Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, October 23rd, 2025.

When we reach the item you are 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 30 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 cued 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 roll.

Commission President So.

Commission Vice President Moore.

Here.

Commissioner Braun.

Here.

Commissioner Campbell.

Here.

Commissioner Imperial.

Here.

Commissioner McGarry.

And Commissioner Williams.

Thank you, Commissioners.

First, on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance.

Item one, case number 2025, 001217 CUA at 175 Margaret Avenue.

Conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to November 6th, 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.

Commissioner Imperial.

Move to continue the item as proposed.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to continue item one to November 6th.

Commissioner Campbell.

Aye.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President Seo.

Aye.

So move Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

Placing us under your consent calendar.

All matters listed here under constituted 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 008757 PCA.

Appeal timelines for zoning administrator actions, business and tax regulations, and planning code amendments.

Item three, case number 2025, hyphen 008636 PCA.

State mandated accessory dwelling unit programning and business and tax regulations codes amendments.

Item 4, case number 2025, hyphen 003031 C UA at 310 through 312 Columbus Avenue Conditional Use Authorization.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to request that any of these consent calendar items be pulled off and heard 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.

Commissioner Braun.

Move to approve items two, three, and four.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to adopt recommendations for approval on items two and three and approve item four.

Commissioner Campbell.

Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President So.

Aye.

So move, Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

Placing us under commission matters for item five, the land acknowledgement.

I'll be reading the land acknowledgement.

Um the commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatushalone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatoshalone have never ceded loss nor forgotten their responsibilities as your caretakers of displaced, as well as for all people who reside in your 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 Rama de Shalone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

Item six, consideration of adoption draft minutes for October 9th, 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.

Commissioner Imperial.

Move to adopt the minutes.

Second.

Thank you, Commissioners.

On that motion to adopt your minutes, Commissioner Campbell.

I Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Hi.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Commissioner Moore.

And Commissioner President So.

Aye.

So move Commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

Item seven commission comments and questions.

Do you think is uh something I should do you think I should say something about this?

What happened this week?

Um so I'm pretty delighted that this week, um, along with the War Economic Forum, um, we initiated the DAFOS Bacotor Alliance initiatives.

Um, San Francisco is one of the six cities that was chosen to join Alliance globally with Koal Lumpur, Utrecht, Medadine, and Montreal, Canada.

So, this is something it's more like a thanks, Hank.

And our director, Sarah Dannis Phillips was one of the key speakers in there, and it was exciting that our city continued to um take on this initiations.

Um, the topic focus for San Francisco in this particular um David's Walkator Alliance initiatives that'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 war and learn to be inclusive and also driving the future of our city in a global level.

So and Sarah had um spoken eloquently in the executive round tables and continue to be one of the keynote in the entire summit.

So I'm really proud of her and uh proud of her representing San Francisco Planning Department and also City at large.

Thank you, Sarah.

If there are no additional Commissioner comments or questions, we can move on to department matters.

Item 8 director's announcements.

I'll just add briefly, and Commissioner So, thank you very much.

Definitely, it's the city of San Francisco, not me that's up there speaking, but um thank you for that acknowledgement.

Um I think as Commissioner Show just talked about the World Economic Forum being here this week with so many partners from um other countries and other international cities and getting impact from them.

Um, we're able to launch um two, we're launching two public realm projects that I think are worth noting here just over the long term that um so you know we'll be working on them that we're pretty excited about.

Um the first is um really amping up our efforts to cooperate and partner with the port on their seawall um restoration efforts.

Um, and I think one of the things as Commissioner Soh mentioned that we'll be doing under the Balcoutor 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 um gets better today, but also has an eye towards the long-term um placemaking and infrastructure work that we need to do as we replace that seawall.

Um, so we're excited about amping up those efforts and that collaboration with the port.

Um, the other one that we'll be amping up and that um has already been underway, but will be uh as the planning department amping up our efforts is um looking at the 16th Street BART Plaza.

Um I mentioned last week that I had an opportunity to tour the mission with many of our community partners.

Um BART has an intention underway to remake that as a better place for the community.

Um, there are whole there's already been um both from our great staff efforts and soliciting community input about what they want to 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.

Bongram 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.

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.

Good afternoon, Commissioner Zaren Star, 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 their 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 3rd.

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 Shero 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 based height and local program heights on two parcels on the north side of Geary at Emerson and Wood, just west of Masonic, from the 70140 to 5085.

And third, to lower the proposed local program height of Gira Deli Square from 65 feet to 40 feet, and lower the proposed local program height on the north side of North Point 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 1100 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 D6, the area around the Balboa Park BART station, all parcels along Brotherhood Way west of Hunipura Serra, and several parcels adjacent to Stonestown along 19th and Eucalyptus.

Supervisor Connie Chan's proposed amendments would first remove the rezoning from 122 parcels in D1 within the coastal zone, to lower the proposed height limits in various neighborhood commercial districts in District 1, including the inner Clement, Outer Clement, and Outer Balboa, and on various non-named NC 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 SF SFMTA bus lot at Cabrillo and La Playa from the SF MTA SUD.

Next, the original planning code amendment ordinance was amended to exclude parcels with uh 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 3rd.

The first duplicated planning code amendment ordinance was amended by the request of Supervisor Mandelman 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 tenally scheduled to be heard on November 20th.

The second duplicated Planning Commission ordinance was amended to include amendments from Supervisors Connie Chan, Cheyenne Chen, Supervisor Melgar, Cheryl, and Sauter.

Cheryl and Sotter'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 offsite and land dedication for local program projects to only be within half a mile the primary project as opposed to anywhere in the family zoning plan area.

Four, create a new codified 30-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 3rd.

Supervisor Mandelman 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 uh this week's hearing, but it is going to be submitted at the November 3rd land use uh transportation hearing for consideration.

Hope you got all that.

That was a lot.

Um so the full board this week uh 530 Samson Street Project passed its second read that includes a planning code, zoning map, and uh general plan amendment.

Um, and then supervisor Mahmoud's uh development impact fees for residential development ordinance passed its second read as well.

Um, supervisor Connie Chan's ordinance that would permit outdoor hand washing, vacuuming, and detailing in the Gary Boulevard NCD passed its first read.

And also the board passed all of Supervisor Mandelman's landmark designation um initiations.

Uh these will now go to the HPC for their review and comment.

Uh that's all I have for you today.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Williams.

I just want to uh, like, like to thank you uh for that detail.

Comment there was a lot there.

Yeah.

Um, is there any way we can get a copy of all of that information?

Yeah, I can forward the PDF to you all.

Okay.

Um, just because there's a lot of information there, and and a lot of it's uh important.

And so, but but thank you again.

You also started.

Commissioner Imperio.

I do have a question, Mr.

Star.

Again, around the family zoning.

Are any of those changes proposed?

If they are passed, are they going?

Is there a timely that some of it will come back to the planning commission?

I'm understanding is that Supervisor Mandelman's is the only one that needs to come back to you, but I can defer to the director.

Thank you, Erin.

And that is absolutely correct.

I think the other thing that's worth noting, Commissioner Imperial is that um 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 um there are projected to be two more hearings, uh at minimum at the land use commission to review these changes.

Um, there also will be um a robust conversation that I know the chair of the land use commission is interested in having with HCD.

I think she is very um interested and concerned that what she helps move forward through this process um will be accepted by our our state legislator so we can um actually have a compliant housing element.

So that's kind of what will happen next.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's okay.

Thank you.

You have one more.

Oh, okay.

I have one too.

Commissioner Moore.

I wanted to thank Mr.

Starr 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 Sarcomendo will help us to do the right thing without losing uh view of what our obligations are.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

I I have a question uh around HCD.

Um, and just out of curiosity, what how do you know, as far as like transparency, how how how are we uh 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 uh family zoning plan?

Is there I'm just wondering, you know, because there's a lot at stake, and so it's just just a question that came to mind.

So um 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 um both staff and decision makers have been great about over the past two years since we adopted the first part of the housing element, which this commission adopted is having a continuous feedback loop so that we make sure we're working.

If the whole purpose is to stay in compliance with state law, we want to make sure we're staying in compliance with state law.

Um 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 HCD 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 um likely capacity, so making sure that we we continue to maintain sufficient capacity as directed by HCD.

So that's our best gauge at the moment.

Um is there any chance that someone from HCD can actually come here and maybe answer some questions uh that the public might have is there has there been any discussion around uh around that or because I I mean since this whole process has started since I've been here on the commission, I've we think there's a lot of questions that the public has around uh a lot of these requirements uh from HCD and and I've never had um the public hasn't had a chance to hear from them directly.

And so I just was wondering if if if that if that could happen or if that was ever in uh conversation.

Um, I don't know for sure.

I can say that I am not aware of HCD presenting before at as you as you know we are on the latter half 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.

Thank you.

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 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda.

Hi.

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 3rd 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 55 and 75 feet that more than fulfills Sacramento's housing mandate as wildly inflated as it is.

The family zoning plan goes way beyond SB 79.

It is a 50-year plan, not a five-year plan, we've been told by planning.

It added on density D control for every parcel, pushing demolition and speculation deep into San Francisco's stable family neighborhoods and places intentional, these are places intentionally left untouched by state law 79.

Planning staff said Monday at land use that SB 79 will apply to all of San Francisco in 2032, and SB 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 upzone to entice development.

So it seems like very critical information for the Board of Supervisors before they transform San Francisco forever.

One of Mayor Leary'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 incredible, incredibly complicated, but I did not hear the update on SP 79 and the re and 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.

My name is Henry Collins.

And I'm requesting due to health reasons, if I can be scheduled prior to the schedule time.

Sir you're referring to item 18 for 149 Cole Street.

Yes.

Okay, that's that will be up to the chair.

Um 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 um extending our courtesy to um grant you the your request to hear your item first.

First under the regular calendar.

Very good.

So we'll take we'll be taking your matter out of order next.

What is it?

We'll be taking your item out of order next.

Okay.

Okay, last call for general public comment.

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 2023, hyphen 002463 C Way for the property at 149 Cole Street, conditional use authorization.

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 RH2 zoning district and a 40x height and bulk district within the 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 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 requests with equity and thereby consider the unique circumstances related to an applicant's 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 on balance, 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.

Thank you for providing me this opportunity.

And at this time, at this point in my life, taken on the test, would 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 apartment you and it I'm making reference to is for your original use as a garage.

And I would appreciate some serious consideration of my request.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

If 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.

Commissioner Moore.

I have a question for Ms.

Taylor.

I looked at the uh drawings that were prepared with this particular case, and it seemed to me that uh the issue of the uh unit as being behind a garage, including the fact that the access from the garage was actually non-code compliant.

That's right, which would create uh alterations, including reductions in unit size that will be very expensive.

Right.

We saw uh 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.

I'm curious to hear from uh my other fellow commissioners uh where we normally are very conscientious and very watchful about uh um, approving uh the removal of an unauthorized dwelling unit.

I see the hardship here, and I also see the uh implied difficulties of rescuing this unit and making a deliverable unit.

And for that what reason uh I would suggest uh staffs recommendation approval this conditions.

Is that a motion?

It's a motion, yes.

And then we have Commissioner Blonde, you wanna Braun, you want to comment?

Yes, um, folks who see me on this commission know I'm pretty gung-ho when it comes to preserving uh existing units that can be legalized.

And so when I reviewed this item, I spend a lot of time paying attention to uh, you know, are there unique circumstances in the situation that are that are very extraordinary?

And to me there really are.

I was concerned about presetting a precedent, but I don't recall ever seeing a situation when which the property owners are well into the mid to late nineties and uh and so from my perspective I uh I don't think this is a precedent, and I'm happy to support the item.

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, Commissioner McGarry, Commissioner Williams, aye, Commissioner Braun.

Aye, Commissioner Imperial, Commissioner Moore, and Commissioner President Seo.

Aye.

So move Commissioners that motion passes unanimously seven to zero.

Commissioners, that will now place us uh on item 10 for case number 2025, hyphen zero zero eight seven five eight PCA adaptive reuse of historic buildings planning code amendments.

And I have a presentation which I believe oh, perfect.

Jonas is distributing them right now.

Oh, perfect, great.

Thank you, Jonas.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh 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 for 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 102 of the planning code.

Second, 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 to 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 extends use flexibility and makes a few other allowances tailored to each zoning district.

It also introduces a few different benefits.

First, it waives non-residential 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 and 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.

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 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 NC1 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 and 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 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.

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 want to provide a few examples of properties that have or would benefit from these types of provisions.

So starting with the top left, St.

Joseph's Church was transformed into the St.

Joseph's Arts 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 want to benefit from programs that actually had to go through two separate approvals because the underlying zoning changed.

And so we want to simplify that process for properties like St.

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.

And it was permitted as a general entertainment venue through the R district program that currently exists.

And then lastly, the Tenderloin Museum is currently in the process of submitting 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, use size limits in the RC4 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 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 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 change converting a church into a general entertainment use as well.

So thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.

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 commonists closed, this matter is not before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Brown.

First of all, you know, the fact the 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're 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 Green Angel Museum was one of them.

The other, you know, I I also had to give a second look to the the uh 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 the one of the one uses that kind of had me hesitate for a second is the fact that automo 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 um was the path through which that historic building was going to be used and reinvested in and maintained.

And so in the end, you know, that that use is one of things that you know, my initial reaction is oh, that's that that feels a little off.

Um that's actually an example we've had where it has succeeded in the goal.

Well, I don't know if it's move forward yet, but you know, 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, you know, it's maybe not my my favorite use for the building itself in the meantime.

Um, and then you know, so I had a similar concern about automotive uses as well.

Um, but you know, 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, might be a similar situation in which it's getting sort of reinvested in.

Um I think the one the one thing I would say is that even though I I don't I'm not gonna suggest a change or request for modification on this, um, I think some of the nightlife and entertainment types of uses um are another potential issue and just something that needs to be monitored over time to see if principally permitting uh nightlife entertainment uses would have any many impacts um uh if they're principally permitted.

I know there'll still be the entertainment commission oversight, as we heard with the melody, for example, but uh even so um 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 am supportive of the legislation.

I think you and uh Ms.

Wati, you have some comments.

Yeah, I just wanted to add one more point for color, obviously.

With uh 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, uh 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 um what carrots could we provide so that property owners who own these really special buildings in our city um have additional financial tools in their toolkit to lever that puts them at a different sort of um uh 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 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 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 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, but in these situations, it seems to be a good policy trade-off.

So that was part of our thought process um on this, as looking at ways we can provide that carrot um to historic property owners.

So I just wanted to add that color.

Well said.

That's great.

Um, Commissioner Imperial.

Thank you.

Um I have a question, and um, you know, I I think in the past, I've there are some there are projects that have also um supported in terms of the adaptive reuse.

Um, and also in those processes, I appreciate the historic preservation commission input.

Um so I'm wondering in this case, how is the the process with this with the HBC?

Because it's it says consultation as needed.

Does that mean that um, yeah, what will be the process like when it comes to that consultation?

Sure.

So what we wanted to do is we wanted to keep that in um 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 historic preservation staff are very used to reviewing those maintenance and 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 want to 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 we've got concerns about that, and we want to be able to leverage the historic preservation commission.

So we want to be strategic about when we use them.

We don't want to 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 want to, sorry, for lack of a better term, preserve our ability to use the HPC when there are um more unique circumstances at play.

And we do know there will be a good number of those.

Um, and so we want to um be able to do that.

And my other question is um, as part of the wave of use size limits, what's the um the for NC and NCTs?

What would be it would still remain the size limits?

Correct.

Use size limits would continue to exist in the NCs and NCTs.

Uh the waiver would only occur in other districts.

Okay.

Um, and then just to speak to your HPC question, uh, I neglected to mention this that this went to the HPC last week uh and received a positive unanimous recommendation from that commission.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Commissioner Moore.

In principle, uh I am uh supportive of expanding uses that are already approved to be that that would apply to historic buildings.

Uh I I do believe that uh common sense uh is an appropriate description.

However, the devil is always in the details.

Uh and uh it is for me in the approval requirements.

Uh I always thought of the Historic Preservation Commission of being the public voice of watching over the 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 uh the way it reads, it could be perhaps be done a little bit more diplomatically.

Uh, if you could would comment on that, I'd appreciate that.

Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Moore.

Happy to speak to that.

So uh 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 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.

Uh what we're talking about here are just uses that would not at all adversely impact the historic qualities of that property.

Um, and thus that's why we uh pulled back HC review in those instances.

But of course, HPC would continue to review any project that were to impact uh the historic qualities of a property.

Thank you.

Thank you on that question.

I have a few other comments.

Uh um could you uh talk to me a little bit more about the temporal use extension from six years to 12 years?

That sounds very long.

Uh the people who approved it have forgotten by the time the 12th year comes around.

So I would be curious.

Yeah, 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 12 years.

And the thinking behind that is uh 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.

Um but it gives applicants flexibility um to use to institute those sort of creative uses, um, and it would still be subject to the director's review and approval to extend it to the full 12 years.

But uh the logic is the same for that temporary use authorization extension as it is for the entire ordinance.

We just want to create some more carrots, give these buildings a little more flexibility um to be creative about what sort of uses can occupy them.

If there would be public complaints, however, about the use, they would basically be the first which would consider these uses to continue.

Absolutely, and a great example, we actually do have one uh property right now that has a uh temporary use authorization, and we've received some complaints about it, and they've come in to renew and we've disapproved that to you a extension.

So that is very much a uh number one criteria that we look at when looking at extensions is uh is their public support or opposition.

And that would go hand in hand with the restriction we put on the uh Lady of Guadalupe the other week that if there would be a complaint that would be rescinded.

Yeah, I think that sounds good.

Uh then the only thing that's left for me is um, and it's a tough one uh in neighborhood commercial districts where we had a lot of pushback in other uh discussions about the change in neighborhood commercial district that we are now seeing principally permitted users that are conditionally permitted in that district uh are allowed, which is which is perfectly fine.

However, uh, that there are other uses which would require a CU because by current status, some of these uses are not allowed.

Uh I have a difficult time with that.

The the latter part of that?

Yes, I do.

Well, the thinking behind that is that those uh proposals would still be before you, and you would have the authority and agency to disapprove them if you did 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 um 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.

I appreciate your explanation.

I for me personally, it is remains a difficult uh portion of the uh legislation in front of me.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

I have a question about uh about use.

Formula retail.

Could you could you explain to me how uh is formula retail going to be uh an accepted use?

My understanding is that formula retail safeguards would still remain in place.

In addition to other locational specific criteria, so for example, uh criteria that apply to cannabis um cannabis retail locations not being within a certain distance of other cannabis locations, as an example, those um conditional use requirements would continue to apply.

And maybe another way I can put it is really what we were looking at is um 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 an 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.

And the only reason I mention that is because there's there's been a lot of community um questioning, you know, around formula retail issue around the city.

Um I you know I see this and and its face, it it, you know, it seems logical that we want to do something, but you know, for me, it it feels like we've um we keep taking away bit by bit the the community this input uh on what gets decisions that happen in the in in our city and while I know this isn't uh a huge um these properties aren't everywhere um and they're just uh a few around.

I I just feel like um every time I come uh and sit down here that more and more decision making is being uh 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, um, and I think that um fundamentally I think that people that live in a community should have a say.

The conditional use authorization is one of those vehicles where uh 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 why I while I understand uh the thrust or you know the reasoning behind this, I do want to highlight that.

Would you like me to respond to that?

No, that's okay.

You don't have to respond.

Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

I move to adopt a recommendation for approval.

I um Commissioner Oh, 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 um we're time to write to vote.

There is a motion that has been seconded, Commissioners, to adopt a recommendation for approval on that motion, Commissioner Campbell.

I Commissioner McGarry.

Commissioner Williams.

Nay.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

No.

And Commissioner President So.

Aye.

So move 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 2025, hyphen 00840 PCA permitting parking and driveways, planning code amendments.

Hello again, commissioners.

Lisa Gluckstein, department staff.

Um 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 set 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 uh 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.

Um, 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 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 SFMTA and the police department of violations that involve the public right of way.

So in summary, this ordinance reflects current city values, supports housing production, reduces inequitable enforcement, and legalizes a very widespread practice 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.

Thank you.

With that, we should take public comment.

Members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Emily Bruff.

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 250 284 regarding unpermitted, non-complying, and accessory structures in required yards to provide a pathway to legalize and rebuild long-standing a couple of deck 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-compliant structures under the code, and owners are generally permitted within certain limits to replace those non-compliance structures as they existed when they were built.

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 188 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 uh 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 142 regarding screening of vehicles, understanding that screening is not required under this uh 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 um within the buildable area but not within a building, and um the zoning administrator determined while it was not expressly in the code that it was uh required in that case.

So, in sum, adding this additional amendment to um as part of this legislation to allow legalization or 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 and front yards to preserve them for purposes of screening um their cars that they're now allowed to park in their driveways.

Thank you.

Last call for public comment.

Seeing none public comment is closed.

This matter is now before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Moore.

Uh Ms.

Could you comment on the question that was just raised?

Because you seem to be saying that in your modifications.

I agree that part of it was addressed, but I do not quite understand it.

We wouldn't legalize uh existing non-conforming structures.

I think we're open to that if that's a direction that this commission would like to go, but uh I we have not considered that as part of this ordinance.

It's kind of beyond the scope of what we are 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 legalizing a bunch of different structures across the city.

Um, and it's frankly something we haven't studied extensively to the at this point.

Um, there could be justifications for doing that, but that's beyond the scope of what we looked at in this particular ordinance.

And Director Dennis Phillips, you might want to chime in.

Thank you, Commissioner.

So just to add on to that, I I think um what um what Lisa said is is very clear, but that is a bridge too far.

This is a very modest amendment intended to legalize a widespread practice that is happening.

Um I think with regard to uh the comment that was just raised, there is a specific case there, which our planners 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.

Thank you.

I was not quite finished yet, uh, President.

So uh follow up is a question for you.

There are SUV type vehicles that look like delivery trucks these days.

Uh, like there's a Mercedes type SUV that is so tall that it's taller almost than the house itself.

Uh are we uh having any comments on those particular type of vehicles sitting in those spaces?

Yeah, it's a good I guess you're you're thinking about like a sprinter van type vehicle.

Yeah, one of these large.

Um we don't permit buses under the ordinance.

It's perhaps a little ambiguous as to how we would treat vans, uh large size vans.

We didn't want to go in and prescribe specific dimensions.

Um, I mean, we know that some people do rely on van type vehicles uh 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.

Um, I know that garages are quite small in San Francisco, and so um we don't want to put people in a hard place who might rely on those vehicles.

Um 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.

Um, and so I think we tried to avoid getting into the specifics there and didn't want to become start slice splitting hairs as to what vehicles, what personal vehicles were allowed versus disallowed.

One quick additional question driveways with ADUs now often in the encouraged to be in the backyard, uh unobstructed access by the fire department actually needs to leave those driveways open.

How those how is that restricting the use of this particular ordinance?

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 um 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 um designed for the ingress and egress of vehicles, um, we're saying that's permitted, and the fire department um would still have other points of entry around those vehicles.

Okay, and we're 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 that is not uh what we're addressing here.

No.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

I I think overall uh I'm very supportive of the uh um legislation and uh it makes sense.

Commissioner Braun.

Just to um open with the the issue raised in the public comment, I I agree that uh the idea, 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.

Um I have a couple of questions about the legislation.

Um 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 flying department issue.

Um so I'm curious about a couple of things.

One is do we have and just looking at the language of the legislation, it refers to things like recreational vehicles.

Uh is there anywhere in our code or elsewhere that that defines these vehicles to Commissioner Moore's comments.

You know, where's that line between a conversion van and a recreation or vehicle?

Who's sort of determining that?

Where those definitions come from?

Yeah, it's a good question.

I don't believe they're defined, certainly not in the planning code.

Um, they might be defined in California vehicle code or elsewhere.

Um so there are some definitional questions that we'll probably butt up against when we're when we go to a enforce this ordinance.

And the there is probably space for some more clarity.

Uh frankly, you know, we're 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.

Okay.

Yeah, I would say I think it's really important to uh think that part through and have if it's possible for legislation to later.

I don't know if we want to kind of 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.

Um my other question is um the let's say well, I I guess this question first of all is um do we have definitions that 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 swathes of the city really.

And I don't I don't even know personally if that's that's legal or not under our code.

But you know, 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, uh that seems like it could be a challenge.

And so um what's how do we how are we defining a driveway versus where you shouldn't be parking the car?

It's it's a very valid question, and that's what those proposed modifications get to the heart of heart of, although in a rather admittedly confusing way.

The definition of driveway is pretty circular.

It's defined as a um act it's a driveway is um 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 um concrete paved portion of a property as a driveway anymore?

And so we wanted to specify that through the modification.

Um, 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.

Um 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.

Um there are a lot of properties that obviously don't meet those requirements currently, and we're not trying to throw them into uh 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 um have a project on their property, they would need to come into compliance with those requirements.

Um 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.

Uh we're not intending to legalize that type of parking through this ordinance.

Um we don't want to encourage people to create larger or more curb cuts.

Um we don't want to create hazards for pedestrians.

We don't want to 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.

Um and we didn't want to 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's a little complicated, but we were trying to get to the heart of the issues that you mentioned.

Okay, yeah, thank you for that.

And and I guess my last question is sort of along the same enforcement lines.

Um we're talking about things that move vehicles.

Sometimes they're there, but sometimes they're not, sometimes they're not.

If there is uh enforcement claims that are, 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.

Um maybe there's no answer to this, but I guess what's how how do we enforce that from sort of a zoning and land use perspective or planning code perspective?

Maybe.

Is your question just about the enforcement process status?

I guess so and the challenges that we've seen.

I I suppose the one thing this will do is at least remove a lot of those enforcement complaints, uh, which is probably.

I'll have to step in here.

I'd say a couple 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 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.

Um, 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 135 active complaints that this ordinance would close out.

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.

Um and so it's we're also trying to again bring a level of uh practicality to people who are you know trying to take their kids to a school that might be cross town or get to a job where maybe they don't have great public transit access and just trying to kind of 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.

Um and so we wanted to be responsible.

And um, I think that also there's one thing about um the once you're if any thing, not just vehicle, intrude over a clear pathway for accessibility on the sidewalk, you automatically got a ticket from SFMTA.

So, well, it's complaint-based, but yes.

So I think that that that was that will be fast.

I must have gotten some of those tickets, so just to add on to provide a little more context on the enforcement issue, because like Ms.

Wadi said we we already deal with this a lot.

There's actually a lot of plan code complaints that are dealing with activities that are a bit ephemeral, right?

It's very different than if you built a building without permits.

That's pretty it's pretty static.

Um, and the way we deal with that typically is you know, we have a lot of discretion in the enforcement process.

Um, 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 uh 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 it happens and it's a confirmed violation, we can go straight to notice of violation, et cetera.

So we can basically progressively increase the pace and type of enforcement for repeat offenders when we have things like this that kind of are on again, off again.

So that's how we kind of deal with it now.

I it is kind of a challenge because it's different than kind of static issues, but that's the general process we use for those types of situations.

Thank you.

Um those are my my only questions, and I would just want to recognize that you know there is a benefit to this in the sense of even though uh 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.

Uh as the point has been raised by by Ms.

Wadi, you know, the 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 have truly need vehicles.

And um, so I just want to recognize that uh that that issue exists.

Um I I am supportive of the legislation.

I just want to, you know, one thing I was thinking about a lot with this is making sure we're not incentivizing creating a whole bunch of new curb cuts and a whole bunch of new front yard parking pads.

Um, you know, those privatize our on-street parking supply by making it just about private access.

They diminish our streetscape and protection and pedestrians and the sidewalk from vehicle traffic, and they also imperil so they imperil pedestrians.

Um 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 provide or previously provide access to the screened parking space.

So with with two, yeah, this definitely has my support and I would just pass along my comments that would be helpful to clarify and refine the vehicle definitions and as part of this.

And to 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 going to make a motion to um recommend approval with the staff modifications.

Second.

Green Commissioner Campbell.

I'm I think Commissioner Braun said a lot of the things um 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 um uh a really um pedestrian friendly city it it's not there's not cars everywhere um but I appreciate um 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 um you know how we're gonna enforce it and all that so um 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 um move away from that and I know it's a complex web and things like this aren't going aren't going to necessarily um 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 um and I don't think that's going to 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 um there's more cars and um less cars and more transit and bikes and scooters and people walking and um 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 uh but I also support the legislation.

Thank you.

Commissioner Williams.

Thanks for all the comments here from our fellow commissioners.

I think I support the legislation I think it's common sense.

And just thinking about everything that's been said um it parking is is a real issue um especially in my neighborhood um it's if people sit and wait for a parking spot and uh it can get very uh um testy with neighbors um and so I'm glad this this is gonna alleviate uh some of the um so some of the um complaints that uh a lot of uh citizens have had about parking in their own driveways um I think everything that was said is valid I I just like to add uh 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 um and so this is something that we're gonna be wrestling with uh moving into the future.

I have mixed feelings uh about it because uh and on the one hand uh I feel like uh it's important that we get away from uh driving um cars that pollute the our environment uh but then there's also like a lot of seniors and people with uh disabilities and we have uh 48 hills.

It's not a very flat city.

And we actually, you know, need vehicles uh to get around, especially as you as you age in San Francisco.

And so I I would, you know uh as well as parking, parking is very important uh along our commercial corridors.

I know this isn't about that, but I've just noticed that um you know, our small businesses uh need people to to frequent them along our commercial corridors, and when they can't find parking, sometimes they go elsewhere.

So there's just this tug.

There's a there's this given.

Um it doesn't have anything to do with the parking in your driveway.

But I just it just came to mind, and uh thank you for the legislation.

I think it's it's again common sensical, and I think all the the discussion around uh this issue of parking.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGarry.

I'd also agree, and I thank you for the legislation.

Uh I'll try and bring the warm and fuzzy if you're 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.

Uh, but my Ford Escape will probably be sticking out a little bit.

But if I was driving that many, 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, uh, thank you for this.

Uh hopefully we can do something with SFMTA and the enforcement.

If you're right on the bumper line there, uh between uh a mini and a Ford Escape, that would be great.

Uh but yeah, thank you for this.

Okay, Commissioners.

If there's no further deliberation, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve um or excuse me, adopt a recommendation for approval with staff modifications.

On that motion, Commissioner Campbell.

I Commissioner McGarry, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Braun, aye, Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President So I.

So move commissioners.

That motion passes unanimously seven to zero and will place us on item 12 for case number 2025, hyphen zero zero eight four one for PCA planning fees, planning code amendments.

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 million dollars or more would now be charged a flat fee instead of a scaling cost based on the additional construction costs beyond one million dollars.

This change makes the fee structure more predictable, and if needed, the department still has the ability 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, 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 a recommendation of approval.

Thank you.

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 matters now before you, Commissioners.

My notes I just wrote, this is common sense cleanup and modernization.

And I would make an adoption, a motion to a recommend for approval with second.

Yeah, recommendation for approval.

Thanks.

Great.

Commissioner Braun.

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 uh 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.

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 development application.

So I think that's a little bit of what you're seeing where we are revising 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.

So that's the beginning of the submittal process, and then it's during that time, again at the beginning of plannings review that we would be able to collect these fees.

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 of 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 sequel 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.

Um, 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 are 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're just wanting to align our fees, the sort of the punchline of this ordinance, although there's some other smaller components to it.

The punchline of this ordinance is really having our fee collection align much more with how entitlements happen.

So for conditional use that comes before you, they pay full freight when they file their conditional use, we process it the end.

Um, and so we're wanting to change that for things that also don't go to the planning commission.

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 volume of the commission because that cost recovery number has always been something I focus on.

And wow, like that's the serious cash flow problem.

So okay, and uh uh 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 more than I think.

Well, again, we're already doing it for entitlements.

So we already have a finance department, we already have the mechanism built into our um internal back of house permit processing system.

Um so the infrastructure's 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.

That's great.

And then one last question.

Uh the flat fee for large project environmental review.

Um, 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 is the last time it was updated?

It is like all fees, all of those get CPI'd every year.

Um, and I think on this one, what we were looking at is there are for some really, really large projects, and there are some in the pipeline that, you know, rail yards projects that have huge infrastructure costs, um, it seemed really disconnected with the actual um 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 an 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 staff time to be able to work on it.

But we're still keeping a TNM provision to time and materials provision.

So if for whatever reason we do end up um going over that initial fee, we will be made whole.

Um, but also we're not collecting such an exorbitantly or asking for such an exorbitantly high amount that it's um 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.

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.

Uh so this this has my support, and I I appreciate your answering my questions.

Commissioner, more this is a long time coming.

Uh because I remember under the leadership of Dubakter William, the commission often asks 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 had the point.

And uh I'm glad that uh Ms.

Wadi provides a detailed uh narrative of what historically has been a long push into the right direction.

And there's the work we do and there's compensation for the work we do.

And so I th I think we had a great point, and I would like to make a motion motion to adopt uh recommendation for uh Commissioner Imperio, you like to comment?

Yes.

Um yeah, I also support this legislation, um, and the timing and I also actually my question first was around the large project fees, and thank you for that, um, for that explanation.

I think it it is fair to have some form of deposit.

Uh I would think of it as a deposit, especially if it's um we're dealing with um years long kinds of um 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.

Um, yeah, can that be clear?

Sure, those are actually just uh different names for different levels of environmental review.

Um, so for example, um in eastern neighborhoods where we've had an area plan and we've had an EIR cover the area plan, there's a community uh community plan exemption evaluation.

I always get confused on the E.

But anyhow, there's a 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 um it is the general plan exemption is what's listed there.

And so right now, just literally we don't cite that general plan exemption, but they're basically function and are pragmatically a very similar level of analysis, so we want to make sure that our our fee schedule acknowledges both of these charge that kind of fee.

Okay, thank you so much for that clarification.

Yeah.

Well, thank you for doing the work and thank you for doing the numbers.

And I do remember it was um during our budget review cycle, and I see some of our finance people are here.

Um it was identify as I um many of my commissioners do share the same sentiment.

Like, if we done the work when would we get pay you know sometimes I remember the questions I well it might be 20 years later.

So now let's let's hope that is not the case anymore and uh it is simply a well balance and what if we if we done the work and we should get compensated just like everybody else so um I I'm in supportive of this and I believe we are ready for vote.

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.

Aye Commissioner McGarry Commissioner Williams Aye Commissioner Braun Aye Commissioner Imperial Aye Commissioner Moore Aye and Commissioner President.

So move Commissioners that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero item 13 case number 2025 hyphen zero zero three three three nine PCA 2025 code corrections ordinance planning code amendment 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 18th 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 practices namely this would prohibit massage businesses within residences there's been an inconsistency between the planning code and the public health 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 inconsistence inconsistencies with our upcoming legislation and proposes the following modification that is to eliminate the proposed planning entitlement application definition.

The proposed family housing ordinance includes an amendment to update section 311 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 presentation and I'm again available for any questions.

Thank you.

Okay public comment if any you need to come forward seeing none public comment is closed this matter is now before you commissioners this looks fine to me I appreciate the responsiveness to a couple of issues I recall arising for example the the general grocery reference to um that I think it was on that floor area instead of Grails floor area things like that.

And so I make a motion to uh adopt recommendation for approval with staff modification.

Second 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 Commissioner Braun aye commissioner imperial aye commissioner moore aye and commission president so I so move commissioners that motion passes unanimously seven to zero placing us on item 14 for case number 2025 I can zero zero nine five two two 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.

And I believe, Commissioner Braun, you have a disclosure.

Yes, yeah, I might not even need to make this disclosure since this is just informational and um voluntary.

But uh just have an abundance of caution.

I'll I'll say um you know based on the credits to the um firms involving the institutional master plan.

I'm seeing that the architecture and design firms Perkins and Will and Stan Tech is or were part of the project sponsors team.

Um my employer strategic economics is currently a subconsultant to Perkins Will and Will and multiple projects, none of which are located in San Francisco or being completed for the city and county of San Francisco.

I am uh principal in charge on one of those projects with Perkins and Will, which is an area plan for the city of Petaluma.

Uh my employer and I have also in the past worked as a subconsultant of Stan Tech for projects, none of which were uh ever located in San Francisco or completed for the city and county of San Francisco.

So, and also neither I nor my employers have worked on the institutional master plan for the commission, and these relationships won't impact my ability to be impartial on the matter.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Elizabeth Johnk 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 code's 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.

You have five minutes.

Oops.

One second.

Let me get my clicker here.

All right.

Good afternoon, honorable commissioners.

My name is Rihanna 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 an 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 regents, 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 formally UC Hastings, and that change occurred in 2023.

So let's click through.

There we go.

So in terms of our existing property, uh, 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 Cachet Law Center that was opened in March of 2020.

We implemented major renovations to our cane 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, you see the UC system has 35% of those units, primarily held by UCSF and 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 fall of 2026, SF State is going to 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 50,000 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 going to 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, our 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 McAllister 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.

Fall of 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 Two 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.

Thank you.

We should take public comment.

Oh, I will move.

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.

Commissioner Moore.

Five minutes presentation do not do justice to reading uh the incredibly well-written uh 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 uh issues that uh are part of what we're discussing in this commission.

I'm delighted to see uh the thorough uh and cohesiveness by which this institution has moved forward.

Uh I strongly remember it in this room for 10 years attending to the CPMC hospital overview that uh this institution provided pro bono in collaboration with the citizens uh uh and it was amazing that in 10 years each year they came again and uh held up their commitment to being a leader of that particular effort.

Yeah, I'm I'm delighted to see this uh and and acknowledge this uh update on the institutional master plan as being complete, way within what we typically see, and actually going even further.

Thank you.

Commissioner Braun.

I'll second those comments.

Uh it's a very well-written document given that it's voluntary.

I mean, it's it's uh more thorough and and uh communicative than some of the ones that we require.

So I appreciate that.

And I also just want to say uh express my gratitude to UC Law SF for continuing to uh invest in the Civic Center area and to build out and to bring in more uh residential beds as well for students and collaborating with other institutions in the city.

It's really wonderful to see.

And and uh yeah, I'm looking forward to uh the tower being uh sort of fully completed.

Thank you.

So I walked around and I seen that in these past I would say 18 months, the whole city felt like it's just every other place, everything was on whole 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 um 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 be partnership of our city and also uplifting everybody around us, and we need more of you.

So I here like to um give my gratitude to uh the UC Law Chief Operating Officer, Rihanna Ballard, and also sitting next to her is the UC Law Chief Financial Officer, David Seaworo, for spending your time with us today.

And I will um have Commissioner Williams finish his comment before I close this item properly per my secretary's advice.

Commissioner Williams.

Just wanted to say thank you again to um you see formerly Hastings was a building that I I passed by mean 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 um legal issues and and and it's obviously you guys are are a great um 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 want to say thank you, take this opportunity like my other commissioners to say thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner McGarry.

I want to echo my fellow commissioners, and I really want to thank you for your commitment to San Francisco, not just uh UC Hastings as I remember it.

Uh and on behalf of the men and women look uh who basically are doing the work and have done the work on all your projects there, uh many of whom I represent on my daily basis.

I actually work for plant construction, plant architectural woodwork, the contractor you have in there.

Uh 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, uh they kind of run because yours is your job is that one there is pretty special.

Uh for a time they said San Francisco, where we were down, but you're a great example.

We were not out, and especially in this part specific part of town.

Uh basically you double down and you you went forward.

And for that, I really have to commend you.

Thank you.

So by closing this item, I announced that the public comments it's closed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners that will place us on item 15 15 and 16.

We'll be calling these items together for case numbers 2025, hyphen 005918 DES, 2025, hyphen zero zero five nine three zero DES 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.

While I get my presentation up and running, uh I'll cede the floor to uh Supervisor Mandelman's aide, Calvin Ho, who is sponsor the supervisor is sponsoring these uh designations.

Thank you, Pilar.

Um hi everyone, good afternoon, President Stone Commissioners.

My name is Calvin Ho.

I'm a legislative A2 President Midleman.

The items before you will advance the historic landmark district designation of the Chula Abbey and Allert 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 1906 and the 1906 earthquake and reconstruction era from 1906 to 1915.

The Chula Abbey and Alert 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 uh contributors to these two districts.

I want to thank Pilar for her work on this, as well as Rich Sucre from Planning, and Peter Lewis and Aaron Phillips from MDNA.

These items passed with recommendation from the HPC last week with unanimous uh support.

Commissioners, I asked for your support for these two items as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Calvin.

Good afternoon, Commissioners, Pilar La Valley Department staff.

And I apologize, there'll be some overlap in what you've just heard with some of my statements.

But before you today are two landmark district designations, Alert Alley and Chula 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 of Section 101.1, 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 facilitate these designations, and also to evaluate whether the designations would conflict with the sustainable community strategy for the Bay Area.

Um 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 of 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.

Um and then the red dashed lines are the two districts that were identified.

Oh, and I'm sorry, I have actually I have handouts of the presentation.

In making the 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 1906.

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 1906 were often single family, while larger and post-1906 buildings were generally multifamily.

Many of these single family buildings of all sizes have actually been converted over the years to multiple dwellings.

Here in this slide is the close-up of the Alert Alley, early residential district, which is centered on Alert 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 Chula Abbey district, the larger of the two, centered on Chula Lane and Abbey Street, between 17th 17th Street and Dolores Street being the primary streets, has a period of significance of night of 1865 to 1910, is comprised of 52 buildings, 37 of which are contributing and 15 are non-contributing.

And a previous version of the draft ordinance that was and supporting district documentation heard by the Historic Preservation Commission last week, that contain 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 comment 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 101 of the planning code, particularly policies of the urban design and community and industry elements that promote preservation, recognition, and his conservation 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 of 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 302, and as well as the department's analysis.

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.

So is there any public comment?

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.

Commissioner Campbell.

And this both of these alleys are very close, not too close, but close enough to my house that in my house we call 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 these alleys, and they are incredibly charming.

And 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 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 adjacent to here and in the district.

So just kind of if you could walk us through how we make that decision.

So I think first off, we just uh look at the significance, and here the significance is really related to both the 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 1860s-ish to like pre-earthquake, so 1906, and then 1906 to 1915.

So within that, with that framework, then we um 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.

Um I think what you see from the the way that the sort of um, you know, it's not just uh a box that we've drawn.

Um 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, um, so that we also end up with a district that is the more majority 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.

Um in the case of the Chula Abbey district, um, for the folks that own the buildings that are not pink.

I should know this because I was on the HBC for like eight months, but um, can you can you remind me and the public sort of how being in the district impacts their properties?

So the buildings that are um not highlighted with a color and Chula Abbey, they're pink in that map, and I think they're violet or something in the alert alley.

Um the the ones that are grayed out would be considered non-contributing buildings, and 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, uh there are there are provisions for preservation entitlements um called certificates of appropriateness.

Um typically those are triggered when there is a exterior alterations that require a permit.

Actually, not typically that is the trigger, that's the requirement.

Umcontributing buildings uh 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 um as for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

Um for these particular districts, it wasn't included in the information I uh 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 um 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 that those non-contributors would not be considered historic buildings and historic properties, so they would have um 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.

Thank you.

Those are all my questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

Um that was a helpful explanation about how the district is sort of formed.

Uh I was curious too, especially somebody who actually rents an Italian cottage that's sort of off on its own in the backyard, and I thought interesting, you know, how would that fit into a historic district?

And it looks very similar.

Um 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.

Um, so thanks for that.

I guess my I really only have one question, which is um the Tanferin cottages uh near 15th and Dolores.

There are Article 10 landmarks, um, they're not included in the district, and I'm just curious about the mechanics of why uh an individual resource would not be included in in the district.

So um thank you for that question, Commissioner.

Uh the so as you know, the tan foreign cottages, which are directly adjacent, I think their rear property line abuts um the district boundary, um, are designated already under Article 10 um as individual landmarks.

Um they would in this case um actually uh 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 could 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 um extend additional resources, um department resources or staff resources to then add another level of designation, um, because they already have that protection.

I see.

Okay, so it's so it's really more just of a procedural or sort of logistical uh thing in this case.

It creates a duplicative layer of process.

Okay, yeah, that's that's a very helpful explanation.

I appreciate that.

Um I uh, you know, big picture.

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 uh we need to think about as as uh we try to also promote housing development, and I don't have concerns about this um being an obstacle in that sense.

And um I agree with the um with the findings uh involved in this.

I we have a resolution, you know.

I I see that our action is review and comment, but do we need to adopt the resolution?

Yes, I'm sorry, I apologize for that, Commissioner Braun.

Um thank you for that clarification in the question, because indeed you need the request is for you to adopt a resolution with your comments.

Uh and there is a draft resolution with some comments already attached.

So if you have any additional comments, you would need to verbalize those.

I don't have any additional comments on the resolution, but um I see Commissioner Williams wants to speak.

So I'm here from Commissioner Williams.

Thank you.

Just want to comment on on the beauty of our city, and and you know, there's a lot of properties that aren't listed here that can one can say are historical in in nature and should be preserved.

As a carpenter as a crafts person, I understand uh personally uh the beauty and the workmanship that's gone into a lot of these uh older buildings.

Um 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 is very important that we pay attention to preserving uh that that part of our city, and you know, um thank you.

Uh I want to thank uh um Supervisor Mendelman for bringing this forward, and I wish more supervisors would look into their districts and see what um could possibly uh they could do to make sure that we uh continue to um appreciate and protect um these beautiful buildings uh that add to to the landscape of our city, as long as uh as well as with the beautiful people that occupy them.

Thank you.

Commissioner Moore.

I would like to acknowledge the thoroughness of uh 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.

Uh and I think that is where it is unusual.

Uh thank you to uh Supervisor Mandelman, president of the board Manelman.

Thank you to planning.

Thank you to Ms.

Lavalli.

And I'm in full support, acknowledging that the considerations that we asked to acknowledge have all been fully met.

Thank you.

My understanding is like this is a 10-year plus into making, so it is a time to really deserve a great applause to not only our planning team leading by Polar and I see Moses is sitting here too, but also Supervisor Mandelman 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 have some more follow-up comments, right?

Or Commissioner Braun.

Actually, I just want to make a motion to approve.

Do we need to take them separately or you can call them up together since they are so similar?

Or you can do them separately if you prefer.

No, I'll take them together.

So I'll make a motion to approve both items.

Second it.

And Commissioner Moore, do you have for our comments?

I have to bite my tongue, but when we when I heard you mention that it took 10 years, I hope there is some more than 10.

When I heard you explain that it took 10 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.

All right, Commissioners, there is a motion that has been seconded to adopt resolutions with comments on both items on that motion, Commissioner Campbell.

Hi.

Commissioner McGarry.

Hi.

Commissioner Williams.

Commissioner Braun.

Hi.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye.

Commissioner Moore.

Aye.

And Commissioner President So.

Aye.

So move 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 2008.0850B, 02 for the Alexandria District 455 Mission Blue Mission Bay Boulevard South and 1450 1500 and 1700 Owen Street.

This is a request for office development allocation.

And Commissioner Braun has a disclosure to make.

Yes, I would like to make a disclosure of a professional relationship with the project sponsor of this item.

I know Teresa 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 no way influences my professional judgment or impacts my ability to consider this item impartially.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Moore also has a disclosure to make.

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, aka the Alexandria District, and 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 17709 established the Alexandria District in 2008.

That motion combines several previous office allocations within the Alexandria District boundaries into an aggregate pool of 1,122,980 square feet and authorized the project sponsor, Alexandria Real Estate Equities Incorporated, to request 227,020 additional square feet of allocation for a total of 1.35 million square feet for the Alexandria District.

The authorized 1.35 million leasable square feet of large cap office allocation within the Alexandria District represented one half of Alexandria's 2.698 million 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 17709.

If the project sponsor documents that the entire 1.35 million 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 million 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 to lease such a small and exact amount before requesting a new allocation per motion number 17709.

Therefore, Alexandria now seeks additional large cap allocation to enable 100% office use within the four previously mentioned properties in the district to accommodate current and anticipated tenant demand.

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 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 17709.

Since packets were published, the department has received two letters from members of the public regarding the proposed office allocation, 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 Bay 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 project team also have brief presentations for the project.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, President.

So Commissioners, Corey Tig, good to see you.

Corey T, 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 uh development annual limit program can be complicated, and this is a particular onion of a case in front of you with layers, and I want to really make sure that we're clear about the different layers.

Um, so I think it's helpful to go back to the beginning.

Um, obviously, the program was created under Prop M back in 1985.

Um, and it's important to note that from the beginning, the program very clearly states that uh 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 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 baseline.

Um in 1998, you know, the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan was adopted.

With redevelopment plans, 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 is 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.

Um it also says that essentially mission bay projects for office have priority over projects outside mission bay, again, but pursuant to the mission bay plan that had been adopted by the city.

Um, 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 for 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.

Um, so that was the baseline up until 2008, when the the 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 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.

Um there's a distinction of like what is under the what's under the planning commission's purview here.

Um obviously the baseline is that office space in Mission Bay kind of has to be approved if it meets these certain criteria, which is essentially that it's within the uh 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 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 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.

Okay, project sponsor, you have five minutes.

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 Real Estate Equities was founded in 1994 as the pioneering institutional owner and developer of laboratory space for life the life science industry.

From the very beginning, we have been laser focused on serving the mission critical niche that we help to create.

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 million 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 750 tenants that we treat as as partners.

Approximately 87% of our annual revenue is from life science tenants.

We're deeply passionate about the space.

This is uh this is our DNA.

We're tremendously proud of the work that we've done over the last 20 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 and their workflows, more desktop computational analyses, 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 2.8 million 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 Treaty and Emmet.

Good afternoon, Commissioners Teritia 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 OCI.

They've all been informed, they've all had input, and we are very happy to answer any questions.

Great.

If 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.

Hello.

My name is Adriana Marble, and I am here on behalf of Excel Bio, 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 eyewash stations, self-closing doors, water and purpose 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 would greatly appreciate you hearing our concerns and let me know if I can answer any questions.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Trisha, and I'm 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 tech, operation staff, 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 Bay was designed for science, and it still matters for people who like me who want to build their future here.

So I ask that you keep this space for off for labs and not offices.

Thank you.

Hi, dear commissioners.

Um I won't belabor what was just said.

Uh I'm Maria Silvaciaka, I present one of the biotechs, also based out of 455 Mission Bay.

Uh previously we were another Mission Bay tenant in another building that was then uh lost and then had to move.

So kind of speaking to previous points, 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, which 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.

Uh 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 interwand with UCSF, with the incubators around there, with MBC Biolabs, with J Labs.

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 in Mission Bay as well.

Uh that's there already.

Uh, it fosters a really nice ecosystem just being able to network with them over lunch and a few areas around us.

Uh most of our employees live in Mission Bay as well.

Uh 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 going to 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.

Uh I do appreciate your time.

Last call for public comment.

Seeing none public comment is closed, and this matter is not before you, Commissioners.

Commissioner Brown.

Procedurally, a lot of the as was stated in the staff presentation, you know, the findings for the office allocation are already in place, and it seems like there was flexibility built into the original sort of plan.

Just this ends up being office allocation.

And at the same time, you know, the vision, as I've always understood it, you know, the vision for Mission Bay South was very focused on on life science.

And so I guess uh first I I'm just curious to hear.

I mean, I don't know if staff, anyone on staff has a long memory of this, but you know, what what was the thinking behind enabling the flexibility for life science or office use at the time?

We're going too far back in time.

Just for clear clarification, you mean what was the kind of rationale in the Mission Bay South plan itself for allowing the flexibility between.

Yes, yeah.

I mean, given that, you know, that was in there, and then also the 2008 authorization for Alexandria's uh projects also had this kind of pre-made set of findings as well.

Um, 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.

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 for 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.

Um the project sponsor would probably have more institutional knowledge about um 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 um use that office space within different buildings, but then also allowed in flexibility with how um that office space may be included or not included when they sold properties.

And once they sold a property is outside of 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 kind of permanently there, right?

That so um and that allowed the construction of the office buildings that are part of that block.

Um so that flexibility was part of the rationale for the district itself, but beyond that, again, I would defer to the to the applicants.

Sure.

And and maybe uh Ms.

Neva, if you don't mind.

Um I know that you've been involved, as you said, for a very, very long time, and I'm curious to hear sort of the evolution of this.

I have.

Um 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 um the ability to attract um 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 1700 Owens approved, 1500 owns, 455 Mission Bay Boulevard South.

All of those, as Jesse mentioned, received a hundred percent 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 all was always why we wanted a hundred percent Prop M for all the buildings.

Cut to 2008, 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 a hundred percent 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?

That does answer my question.

I appreciate it.

I have a couple of other uh questions.

Um so uh I guess just fundamentally when Alexandria has sort of tilted towards having more office space rather than sort of wet lab life science space in the buildings.

I mean, does the infrastructure for the lab space remain in the buildings?

Like, what's the extent of physical changes that end up happening?

Because I'm I'm what I also want to 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.

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 20 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, where how much um 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.

Thank you.

Um, I think just one last question is uh is Alexandria currently building new life science space elsewhere on the peninsula.

Are we are you building new life science space currently?

Nothing currently, nothing currently, okay.

Thank you for that.

Um it's uh it's a little frustrating for me.

You know, I am interested in seeing the the uh industry continue to thrive in San Francisco.

It's something that we had to kind of have to cultivate here because again, such a global hub exists in South San Francisco, and I think part of my uh 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 in the peninsula and places that historically hadn't gone.

Uh and I think now we're starting to see some of the the challenges that have arisen from some of that.

Um to me, you know, granting flexibility seems reasonable and and the buildings remain useful usable as life science space, and this you know allows for changing balances of life science space, and and um so uh and then again, you know, we most of the findings are actually already in place.

There's that in some ways the limited amount of um, although we have discretion, you know, the it's unusual to have already uh kind of adopted a lot of the findings in the first place.

So although I have I have some concerns, I I would be supportive of the allocation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Imperio.

Thank you.

Um it reminds me of the um, because I remember there was some form, there was a legislation.

I remember by supervisor, I think it's Supervisor Walton around, um, yeah, around um around life science, because the um yeah, um I remember that you know that legislation is kind of like calls for um the, because in our planning code, um, in a way, like life science is under there is an office use in in the lab science.

Um, and I think we're we're we're dealing with some um planning code issues with it.

I may just need to uh we may just need to for me just to remember that and um but you know I mean I understand as well, I think you know, in terms of where the lab science industry is, and sounds like the office allocation that's being asked here in front of us is um can be used in a lab science, but the infrastructure is like office.

Um, and so it I guess my question is is the lab science under for our for the planning code under the office um is that within 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.

No, um I'm happy to answer that, Commissioner Imperio.

So under the planning code, we define life science use as something that's separate and stinct 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 um from office use under the planning code.

So um, so in a way for this office allocation being asked, under Alexandria just right, it allows for flexibility even though it's under office use.

So I'm trying to understand the flexibility part with our planning code.

Sure.

So the flexibility in the Alexandria district is kind of 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 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 uh granting the allocation as part of this district as opposed to the office space just coming out through a standard kind of redevelopment area process.

Right, I'm still confused.

I think I don't know if other um so the flexibility is on the in the um in the geography, which is the Alexandra, but um, so in a way, what's being asked for us right now is to expand or use the office allocation, and what's um I'm trying to understand as well in terms of the need of the tenants to in terms of life science and the mission South Bay.

So um, 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 I'm that's um yeah, I am kinda yeah, and I think it in the simplest terms, and the project sponsor can elaborate more if they'd like, but they're the the district now comprised 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, and this allocation will allow those buildings to basically convert the non-office portions of those buildings to office.

To office, yeah.

Okay.

Um, and then my other question is around the office allocation, the prop M that um thank you for sending that to us, and um, I guess my clarification on that Prop M as well use um, you know, I understand that there are other projects as well that are still pending.

Um, but however, they are allocated under the Prop M and pending availability will turn the city into negative growth square feet.

Is that what I how I'm understanding the office allocation statistics that we have um the annual limit program?

So I'm 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 um October 17th of each year pursuant to Prop M.

And we're kind of required to track how much has been allocated, but also kind of how much is in the queue at different stages.

And so right now we have approximately 1.7 million square feet in the large cap.

We're kind of 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 on 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 uh applications that haven't moved forward yet.

Okay.

So um, I mean, with the current availability, this will not the proposed office allocation is not gonna go beyond the what is current available right now.

Absolutely.

If it did, there wouldn't be the ability to grant that.

Okay.

Thank you.

I mean, those are um for me, my um, I mean, the this is still within the prop M.

Um that that's what, but um, I am concerned 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.

Um, but yeah, I am you know I'm not I'm not comfortable of um 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.

Okay, thank you.

Um Commissioner Williams.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Teague for and everyone else who's who's uh explained a complicated situation in the history of of the redevelopment uh of the Alexandria properties.

Um I have similar concerns just just you know uh figuring out is there uh room for smaller um startup um biotech uh businesses inside the Alexandria and what what are what are you doing to uh to help that because it sounds like there's space there's a limited amount of space there, um and what other commissioners have have brought up is is uh you know are this is a special um situation with the Alexandria properties that they're you know they were designed to be uh support this industry, and uh there's some concern about um there being enough space and and also small smaller um smaller businesses and so I have a question I don't know uh if you can answer that, but what what uh what is the Alexandria properties doing to support um smaller businesses and do you have um do you have an allocation or um a program set up to make sure that um the smaller startup um companies you're you're supporting in in uh in your properties?

Sure.

Thank you for your question.

Um 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.

Um we absolutely love and support small companies.

Uh 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 have 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.

Um we are absolutely focused with our portfolio in Mission Bay today and 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 uh 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 Prop M works with life science companies that maybe I can try to address.

If a life science company, their premises are a portion of wet lab space and office space, that wet lab does not require prop.

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?

Yeah, no, it it it did.

I I um just needed to understand more uh about uh about that that issue.

Um I I think some of my other commissioners had the same concern.

Uh uh, you know, uh and so that's it for now.

I think I've been I 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 you.

Uh Commissioner McGarry.

So we're working within the confines of Mission Bay here, and then basically you have 17th where you're into the dogs dog patch.

I believe we're a few months ago you were here in front of us when uh wet labs some of it was brought that wet labs could not be uh could not venture across 17th Street into the dog patch because and because basically the neighbors and we digested 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 Samateo 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 uh 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 uh basically local uh businesses, future kids born in UCSF could actually utilize those jobs, the start of jobs in the dog patch.

So I'm fine that there's ample opportunity and space, not just within mission uh 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, sixty-five percent, 65% and things are things are not so not as good or viable.

So, I'm fine with this.

I would make a motion that uh this uh follows through.

Thank you.

Um I like to probably say a few things.

I think about when uh Mr.

Our zoning administrator, Mr.

T said that Prop Am was dated in 1985, or 84.

For around that, like um 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.

I I'm saying it because recently I uh went into my daughter's school, just a high school, and she's like everyone is eating and working in the lab with their laptop everywhere.

So I'm kind of wondering, like, is that it's it's okay, and then it's just as long 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 um just like other technology, I think biotech and life science is just she loves life science.

Um, and that's kind of why I visited these, her school has good labs, right?

So I was like, 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 gravel with what was stated for us by Prop M 40 years ago, is it 40?

I haven't done my math right.

30.

Um, whatever it is, like decades ago before we have um 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 forefrunner of all the industries.

I do wanted to clarify that if I have a if my understanding is correct, that um the use of a live science, even though you're we're allocating to office use, um, 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 in 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, uh, you can also have them started to use these space as life science lab because that use is always already principally permitted, right?

I just want to I mean people are nodding.

I just want to make sure we got some expert here that could um just get the reaction.

Percent to the redevelopment plan, the planning code.

Um, as mentioned, the redevelopment plan gives them a pretty wide uh birth in terms of land use flexibility over time, so they can kind of ebb and flow.

Um from a 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 uh, 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 within Prop M for that as well.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Um, Commissioner Moore.

It's uh it is an extremely uh complicated uh subject.

I'm not sure if I understand every aspect of it, but uh I believe that uh Alexander's mission always has been the combination of office uh uh life science and technology, and I think it is in that interpretation where I believe that a company that has definitely done a heroic job in making part of Mission Bay what it is, uh needs to be listened to in terms of their own needs to survive and move us into the future relative to additional allocation of space.

If there is indeed a 55% vacancy in live 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 has in a completely different environment.

Alexandria has been in front of the planning commission for many, many, many years, and uh I I believe that uh each time they came forward, they built more on the totality of mission bay, which is not just the Alexander district, but also dealing with extremely difficult parcels, all of which were the peripheral odd shape parcels, and each time along the way, they were innovative, flexible, and actually set a new standard for what they were doing, what all of us were doing.

And uh I think it is in appreciating an experienced uh uh participant in Mission Bay and in the Alexander district to take uh the next step and uh us supporting uh what uh they're asking for.

So I'm in support of what is in front of us, and I think somebody already made a motion uh-huh.

Yeah, I can second it or I can mix a motion.

A motion has been made, but it has not yet been seconded.

Yes, a lot of second it.

Um, and Commissioner Campbell.

Um I'm going to echo what Commissioner Moore just said as well.

And I think um, you know, when these projects are crafted, um they do their best to predict where the market is going to go.

And I think there was a lot of um folks doubling down on life science and and in response, or as a reality we overbuilt, and I think there is um 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 percent vacancy in life science with significant negative absorption, which means more spaces going back to the market than is being rented.

So I appreciate this move for just allowing some flexibility.

Um, 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 get mission bay is thriving, and I'd love to see it continue on that path.

Um 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, um, 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?

Sure.

Uh before I attempt to answer, I want to acknowledge and apologize for how complicated this all is.

Yeah.

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.

Um, and that means there's like rules intersecting rules.

And so I apologize for that.

I'm hopefully doing as well as possible to explain it.

Uh what I was referencing earlier is like, yes, there are ways to for allocate 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 um 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.

Um, 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 kind of multiple ways in which if there was fluctuation in the future, that there would be options to have that allocation come back into the pot.

Um is that is that exactly what you were asking?

I guess I meant more um, unless they have a tenant now that's wanting to take 516.

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 this process um 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.

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 um 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.

Um 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, that's the answer to my question.

Thank you.

Sure.

Perfect.

Commissioner Imperial.

Yeah, I just want to mention that you know, after, you know, I appreciate all the commissioners' comments and also um questions.

Um, so um, and also Mr.

Teague, in further clarification about what um, and also um it the project developer in terms of like explaining about the the what's uh still being considered utter prop M of when it comes to um life science use as well.

So in that consideration, um, you know 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.

Okay, commissioners.

If there's nothing further, there's a motion that has been seconded to approve with conditions on that motion, Commissioner Campbell.

If you're gary, Williams, aye.

Commissioner Braun.

Aye.

Commissioner Imperial.

Aye, Commissioner Moore, and Commissioner President.

So I'll move 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.

All right, meeting.