you. Just want to comment on the beauty of our city. And there's a lot of properties that aren't listed here that one can say are historical in in in nature and should be preserved. As as a carpenter, as a crafts person, I understand, personally, the beauty and the workmanship that's gone into a lot of these, older buildings. And they make up, they make what San Francisco is, right? They, they make, they're a part of the landscape, they're part of the beauty of San Francisco. It's very important that we pay attention to preserving that part of our city. And thank you. I want to thank supervisor Mendelmann for bringing this forward. And I wish more supervisors would look into their districts and see what, could possibly, they could do to make sure that we, continue to, appreciate and protect, these beautiful buildings, that add to, to the landscape of our city, as long as, as well as with the beautiful people that occupy them.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I'd like to acknowledge the thoroughness of, the description of the district. It was actually very moving to get deep into the history, which we normally don't, but this as it just says in the title, it's only residential districts, and I think that is where it is unusual. Thank you to supervisor Mandelmann, president of the board Mandelmann. Thank you to planning. Thank you to miss Tovale, and I am in full support acknowledging that the considerations that we are asked to acknowledge have all been fully mentioned. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: My understanding is, like, this is a ten year plus into making, so it is a time to really deserve a great applaud to not only our planning team leading by Pilar, and I see Moses is sitting here too, but also supervisor Mandelmann and his office and Calvin here today, working painstakingly over a decade with the community and mapped out conscientiously of what is adequate and what is the culturally important for that character defining features is remarkable. I learned a new term today, folk Victorian, so that was great. So I am in support of this along with my fellow commissioners, and I would like to hear more. My commissioner has some more follow-up comments, right, or Commissioner Braun?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Actually, I just want to make a motion to approve. Do we need to take them separately? Or

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: you can call them up together since they're so similar.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Sure. Or you

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: can do them separately if you prefer.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: No. I'll take them together. So I'll make a motion to approve both items.

[Lydia So (President)]: Second it. And commissioner Moore, you hyped for it or comments?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: I I have to bite my tongue, but when we when I heard you mention that it took ten years, I hope there is

[Lydia So (President)]: Is it more than ten?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: When I heard you explain that it took ten years, which I didn't wasn't quite aware of, I think there's common sense given the beauty of the city that perhaps we can learn from this to do it more quickly and expand it to the many, many areas which have similar characteristics, and I appreciate it for the same reasons.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Alright. Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt resolutions with comments on both items on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Williams? Aye. Commissioner Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And Commission President Tsao?

[Lydia So (President)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Commissioners, that will place us on the final item on your agenda today, number 17, for case number 2008.085BHyphen02 for the Alexandria District 4 55 Mission Mission Bay Boulevard South And 14501517 Hundred Owens Street. This is a request for office development allocation.

[Lydia So (President)]: And commissioner Brown has a disclosure to make.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. I would like to make a disclosure of a professional relationship with the project sponsor for this item. I know Theresa and Nemeth through my work for my employer, strategic economics, which sometimes performs economic analyses related to life science and office market conditions for public sector clients outside San Francisco. My employer does not have any existing contracts with the project sponsor. And although I have a professional relationship, this in no in no way influences my professional judgment or impacts my ability to consider this item impartially.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. And commissioner Moore also has a disclosure to make.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: My professional relationship with Alexandria, mister Wissenamus, dates more than twenty five years back when we worked together, and that particular relationship is not impairing my ability to be objective.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I also have a disclosure to make. Okay. My firm, Gensler, also does work for Alexandra Realty time and again, and we do have current work with them in Southern California. I do not work on that account. We were not involved with this project and does not impact my ability to weigh in on this.

[Lydia So (President)]: I think that completes our disclosures, and you may start your presentation. Thank you.

[Rebecca Salgado (SF Planning staff)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Rebecca Salgado, planning staff. The project before you today requests an office allocation of 518,242 square feet within the Alexandria Mission Bay Life Sciences And Technology Development District, a k a the Alexandria District, in the Mission Bay South redevelopment project area. The allocation would allow for the conversion of existing life sciences and laboratory floor area to office space at four existing non contiguous properties in the Alexandria District at 455 Mission Bay Boulevard South, 1450 Owen Street, 1500 Owen Street, and 1700 Owen Street. The project does not propose construction of new or expanded buildings in conjunction with the requested office allocation. Planning commission motion number seven one seven seven zero nine established the Alexandria District in 2008. That motion combined several previous office allocations within the Alexandria District boundaries into an aggregate pool of 1,122,980 square feet and authorize the project sponsor, Alexandria Real Estate Equities Incorporated, to request 227,020 additional square feet of allocation for a total of 1,350,000 square feet for the Alexandria District. The authorized 1,350,000 leasable square feet of large cap office allocation within the Alexandria District represented one half of Alexandria's 2,698,000 leasable square foot commercial industrial entitlement. Pursuant to the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan and the Mission Bay South owner participation agreement. Pursuant to condition six of motion number one seven seven zero nine, if the project sponsor documents that the entire 1,350,000 leasable square foot allocation has been leased for office space. Only then could the project sponsor or its successors or transferees file an application in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan and related plan documents to receive additional office allocation up to the total 2,698,000 leasable square feet of project sponsors commercial industrial entitlement at Mission Bay. There is currently only 24,373 square feet of allocated office space within the Alexandria district that has not been leased. But it is impractical impractical to lease such a small and exact amount before requesting a new allocation promotion number 17709. Therefore, Alexandria now seeks additional large cap allocation to enable a 100% office use within the four previously mentioned properties in the district to accommodate current and anticipated tenant demand. The action before the commission is somewhat unique because all the required office allocation findings per planning code section three two one two three two five were made by the commission as part of the original approval of the redevelopment plan. And the commission's review of individual allocations within the plan area were only to determine that the proposed buildings were consistent with the Mission Bay South design for development document. The commission's necessary action to prove to approve the current proposal is only to allocate an additional 518,242 square feet of large cap office space within the Alexandria District, pursuant to the rules adopted in motion number 17,709. Since packets were published, the department has received two letters from members of the public regarding the proposed office allegation. One in opposition and one in support. The letter in opposition expressed concerns about the loss of existing life sciences and laboratory space in the Alexandria District. While the letter in support noted that the proposed office use could support further advances in life sciences. I have copies of both letters available to the commissioners for reference. The department finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the Mission Based South redevelopment plan, and the objectives and policies of the general plan. The project would authorize additional office use in existing buildings within the Alexandria District within the Mission Bay South redevelopment project area that accommodates and encourages such uses. Approval of the proposed office allocation would enable additional office use in an appropriate location that features similar uses, contributing to a lively job center. Based on the findings contained within the case report, the department recommends approval of the office allocation with conditions. This concludes my presentation, unless there are any questions. The zoning administrator and the project team also have brief presentations for the project. Thank you.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: Okay. Good afternoon, president Tsao and commissioners. Corey Tighe. Good to see Corey Tighe, good to see you again this afternoon. Rebecca did a great job, I think, of setting the stage. I just wanted to jump in to provide a little bit more background and context. As you know, the office, development annual limit program can be complicated. And this is a particular onion of a case in front of you with layers. And I wanna really make sure that we're clear about the different layers. So I think it's helpful to go go back to the beginning. Obviously, the the program was created under Prop M back in 1985. And it's important to note that from the beginning, the program very clearly states that state and federal property and projects, and this includes SF Port and redevelopment areas, that the baseline is those projects for office development do not require an allocation from the commission, but we have to account for it in the program. So when those projects are moving forward, we have to pull that space out from the cap. So that's kind of the the baseline. Then in 1998, you know, the mission based South redevelopment plan was adopted with redevelopment plans. And and this one's no different. It basically states that local controls only apply within the redevelopment area to the extent that the plan says they do. Right? So there was a choice made in this plan and what was adopted, to do what's in the handout that was that was provided to you with the highlighting. This is the section in the in the redevelopment plan that addresses how office developments should be addressed relative to to the program. And the highlighted section essentially says three important things. One, it says that an office project can't be denied based on the findings that are required because all the findings had already been adopted as part of the redevelopment area for the entire redevelopment area. It also says that essentially Mission Bay projects for office have priority over projects outside Mission Bay. Again, pursuant to the Mission Bay plan that had been adopted by the city. But it also says that office development in Mission Bay has to stay within the confines of what's available in the program. So that basically is the construct. As was mentioned in the past, individual projects came to the planning commission within Mission Bay. And what the planning commission's review consisted of was, is there enough space in the in the program? And is the design consistent with the d four d in with the redevelopment area? As opposed to a standard office allocation where you're looking at the actual findings that are required from the program itself. So that was the baseline up until 2008 when the, you know, most current layer was adopted. And that's when the planning commission, upon application from, Alexandria, created this district within Mission Bay that was specific to holdings of Alexandria, to allow essentially a larger allocation to the district itself and provide some level of flexibility with how that office space, could kind of flex between buildings within the district over time. So that was basically the benefit of that district. It gave them additional flexibility with how to use that space. And as was called out, that that allocation has kind of been exhausted. They're essentially requesting the allocation an additional allocation for the space remaining in the buildings that are there. So there's a distinction of, like, what is under the what's under the planning commission's purview here. Obviously, the baseline is that office space in Mission Bay kinda has to be approved if it meets the certain criteria, which is essentially that it's within the that there's space within the program. But the specific request before the commission today is to grant this allocation within the framework of the Alexandria District as it was adopted in 2008. So within that that extra framework, that extra layer. So that's kind of the distinction. And it's a small nuance, but it's an important nuance to to call out because it is essentially the reason, this application is before you today. But I hope that's somewhat clarifying for this complicated situation. And, of course, we'll be available for additional questions. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay. Project sponsor, you have five minutes.

[Jesse Nelson (SVP, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.)]: Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Jesse Nelson, senior vice president regional market director for Alexandria here in the Bay Area. Good to see you all. Alexandria Our mission is to create and grow life science ecosystems such as Mission Bay that ignite and accelerate the world's leading innovators in their pursuit of advancing human health. You can see our mission here on the screen now. Today, we are the largest owner of laboratory space in the country with approximately 40,000,000 square feet of operating properties located in the country's key life science nodes. That includes Mission Bay, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Seattle, San Diego, and Research Triangle. We have a very close pulse on the life science industry with over seven fifty tenants that we treat as partners. Approximately 87% of our annual revenue is from life science tenants. We're deeply passionate about the space. This is this is our DNA. We're tremendously proud of the work that we've done over the last twenty years to help Mission Bay evolve into what it is today, which is a thriving live, work, play neighborhood with UCSF and life science at its heart. 1700 Owens, where my office is located, opened in 2006 and was the first private lab building in Mission Bay. This was the pioneering building that helped to create a thriving translational research ecosystem that exists today. From the very beginning, we referred to our cluster of buildings as the Alexandria Center for Science and Technology at Mission Bay. It's important for context that from the very beginning, this was not conceived as exclusively only a home for wet lab life science, but more importantly as a dynamic center of innovation positioned at the intersection of science and technology. And for important context, when 1700 Owens, 1500 Owens, and 455 Mission Bay Boulevard were all initially built, they did receive 100% Prop M with no restrictions that they would be limited exclusively to wet lab life science use at that time. It's also important to understand that the nature of life science research is evolving. We're seeing life science companies incorporating more engineering and technology processes in their workflows, more desktop computational analysis, and we're also seeing an increasing number of research companies who are outsourcing their lab work to virtual operators but still keeping their office space. We're also seeing an increasing number of companies at the intersection of life science and AI, which has the potential to unlock significant gains for human health. The quote here on the screen from Deepak Srivastava, the president of the Gladstone Institutes, speaks to the potential of fostering the vibrant intersection of science and technology. I want to be very clear. Our ask here today is not to undertake a wholesale conversion of laboratory space to tech office. That's not our DNA as a company. The reality is that there is far, far more life science availability today in Mission Bay than there is demand. Of 2,800,000 square feet of life science space, approximately 55% of that today is available for lease. And that's according to CBRE with the statistics you see on the screen here today. And that's a situation we don't see turning around on its own at least in the next five years or more. What we're asking for today is for additional Prop M for Mission Bay that benefits everyone, including providing necessary flexibility to allow life science companies in Mission Bay to continue to grow and evolve in ways that they otherwise wouldn't be able to without that additional Prop M. And with that, I'd like to yield to my colleague, Triti Nemet.

[Teresa (Terry) Nemeth (Consultant; Vice Chair, Mission Bay CAC)]: Good afternoon, commissioners. Teretea Nemeth. I am a consultant to Alexandria currently, but I also serve as the vice chair of the Mission Based Citizens Advisory Committee. It's been a very long time that I've been on that commission, so I can tell you that I have the dubious distinction of having been here when the plan was put in place, when the district was formed, when all of this took place. So perhaps I'm at fault. But here we are today. What I can tell you is we have always been working together with Mission Bay, with UCSF, with the CAC, with OCII. They've all been informed. They've all had input. And we are very happy to answer any questions.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Great. That concludes project sponsors' presentation. We should open up public comment. Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

[Adrianna Marble (Public commenter, Accel Bio)]: Hello. My name is Adrianna Marble, and I am here on behalf of Accel Bio, a a biotechnology company focused on improving immunotherapies and also a tenant at 455 Mission Bay Boulevard. Our position is that we need more lab space in Mission Bay, not less. During my tenure at Excel Bio, we've had to relocate lab spaces twice due to existing facilities closing. And finding suitable spaces can be challenging because biotechnology research requires facilities that are designed and qualified for employee safety. These include, but are not limited to eye wash stations, self closing doors, water impervious surfaces, and hazardous material storage. The existing vacant offices office spaces within the city would greatly benefit from the resources and potential tenants, that are, like, looking for office space. So, we we would greatly appreciate you hearing our concerns, and let me know if I can answer any questions. Thank you.

[Trisha (Public commenter, recent bioengineering graduate)]: Hello. My name is Trisha, and I am a recent bioengineering graduate from UC Berkeley. And I chose to stay in the Bay Area because of Mission Bay. It's one of the places where scientists can actually build careers. And I feel that office space can go anywhere, but real lab space can't, and that's what makes Mission Bay unique. Life science companies can also hire a wide range of people, scientists, lab techs, operations staffs, facilities team, tech teams, and suppliers. And converting this building means losing that mix of jobs and replacing it with a narrower office workforce. Mission Day was designed for science, and it still matters for people who, like me, who wanna build their future here. So I ask that you keep this space for off for labs and not offices. Thank you.

[Maria Soloveyshka (Public commenter, biotech founder)]: Hi, dear commissioners. I won't belabor what I was just said. I'm Maria Soloveyshka. I represent one of the biotechs also based out of 455 Mission Bay. Previously, we were in another Mission Bay tenant in another building that was then lost and then had to move. So kind of speaking to previous points, there there is really not a lot of space for biotech. And Alexandria has built beautiful buildings that are very high quality for what we need to do. A lot of fellow founder friends have to convert warehouses to be able to do research in, is a much lower quality, much more expensive, and much more painful. So many companies have been leaving San Francisco, and it is a huge loss for the city to become a leader in in biotech as it has been for so long. These are the main buildings of biotechnology in Mission Bay. If we're going to lose them from lab use, I think we're going to lose a lot of biotech from San Francisco in general, and it'll be a huge loss for the community. The community in Mission Bay specifically is so unique because we're so enthralled with UCSF, with the incubators around there, with NBC Bio Labs, with JLABS, it is such a good ecosystem that we collaborate. We foster a lot of innovation. And with AI companies moving in, they have plenty of available office space and mission based well, that's there already. It fosters a really nice ecosystem, just being able to network with them over lunch in a few areas around us. Most of our employees live in Mission Bay as well. If we had to move our lab, which it looks like we might, and go down to South San Francisco or San Carlos, they'll all probably relocate as well. And it'll be really hard to build it back to the high quality of labs that they already exist. So I do request that there's gonna be some maybe flexibility, some sort of a structure that's gonna allow for cohabitation of existing lab infrastructure with the tech tenants considering many of the floors are already offices only. So thank you. I do appreciate your time.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Last call for public comment. Seeing none, public comment is closed, and this matter is done before you, commissioners.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Brown?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: I struggle with this a little bit. Procedurally, a lot of the as was stated in the staff presentation, the findings for the office allocation are already in place. And it seems like there was flexibility built into the original plan. This ends up being office allocation. And at the same time, the vision as I've always understood it, the vision for Mission Bay South was very focused on life science. And so I guess first, I'm just curious to hear I mean, I don't know if staff anyone on staff has a long memory of this. But what

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: was

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: the thinking behind enabling the flexibility for life science or office use at the time? Am I going too far back in time?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: Just just for clarification, do you mean what was the kind of rationale in the Mission Bay South plan itself for allowing the flexibility between

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Yes. Yeah. I mean, given that that was in there, and then also the 2008 authorization for Alexandria's projects also had this kind of premade set of findings as well, What was the thinking behind it if, you know, the default was life science, but then there was also the opportunity to have the office allocations?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: Sure. And I I don't want to represent, like, as an expert on the redevelopment plan. But if you read the redevelopment plan, obviously, it's pretty broad in the things that it allows and it allows that kind of flexibility within the permitted uses, without being really descriptive about minimums of specific types of uses. So it does build in that flexibility between those uses. The project sponsor will probably have more institutional knowledge about the rationale around that plan. And then the the 2008 Alexandria District, obviously, was a creature of their proposal. It was adopted by the planning commission. So I can speak to that in the sense that it did allow for flexibility both, like, geographically within the district, how Alexandria could use that office space within different buildings, but then also allowed in flexibility with how that office space may be included or not included when they sold properties. And once they sold a property, it's outside the district because it's no no longer owned by. So for example, like the the Chase Center property, you know, when that was sold off, a certain amount of office allocation went with it and then that's kinda permanently there. Right? That so, and that allowed the construction of the office buildings that are part of that block. Mhmm. So that flexibility was part of the rationale for the district itself. But beyond that, again, I would defer to the to the applicants.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Sure. And maybe, Ms. Nemeth, if you don't mind, I know that you've been involved, as you said, for a very, very long time. And I'm curious to hear the evolution of this.

[Teresa (Terry) Nemeth (Consultant; Vice Chair, Mission Bay CAC)]: I have. Let me go back to 1998. So the creation of the redevelopment plan actually was to create a mixed use community that allowed for UCSF to develop their research campus, and for commercial activity around them that would support and feed off of that and generate, the ability to attract, investment and new industries into San Francisco. That included life science, but wasn't exclusive of it. That's why it was life science and technology from the very beginning. Now, then we started building buildings. As we were building buildings, because I have the distinction of having been the one that had to get 1,700 Owens approved, 1,500, 455 Mission Bay Boulevard South. All of those, as Jesse mentioned, received 100% Prop M at the time, even though they were designed and built to be a mix of uses. And that is because we knew, as an industry, life science was always changing. Yes, some of the smaller companies might need more lab space. Some of the larger companies need more office space because they need to put in reports to the FDA. They need to do a lot of marketing for new drugs. So it's a very evolving industry. And that was always why we wanted 100% Prop M for all the buildings. Cut to 2,008. There was, in the city, a high demand for office space, and therefore not a lot of allocation to be given. And we were moving forward with new building development at the same time. So the district was created to provide both the ability for the buildings to be built and for the city to not have to give us 100% Prop M at a time when we didn't necessarily need it. But that's why we always reserved in the district the right to come back to seek more. Does that answer your question?

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: That does answer my question. I appreciate it. And maybe you could stay. I have I have a couple of other, questions. So I guess just fundamentally, when Alexandria has tilted towards having more office space rather than wet lab life science space in the buildings, does the infrastructure for the lab space remain in the buildings? What's the extent of physical changes that end up happening? Because I'm I'm what I also wanna make sure is that we're not completely eliminating our ability to continue to build a life science cluster in San Francisco and just keep losing it to South City instead.

[Teresa (Terry) Nemeth (Consultant; Vice Chair, Mission Bay CAC)]: No, no. That's an excellent question. So first of all, let me reiterate, as Jesse ended his slide, there's 55% availability today at Mission Bay Life Science space. What I can also tell you is I'm old enough that these buildings were built nearly twenty years ago. And the science does evolve. It does change. So when a new tenant comes in, they typically want to have changes made to the tenant improvements. So the specifics of where the wet lab is, how much big equipment they need, how many fume hoods they need. It all changes. What doesn't change is the underlying infrastructure of those buildings. Right? They are always going to be able to be used for life science uses. They've got the right floor to floor heights. They have the right HVAC system that will always support that. They have all the underlying infrastructure. So it will always meet the needs of life science tenants today, tomorrow, and in the future.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Thank you. One I think just one last question to that. Is Alexandria currently building new life science space elsewhere in the Peninsula?

[Lydia So (President)]: Are we

[Teresa (Terry) Nemeth (Consultant; Vice Chair, Mission Bay CAC)]: are you building new life science space currently? Nothing currently. Nothing currently.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you for that.

[Jesse Nelson (SVP, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.)]: Mhmm.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Yeah.

[Derek W. Braun (Commissioner)]: It's a little frustrating for me. I am interested in seeing the industry continue to thrive in San Francisco. It's something that we kind of have to cultivate here because, again, such a global hub exists in South San Francisco. And I think part of my, part of the challenge is also it felt a few years ago like life science space was getting overbuilt in a lot of ways. As everyone kind of looked for something when office the office market went down? You started seeing it getting developed on the peninsula in places that historically hadn't gone. And I think now we're starting to see some of the the challenges that have arisen from some of that. To me, you know, granting flexibility seems reasonable, and the buildings remain usable as life science space. And this allows for changing balances of life science space. And then again, you know, we most of the findings are actually already in place. There's that, in some ways, limited amount of, although we have discretion, you know, that it's unusual to have already, kind of adopted a lot of the the findings in the first place. So although I have I have some concerns, I I would be supportive of the allocation. Thank you.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Thank you. It reminds me of the, because I remember there was some form there was a legislation, I remember, by a supervisor I think it's supervisor Walton around What? Yeah. Around around life science because the, yeah, I remember that, you know, that legislation kinda like calls for the because in our planning code, in a way, like, life science is under there there is an office use in in the lab science. And I think we're we're we're dealing with some planning code issues with it. I may just need to we may just need to for me, just to remember that. And but, you know, I mean, I understand as well, I you know, in terms of where your lab science industry is and sounds like the office allocation that's being asked here in front of us is can be used in a lab science, but the infrastructure is like office. And so it I guess my question is is the lab science under for our for the planning code under the office, is that with the the lab science code, you know, is that under still the use of the office use? My understanding is it is or it it's not.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: No. I'm happy to answer that, commissioner Imperial. So under the planning code, we define life science use as something that's separate and distinct distinct from office use and also as a separate and distinct use from laboratory. Although in the common vernacular, a lot of times people lump what we would define the planning code as laboratory as life science use. But they are separate and distinct from from office use under the planning code.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: So so in a way, for this office allocation being asked under Alexandria District, it allows for flexibility even though it's under office use. So I'm trying to understand the flexibility part with our planning code.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: Sure. So the flexibility in the Alexandria District is kinda unique to that district. Right? And it's a it's a flexibility that is specific to the geography of that district, allowing kind of varying amounts of office space to be used in their different buildings. And also, it allows that to vary somewhat over time, again, unless and until they sell off more property and that those lots are no longer part of the district. So that's that's essentially the the only flexibility that would be provided by granting the allocation as part of this district as opposed to the office space just coming out to a standard kind of redevelopment area process.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Right. I'm still confused Sure. I think. I don't know if other so the flexibility is on the in the in the geography, which is the Alexandra. But so in a way, what's being asked for us right now is to to expand or use the office allocation. And what's I'm trying to understand as well in terms of the need of the tenants too in terms of life science and the mission South Bay. So so what's strictly being in front of us is office use allocation without in terms of the use of life science or lab use that is not in so that's yeah. I am kinda

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: Yeah. And I think in the simplest terms and the project sponsor can elaborate more if they'd like, but they're the the district now comprises of four different properties and four different buildings that right now are, you know, give or take, half and half. Half office, half, you know, lab life science.

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Mhmm.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: And this allocation will allow those buildings to basically convert the non office portions of those buildings to office.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: To office. Yeah. Okay. And then my other question is around the office allocation, the PropM that thank you for sending that to us. And I guess my clarification on that Prop m as well use you know, I understand that there are other projects as well that are still pending. But, however, they are allocated under the Prop m and pending availability will turn the city into negative gross square feet. Is that what I how I'm understanding the office allocation statistics that we have, the annual limit program?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: So, happy to answer that. What you're referencing that I sent out last week was the kind of the annual update and tracking for the program that happens on October 17 of each year pursuant to Prop BIM. And we're kinda required to track how much has been allocated, but also kinda how much is in the queue at different stages. And so right now, we have approximately 1,700,000 square feet in the large cap. We're kinda not talking about the small cap for small projects today. So that's how much we have. And then, of course, we track any other projects that we know are potentially coming forward in the future, and that's where that pending number comes from. It's it's like a total queue. Now the timeline of that queue can vary for lots of reasons. Sometimes you have projects that are part of the queue for for years, sometimes less. But that's the distinction between kind of how much we have, how much has been allocated over the years, and then how much is pending based on existing applications that haven't moved forward yet.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. So I mean, with the current availability, this will not the the proposed office allocation is not gonna go beyond the what is current available right now?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: Absolutely. If it did, there wouldn't be the ability to grant that.

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Okay. Thank you. I mean, those are for me, my I mean, the this is still within the prop m. That that's what but I am concerned about about the the square footage being turned into office use and perhaps if there is a way where some of the square foot will be put into a lab science use. I mean, that's where I'm, you know, that's where I'm feeling right now. But, yeah, I am, you know, I'm not I'm not comfortable of approving the whole 518 square feet for office use. I think partial of it for me. But I'd like to hear what other commissioners would say.

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Thank you, mister Teague, for and and everyone else who's who's explained a a complicated situation in the history of of the redevelopment of the Alexandria properties. I have similar concerns just figuring out, is there room for smaller startup biotech businesses inside the Alexandria? And what are you doing to help that? Because it sounds like there's a limited amount of space there. And what other commissioners have brought up is, this is a special situation with the Alexandria properties. They were designed to support this industry. And, there's some concern about, there being enough space and and and also smaller, smaller businesses. And so I have a question. I don't know if you can answer that, but what what what is the Alexandria properties doing to support smaller businesses? And do you have do you have an allocation or a program set up to make sure that the smaller startup companies you're supporting in your properties?

[Jesse Nelson (SVP, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.)]: Sure. Thank you for your question. Absolutely. We are passionate about early stage companies, small growing businesses like Maria's company back here. And we were just chatting as well about the situation. And I realize it's a very complex situation and would like to try to bring a little bit of clarity to it. We absolutely love and support small companies. In addition to being a landlord, we are also an investor in early stage companies. In fact, the last, I believe, five or six years now, we've been ranked the most active early stage investor of any venture capital group. And those are typically all Series A type companies, early stage growth companies. We are absolutely focused with our portfolio in Mission Bay today in creating really high quality early stage space for companies like Maria's company to be able to thrive and grow. We would love nothing more than that. The reality, 55% of Mission Bay today is available. And there are a couple of things that have gotten us to that situation, but supply far exceeds demand. There's so there's there's no concern from our end about supporting early stage companies. That is what Mission Bay is full of. UCSF is an engine for these sorts of companies, and we want to foster that. We want to grow that. There is there's a nuance about what how PropM works with life science companies that maybe I can try to address. If a a life science company, their premises are a portion of wet lab space and office space. That wet lab does not require Prop M. That is that is exempt from Prop M. There is a certain allocation of desk space within their leased premises where for a scientist if a scientist, you know, they don't spend all day behind the bench in the lab. They also have desks. And so the space that they use for desks outside the lab also doesn't count for Prop M. But any other quantitative use, any other desk use within that company's premises requires Prop M. And part of what the district allows us to do is to be able to allocate our availability around to allow companies that have more quantitative needs. Some companies are bringing in more data scientists and engineering talent to help with what they're doing. Those uses require Prop M allocation within their suites to make that work. So there's it's a it's a complicated situation. It's not that all of our life science tenants are exempt from Prop M. That's not the case at all. So did that answer some questions?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Yeah. No. It it it did. I I just needed to understand more about that issue. I think some of my other commissioners had the same concern. And so that's it for now. I think I've

[Jesse Nelson (SVP, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.)]: I do want to assure you, we are very much committed to helping companies like Maria's company ensure that they can thrive and grow in Mission Bay. We would love nothing more than to have lots of companies like Maria's. Thank

[Lydia So (President)]: you. Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: So we're working within the confines of Mission Bay here. And then basically, you have 17th where you're into the dog's patch. I believe were a few months ago, you were here in front of us when, wet labs some it was brought that wet labs could not be, could not venture across 17th Street into the dog patch because and because basically the neighbors and we digested it here, and we came to the conclusion that people were fearful that it would be the next Wuhan, China. And then we alleviated people's fears that that is what anything that could anywhere that could happen would be way off walled out the country, and we said that wet labs are just basically science. So that to me alleviates the fear of basically zero or getting rid of biotech or small wet labs because there's an expansion of that can actually go into the dog patch right now. And my fear at the time was that we would lose that to Brisbane and San Mateo and the tax and the people and all the rest. So from that point of view, I do believe that we're we're not just working within the confines, but there's actually we've actually expanded that ability a few months ago to that your companies can actually, basically not just necessarily have to be within Mission Bay, but they can actually be located in the dog patch as well and further down further on. People made an argument that that shouldn't be the case. I thought that basically local people, basically local, businesses, future kids born in UCSF could actually utilize those jobs as starter jobs in the dog patch. So I'm find that there's ample opportunity and space not just within Mission, Mission Bay, which there's a 55% vacancy would appear now, so you have to pivot in order to keep the whole ecosystem going, or, you know, 65% and things are things are not not as good or viable. So I'm fine with this. I would make a motion that, this this, follows through.

[Lydia So (President)]: Thank you. I'd like to probably say a few things. I think about when, mister our zoning administrator, mister t, said that prop m was dated in 1985 or '84. Correct. Yeah. For around that. Like, that was before we have iPod or iPhones. So when we work in that environment, it was pretty much like, do you have a desk and do you have a phone with a cord. Right? And then if you go to the lab, then you are in a very different kind of lab. Right? I'm saying it because recently, I went into my daughter's school, just a high school, and she's just like, everyone is eating and working in a lab with their laptop everywhere. So I'm kind of wondering, like, is that it's it's okay. And then as soon as everyone wash their hands, I think it will be fine. But I think what I'm trying to say is, like, I think the what, just like other technology, I think biotech and life science is just she loves life science. And that's kinda why I visited these her school has good labs. Right? So I was like, how how do we keep up with the pace of technology and life science? And how do we help our young scientists, like many of you sitting here, and hopefully, eventually, my daughter too, is be able to catch up with what it needs for them to work and how we make policy and make people who are enabling that environment to to work. And I so that's kind of where, I think, right now, we're here to grapple with what was stated for us by Prop m forty years ago. Was it forty? I haven't done my math right. Thirty. Whatever it is. It's like decades ago before we have, iPhone. Well, the all the computers are beige. Right? Like, that's called you have a computer. That's called a CPU with a giant monitor. So right now, everyone's probably looking at your phone checking whatever things you have to do as a scientist. I'm not one. But I think that enabling work and research environment to be a little bit more flexible, it seems like it's enabling continued growth for our city to be the innovator, to be the fourth runner of all the industries. I do wanted to clarify that if I have a if my understanding is correct that the use of a life science, even though you're we're allocating to office use, it is not prohibiting it from actually using as life science. In other words, like, later on, if some of our new I don't know what the new thing for tomorrow and our friends that can come up with with our technology world, that somehow all of a sudden, everyone like to wear scrubs and get into this thing. You can also have them started to use this space as life science lab because that use is already principally permitted. Right? I just wanna I mean, people are nodding. I just wanna make sure we got some expert here that could just

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: get a reassurance. Pursuing to the redevelopment plan, the planning code. As as mentioned, the redevelopment plan gives them a pretty wide birth in terms of land use flexibility over time, so they can kinda ebb and flow. From Prop M perspective, there are different ways that future conversions could result in office allocation coming back into the program if space is converted away from office use in the future, whether that's the standard kind of revocation process, whether it's the you know, last year we had proposition c, which specifically required us to go back and look for old demolitions and conversions since 1985 and add them back and continue to do that in the future. So it's kind of the answer is yes on both on both planes. Yes. They would have the ability under the redevelopment plan to go back and forth from a land use perspective, and we would have flexibility with Improv m for that as well.

[Lydia So (President)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: Sure.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Moore?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: It's a it is an extremely complicated subject. I'm not sure if I understand every aspect of it, but, I believe that, Alexandria's mission always has been the combination of office, life science, and technology. And I think it is in that interpretation where I believe that a company that has definitely done a work job in making part of Mission Bay what it is, needs to be listened to in terms of their own needs to thrive and move us into the future relative to additional allocation of space. If there is indeed a 55% vacancy in life science, I think that gives us an indication that does not mean that life science is disappearing, but by perhaps life science is reinventing itself relative to its mission or the spatial needs it has in a completely different environment. Alexandria has been in front of the planning commission for many, many, many years, and I I believe that each time they came forward, they built more on the totality of Mission Bay, which is not just the Alexandria District, but also dealing with extremely difficult parcels, all of which were the peripheral odd shaped parcels. And each time along the way, they were innovative, flexible, and actually set a new standard for what they were doing or what all of us were doing. And, I think it is in appreciating an experienced participant in Mission Bay and in the Alexander District to take the next step and us supporting what they're asking for. So I'm in support of what is in front of us, and I think somebody already made a motion.

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner)]: Mhmm. You wanna second it?

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yeah. I can second it, or I can make some motion.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: A motion has been made, but it has not yet been seconded.

[Kathrin Moore (Vice President)]: Yes. And I will second it.

[Lydia So (President)]: And commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I'm going to echo what commissioner Mora just said as well. And I think, you know, when these projects are crafted, they do their best to predict where the market is going to go. And I think there was a lot of folks doubling down on life science and and in in response or as a reality, we overbuilt. And I think there is the vacancy that that these folks are experiencing is pretty indicative of what's happening across the bay. I think it's up to 30 over 30% vacancy in life science, with significant negative absorption, which means more space is going back to the market than is being rented. So I appreciate this move for just allowing some flexibility. And if there is a demand for more office, let's get it, let's get those folks in there and get the space activated and and get Mission Bay as thriving. And I'd love to see it continue on that path. I did have some questions around how exactly Prop m works. So if we grant them the allocation of the 518,000, but say, a month from now, miraculously, you know, a great biotech company comes knocking at their door to lease space, they're free to do that and give back the allocation. Is that correct? Or that portion of the allocation? Or how does that work?

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: Sure. Before I attempt to answer, I want to acknowledge and apologize for how complicated this all is. Yeah. That's the default. It was a complicated program to begin with. It's been amended by three different propositions and obviously the redevelopment component here and the special Alexandria District just there's kind of layers on layers here. And that means there's like rules intersecting rules. And so I apologize for that. I'm I'm hopefully doing as well as possible to explain it. What I was referencing earlier is like, yes, there are ways to for office allocation to come back. Right? And there's different ways depending if it's, like, outside the redevelopment area or inside the redevelopment area. The because this is an allocation and approval that's being granted by the planning commission, the planning commission would have their revocation authority. Like, we've done this with allocations in the past that went unused or was not were not fully used. We also allow for property owners to voluntarily forfeit unused allocation through an administrative process of you know, so that we don't require to go through the whole public hearing process. So there is that process there. And then as I mentioned, the most recent proposition that amended the program was Prop C last year, which actually calls for us to account for, both demolitions and conversions of office space in the past going back to 1985, and going into the future as well. So there's kinda multiple ways in which if there was fluctuation in the future, that there would be options to have the allocation come back into into the pot. Is that is that exactly what you were asking?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: I guess I meant more unless they have a tenant now that's wanting to take 516. Is is that the case that there's an actual tenant wanting that much real estate? Because if not, then I'm just wondering if if in in this process, if there's flexibility before leases are signed to go one way or the other, whether they take the allocation or exercise the option to take the allocation.

[Corey Teague (Zoning Administrator, SF Planning)]: Yes. And I think that's the same as with any kind of office allocation. We see that with projects, just a standard standalone office, construction project, maybe downtown, maybe in SoMA somewhere. Maybe it comes and gets an allocation for 300,000 square feet. Maybe as part of the final planning and the market, when it actually gets built, they only use 250,000 square feet for different reasons. Maybe they've added other uses. Maybe they downsized a little bit. So that already happens. And again, that's where if there's if it's not viable and there's no plans to use that additional allocation that's went unused in the future, there are ways for that to come back into the program. Okay.

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: That's the answer to my question. Thank you. Sure. Perfect.

[Lydia So (President)]: Commissioner Imperial?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Yeah. I just wanna mention that, you know, after you know, I appreciate all the commissioner's comments and also questions. So and also mister Tighe in further clarification about what and also the project developer in terms of, like, explaining about the the what's still being considered other prop m of when it comes to, life science use as well. So in that consideration, you know, it it it it further clarifies to me that there is that flexibility when it comes to life sciences. So I will support this. Thank you.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Okay, commissioners. If there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion. Commissioner Campbell?

[Amy Campbell (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner McGarry?

[Sean McGarry (Commissioner) [time-bound override]]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Commissioner Williams?

[Gilbert Williams (Commissioner)]: Aye. Commissioner

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: Braun? Aye. Commissioner Imperial? Aye. Commissioner Moore? Aye. And commission president Soh?

[Theresa Imperial (Commissioner)]: Aye.

[Jonas P. Ionin (Commission Secretary)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes unanimously seven to zero. Concludes your hearing today. Next Thursday is the fifth Thursday of the month, and so it is going to be a canceled hearing. So you have a Thursday off. We'll see you in November.

[Lydia So (President)]: Alright. Meeting.