Good afternoon, everyone. The meeting will come to order. Welcome to the December 15,

2025 regular meeting of the Land, Use, and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco

Board of Supervisors. I am Supervisor Mirna Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair

Supervisor Cheyenne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The Committee Clerk today is John Carroll,

And I would also like to thank Jeanette Engelauf at SFGovTV for staffing us during this meeting.

Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you may have brought with you into the chamber today.

If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, you can submit them directly to me.

Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda.

When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak along your right-hand side of this room.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment and writing in either of the following ways.

First, you may email your comment to me at john.carroll at sfgov.org.

Or you may send your written comments via U.S. Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

The address is 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, California 94102.

If you submit public comment and writing, I will forward your comment to the members of this committee

and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting.

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of January 6,

2026, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you.

Mr. Clerk, please call item number one.

Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the planning code to indicate districts

where reproductive health clinics are principally permitted and to make other conforming changes

to the planning code and zoning control tables as required by Proposition O,

passed by the voters in November of 2024.

The ordinance affirms the Planning Department's secret determination,

makes findings of consistency with the general plan

and the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1,

and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare

pursuant to Planning Code Section 302.

And additionally, by prior arrangement,

this item is on our agenda as a potential committee report,

and it may be sent to the Board of Supervisors

for consideration tomorrow, December 16, 2025.

Thank you.

We have brief remarks from Aaron Stark from the planning department.

This legislation was required by Proposition O, which passed last year.

That's correct.

So as introduced by Mayor Lurie, this ordinance was necessitated by the passage of Prop O,

which was passed by voters last November and legalized reproductive health clinics citywide.

As required by Prop O, this ordinance would amend the planning code to indicate districts

where reproductive health clinics are principally permitted

and to make other conforming changes to the planning code and zoning control tables.

The Planning Commission heard this item on June 5th and adopted a recommendation for approval.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Don't have too much time.

Thank you for bringing this legislation forward.

I just wanted to say in supporting PROPO last year as well,

because I feel that the city should be doing everything it can to encourage safe access

to reproductive health services for all residents,

and I'll be requesting to sign on as a co-sponsor to this legislation as well.

Thank you. Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chairman Malgarz.

I just want to appreciate you for moving this legislation forward,

and I also want to convey my full support.

When the voters of San Francisco passed the San Francisco Reproductive Freedom Act in 2024,

by an overwhelming margin,

we make a commitment as a city to protect access to comprehensive reproductive health care,

including safe and legal abortion services.

At a time when reproductive rights are under attack nationwide,

it is critical that San Francisco continue to provide low-barrier access

to comprehensive and high-quality reproductive health care services in the city.

Every individual deserves the right to make informed decisions about their own body and futures.

Doing our part to honor this commitment ensures that better health outcomes

for women and family across our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor.

And I don't see anyone else on the roster, Mr. Clerk,

so let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land, use, and transportation will now hear public comment

related to agenda item number one,

related to reproductive health clinics.

If you have public comment for this item specifically,

please come forward to the lectern at this time.

And Madam Chair, it appears we have no speakers.

okay public comment on this item is now closed I'd like to make a motion that we

send this out with a positive recommendation to the full board were

you gonna send this as a committee I'm sorry as a committee report as a

committee on the motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be recommended

as a committee report vice-chair Chen Chen I remember Mokman Mokman I turn

Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Madam Chair, there are three ayes. Great. That motion passes. Now,

please call item number two. Agenda item number two is an ordinance amending the planning code

to permit parking of up to two operable vehicles, not including boats, trailers, recreational

vehicles, mobile homes, or buses in driveways located in required front setbacks, side yards,

or rear yards. It also affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes

other findings. Okay. I understand that the mayor's office is still working on some amendments to this

legislation, so we're going to continue this to our next meeting. Is that right, Ms. Gluckstein?

That's correct. Lisa Gluckstein, planning department staff, speaking on behalf of the

mayor's office. We are continuing it to allow us a little extra time to pin down some amendments.

Okay, so with that, let's go to public comment on the item. Mr. Clerk, if you could talk about the continuance of this item.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number two, permitting parking in driveways.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern at this time, and I'll start your time when you're ready to go.

Hello, Chair Melgar and Supervisors Chen and Mahmood. My name is Scott Feeney. I'm an SF resident speaking in opposition to this legislation.

I'm glad that it's being continued, and I ask that it undergo full environmental review and amendments to fix unintended consequences.

I believe that the Planning Commission made a mistake in concluding that this was exempt from CEQA

because it didn't result in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment.

Expanding legal parking spaces across the city will absolutely change the environment.

It will induce more car ownership, more driving, and more vehicle miles traveled, which is an environmental impact under SB 743.

At the Planning Commission hearing, a speaker from the department said, quote,

we have about 135 active complaints that this ordinance would close out, end quote.

That is discretionary action by a public official to create more parking spaces.

And as one of the Planning Commissioners said at the same hearing, it does incentivize more cars.

I think it's going to incentivize people maybe getting a car and parking more,

parking there because there's even more spaces, end quote.

I agree and I think the public has a right to know about those impacts and how they affect air pollution and our climate goals

So I believe that this legislation is really out of step with our city's transit first policy and our green values as San Franciscans

However, if a version of this must pass

I think it needs to go through a proper environmental review and it should retain the requirement for a driveway to access

permitted parking so that we do not have ADUs leaving behind a driveway to

nowhere which would remove one of our best tools for reducing frequent

driveway curb cuts thank you thank you for your comments next speaker please

good afternoon supervisors Tom Ridulovich with livable city we've always

had the conviction that as the city grows it could also heal but we can be a

bigger city but also a better city that as we incrementally develop our

neighborhoods, we can actually have nicer public spaces, we can have a greener public realm, we

could be a city that is safer to walk and cycle and take transit and accommodates all modes of

transportation. So we've always had that ethos. We also were steadfast supporters of getting rid

of minimum parking requirements and illegalizing in-law units, four plexes, six plexes. We've been

here for all of that to advocate for that because we think this idea of, yeah, let's convert,

people should be allowed to convert garage spaces to dwelling spaces. Looking at this legislation

though it's very unclear what the intent of it is. I mean is it really to facilitate

the conversion of garages to living space or is it just to allow people to double the number of

parking spaces on a lot? The mayor's office or the mayor's version is very unclear. It's very

ambiguous, appears just like you can have your off-street spaces and park in the yard. I think

the Planning Commission got a little clearer. Is this just for residential spaces, or do you also

want to allow commercial vehicles and commercial uses to park in setbacks, whether those are rear

yards or front yards? That should be cleared up in this measure. So we think there's a lot of work

that needs to go on with this. You know, if this is a real impediment to creating housing,

we should think about it and weigh those trade-offs.

You're going to lose, you know, front gardens that would be created by existing law won't be created.

Street trees that would be planted, sidewalks that would be repaired and restored won't.

Maybe that's a reasonable trade-off.

If it's just to create a bunch more off-street parking in neighborhoods where there's maximums,

and it's also unclear whether this allows you to blow through the maximums,

the maximums that were just modified by the family zoning plan, or if those maximums still stay.

So you have to trade those off.

So a lot more work to do.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I just have some personal observations to add to this.

Not so technical.

I get around San Francisco on my scooter on the sidewalks and on Muni.

And riding on Muni, I look out the window and I see how much of our sidewalks have been privatized.

Drivers complain a great deal about not being able to find parking.

A lot of it is that most of certain blocks are private because of driveways.

And when I'm going down sidewalks, as I do to come here,

people will be parked in their driveway, mostly.

but a lot of the car will be out on the sidewalk

and I have to find a way to get around it.

I've had to go out into traffic.

I've had to lean off to the side because of the angle

at which the driveway is scooped out of the sidewalk.

It's dangerous.

Now, the house I live in, when I moved in,

it's an old Victorian and it had the three Victorians

side by side were the same

and they all had little front gardens that were charming.

Now, only one of them has a front garden.

One of them has what's supposed to be a garage,

except no car has ever been put in it,

but a car blocks the sidewalk and the space in front,

and the other one has a sidewalk.

So given the access to curbside parking

to the sidewalk I think some details on that personal front are worth looking

into thank you very much thank you for your comments to the next speaker please

good afternoon supervisors my name is Paul Wormer I don't have a whole lot to

add I support much if not all of what was said by the previous speakers I'd

like to raise one other point about sort of privatizing curb space which is what

driveways do. I see lots of houses where the cars park across the driveway, which is perfectly

legal for the property owner because there's no room in the garage. And we talk a lot about

mode shift and how important mode shift is for dealing with climate change. And we have so many

places in San Francisco where, for example, people can't really use an e-bike because they live on the

upper floor, and most people really can't manage a 50 to 75 pound bicycle up the stairs.

And yet, if I want to get curb space, for example, for a bike locker on the street,

which could be shared with neighbors, that's a heavy lift. That's a huge heavy lift.

and I believe I would pay an annual fee for it,

which I don't pay for a driveway that I may not even be using.

So this is a little bit more complex, I think,

than the legislation and the planning's analysis was.

It certainly makes it very clear that it does not,

it does not, is not constrained by parking maximums,

that this would be an additional two spaces in the driveway.

And it's not clear what happens, for example, with properties, apartment buildings,

that have more than two driveways.

I pass a lot that have multiple garages and condos.

How does that play out?

Totally unclear.

So thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else?

Public comment for agenda item number two.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

I'd like to make a motion that we continue this item to our meeting of January 12th.

On the motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be continued to the date

certain of January 12th, 2026. Vice Chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member Mahmood. Aye.

Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

um thank you and mr. clerk we're gonna skip over item number three for now and go to item number

four agenda item number four is an ordinance amending the planning code to first require

property owners seeking to demolish residential units to replace all units that are being

demolished second prohibit demolition permits for five years if a tenant vacated a unit in

the building to be demolished due to the harassment due to harassment or under an improper buyout

agreement subject to certain conditions third require relocation assistance to affected occupants

of units being demolished into former occupants of those units who vacated due to certain buyout

agreements owner move-in or pursuant to the ellis act or due to serious and imminent hazards with

additional assistance and protections for lower income tenants fourth modify the planning code

definition of demolition. Fifth, modify the conditional use criteria that apply to projects

to demolish residential units. Amending the administrative code to sixth, require landlords

to provide additional relocation assistance to lower income tenants who are being required to

vacate temporarily due to capital improvements or rehabilitation work. Seventh, update the standards

and procedures for hearings related to tenant harassment. Eighth, require additional disclosures

and buyout agreements.

Ninth, require an additional disclosure in notice of intent to withdraw units under the

Ellis Act.

Tenth, making various non-substantive changes and other clarifications.

It also affirms the Planning Department's CEQA determination and makes findings of

public necessity, convenience, and welfare under Planning Code Section 302 and findings

of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code

Section 101.1.

This item also appears on our agenda as a potential committee report, and it may be sent to the

board for consideration tomorrow, December 16th, 2025. Okay. Thank you. We have heard this item

multiple times, have worked on it for a bunch. We do have Milena Leon-Ferrera here from the

Planning Department for any questions. I will limit public comment to one minute because we've

already heard it multiple times, but now I will turn it over to the author of this legislation,

Then Supervisor Chen to share any remarks before we vote.

Thank you, Chair and Melga.

Colleagues, over the last years, so many of our housing policy discussion in this committee

has been focused on streamlining and rezoning.

This legislation attempts to recenter the conversation to address the impacts to existing tenants

and residents.

that it's particularly important because the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, or SB 330,

overrides local controls and enables the demolitions of sound, rent-controlled, tenant-occupied housing.

The Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance is a critical step we must take to help stabilize tenants and local communities.

So many of our neighbors and local communities have sounded the alarm from elderly tenants who are relying on their support networks in existing rent-controlled housing.

They are terrified of the disruption to this network if they are displaced from their homes,

or the panic that tenants face when they are forced to absorb a manageable rent increase on the private market through no fault of their own.

They all deserve a fighting chance to remain in the city that we all love.

This legislation provides tenants with essential tools to defend against displacement

and ensure that they are able to stay in their homes and communities.

Not only does it establish common sense rules for developers

and also common sense protection to tenants,

it also addresses additional pathways where tenants may be at risk.

It implements protection at the outset,

even before project sponsors apply to demolition permits

so that tenants are not forced out before receiving the assistance they are entitled to.

It established a safeguard to prevent landlords from using the Alex Act,

owner-moving evictions, buy-outs requirements, and harassment to displaced tenants,

and sidestep obligation to provide them with relocation assistance

and the right to return when properties are redeveloped.

These protections are long overdue and have become even more necessary

because of the state laws and local programs that create a condition

that lead to harassment, illegal buyouts, and unlawful evictions.

I know that this is an issue that our mayor cares a lot about

and that members of this board of supervisors have stated on record

that they are committed to defending tenants in the city.

I want to acknowledge my legislative aide, Charlie Smoss,

of steering a collaborative and participatory process

with stakeholders to develop this legislation.

I also want to acknowledge the race and equity

in all planning coalitions

and the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalitions

for their partnership in crafting this legislation.

I also want to acknowledge Supervisor Melgar

and her legislative aide, Jennifer Fieber,

who played a very critical role in authoring supportive,

important amendments to this legislation.

I also want to acknowledge the partnership, expertise,

and collaboration from the planning department,

especially Melana Leon-Ferra,

and from our city attorney's office, Audrey Pearson and Mahmoud Paham.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, Chalmer Algar. I just wanted to chime in and thank everyone here for working on the

Tenant Protection Ordinance. I'm so grateful to Supervisor Chen for working on this and

encouraging the mayor to support our tenants and pursue a meaningful and strong version of this,

and I'm very happy with where it's landed. You know, we need to make sure that tenants of lower

and middle-income families are protected from displacement.

And so I'm just very grateful for all of your work on this,

Chair Melgar and Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Supervisor Fielder,

and thank you for being with us at the committee today.

Okay, I don't see anyone else on the roster.

Let's go to public comment on this item, please, Mr. Clerk.

And again, let's limit it to one minute.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment

related to agenda item number four, the tenant protection ordinance.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern at this time.

Good afternoon, Supervisor.

My name is PJ Eugenio with SOMCAN.

We appreciate all the work from Supervisor Chen, Supervisor Melgar,

and planning staff on working this legislation with Rep Coalition, ADC, and other community groups.

As you know, we are very concerned with how the zoning legislation will impact tenants,

especially low-income tenants living in rent-controlled buildings.

The TPO is necessary to protect tenants who will be displaced if their building is demolished.

The TPO will also hold developers accountable who evict tenants through LSAC.

Undisclosed buyouts are harassment and want to demolish their building.

While there are still things that the TPO cannot prevent,

we are happy to hear that Supervisor Melgar, Chan, Filder, and Chan

are working on a resolution urging our state representative to amend SB 330

so we can strengthen the TPO further.

Thank you for your collaboration on the TPO.

We support this legislation moving to the full board.

Thank you for your comments.

To the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Joseph Smook with the Rep Coalition.

We're grateful to Supervisor Chen for her leadership

and the hard work and perseverance of her aide,

Charlie Chiamas, and Melina Leon-Folera

from the planning's equity team.

We're also grateful to Chair Melgar and her aide,

Jen Fieber, and the rent board staff for their critical role on the TPO.

Within the limitations imposed by the state, the TPO accomplishes a lot.

It requires the developers disclose their plans to demolish and provide early noticing

to tenants of their rights.

It guarantees the tenants will receive the maximum possible relocation assistance and

the right to return to a comparable unit and an affordable rent.

It prevents abuses of the Alice Act, owner-moving evictions, buyouts, and harassment to tenants

to displace tenants and avoid providing tenants with relocation assistance and their right to return.

We're grateful for how far-reaching and impactful this legislation will be,

and we hope that this committee will forward the TPO to the full board with positive recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Teresa Flandrick, North Beach Tenants Committee, also a member of ADC.

Thank you so much.

Supervisor Chen and Supervisor Melgar.

Also, the early co-sponsors of this legislation,

Chan, Walton, and Fielder,

really grateful that you came on early.

We know what speculation looks like.

If you have lived in the city long enough,

you've gone through the waves of speculation,

and we tried to address in this TPO

so many different tactics that are used to get tenants out,

especially with speculators coming in again now

and with this family zoning plan.

This is so important.

So thank you, and thank you, Melaina, for working with us.

It's been very interesting and very long, but we're here now.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, Supervisors.

I'm Meg Heisler here on behalf of the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition.

We will echo the thanks.

We want to share our heartfelt gratitude to Supervisor Chen for leading the charge on the TPO,

Supervisor Melgar for her important amendments,

their staff, Charlie Shamas and Jen Fieber for being in the trenches with us for many months,

as well as Melina Leon-Ferrera for her dedication throughout this process.

This was a true team effort, and we're very happy to be here in support of the TPO.

The major accomplishment of this legislation is that it gives tenants a fighting chance to stay in their homes.

As we've mentioned at each of the many hearings, the threat of displacement due to redevelopment or even speculative real estate investment will show up in a variety of forms.

Landlords' harassment, pressure to accept under-the-table buyouts, threats of eviction, to name a few.

It's incredibly difficult to anticipate and prevent every type of bad behavior,

but this legislation equips tenants and community organizations with the tools they need to defend their homes and stay in the city they love.

So thank you all very much.

Speaker Sam, thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Brianna Morales with the Housing Action Coalition.

We just want to say thank you because as the city works to solve our housing crisis,

we need policies that protect tenants while still balancing the need for new homes to move forward.

And this proposal builds on SB 330, the state's Housing Crisis Act,

which set an important statewide floor to prevent the loss of homes.

By translating these protections into local code, San Francisco is reinforcing the principle of no net loss and providing a more consistent framework for implementation.

We encourage to keep thinking about these policies as we head into the new year and ways to align with our state housing goals and our housing element goals as well.

So we thank you for the extensive work that has gone into this legislation and this committee's dedication in advancing good policies.

And thank you for your time and leadership.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Peter Stevens, Build Affordable Faster California.

We just really want to thank you all for all the hard work that's happened, especially Supervisor Chen and Cholmelgar.

we also just you know really encourage a committee or just basically yes but at

the full board and we support at 330 reform thank you really appreciate all

the work thank you for comments next speaker please good afternoon supervisors

Mitchell Lomerberg with the affordable housing and Alliance and the anti

displacement coalition you remember in elementary school when somebody would

put a note on the back of someone's shirt that said kick me well that's kind

what we were doing with upzoning, putting a little note on tens of thousands of rent control buildings saying, demolish me.

So into that insanity, Step Supervisor Chen, and we want to really, really thank her and her aide, Charlie,

for their hard work and sustained perseverance month after month after month as we work so hard to get this done.

We would also like to thank Supervisor Melgar and her aide, Jennifer Fieber, for their major contributions,

as well as planning staff.

Malena, it was a pleasure working with you,

and I've actually never seen this level of collaboration,

so there you go.

Thanks again.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment

for agenda item number four?

Okay.

Madam Chair.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Maraca.

Clerk, I would like to move item number four out of committee.

I would like to make a motion.

to vote item number four out of committee with positive recommendation as a committee report.

On the motion offered by the vice chair that this ordinance be recommended as a committee report.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, aye.

Member Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Motion passes.

Great.

okay mr. clerk now let's go to item number five please agenda item number

five is a resolution imposing interim zoning controls for 18 months to require

a conditional use authorization and specified findings for proposed

laboratory uses in the PDR 1 G district it affirms the planning department's

secret determination makes findings of consistency with the general plan and

the eight priority policies of planning code section 101 point one as well as

section 306.7. It is also on our agenda as a potential committee report, and we have a space

cleared for it in the committee report agenda tomorrow, December 16th, 2025. Okay, thank you so

much, Mr. Clerk. So we are joined today by Supervisor Jackie Fielder from District 9,

the sponsor of this legislation. We also have Corey Teague in the house, the zoning administrator,

and other planning staff who can help us as well as our city attorney team.

So I would first like to welcome Supervisor Fielder.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Milgar, for hearing this item and for having me here today,

and thank you for all your work on the legislation.

Colleagues, I introduced this legislation to address ongoing concerns in my district

about the preservation of production, distribution, and repair, PDR, zoning,

and ensuring that current use is meeting the intent of our zoning.

In 2009, the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan created PDR districts in the Mission

and southeastern portion of the city to preserve PDR industries

and maintain economic diversity and employment to the city's low- and moderate-income workforce.

This was an explicit and named goal in the zoning.

This is because traditional PDR use has provided high-salary, working-class jobs.

That is, jobs for those without a college degree at a salary that is higher than the retail sector.

Following the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan, then-Mayor Ed Lee, the District 9 office, planning, and mission community groups worked together

to create and implement the Planning Department's Mission Action Plan, MAP for short, whose stated

goal is to address the retention of low- and moderate-income residents, organizations, and

businesses in the face of rising displacement and gentrification over the last several decades.

The Mission District has experienced shifts in its income distribution in the last two decades,

including a significant increase of upper-income households, a decrease in its share of low-income households,

a massive rise in its Latino homeless population, and the loss of approximately 12,000 Latinos.

This last December, the Planning Commission unanimously endorsed MAP 2030, the latest iteration of the Mission Action Plan.

Like in MAP 2020, MAP 2030 recommends many strategies to retain our district's low- and moderate-income families, organizations, and businesses, including preserving the original intent of our PDR districts.

Over the last five to ten years, an increasing number of laboratory uses have begun to fill our PDR spaces.

The laboratory definition in our planning code is very broad and has recently included automation and artificial intelligence development.

These are industries that are generally not providing working-class jobs that the PDR zoning was intended for,

and in fact are placing development pressure on the remaining PDR space and also serve to eliminate working-class sector jobs.

Uses for AI agents or AI clouds are currently in PDR zones.

OpenAI, for example, was recently headquartered as a laboratory use in the Mission District.

It's been nearly 20 years since the creation of the PDR1 G-Zone, and at least 10 years

since the Planning Department has undertaken any study or report regarding how PDR zoning

is currently used.

The technologies and knowledge sector industries have vastly changed since the creation of our

Eastern Neighborhoods Plan. This interim zoning legislation is a first step in addressing these

concerns and will require conditional use authorization for specific types of laboratory

uses in the PDR1G district. My goal here is to utilize this time during the interim zoning period

to work with the departments, MAP 2030 community groups, labor, and other stakeholders to ensure

future permanent controls are meeting the intent of our PDR zoning. This legislation does not

prohibit any laboratory use. Any proposed laboratory use in the interim period would

still be able to move forward with a conditional use authorization, which should not be a major

hindrance given that the vast majority of laboratory use applicants are companies who

have raised millions of dollars in funding. In addition, I also have amendments today that will

clarify that traditional biological or chemistry laboratories, such as those conducting cancer

research, will be excluded from the conditional use requirements. The city attorney's office has

prepared those amendments and we have shared them with each of your offices. The exact language of

these amendments describes that conditional use authorization will exclude, quote, chemistry,

biochemistry, or analytical laboratories, biological laboratories, and animal facilities or vivariums.

I understand that the mayor's office has also put forward amendments improved by Supervisor Melgar,

and I want to thank Chair Melgar for listening to the mission community and labor, as well as

the mayor's office for listening to the concerns of labor. I am hoping that the mayor's office

is willing to meet with the mission community to hear more about the history of PDR space in the

mission, MAP 2030, and work with my office and community to address outstanding needs that we

have with working-class immigrant jobs in the mission. Finally, I would also like to thank

Supervisor Walton, whose district also includes much of PDR 1G for his early co-sponsorship,

my legislative aide, Anna Herrera, who spent many hours the past few months on this,

and Julia Gwalco-Nelson from the City Attorney's Office for working closely with my office on this.

Thank you again, Chair Melgar.

Thank you. Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, Chair Melgar, and thank you, Supervisor Fielder, for introducing this legislation as well.

I do appreciate the desire to ensure our city's PDR zones do not have negative impacts on our residential areas.

So I also appreciate the effort Supervisor Fielder has made to exclude additional uses from the conditional use requirement.

It's because PDR zones are areas in which life-changing research and development of life sciences, agriculture, medicine, climate, and other industries takes place.

Industries whose mission is to heal us and improve our systems and help move our society forward.

I want to make sure that in this legislation with the interim zoning controls that we do not have unintended consequences on stifling innovation on these respective industries

by requiring companies working towards medical and climate advancements

to make it more difficult for them to expand in San Francisco.

These companies are an important part of our economy

and employ residents across the socioeconomic spectrum.

As such, in collaboration with the mayor's office as well,

I'll be introducing amendments which I have distributed.

These amendments, one, apply the interim zoning controls

only to uses outside of a closed structure.

to apply the interim zoning controls only to development and or engineering laboratory uses.

Three, ask the Planning Commission to consider whether or not the conditional use authorization

requirements create significant adverse impacts on neighboring properties and land uses and

removes reference to employees' workers without a college degree. It also adds reference to Mission

Area Plan Objective 1.5, which is the goal of minimizing the noise impacts of new land uses,

adds OEWD is a department that is assisting the plan development,

makes several other amendments to warehouse clauses to support the other changes.

I will also be requesting to duplicate the file so we can continue to have the conversations around this legislation

and have opportunity for the mayor's office to meet those in the mission community as well

to discuss further amendments to this framework.

Is my understanding that these amendments satisfy the concerns from the Teamsters regarding potential drone uses

and ensures the noise impacts that might be associated with them

are considered a part of the planning process.

And that is it.

Thank you.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Melga.

Thank you, Supervisor Fielder, for bringing forward this legislation.

A significant transition has been underway for the past few years

in our production, distribution, and repair zones

with new technology use moving in, including AI and automation companies.

There are zones where our city applies zoning strategies during the 2009 Eastern neighborhoods rezoning

in order to strengthen and stabilize traditional PDR uses.

PDR businesses tend to provide stable and well-paying jobs for the 50% of San Francisco residents

who do not have a college degree.

I have heard from our union partners and their concerns about proliferations of industry sectors that are increasingly automated.

I also have heard from our community workforce stakeholders about their desire to accommodate our emerging technology industry without displacing the PDIUs that sustain our bull collar workforce.

That is because there's an intense competition for land, and without protections, we'll lose out on the critical contributions of our PDR sector to help stabilize working-class families and to help sustain the economic and cultural diversity in our city.

I understand that this legislation is being narrowed to a more limited scope.

However, I still have some questions that are remaining.

You know, what controls are we as a city putting in place to protect the PDR industry sectors that actually provide accessible, good-paying jobs and job opportunity for our local bullcaller workforce and also why continue to move forward as a city?

Thank you.

Thank you so much, supervisors.

Supervisor Fielder, thank you so much for introducing this legislation and for working with the community on what has been a very long, outstanding issue since the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning process.

And our research and development sector and the technology that it produces moves so fast, much faster than our code.

And sometimes the consequences for what happens on the ground are not quite what we intended.

So I think it's perfectly appropriate that we revisit it once in a while and see how it's going, whether it's still meeting our goals.

So thank you so much for your work with the community.

So what I am proposing today that we do is actually duplicate the original file and allow us to make the amendments that you have proposed, Supervisor Mahmood, to the original file.

and then I will propose that we move that forward to the full board as it is agendized as a committee report.

And then I'm prepared to make the amendments that Supervisor Fielder has described to the duplicated file,

and then we are going to send that back to the planning department

and ask that within the next six months you come back to us with a study

or a way to address the issues as described in the resolution.

I will continue the whole thing to the call of the chair,

and we'll work with you, supervisor, fielder, and the community

to make sure that we address your goals and the community's needs,

and hopefully you can meet with the mayor and the community in that time,

and then that when we make any policy issues related to your goals,

we are informed with data and some analysis from the planning department so

that's what I will propose and we will make those motions after public

comment okay so with that let's go to public comment on the side and please

mr. clerk land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to

agenda item number five interim zoning controls for laboratory uses in PDR 1g

district if you have public comment for this item please line up to speak along

that wall that I'm indicating with my left hand and if you're up front at the lectern you may begin now.

Hi again, Scott Feeney, District 9 resident living in the Northeast Mission which is the part of the

mission that has most of the PDR space in District 9. I strongly support this and thank my supervisor

Jackie Fielder for proposing this. I am a tech worker myself so I am not anti-tech by any means

However, I believe that it's important to have a diversity of businesses in the mission

and that given that from the latest reports that I've seen, office vacancies are still

very high in other markets such as mid-market and downtown, there are places for AI companies

to go where they're not out-competing PDR businesses and what we would think of as more

traditional laboratory businesses.

So I'm in support of this and I urge you to pass it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

My name is Asia Nicole Duncan, and I am with Build Affordable Faster California.

And we understand that PDR districts have long served as the economic bedrock of San

Francisco.

However, we are highly concerned about the increasing number of lavatory uses.

This zoning was created to promote and protect industrial production and working class jobs.

It was not created to prop up tech billionaires and drone delivery innovation,

which will down the line replace even more working class jobs.

We support Supervisor Fielder and Walton's resolution to impose interim zoning controls

to require a conditional use authorization for proposed laboratory uses in the PDR 1G.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, I'm Tony DeLorio, Principal Officer of Teamsters Local 665 here in San Francisco,

as well as Executive Board Member of Teamsters Joint Council 7 that represents over 100,000

members in Northern California, the Central Valley, and Northern Nevada.

The Teamsters in San Francisco's working families want our communities to be safe, secure, and healthy.

Safety and privacy are shattered if unregulated delivery drones are allowed to fly around our city.

Delivery drones that weigh the same amount as bowling balls hovering over San Francisco streets and neighborhoods at 50 to 100 feet high are not welcome.

Today I want to just personally thank Supervisor Fielder for being a champion with this legislation,

being a champion to labor and the community.

We spent tireless hours with you and your staff, as you had mentioned, to get to where we are today.

I also want to thank Supervisor Walton, who co-sponsored it with you,

and all the way down to this Land Use and Transportation Committee.

I've talked to all three of you, Supervisor Chen and Mahmood.

I appreciate the dialogue back and forth, and I thank you for this compromise.

and a special shout out to chair Melgar thank you so much I think you myself we had spent the

weekend together late nights getting to this and I appreciate you you being with us and working with

with Jackie on getting this done and one last shout out to the mayor's office for working with

us as well to get this done and the on behalf of the teamsters we thank you very much for

what we are going to vote on today thank you thank you for your comments next speaker please

Hello, my name is Hannah Haber, and I'm a resident of D9, where this PDR testing happens,

and actually on my block is where one of these companies is hoping to do that.

San Francisco has opened the door for small incremental changes that add up over the years

to a massive onslaught of unregulated testing within our urban environments and live city streets.

The precedent for this has been set and paved in blood by Cruz and Waymo.

Cruise isn't even legally allowed to operate in the entire state of California anymore,

and Waymo has had several well-publicized safety issues and even deaths within just the last few weeks.

I'm grateful for Supervisor Fielder's legislation as the only form of opposition to the glad handing of corporate interests and community values.

In a city with a desperate homeless crisis and widening affordability gap,

we need to be focused on protecting our blue-collar workforce and ensure that international corporations operating here

are paying their full business taxes and contributing to the resourcing of our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Susana Rojas.

I'm the Executive Director of Calle 24 Latino Cultural District.

I first would like to thank you all for having this hearing and for moving it forward to the full board.

and I am in full support.

And something that often gets confused

when we talk about protecting PDR

is that we are against progress.

It's not about being against progress.

It's about understanding that progress

without centering those who are most vulnerable,

our immigrants, our working class, our essential workers,

what happens is that it's not progress, it's oppression.

And it leads the way for gentrification.

If you go to the mission, there are parts in our community

that are still the mission district that have now changed their names

and are now changing the way that it is promoted

and that it's being sold to people to come and live in our community

while those of us who have been here for many, many years keep getting pushed out.

So when we are talking about this type of things,

we have to remember the economic impact and how important our working class is

for the benefit of this community and this city.

When we see Waymo, we also have to remember that cars like that are taking away the second jobs and the way that people are making ends meet to be able to pay rent.

Right now, San Francisco inequality is on the rise.

We have seen that there's 12% raises on rents, and everything continues to rise.

If we continue to have things like this, we're going to see more gentrification, and eventually none of us will be here.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, supervisors.

I'm David Harrison.

I'm the public policy director at the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

Promoting scientific research is a big priority for us,

and so we wanted to ensure that the companies that are doing good work in this zone,

whether that be climate technology, whether that be research for cancer or vaccines

or a green ag, that we don't require conditional uses for them in the future.

So I'm really grateful. Thank you to Supervisor Fielder for your staff, Supervisor Mahmoud, Supervisor Melgar, your staff.

I think these amendments get us to a really good place.

So thank you for that work, and I think this balances those priorities very well. Thanks.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

Hello, good afternoon. I'm Chair Melgar, members of the committee, Supervisor Fielder.

My name is Roses Shields. I'm from the San Francisco Labor Council.

We represent 100 unions, 100,000 union members in the city and county of San Francisco.

We're here today to say thank you to Supervisor Fielder for this legislation, that we're supportive of it,

and that we are increasingly concerned about loopholes with artificial intelligence companies and technology companies

coming into a neighborhood, into a zoned area that has historically already had intense gentrification.

As you just heard from previous speakers, we all know the Mission District and these areas have been the hotbed of gentrification.

And we're not against development. We're not against advancement either.

but we are increasingly concerned that zoning and laws that were intended to protect workers,

blue-collar workers, working-class people, is now being used by large corporations.

You can see the letter that we attached to the file.

We're concerned about companies like DoorDash coming in to this neighborhood,

which is not a science company or a cancer-solving company,

but a company that has historically exploited workers.

So we're very concerned about loopholes to this zoning, and we support Supervisor Fielders' legislation, and we hope to continue supporting blue-collar workers in the face of large tech companies and AI companies trying to change the city even more.

And it's a priority of the San Francisco Labor Council and the California Federation of Labor Unions to support workers in increasing changing landscape of technology and AI as we're seeing jobs disappear and change. So thank you.

thank you for your comments next speaker please good afternoon supervisors my

name is Larissa Pedroncelli with United to save the mission and a member of SF

made and thank you supervisor Fielder for introducing this legislation for the

past 24 years my partner and I have designed and fabricated furniture and

architectural metal work in PDR 1G space 23 of those years in the mission we

cannot do our work anywhere other than industrial space we don't have the

luxury of choosing from multiple zoning options which means if we lose our space

we have to move out of the city at high risk or lose or risk losing our

livelihood altogether and that is exactly what has happened to the majority of our

colleagues and vendors. Our colleagues and vendors have been forced out of their spaces by landlords

seeking high rents. When their leases have been up for renewal, they are either not renewed or

landlords increase the rent to an amount that isn't viable. We don't have a vacancy issue in PDR.

We have a displacement issue that has hyper-accelerated with AI. We have lost all of our

steel vendors in the city. We now have to go to Redwood City or Petaluma. We have lost all

of our hardwood vendors in the city. The closest one is Berkeley and then San Jose. We lost our

spray finishers. One didn't survive the move to South City and the other is now in Half Moon Bay.

We lost our distributor for metal finishes and patinas who had to move to Richmond.

I could go on. Really the only vendor we still have is our sheet metal shop who's still here

because they own their buildings. This means that we now have to take hours out of our week to drive

to procure basic materials, and it causes an efficiency of time, increased fuel use,

and makes it even harder than it already is to survive here, let alone thrive.

It has taken a vibrant, creative landscape of San Francisco manufacturers, artists, and entrepreneurs

and turned it into what feels like a dystopian competition for survival.

Thank you for sharing your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Kelly Hill with United to Save the Mission and a member of SF Made. You just heard from my partner.

We created our company in a time of high creativity and entrepreneurial spirit in San Francisco when

you didn't have to have enormous capital just to get and sign a lease. As you have heard, it has

become increasingly difficult just to do the basics of business for manufacturers, entrepreneurs,

because of ever-increasing pressures in the PDR space. Users of PDR space, manufacturers, auto

spaces, culinary entrepreneurs, artists, and their employees who support their families on good-paying,

working-class jobs have been asking the city to halt this misuse driving displacement in PDR1G for

years, and we desperately need these interim controls and the study before more industrial space is lost.

There are hundreds of thousands of square feet of empty commercial space in office buildings

where these other uses can occur. Instead of opining the vacancy, the city should be working

to protect PDR while placing highly capitalized AI uses in vacant office space rather than

killing what remains of well-paying working-class jobs that don't require a degree and support

our communities of color.

We need to move quickly to start to get a handle on these fast-moving new industries

that were not envisioned for our blue-collar zones when the Mission Area Plan was written

in 2009.

And we ask you to move this legislation forward to the full board today.

We are grateful for Supervisor Fielder for putting forth these interim controls and required study of the PDR landscape.

Supervisors should be unanimous agreement.

It is important that we halt AI predation of PDR and look at solutions that retain manufacturing and creative tax base while funding alternate locations for the other.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Zach Weisenberger with Young Community Developers in Bayview.

I'm here today to speak about the decades-long loss of PDR space in San Francisco

and its consequences for blue-collar jobs and economic equity.

Our remaining industrial spaces are undergoing a rapid transition,

with tech and AI companies moving into PDR space at an accelerating pace.

We're not asking the city to push these uses out.

We're asking that their integration be thoughtful and aligned with community needs

so growth supports existing residents rather than accelerating displacement or eroding stable jobs.

PDR spaces support working-class communities, especially residents without a college degree

who rely on good-paying industrial and trades jobs.

These sectors keep the city running

and provide some of the city's last remaining pathways

into stable middle-wage work.

San Francisco has already lost a large share of its PDR space,

and traditional PDR businesses need industrial buildings to operate.

Once PDR is converted, it rarely returns to industrial use,

and the jobs it supports cannot easily be replaced elsewhere in the city.

AI and tech companies have far greater location flexibility,

while millions of square feet of high-quality office space sit vacant downtown.

Our policy focus should be on guiding high capital uses to areas in need of activation, like downtown,

while preserving limited industrial land for working-class communities.

In neighborhoods like Bayview, which has endured decades of displacement,

preserving PDR is an equity issue and critical to long-term community stability and economic resilience.

We cannot afford to further homogenize our economy or repeat the mistakes of the pre-COVID era

when over-reliance on a single sector left the city vulnerable.

We urge the city to conduct a comprehensive citywide assessment of PDR-zoned areas

to understand current uses and whether these spaces are serving the working class and blue-collar job seekers they were intended for.

This baseline data is essential for developing proactive and effective PDR protection policies.

PDR is precious and irreplaceable.

Protecting it supports working families, maintains a diverse economy,

and helps ensure San Francisco is a place where people of all backgrounds can thrive.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

My name is Eric Argue.

I'm the president and co-founder of CAI 24 Latino Cultural District.

CAI's mission is to preserve, enhance, and advocate for Latino cultural continuity,

vitality, and community in San Francisco's Touchstone Latino Cultural District

and the greater mission neighborhood.

We are in support of Supervisor Field's legislation,

imposing interim controls for 18 months.

The mission has already lost 12,000 Latinos since 2000,

along with hundreds of small businesses and many blue-collar job spaces and jobs.

We hope these temporary interim controls in the planning study will begin a constructive conversation about where we are putting new high-tech industries like AI.

We think it's important to consider keeping our blue-collar zones in low-income areas for production, repair, and true lab uses.

We need to move quickly to start to get a handle on these fast-moving new industries that were not envisioned for our blue-collar zones when the Mission Area Plan was written in 2009.

And we ask you to move this legislation forward to the full board today.

We must keep economic vitality.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi.

My name's Jen Bowman, and I live on 15th and Shotwell,

and I've lived in the Mission for over 35 years,

so I've seen the changes that are happening.

My wife is a furniture maker, and she also echoes her concerns

about not having Lumberman anymore or all the different sheet metal

or all the different welding supply places that she used to go to.

My biggest concern is the lack of attention that is being paid

to our actual high school students that are graduating from high schools in San Francisco

and the lack of working class jobs, and I've seen them really disappear.

in my neighborhood I'm worried I have Waymo coming up my street constantly

traffic has just exploded you I can barely it's it's really insane I don't

think anyone ever did a feasibility study on that before I don't know if they did

but it's certainly affected the neighborhood and anyway thank you

supervisor Fielder for your amendment thank you thank you for your comments

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Chair Melgar.

First of all, we want to thank all of you.

We know that each of you and your staffs were involved in discussions,

and particularly we want to thank Supervisor Fielder

for bringing forward this important legislation

and starting this conversation.

And I know that Anna and your staff spent long hours on this as well.

and supervisor and chair.

Melgar, I know you spent a lot of time making sure

that we had something ready to go forward today

and that Jen Lo spent a lot of time with you on that.

So we really appreciate that.

We hope that these files, as others have said,

are going to form the good basis for a conversation

about what we're doing in these spaces going forward,

particularly given the losses, I won't reiterate,

that we've heard from folks.

and I think that the important thing to us

and other speakers have said it

is that I think we want to be good business people

and say not only do we want to keep this industrial tax base

not only do we want to slow or preferably stop and grow

the loss of our industrial companies that provide these great jobs

places where Teamsters and others work

places where immigrant families find good paying jobs

but that we also want to fill up the millions of square feet of office space.

And if those uses are a better match,

well, let's figure out how to incentivize moving into those spaces, right?

Because we want both sets of jobs, both sets of tax revenues.

And certainly Meta is not anti-tech.

We have our own tech program, as everybody knows,

which we proudly deliver to many clients every year.

We just want to make sure that we're figuring out how to do this

in the most constructive way.

And we think the study is going to be really revealing

because just what we're seeing on the ground

and anecdotal stories we're hearing,

there's a lot of changes going on.

So it'd be great to catch up with these.

And so we look forward to future and ongoing conversations

with you all.

And we will hopefully see you and talk to you soon

and learn a lot in six months.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, supervisors.

My name is Gwen McLaughlin, and I live in District 1, and I'm a born and raised San Francisco resident, a member of DSA San Francisco.

And, yeah, I just wanted to thank you, Supervisor Fielder, and thank you to the other supervisors that have been working on good faith amendments on this piece of legislation.

I think that, you know, a lot has been said today about how the implementation of new technologies can have a really strong effect on our communities, particularly in terms of, like, traffic.

And, like, I'm pretty concerned around safety issues of just, like, UFO-type things just flying around our heads.

And, like, if they run into things on the ground, will they not run into really tall people?

Just small concerns like that.

But then I also think that a lot of the people that spoke before me in public comment have opened a much more sort of like serious.

I mean, that's actually a very serious conversation, too. Sorry.

But another kind of serious conversation around jobs.

And I think a lot about this.

I know that in recent weeks there has been a lot of discussion at this committee in particular around how we can create like a thriving economy here in San Francisco that helps young people and working people thrive in their communities.

And I'm definitely really worried about the implementation of drones in sort of like delivery services in general.

I know for myself and many other young people, like dozens and dozens of my friends have either as like a side hustle or the main hustle, like worked on different delivery methods.

And I think it's really important to not implement new technology without creating industry and sort of infrastructure for job growth.

We can't just keep eliminating jobs without making real plans and real investments for keeping and sustaining working class jobs here in San Francisco.

So thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number five?

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Hold on, Supervisor Rahman.

Let me go first.

So I'd like to ask that we duplicate the file as introduced.

And then before I amended and make a motion to continue,

I'd like to hear from the planning department.

So Mr. Star, I guess.

So part of what we're asking the planning department to do

is to consider the amendments that are being introduced

by supervisor, fielder, and then come back to us

with an analysis and a study of what is going on

in PDR spaces in districts nine, 10,

I guess there's a little bit in district six as well,

in the next six months.

Yeah, absolutely, for any interim control,

we do do a six month report

and the more specific you make it, the better.

Okay, thank you so much.

So with that, Mr. Clerk, let's do this.

I will, you know, let's duplicate the file.

to the duplicated file, I would like to make a motion that we incorporate the amendments

as stated by Supervisor Fielder, and then that we continue that file to the call of

the chair.

Recording a duplicate and then a pair of motions offered by the chair, the first of them to

accept the amendments proposed by Supervisor Fielder and then to continue the item as

amended to the call of the chair. On those two motions, Vice Chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member Mahmood.

Aye. Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on each of those

motions. Thank you. I will now turn it over to Supervisor Mahmood. I vote to move the amend,

the original file with the amendments as described earlier and distributed to the clerk and to my

colleagues and then vote to send to the full board the original file with the

amendments included with a positive recommendation as a committee report

recording two motions now each of them by member Makhmoud that the original file

be amended then recommended as amended as a committee report to the Board of

supervisors for consideration tomorrow. On those motions, Vice Chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye. Chair Malgar. Aye. Malgar, aye. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on each of those motions.

That motion passes. Thank you. Congratulations, Supervisor Fielder. Thank you all.

Now, Mr. Clerk, let's go back to item number three.

Agenda item number three is an ordinance amending the planning code to define a family as a household.

Eliminate numeric limits on related family members and requirements that family members share meals.

Classify residential care facilities that serve six or fewer persons as residential uses.

Include certain groups of six or fewer people and associated operators as a household.

clarifying the zoning administrator's enforcement authority to administratively subpoena documents,

affirming the Planning Department's secret determination,

and making other findings throughout the ordinance as required.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Supervisor Mahmoud, thank you for introducing this long-overdue legislation.

Would you like to share any remarks?

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

I'm happy to discuss the Shared Housing Reform Act with you all.

At its core, this is a progressive legislation that aligns our planning code with modern norms and recognizes the importance of chosen families for so many San Franciscans.

According to the Sustainable Economies Law Center, there are about 65 DIY co-ops in San Francisco.

These are thriving homes that represent a way of living that speaks to the city's history as a hub of collective living,

a city welcoming to young adults trying to make it in this world,

and artists, creatives, immigrants, and LGBTQIA+, individuals searching for connection

and committed to building community and fellowship with others.

Yet our code sets forth a definition of family which defines who can live in a dwelling unit

that is limited to blood, marriage, adopted family members, or households that cook meals together.

This is an outdated standard that serves no public purpose, given that the building code

sufficiently addresses issues around overcrowding already. Meanwhile, it makes things harder for

San Franciscans to live the way they want to live and can afford to live. It discriminates against

chosen families and artificially limits residents' abilities to choose affordable lifestyles that fit

their personal needs. This outdated definition of family actually dates back to 1973 when the

Delancey Street Foundation use of mansions for transitional housing led to backlash and the

addition of relationship-based requirements to the previously permissive definition of family.

Definitions like this are one that are not in line with state fair housing standards,

and our own housing element recommends taking this corrective action that we're voting on today.

State and federal fair housing laws, the American with Disabilities Act, and California planning and zoning laws

prohibit discrimination through land use practices, including laws that define household or family compositions

in a way that discriminates against disabled people

and contributes to making housing unavailable to those individuals.

The Planning Commission supports this legislation,

and we have been working closely with the planning staff to incorporate feedback.

This includes making sure that the definition includes single-provider households

and does not affect inclusionary zoning requirements.

The legislation replaces family with a definition of household that is split in two.

with a simple definition of household for existing residential uses

and one for future residential uses that includes a cap of nine leases

to prevent any attempt to subvert affordability requirements.

The Planning Commission also made recommendations around unifying residential care facilities

under one definition instead of being split across institutional and residential uses.

State laws guarantee the rights of certain groups of six or fewer people to be a family or household,

and following conversations with the planning department and the mayor's office,

this will be addressed instead as part of forthcoming PRM-SF legislation.

Over the course of this process, we made sure that nuclear and traditional families

are not somehow excluded from this process either.

New amendments that we will be moving today add findings in response

to Chinatown Community Development Center's concerns regarding potential impacts

to the role of traditional families in this legislation,

and confirm that this legislation will expand, not restrict,

the definition of household without leaving anyone behind.

The findings will now include this sentence.

Nothing in this ordinance abridges or otherwise alters any private contractual rights,

nor does this ordinance abridge the rights of families with children or other dependents to live together.

These amendments are not substantive and do not require continuation or re-referral.

I want to firstly thank Deputy City Attorney Julia Gualco Nelson

for working with us for the entire last year.

We thought this was going to be so straightforward to do,

but we've learned that our planning code is like a game of Jenga.

When you change one thing, you have to end up fixing five other things at the same time.

I also wanted to thank Heather Goodman and the Deputy City Attorney as well,

Aaron Starr from the Planning Department for their diligent work.

I want to thank Annie Fryman at Spur and Jay Cumberland and Hope Williams from the Sustainable Economies Law Center for their important collaboration and feedback on this legislation as well.

And lastly, I want to significantly thank my legislative aide, Raynell Cooper, who started on this as one of their first projects at the beginning of the year, and now we are taking it across the finish line.

So thank you, Raynell, for all your work as well.

Colleagues, I ask for your support, and I'm happy to address any questions you may have.

Thank you, Supervisor, and thank you for your work on this and your staff.

And this is a recognition, of course, that in our open, tolerant, modern city, families come in all shapes and sizes,

and that we should not be restricting who is family, because, you know, we all love in different ways, and I think this is really great.

Thank you so much.

So I don't see anyone else on the roster.

We are going to have a presentation by Aaron Starr,

and then we will take public comment on this item.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs.

The Planning Commission considered this item on November 13th

and recommended approval with modifications.

In addition to the modifications proposed by Supervisor Mahmood at the hearing,

the Commission also recommended to first make all residential care facilities a residential use

instead of an institutional use and exempt residential care facilities from the inclusionary

housing requirement.

The second was to amend the definition of household to include single and multi-provider

households with dependents.

And the commission also directed the department to monitor and implement the implementation

of the legislation for potential unintended consequences and report back to the commission

24 months after its effective date.

The commission also encouraged Supervisor Mahmood to consider CCD's comments that were

sent to the Planning Commission prior to the hearing.

We thank the supervisor for updating the definition to include dependents

and understand that the residential care facilities and residential use issue

will be dealt with in a future ordinance.

That concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

I've debated saying this, but this is the last presentation I will be giving this committee.

I am leaving the department on January 2nd, so it has been a pleasure.

Thank you.

It has been a pleasure working with you, Mr. Starr.

So with that, Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chen Malga.

Sorry, I think this is a question that I just also heard from planning staff.

Given the legislation that's away with the family housing as a category,

maybe it's part of you or the planning staff,

how are we able to monitor the impacts to family housing over time?

Are we doing the 24-month monitoring?

Yeah, but it's not removing family housing as a category.

It's just defining how we define families as a residential unit instead,

but the family housing category isn't going away.

So our biggest concern with this was enforcement

just because of past issues with this.

So we're just going to monitor how this issue comes up and see if the definition for household needs to be tweaked or amended just for any unforeseen consequences.

Just to confirm, so planning is going to monitor it?

Yeah, we will monitor that.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number three,

making adjustments to the definitions for family dwelling unit and residential care facility.

if you have public comment for this agenda item,

please come forward to the lectern at this time.

Hi, thank you.

So I live in one of these housing arrangements

with more than five people,

and we don't cook all of our meals together

for breakfast, lunch, and dinner,

so it's kind of crazy to think we're, I guess,

breaking some sort of housing code,

which feels kind of awkward and awful

because I feel like what we're doing is a great thing.

And as Supervisor Mahmood said,

the building code already has occupancy limits

for overcrowding,

so this literally has nothing to do with overcrowding.

It just has everything to do with how these people are related to each other.

You could have a seven-bedroom Victorian today,

and if the residents aren't considered a family because they're just roommates,

then only five of those bedrooms could be used.

So the landlord would have to leave two of those bedrooms vacant.

But if they were a traditional family related by blood or marriage,

according to Housing Code today, it's two per bedroom,

so you could have 14 people.

So what a misallocation of space.

And so the result with the current maximum of five roommates is that two of those bedrooms have to sit vacant.

And it's not because it's a habitability concern.

And this antiquated rule is also in direct conflict with the former Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy's 2023 report on loneliness and lack of social connection, how it's an epidemic in the country, honestly, the whole world, seriously.

And how one vital way that people can experience more social connection is by living together in shared housing with roommates.

And so, yeah, that's why I live in a shared housing arrangement and very excited to continue doing so.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, supervisors.

My name is Jay Cumberland with the Sustainable Economies Law Center.

I want to thank Supervisor Mahmood for moving this forward.

and letting us contribute to it at the Law Center.

I support this change.

I do think there need to be two minor changes to the ordinance,

and I would encourage a study of the inclusionary housing relationship

to this ordinance in the future.

I do support this ordinance because I think the existing

single housekeeping unit standard subjects unrelated individuals,

nontraditional families to scrutiny,

where it doesn't subject traditional nuclear families to scrutiny,

and I think that discriminatory treatment needs to be ended.

And I think the ordinance's strength is that it does treat all families equally

and ensure the planning department can enforce a definition of household

without having to use personal and subjective judgments

about the nature and quality of a group's relationship,

which it's not equipped to make.

The one change that I think is critical by the ordinance's own language

is changing the definition of dwelling unit

As has been stated, this ordinance is intended to ensure that groups don't have to cook together to be a household.

But the definition of dwelling unit maintains that a group must do its own cooking together in a dwelling unit.

So for consistency, that should be struck from the definition of dwelling unit to align with the changes to the definition of household.

I also think the itemization of group housing uses needs to be changed.

that itemization was incorrect even under old case precedent in California where it itemizes

for example a commune as a type of group housing but a commune is quite literally a group that

shares expenses and has tight relationships to each other and meets the definition of household

presently and the definition of single housekeeping unit in the past so those itemizations are

incorrect and I would also encourage a movement to study the inclusionary housing ordinance

to try to move.

The speaker's time has concluded.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the committee.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hi, everyone.

Yeah, it's great to be here.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmood,

for all your work on this.

I'm Ray, and in my time living in San Francisco,

I'll just say personally,

I lived in like five of these different

shared housing and living arrangements,

and it's totally changed my life

in terms of the sense of community,

meeting some of my best friends,

and also making it more affordable

because we're sharing things.

And however, I realized kind of retroactively

that a lot of these are actually illegal

according to the planning code.

So I fully support amending it.

I think just to underscore

some of the affordability aspects too,

to go back to the analogy that was mentioned earlier

of a Victorian with seven rooms,

a landlord would might only be incentivized

to fill five of those rooms

and then leave the other two empty

while like raising the rents on those five.

And it just decreases housing supply

of the city currently makes rents higher.

So I think it would just be win-win for the city overall, for renters, for landlords,

for everybody in the city overall.

So, yeah, thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you, Chair and Supervisors, for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Abdullah.

I'm from Baghdad, Iraq.

I'm a child of war, a former refugee, and a survivor of major conflicts.

but I'm also a medical doctor who is very passionate about making a true change in health care,

specifically in chronic and multiple complex conditions where I used to work before.

And I couldn't find a better place to work on such a big problem than the mecca of innovation, San Francisco.

When I first moved here, I faced the well-known problems of availability and affordability.

I ended up hopping between hostels for more than three months until I found my shared housing.

And not only did I find affordable housing, I also found a community, a chosen family per se,

where I was able to integrate fast into this fast-moving city and call it home.

And I think a lot of people shared this same story with me,

tens of thousands of newcomers in the city every year.

And I think a push forward in that direction would help make their lives easier and make the city even greater.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Brianna Moreles with the Housing Action Coalition.

I, like many of the speakers who spoke before you, have also realized that we've been living in illegal conditions according to the code.

and so our surprise was pretty heavy and so many HACC members brought this to our attention and so

we really appreciate the supervisor in taking this on. We appreciate that a lot has been done

to this ordinance since being heard at the planning commission and that this update responds

to many of the concerns raised particularly around distinguishing existing and new construction,

protecting inclusionary housing requirements, and grounding the household definition in

objective enforceable standards. So we encourage and appreciate the continued work to refining

guardrails that ensure that family-sized homes are not unintentionally displaced and avoid

unintended consequences for residential care facilities and seniors. For HACC's perspective,

the goal here is balancing, legalizing, and protecting

rural-world shared housing arrangements that already exist while making sure

that we are able to protect affordability, tenant protections, and

care settings. We really appreciate that the supervisor has taken this on

and encouraged continued refinement and hope that this

legislation passes and continues in the discussion.

I think it's pretty self-explanatory to say that San Francisco

has always been a city where people can form families in many different ways.

And updating our code to reflect that reality is

important and should be prioritized.

So thank you very much. Thank you for comments. Do we have anyone else who has public

comment for agenda item number three? Madam Chair.

Thank you so much. And thank you to

the public who came out to weigh in. The public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Mahmood would you like to make a motion I'd like to make a motion on the

amendments as read into the record and then move to send the item to the full

board with a positive recommendation

on the motion offered by member Mahmood that the ordinance be amended and then

recommended as amended vice-chair Chen Chen I member Mahmood Mahmood I chair

Malgar I Algar I manager there are three eyes on each motion thank you that

motion passes. Mr. Clerk, do we have any other items on our agenda? There is no further business.

Thank you. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Land, Use, and Transportation Committee

will be on Monday, January 12, 2026. I wish you all a very happy break. Get some rest.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. We are now adjourned.

Thank you.