San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Good afternoon, everyone. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the 04/13/2026 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I am Supervisor Myrna Melgar, chair of this committee, and I'm joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Chyanne Chen, and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The committee clerk today is John Carroll, and I also would like to thank Jeanette Engelow from SF CAP TV for staffing us during this meeting. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Thank you. Please ensure that you silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you've brought with you into the chamber today. If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, can submit them directly to me. Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda. When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak along your right hand side of this room. Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways. First, you may email your comments to me at johnperiodcarroll@sfgov.org. Or you may send your written comments via U. S. Postal Service to our office in City Hall. The address is 1 Doctor. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102. If you submit public comment in writing, will forward your comments to the members of this committee and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting. Items on today's agenda are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of 04/21/2026, unless otherwise stated.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you so much at Mister clerk please call item number one.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the zoning map of the planning code to change the height and bulk districts for the 1 Oak Street project to increase the allowed height for the podium of the building from the current base height of 120 feet to 140 feet, affirming the planning department's secret determination and making findings of public necessity convenience and welfare under planning code section three zero two and findings of consistency with the general plan in the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you so much. We will hear from Madison Tam from Supervisor Dorsey's office, who will present on this item, followed by Joseph Saatchi and Veronica Flores from our planning department. Welcome, Ms. Tam.

[Madison Tam]: Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, Vice Chair Chen, Supervisor Mahmood Madison Tam, here representing Supervisor Dorsey. Thank you for hearing this item today. SFGov TV, can I get slides up? I first will walk you through the project, and then I will talk about the need for the legislative action before you today. 1 Oak is one of the most important sites in the Market And Octavia Area Plan. And it's a significant share of the many units long promised to this neighborhood. This amendment is a small but meaningful change that will bring even more units to this site and activate this vital corner. The project will bring additional housing into a neighborhood that is well served by transit on the edge of downtown. And the project will not displace any existing housing. Here you can see how the project has changed from its previous 2022 design. The modified project will have additional units bringing the total count to five forty one with some modest increases in parking, bike parking and the item requiring the legislative action today is the podium height increase. There will also be construction of a new public plaza. This modified project maintains the same building envelope as previous versions and the 400 foot tower height remains consistent. As I stated, the increased podium height from one twenty to one forty is what necessitates the legislative action. This amendment will bring the podium height of the project in alignment with its neighbor at 30 Van S. This project and its corresponding legislative amendment have received broad community support including from the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association and many partners in labor. The supervisor would like to thank planning staff for their diligent work on this project and the legislative item. Planning staff and the one oaked project team are here if you have questions best directed at them. Thank you chair that concludes my presentation.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you miss Tam.

[Joseph Saatchi (SF Planning Department)]: Good afternoon supervisors joseph saki planning department staff after hearing this item on March 19 the planning commission voted five to one to adopt a recommendation for approval this concludes the commission report and I'm available for any questions

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you that's it for the planning department right miss Flores Newna okay supervisor Chen. Thank

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: you chair Melgar I support housing and I think this location is ideal for new housing development and it' well served by public transit and also primarily an empty lot in the area of high rise buildings. But it's not a perfect project, however. There's absolutely some trade offs. I can say that I'm not disappointed that we would be losing the All Star Cafe, the nicest, most pleasant people working behind the little counter. I want to urge the developer to work closely with the All Star Cafe to provide a relocation plan and assistance. I'm also disappointed by the developer. It's opting to fee out for affordable housing for the proposed five forty one residential units. I strongly believe that it is better for our city to have on-site affordable housing with real mixed income communities. At the very least, the city can, with real mixed income communities, we can leverage. But, at the very least, the city can still leverage the $24,000,000 in fees for off-site 100% affordable projects. I'm also curious that I understand the site is also subjected to the recent changes to the market and OTIVI plan fees. Can someone from the planning department or OEWD tell me that what is the actual financial benefits to this project from that fee reductions? And I also know that this matter before us, it's a zoning map amendment to increase the allowed height for the podium of the project. And I will be voting in supportive.

[Joseph Saatchi (SF Planning Department)]: Hi, Commissioner. Could you perhaps repose your question regarding

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: the Yeah, the question is, I understand that this site, it's also part of the recent changes to the market and OTIVIA plan fees. That was a fee reduction for impact fees. So do we know actually how much financial benefit of this project actually benefited from the fee reduction, the impact fee reductions?

[Joseph Saatchi (SF Planning Department)]: In terms of the precise calculations of what the difference between the previous fees would be and now, I can find those numbers. I don't have them immediately at hand. But I think just generally, the legislation was adopted for the overall project feasibility. If the fees were still applicable, it would go to infrastructure and other kind of capital improvements in the immediate area.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Great, thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you. I don't see anyone else on the roster. I will say that this project has been around for a very, very long time. I think I voted on the first iteration many years ago when I was on the planning commission. And here we are still without a project. So hopefully, this will get moving. I also share your fondness for our little donut shop that also makes great sandwiches. There are so few affordable options in this neighborhood. And I know that a lot of city workers actually rely on this little place. So I agree. But I'm glad that this is going. So with that, Mr. Clerk, let's go to public comment on this item, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Land Use and Transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number one, planning codes, map changes for the 1 Oak Street project. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern at this time, and I'll start your timer.

[Rudy Gonzalez]: Thank you, mister clerk, madam chair, and members of the committee. Rudy Gonzales with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. We're really talking about taking the the abstract and what's on paper, which I think frustratingly we we've experienced. Right? We have over 70,000 units of entitled housing in the pipeline, and we're always talking. I know I've I've spoken with each of you individually about this in your districts and citywide. This gives us a real opportunity, not just for this project. You're gonna hear, I think, from my from my colleagues about the workforce development opportunities and the revenue opportunities and all the great things that come along with this kind of investment in our city. But I wanna draw your attention to mid market. I think it's really important that supervisor Dorsey's office is here and supports this. We certainly have seen underutilized ground floor retail space in the mid market corridor. Even Spurs' location was something of a matter of contention with this body because we're really focused on what's happening or not happening in this mid market corridor. It's absolutely essential. It's transit oriented, which I know is also on your agenda later. But this is a key area, and the investment at this scale will not only produce the benefits associated with this one project, but this is the type of project that will make dirt fly up and down that corridor. So we have other projects in the work that are all watching to see what's the Emerald Fund gonna do? What are the trades gonna do? What's city hall gonna do? So this vote is important for this project, but it's also very symbolic in terms of how the city is going to take action with urgency in the mid market span. Respectfully urge you to uphold the planning commission's report and and recommendation, and please help us move the project forward. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Jay Anthony Manjivar]: Good afternoon, members of the San Francisco Land and Transportation Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jay Anthony Manjivar, and I'm an organizer with the Norco State's Carpenters Local Union twenty two here in the beautiful city of San Francisco. I'm speaking today on behalf of my brothers and sisters who live and work in this city in strong support of 50 Hundred Market Street Housing Development, 1 Oak. I was born and raised in San Francisco and continue to reside here. It is only since I became an organizer that I realized a successful career as a union carpenter in San Francisco or anywhere for that matter relies a lot on good stewards. We're all good stewards of development here and recognize that the quality and standards we want to achieve can only be delivered with a union general contractor. Emerald Fund Incorporated committed to using union labor on this project is critical. That commitment directly translates into creating good union jobs for San Francisco, including opportunities for women and minorities to begin or continue their career in the construction industry. For our members, this means strong wages, family supporting benefits, and career pathways that sustain households and build the next general generation of skilled carpenters all while delivering the highest standards of safety and craftsmanship. The housing development represents a meaningful step towards economic recovery and revitalization. Emerald Fund Incorporated have demonstrated from the outset a commitment to doing the right thing by working collaboratively with organized labor. There are plenty of local developers who are unwilling to make this commitment. On behalf of the Norco State Carpenters Local Union twenty two, I respectfully urge the commission to support and approve the proposed housing development at 1500 Mark Street. Thank you for your time.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Joe Sanders]: Good afternoon, chair and supervisors. My name is Joe Sanders. I'm a representative with district Council sixteen, Painters and Drywall Finishers Local nine thirteen, and I'm here today with the building trades. We're here to support the One Oak project and ask you to move it forward. This project has been in the system for a long time. It's gone through environmental review. It's been approved here before. It's been revised. At a certain point, we've gotta ask, when do we actually build? San Francisco talks a lot about the housing crisis, but part of the problem isn't just what we approve, it's what actually gets built. There are a lot of projects sitting on paper right now. One Oak is ready. It's in the right place, right on top of transit, and brings hundreds of new homes. If a project like this can't move forward after all this time, then it's hard to say what can. We need to start showing that when a project goes through the process and meets the rules, it can actually happen. We respectfully ask you to support the planning commission and move forward this project. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Walter Oriana]: Chair, members. My name is Walter Oriana. I'm with, local three hundred Blasters and Cement Mesa's local three hundred. And I am here to if you allow me one second. I just wanna speak to the bigger picture right now. One oak has been worked on for years. It's been reviewed, changed, approved, and still not built. We see this a lot in San Francisco. Projects go through the process, but they never but they don't get to the finish line. That creates a lot of uncertainty for developers, for the city, especially for workers. Because of us, these projects aren't obstruct. Their jobs, their careers, that whether people can stay here and make a living. At some point, the process, has to be something. If a project doesn't what it's supposed to do, it should be able to move forward. This is one of the moments where the city can show that approvals matter and the projects can actually get built. We ask you to support this planning commission the planning commission and move this forward. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for comments. Next speaker, please.

[Israel Vargas]: Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Israel Vargas. I'm a representative with plasters and cement masons local three hundred. We see this as an opportunity to make a good idea feasible and translate that into opportunity for workers. Workers who can feed their families throughout this project. Workers who need affordable housing. Please support this project and move forward. Hey. The planning commission agreed with us. We hope you will too. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Mark Gleason]: Afternoon supervisors mark gleason speaking on behalf of the teamsters were very proud to be part of the building construction trades council our members of course deliver the concrete and other supplies these developments are very important and of course constructing homes for San Franciscans to remain here in the city and remain with good paying jobs is very important. Again we very much support you moving forward with this recommendation thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments next speaker please.

[Eddie Reyes]: Good afternoon chair and committee members my name is eddie reyes president of ironworkers local three seventy seven here in San Francisco we support one oak because it's exactly the kind of project the city has been planning for this site market in Van Ness is one of the biggest transit hubs in San Francisco If we're serious about building transit near housing near transit this is where it should happen. The city has spent years putting these plans in place zoning density all of it. This project follows those rules. It's not asking for something outside the system, it's what the system has designed to produce. So the question here isn't whether this is the right place, it clearly is. The question is whether we're going to follow through on the plans we've already adopted. From our perspective, this is exactly the kind of project we should be moving forward with. We ask you to support the Planning Commission and let this one move forward. Thank you for your time.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Sean Whitfield]: Good afternoon, members of the Land Use and Transportation Committee. My name is Sean Whitfield. I'm an assistant portfolio manager for Washington Capital, a 100% employee owned investment manager representing mostly union building trade pension funds. I'm a former resident of San Francisco and currently office in the Financial District here in the city. Our firm invests in and finances commercial real estate projects throughout the country. Have been extremely active in Northern California and San Francisco specifically over the last twenty plus years. Since 2002, our funds have been involved in 13 large projects in Northern California, with five of them in San Francisco. Using very rough wage assumptions and hard cost breakdown, we estimate that these projects have created over 4,000,000 labor hours for our union clients. Our firm manages the fund that owns the 1 Oak Street project, and we've been working with Emerald Fund and SEB since 2023 to re entitle it for more density. The team has done an excellent job balancing form and function to create a project that would provide up to five forty one units of much needed housing to the city. In my prior life, I worked for a large union contractor as a project manager and superintendent and saw firsthand the positive impact that a project like this can have on the men and women of the building trades and the neighborhood at large, bringing short term and long term jobs to the project and the neighborhood. My ask today is that you support the expansion of this project as proposed. Supporting one Oak is not only adding more much needed housing on an underutilized site, it is also supporting union workers here in the Bay Area and investments in union funds. Thank you and your staff for your time and thoughtful consideration of this project.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker please.

[Brandon Bracamonte]: Good afternoon, supervisors. I'm Brandon Bracamonte with Sprinkler Fitters Local four eighty three, and I'm also a delegate with the San Francisco Building Trades. We support One Oak because, for us, this is about jobs and it's about housing. This project means real work, union jobs, apprentices getting hours, people being able to stay in the industry, and also stay in the city. Right now, a lot of projects aren't moving. And when projects stall, that hits work working people first. It means fewer opportunities, fewer paychecks, and a lot of uncertainty. At the same time, we all know we need more housing. Projects like this do both. They create jobs now and housing for the long term. And just as important, moving this forward sends a signal to San Francisco sends a signal that San Francisco is still a place where things can get built. That matters for workers, for the industry, and for the city's recovery. We ask you to please move this project forward. Thank you guys for your time.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[John Corso]: Thank you. My name is John Corso. I'm a business representative for the plumbers and steamfitters, Local thirty eight here in the city, as well as as our union hall being across the street from the proposed project. You know, a project like this, it creates jobs not just for construction workers. It creates jobs, you know, prior to construction, during construction, and after construction. If we're creating jobs and we're creating housing in San Francisco at a spot like that, Local thirty eight is asking you to move move this project forward. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for comments. Next speaker, please.

[Alex Landsberg]: Good afternoon, members. Alex Landsberg, research and advocacy director with the electrical industry. I want to associate myself with all the comments that you've heard before. I don't think there's any point in my repeating them. I do want to underscore a couple points we heard from a bunch of different trade people talking about the importance of this project and I think part of what I hope you can take from this moment is that getting a project like this out of the ground takes an extraordinary amount of coordination and cooperation between a variety of different skilled trades. So we see carpenters here they comprise a third of the hours we see electrical plumbing We don't see sheet metal, but ironworkers, sprinkler fitters. That's about another 35%, 40% of the hours, and then with the balance being the other building trades affiliates. But what this shows is just really the importance of keeping everything in our minds as a complete package. When projects like this move forward they do create tremendous amount of opportunities, they create apprenticeship opportunities as we heard, and they allow a diverse economic ecosystem to continue to thrive here in San Francisco. So I am certain you will be supporting this, and I look forward to seeing this come out of the ground. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker please.

[David Ku]: Hello members. My name is David Ku. I'm a resident of Lower Haight. I've lived in San Francisco for the past five years and just wanted to advocate for this project at Van Essen Market. I'm also a trained landscape architect and urban designer, and I think this is a perfect area to add high density housing next to public transportation. So I wanted to just advocate for this project. Thank you very much.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number one? Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Thank you, everyone who came to provide public comment on this really important project. I would like to make the motion to send this item out of committee to the full board with a positive recommendation

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: on the motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be recommended to the board of supervisors vice chair Chen

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: aye

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: member makamood aye. Chair Melgar.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar aye. Madam chair there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: That motion passes thank you. Let's go to item number two please mister clerk.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number two is an ordinance amending the administrative code to authorize the san francisco municipal transportation agency to establish a curbside electric vehicle charging station permit program for the installation and operation of curbside electric vehicle charging stations on city sidewalks and provide that permittees are not required to obtain a sidewalk encroachment permit from the department of public works. The ordinance also amends the public works code to reflect the authority of the San Francisco municipal transportation agency to issue permits for the curbside electric vehicle charging Station program, and also affirms the Planning Department's CEQA determination.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you. We have Ms. Kate Turian here from MTA, who will give the presentation.

[Kate Toran]: Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, Vice Chair Chen, Supervisor of Mahmood. I am Kate Torren, the Director of the Taxis Access and Mobility Services Team for the SFMTA. And, I'm here with my colleague, Broderick Paolo, who's the lead transportation planner on the curbside electric vehicle charging pilot. And, we were last before you in December with a report out on the curbside Electric Vehicle Feasibility Study, and an update on the EV charging pilot. Today, we're pleased to be before you as we head into Climate Week. And we're here to provide a brief presentation and to request your approval to authorize the SFMTA to establish the long term curbside EV charging program. I want to highlight that this is a collaborative effort across the city family. We work very closely with Public Works, the San Francisco Environment Department, the Public Utilities Commission, Office of Disability and Accessibility. This is a priority for the mayor and President Mandelman who have co sponsored this legislation. And as a team effort, we're building on existing experience, lessons learned, and a motivated and committed team. And we're excited to be part of the climate change solution. So, in summary, today we're asking for you to amend the administrative code to authorize the SFMTA to establish the permanent curbside electric vehicle, or EV, charging program, to authorize the SFMTA to issue permits to allow installation and operation of curbside EV charging stations on city sidewalks, and to waive the requirement for an encroachment permit from public works, which will be replaced, if approved, with the MTA issuance of site permits. There have been a few additional proposed amendments to the ordinance, and I've included a couple slides at the end of the presentation so we can walk through those as well. The Curbside Electric Vehicle Charging Program is one important part of SFMTA's larger vision of supporting the economy and combating climate change by offering low emission public transit on our muni system, and supporting the resiliency of the city's infrastructure as we transition to zero emission vehicles. With Muni, looking at the big picture, while the transportation sector is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in California, We are very proud that the Muni runs the greenest fleet in North America, and emits less than 2% of transportation sector emissions in San Francisco. Parking garages. So, in addition to creating this permit program, the SFMTA also has electric vehicle charging in our off street parking garages. We currently have 110 EV parking stalls that are serviced by 55 dual port level two chargers. And so this curbside program will be in addition to these chargers. And then we're also happy to be part of a grant that was successfully will be was successfully achieved by the city administrator's office to help transition the city's non revenue vehicle fleet towards zero emission vehicles. And MTA is part of that. And we will be transitioning, adding 140 chargers that will be installed in muni facilities. So, and now I'm going to ask Broderick Paolo to do the next few slides. Thank you.

[Broderick Paolo]: Thank you, Director Torren. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Broderick Paolo. I'm a planner in the parking and curb management group at MTA, and I've been serving as the project manager for the pilot program. I'll begin by saying to reach our goals, we must ensure the right charging infrastructure is in place. Today, we have about 1,300 chargers publicly available in San Francisco, which leaves room to install four fifty more chargers to reach our 2,030 goals. And I'm happy to say that MTA has two fifty level two chargers coming down the pipeline to be installed in our garages. This will make a significant contribution to reaching our 2,030 goals. So this is where curbside charging can fill the gap. It offers the closest option to an at home charging experience for the many of San Franciscans who rent or live in multifamily unit housing without dedicated parking. We're aiming to install about 100 of these curbside chargers. Of course, this is a floor and not a ceiling. The program will continue to monitor demand and adjust accordingly. Curbside will just be one small piece of the puzzle to increase charging access throughout the city. A robust network must also include home, workplace, fleet, and fast charging hubs. This body of work is guided by the city's clean transportation commitments in the climate action plan as well as the EV road map. Our vision is simple. Supporting the city's zero emission goals improves air quality for everyone who lives, works, and moves through San Francisco. How did we get to where we are today? Well, we started off with a feasibility study to explore whether it was feasible from an operational, financial, and regulatory perspective to install, maintain, and operate a public facing charging network at the curb. This study identified the risks and opportunities of operating a curbside network and identified practical solutions and recommendations to help advance the network beyond the current pilot phase. Then came our 2024 technology agnostic pilot program. The pilot allowed us to test a variety of curbside charging models at a handful of locations to inform the development and design of the future permanent program. All this said, let us not forget, as a transit first city, we prioritize walking, biking, rolling, and taking transit. But at the same time, and coming from the on street parking group, we recognize cars to be a major component of our transportation system, keeping in mind that many residents, commuters, and visitors rely on vehicles. So where vehicles are necessary, we aim to support zero emission options to foster our vision for a future filled with clean air and a stable climate. All righty. To share a few lessons learned from the pilot, I'll start by saying site selection is challenging as providers need to consider curb use, accessibility requirements, power connection, and community readiness. We also experienced hurdles with the electrical grid in terms of access and overall readiness. Community engagement remains vital to ensure these chargers align with the neighborhood's transportation priorities. Of course, we want to build public trust through this program by planning with the community and not having the community reacting to our planning. We've been able to test three different charging models with our three approved pilot vendors. First, we have It's Electric, which uses a bring your own cord model and taps into a fronting property's power. This site is going to celebrate its one year birthday this month. Urban EV uses a pedestal charger by establishing a new utility connection with PG and E. Last month, the SFMTA board approved installing five of these chargers in the dock patch. And finally, we have VoltPost, which mounts charging hardware to existing utility poles. They are continuing to work with both utilities, PG and E and SFPUC, to assess technical feasibility. I'll finish by noting that the program came at no cost to the city. The vendors take on full responsibility to own, install, operate, and maintain these chargers. With that, I will pass it back to Director Torren. Thank you.

[Kate Toran]: Thank you. Just a couple of specifics on the permit program. We're working to achieve efficiencies. And based on lessons learned from the charging pilot, we're working to create a legible and welcoming entry point for operators, provide clear requirements and technical support. Again, of course, building on our lessons learned. Really important for us to continue the cross agency collaboration. This is, while MTA is the lead agency here, there are other city agencies that may be issuing permits depending on the type of technology used. So helpful to maintain a supportive structure throughout the permitting process. And then we're looking to achieve efficiencies wherever possible throughout the process because it will remain complex. If approved by the Board of Supervisors, the MTA will issue the site permit. MTA will also assess the site accessibility. Designation of the EV charging stalls has delegated to the SFMTA Director of Transportation. And that will also help speed up the process and remove some of the friction. In terms of addressing the complexity with site selection, we're working on an interactive mapping tool to provide block level information regarding potential EV charging sites. So we're developing a competitive application process, again, if approved. And then MTA will approve and permit both the qualified operator and the sites. And once approved, successful operators will still need to obtain other site specific permits as needed. Hence, our supportive process and collaborative process with our partner agencies. We talked about community outreach, which is very important. And then, the operator is responsible constructing and establishing the service connection and responsible for all the costs. Here's an image showing the mapping tool. This is just intended as illustrative, but again intended to provide block level information. You can see the green areas on the maps would be areas that would be feasible, the red not feasible. And then we have some yellow, which require a little bit more review. Our key milestones and timeline. We introduced the legislation on March 10 where here oh, sorry, the MTA Board approved the permit program last week. Although it's effective only pending Board of Supervisors approval, we're here before you today asking your approval for the ordinance. And then there, again, are subsequent meetings to follow. While there has been an amendment that is intended to be introduced, we are hoping that we can still maintain the schedule as we are very keen on staying on track and launching the competitive application process this summer. This is a big picture schematic of the timeline. I'm not going to get into all the details, but happy to answer any questions here. But it's intended to show that even after the permit application launch, there are multiple and critical key steps toward implementation and other permits may be required. And I'll get into the proposed technical amendment if we're at a good point for that. So, subsequent to the ordinance being submitted and introduced, the city attorney's office has proposed a technical amendment that would clarify the MTA's authority to impose administrative penalties for violations of the permit terms, and then for installation or operation of an unpermitted electric vehicle charging station. And as I understand it from city attorney's office, these clarifications are consistent with our current practice on similar legislation. And the language for the proposed amendment from city attorney is on page six in the ordinance, in the revised ordinance. And the language is here as follows, And they're very specific to the penalty. So, in addition to any penalty established by the California Vehicle Code related to parking, the MTA may impose administrative penalties in the transportation code. That is what we have before you today. We're happy to answer any questions. And there may be other amendments, I understand.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Okay. Supervisor Chen.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Thank you chair Melgar I' pleased to see the legislation coming before this committee that has advanced San Francisco' local climate equity and public health goals. Last week we advanced the climate action plan and now we have the curbside electric vehicle charging program. This legislation, it's a crucial part of our strategy. If we are able to achieve our goal of having 25% of all registered private vehicles' electrics by 2030 and one hundred percent by 2040. I' pleased to see the focus on strategies to serve residents in multifamily buildings without garage access this is a critical need for residents who cannot charge at their residence. I hope this legislation will facilitate the permitting and installation of curbside charging in areas of the city that are currently poorly served by public ev chargers and I know my own district is one example of those. I want to thank you all, and I want to thank Supervisor Mendelman and also to SFMTA for all your work to move this legislation forward. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you, Supervisor. I had a couple questions. So going back to your presentation, you had a map of where things are feasible, not feasible, and still. Can you just explain what the methodology was for figuring out what the different colors?

[Kate Toran]: Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question. And I will say this is configurable. So this is intended to show at a high level the support we're providing. But for because as Vice Chair Chen mentioned, we're targeting the residential neighborhoods, right, that we're intending to provide that information to interested parties. And the chargers are level two. They're slower chargers than the level three. And they make more sense in a residential context. And so there are certain areas that which we have designated in the red as not feasible. And that is intended to be because of the nature of this charging program. So there would not be chargers installed in daylight zones, for example. That would not be feasible. I think that's clear. Muni stops, very clear, right? So we looked at a number of different mapping layers to make sure that, again, as we and once we publish this, we have not published it yet, but that we're guiding the applicants and interested parties to the right areas. But color curb areas is another not feasible. Bike lanes, narrow sidewalks, future separated bikeways. So those are, again, some areas intended. They have other uses, and it wouldn't make sense to have the use of an curbside EV charger. So that's the intention with the red versus the green.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Okay, thank you. Another question I had was, of the three vendors that we are currently working with for the pilot program, one of them is working with a PUC as opposed to PG and E, which I think is really excellent. And I'm wondering how that will be assessed in terms of the success of, you know, one vendor over another.

[Kate Toran]: Okay, that's a great question. And I may bring my colleague Broderick to answer. He is the lead on the pilot. But I will say at a high level, and I think this is very obvious that we all know, but I just want to state it, that access to the grid is the most important part of this. And while MTA can create the welcoming front door and the permit program, we're reliant on all of our sister agencies and the grid for access. And there are multiple ways in San Francisco to access the grid. And part of how we're thinking big picture on how to best set up the program for success is building in those lessons learned from the pilot. And I would say there are a couple of key lessons learned, And that is and key lessons that we're learning through our conversations with our colleagues at PUC. One is and I'm going to ask my colleague Broderick to say if I don't say any of this right, I'm going to ask him to correct me. But what we understand is that if you're using an existing power source, that's going to go a whole lot faster. Right? If you're existing a building, a fronting building that already has capacity, that running the conduit in establishing that charger's going to go more quickly. And then also the PUC controls the grid in redevelopment areas. And that's another key lesson learned. And we are hoping to have an overlay on our mapping tool so we can make sure vendors, applicants understand, you know, how will it be most efficient for me to run my business to get this charger installed? So we're working with PUC. We've started talking about some technical resource documents.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: So if I could just paraphrase a little bit of what you're saying. So the time factor, because we control the grid versus perhaps, you know, an outside company, might be taken into account when you're assessing, like, the length of time that it takes to get the permits and all of that.

[Kate Toran]: That's correct. And then also, the pole mounted technology. Broderick mentioned that VoltPost has proposed this pole mounted technology. And that's a little bit of a newer type of business model for And there have been a lot of lessons learned under the pilot. And so while there have been challenges with that proposed technology, it looks like we are working to create a path forward with PG and E. Sounds like PG and E has a plan for that. So there's a whole lot to it. It's very technical. And we're learning as we go and building on the knowledge in the pilot. Does that help answer?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you. Okay. I don't see anyone else on the roster. We have someone here from Supervisor President Mendelman's office who is a sponsor of this legislation. Welcome.

[Ranil Bejoy]: Hello. Ranil Bejoy, legislative aide for President Mantleman here. Our office is proposing in addition to the amendment the MTA already spoke about, our office is proposing an additional amendment to this legislation, which has already been circulated with you all. As follows, on Page three, Line 19, we'd like to add Section F. The Board of Supervisors urges the SFMTA to design and implement the Curbside EV Charging Program to discourage commercial fleet vehicle charging and maximize charging station access to private individuals in order to meet the legislative intent of providing electric vehicle charging opportunities for residents who do not have access to off street garages within their homes. So, the intent here is pretty simple. We believe it important that the benefits of these added curbside chargers through this new permitting process flow directly to the San Franciscans who need them most. So, these are the people who own EVs but rent or live in apartment buildings or multifamily buildings and all too often have no access to chargers within their home. These are the people who, for reasons of climate or affordability, would like to purchase an EV, but they can't make it work because of our city's currently existing limited curbside capacity. And these are the same people who, for years and years now, have been asking the city to expand curbside charging, first through the pilot and now through this legislation. So this amendment recognizes that fact, that truth, and urges the MTA to ensure that curbside chargers benefit the people directly instead of being co opted for commercial fleet purposes. So, with that, pending your questions, I respectfully ask you to adopt this amendment. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you, Mr. Rejoice. With that, let's go to public comment on this item, please. Mr. Clerk.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Land Use and Transportation will now hear public comment related to Agenda Item two electric vehicle curbside charging if you' public comment for this item please line up to speak along that wall and you can come forward to the lectern.

[Mark Gleason]: Afternoon again the supervisors mark gleason teamsters joint council seven and our affiliate locals we are in support of the curbside program it' going to be a great benefit for residents and working people in San Francisco who haven' had access to being able to power their evs but we also are very appreciative of the amendment that President mandeman is putting forward it addresses the concerns that we have about the conditions and indeed the practices of large global commercial companies to take advantage of some aspects of the infrastructure that we have in San Francisco but again we are very supportive of this curbside program post pilot we were supportive of it during that time as well and we hope that you look well on president manaman's amendment and we look forward to working with everyone going forward on this very wonderful project that's going to benefit residents and workers in San Francisco. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for comments do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number two? Madam chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Okay public comment on this item is now closed. Mr. Clerk, I'd like to make a motion that we amend this legislation as read into the record by Mr. Bejoy, and then send it out with a positive recommendation to the full board.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Madam Chair, just for clarification, there, I believe, were two different amendments, one that was proposed by MTA and one that was proposed by Supervisor Mendelman's office.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: I see.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Were you doing just one of those two portions?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: I see and correct it. Let's do both of them and then send it out as amended. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Deputy.

[Deputy City Attorney Brad Rossi]: Deputy City Attorney Brad Rossi, the amendments that we requested that the MTA add to the legislation are substantive. And so we'll need to continue this to next week. But to meet their schedule, of course, you could agendize it next week as a committee report for the next day's meeting.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you. Let me amend my motion to amend this legislation as read into the record by both the MTA and Mr. Bajoy. And then we continue it to the meeting of April 20.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Two motions, one of them to accept both sets of amendments, and then a second motion to continue as amended to April 20, each of those motions offered by Chair Melgar. On those motions, Vice Chair Chen, aye. Member Mahmood, aye chair Melgar aye madam chair there are three ayes

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: thank you that motion passes thank you all let's go to item number three please mr clerk

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: agenda item number three is an ordinance temporarily excluding certain sites from the provisions of California senate bill number 79 s b 79 that require local jurisdictions to allow residential uses at various densities heights in floor area ratios on sites within one half mile of a transit oriented development stop. Second, permanently excluding from those provisions of SB 79 sites located in industrial employment hubs including certain sites zoned m s a l I, p d r, w m u g, and p, and sites with a walking path of more than one mile to the closest transit development stop. Third, amending the planning code to permit additional density and height for residential projects on certain parcels within one half mile of a transit oriented development stop. Fourth, adopting an alternative plan to SB 79, including making findings that the alternate plan provides equivalent development capacity. Fifth, making findings that these exemptions and the city's residential capacity meet the requirements of s b 79. And sixth, directing the clerk of the Board of Supervisors to transmit a copy of the ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The ordinance also affirms the Planning Department's secret determination and makes other findings. Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Welcome. We have the planning department, Sarah Richardson and Josh Zawitsky, here to present, as well as Ms. Glockstein. Go ahead.

[Sarah Richardson]: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Melgar and Supervisors Mahmood and Chen. I'm Sarah Richardson, planning staff. Thank you for having us today to consider the adoption of the proposed transit oriented residential development ordinance, San Francisco's plan for implementing California state senate bill 79. This legislation was introduced by mayor Daniel Murray on February 10 and was recommended for approval with modifications by the planning commission on March 19. It is board file number 260132. We have been before you to discuss SB 79 in the context of the family zoning plan. But in today's presentation, I will still provide you with some background on SB 79. Then I will give a brief overview of the ordinance. And finally, I'll walk through the key components of the ordinance in more detail. SB 79, the abundant and affordable homes near transit act, was passed last year by the state legislature and takes effect on July 1. To create more capacity for housing near transit, it sets minimum height and density limits within 200 feet, one quarter mile, and one half mile of both existing and planned transit stops, creating concentric circles around each qualifying stop. Note that a few of the planned stops shown on this and subsequent subsequent maps, including the potential Oakdale Caltrain Station and BRT stops on Genevett Avenue, as well as a handful, a small handful of existing bus stops were previously assumed to be subject to SB 79 but are now unlikely to be included based on updated draft guidance and maps published by MTC within the past few days. Back to the basics. There are two tiers of stops. Tier one, which allows for slightly taller and denser housing, includes BART and Caltrain stops. And tier two includes Muni Metro and major bus stops, such as bus rapid transit. More than three quarters of properties in San Francisco, that's 120,000 or so parcels, fall within area subject to SB 79. SB 79 allows for cities to exempt parcels that meet certain criteria from these requirements. Some of these exemptions are temporary and others are permanent. And finally, SB 79 also allows for jurisdictions to adopt an alternative plan in place of implementing the default heights and densities required under SB 79. Here are the default densities and heights under SB 79 overlaid on the city irrespective of our existing zoning. On the left, you can see that the densities range from 160 units per acre within 200 feet of tier one stops to 80 units per acre for parcels that are between one quarter mile and one half mile from tier two stops. On the right, you can see the heights which range from nine stories adjacent to the stops to five stories further from the stops. Now this map compares the s b 79 heights with our existing height limits and denotes those differences with color. San Francisco has higher height limits downtown and along commercial corridors which you can see in the greens and blues, while SB 79 height limits are higher off corridors in residential districts which you can see in the orange and yellow. This map also shows the outline of the recently passed family zoning plan area And you can see how along neighborhood commercial corridors, our existing heights are one to four stories taller than what would be allowed under SB 79 such as along Irving Street in the sunset whereas in the residential area surrounding it, our existing heights are one to two stories lower. This means that under the default SB 79 heights, the areas in orange and yellow would increase in height. I should note that in many places, SB 79 does not necessarily allow more units or more developable floor area on these parcels than our zoning allows. It sometimes just allows more height. Now to the proposed ordinance before you. It has four primary parts. It permanently excludes three industrial employment hubs from being subject to SB 79. It temporarily exempts low resource, some low resource census tracks. It amends the planning code exception to article two. And finally, it adopts an alternative plan under s b 79 including demonstrating the housing capacity to qualify. Now I will discuss each of these components in a little more detail. SB 79 allows the permanent exclusion of parcels that meet certain conditions. The first is if the parcel is in an industrial employment hub. These hubs must be zoned and identified in our general plan to be for industrial and employment uses, not generally permit housing, be contiguous, and be over 250 acres. There are three of these in San Francisco as shown in shaded pink on this map, in the South Of Market And Mission, Bayshore And Central Waterfront, and Bayview neighborhoods. Collectively, the industrial employment hubs consist of just below 2,000 parcels. These parcels will not be subject to the provisions of SB 79 and this reflects existing zoning and general plan policies and helps to preserve the types of businesses and core city functions that operate there that operate there, the jobs they support, and the economic diversity they bring to the city. The second condition that qualifies for a permanent exclusion is if parcels are more than a mile walk from a qualifying transit stop, but that does not apply in San Francisco. An exclusion means that the parcels there do not count in the baseline against our alternative plan requirements. However, by making these permanent exclusions from SB 79, it does not in any way permanently freeze zoning and land use policy in these areas and says nothing about the future local land use decisions or zoning in these areas including related to housing and other uses. SB 79 also allows for a few temporary exemptions as listed here. The legislation before you includes a temporary exemption for parcels and census tracts that the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee or TCAC identified as low resource, but just those that are in Mission Bay and South Of 16th Street. Additionally, as is reflected in this map, a proposed amendment before you would also include the low resource tracks that overlap with the proposed industrial employment hub North Of 16th Street. This means that the parcels in industrial employment hubs that are also in low resource tracks would appear on both exemption lists. The low resource areas are in purple here and include approximately 32,000 parcels. They will be temporarily exempted from the from the provisions of s 79 until one year after our next housing element is adopted in 2032. This gives the city additional time to plan for increased housing capacity in these areas and to clarify the relationship of SB 79 to redevelopment areas and potential transit stops. It also allows the city to conduct more deliberate planning policy discussions, enable community conversations about the future of these areas, and provides additional time to work with HCD around certain unclear provisions of the law. The other temporary exemptions for parcels allowed in the law aren't necessary for us to invoke because the ordinance pursues an alternative plan. There are three main requirements for pursuing an alternative plan in place of the default s b 79 heights and densities. The first is that the total net capacity of existing heights and densities in aggregate across all of the alternative plan area, which in our case is the entire city, is greater than what would be allowed under s B 79. This requirement is met primarily due to the recently passed family zoning plan which added a whole lot of additional capacity for housing on the north, central, and western sides of the city. The other two requirements say that to qualify, each parcel within the S B 79 geography and each aggregate station area must allow at least 50% of the density allowed under SB 79. Our existing zoning doesn't quite meet those requirements. There are approximately 2,000 parcels in color on this map in the east and south sides of the city that would need to allow additional density. Most of the colored parcels are orange indicating that they would need to allow just one additional unit from what is allowed today. As the parcel gets larger, the increase in units is higher. This map also shows the temporarily exempted low income census tracts in purple. The parcels shown in low resource areas, approximately half of the 2,000 parcels would not need to meet this requirement, this density requirement until 2032 because those areas are being exempted from s b 79 and the alternative plan until then. To meet those last two requirements of a citywide alternative plan, the proposed ordinance includes a planning code amendment. It adds a new density and height exception to article two, section two zero seven eleven that permits additional density and height for residential projects on parcels within one half mile of a qualifying transit stop. Up to 50% of the density permitted under SB 79 and on the few parcels in these areas with a height limit that's less than 40 feet, it would allow 40 feet. The parcels must meet several criteria including but not limited to, they must be in a zoning district that principally permits housing. They not within the family zoning plan area, not seeking a density bonus, and not on a parcel with a listed historic building whether it is individually listed or landmarked or contributory. With this planning code amendment, the entire city would qualify for an alternative plan. Taking this into account with the permanent and temporary exemptions, the total housing capacity and density in San Francisco is greater than what would be allowed by S B 79 by about 170,000 net units and 230,000,000 net square feet of floor area. Note that S B 79 does not allow the counting of all the zone capacity in this area and caps each parcel at twice what SB 79 allows. If all of San Francisco's zone capacity was counted in these areas, it would exceed SB 79 by almost 400,000 units. So this means that no parcel in the city will be subject to the default SB 79 heights and densities. A small number of parcels will be eligible for a new density exception for up to 50% of the density allowed under SB 79, all outside the family zoning plan area this will create another way for properties to build four to six units in r h districts outside the family or in r h districts outside the family zoning plan area This does not change what the underlying zoning requires such as with unit mixes. In 2032, the temporary exemption for low resource tracks will expire and additional parcels will be subject to the 50% density requirement. And the alternative plan nor the exemptions prevent the city from making future zoning and land use policies in these areas including related to housing. There's been some misinformed public comment and advocacy about this. This is strictly about the application of SB 79 in the near term. By providing the options for the alternative plan and other exclusions in SB 79, the state legislature affirmatively recognized that certain major changes in land use policy should not be forced on cities on July 1 or anytime thereafter as a result of s b 79. Generally, the proposed ordinance prevents s b 79 from overriding local zoning in the immediate term and leaves the city in control to to undertake whatever land use and zoning discussions it wants to have in the future with an appropriate timeline and desired terms, including by conducting community planning processes with due diligence. Without this ordinance, all of the parcels that you see here in blue would increase in height limit under the default SB 79 height limit. Though I should note that while SB 79 allows taller buildings in these areas, it does not necessarily allow more units than our zoning allows in these areas. Still with this ordinance in the near term, the only parcels that may increase in density, generally not height, will be those in orange on this map on the right. So as a recap, the ordinance before you permanently excludes the three industrial employment hubs, temporarily exempts low resource census tracts South Of 16th Street and in Mission Bay, amends the planning code to allow for additional density up to 50% of the density allowed under SB 79, and adopts an alternative plan including demonstrating residential capacity to qualify. The planning commission recommended approval with modifications. The modification is to fix the typographical error in the ordinance and long title that states that one of the zoning districts in the industrial employment hub area is West SOMA Mixed Use General or when it should be West SOMA Mixed Use Office. Additionally, the other proposed amendments include updating the parcel tables to add parcels that are both in excluded industrial districts and the low resource census tracts to the list of temporary exclusions for low resource parcels. Currently, those parcels are only listed in the industrial exclusion list even though both circumstances apply. And also another amendment is to duplicate the file and hold the duplicate at land use and adding a note in the ordinance's findings section of the duplicated file that the that review of the ordinance by HCD is ongoing. Here's a link to the planning department's web page about the legislation. I should also note that the department has conducted public webinars, met with community and neighborhood groups, and sent newsletters to explain the implementation of SB 79 and this proposed ordinance. In the past week or so, the department has received additional feedback including from new organizations and we will be following up with them before the board hearing. That concludes our presentation and we're happy to answer questions.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you, Ms. Richardson. I normally let my colleagues go first, but on this one, I'm just going to say a couple things, and then ask a couple questions before I turn it over to Supervisor Mahmood. So if you could come back, Ms. Richardson, or I don't know who's going to answer questions. In the last week, I've heard a lot from folks about this. But people seem to have forgotten that we had this conversation when we were having the discussions around the family zoning plan pretty extensively. And the framework of the exclusion of the priority equity geographies and how we were thinking about density and where to add density. And we talked extensively about SB79, the map of the parcels that SB79 applied to. I made Mr. Subitsky submit that during the family zoning plan discussions, much to his chagrin because I was pushing him to do it before. But we had it. And it definitely weighed our discussions around the family zoning plan. So I just want to remind us all that we've all been here before. But my question specifically to you was about CEQA. So right now, CEQA doesn't apply to the current implementation of the rezoning that we're looking at today. But if we were going to do something else, if we were going to change this, we'd have to use CEQA?

[Josh Switzky]: Josh Liswitski with Planning Staff. The short answer is no. SB 79 itself provides a CEQA exemption for any local ordinance that changes zoning within the bounds of what SB79 provides for. So, any of the heights, densities, or land use provisions in SB79, a local ordinance would not be subject to CEQA if it was doing those things. So whether we're doing it now, or in the future, to change any of this, or any other zoning, in SB79 areas, yeah, anything within the prescriptions of the heights and densities and land use provisions of SB seven nine would not be subject to CEQA.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Okay. I have another technical question that perhaps only you can answer. And that is, I noticed concentration of parcels along Guerrero Avenue in District 8. And I know that my colleague I don't want to put words in his mouth because he's not here, obviously. But he's gone to great lengths. And we've had lots of discussions about him. And he's put forward lots of legislation against what he perceived as this trend towards McMansions in his district, not necessarily on Guerrero, a little bit farther up the hill. But he's done a lot of work on special use districts to just prevent people from going higher and taking up more bulk without adding units. Can you tell me what the height would be along Guerrero Avenue if we didn't do this?

[Josh Switzky]: If we didn't pass this ordinance?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Correct.

[Josh Switzky]: Let's flip back to the map. Me just get my glasses out. This is the first time I've worn this in public.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: So as I see it, it would

[Josh Switzky]: Yeah,

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: be

[Josh Switzky]: 60 it appears to five or Well, varies, but generally speaking, it would probably be 65 feet.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Yeah, okay.

[Josh Switzky]: And I should just note that the, as Sarah mentioned, all of the zoning prescriptions, whether it be the large home limits and all those things, continue to apply.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: But I don't think there's a large home

[Josh Switzky]: SB79 itself does not have any such limitation.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Okay, thank you so much. Supervisor Mahmood.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Thank you all for the presentation, and I have a series of questions about just the context of the intention of SB 79 and how this relates to this ordinance that we're passing to, I guess, some exemptions. I think just to clarify again, if we this ordinance is not required, correct?

[Josh Switzky]: No. Cities don't necessarily have to pass an ordinance if they don't so choose.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Understood. I know Chair Melgar mentioned about how some of the intention, I think, of this ordinance was kind of exempting some priority equity geographies that we talked about during the family zoning plan is, I think, what we just heard. But it looks like this exemption would have lower heights pretty much all across the city than what SB79 authorizes and should go into effect. So why are we trying to do that all across the city?

[Josh Switzky]: Heights would not be lower across the city. As you can see on the map, there's different shading. Our zoning is higher in many areas, and SB 79 is higher in many areas. Again, that is just height. That is not necessarily density or housing capacity.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: So height, so basically you're saying that, yeah, the yellow, about 25

[Josh Switzky]: Yellow is, yeah, one foot to two, yeah, basically one to two stories, generally.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: So why do that?

[Josh Switzky]: The city has spent a long time, whether it's the family zoning plan or other plans that preceded it, deliberating on what the city supervisors felt were the appropriate heights and densities in these areas. And a lot of legislative and public time has been spent over the past couple decades sorting this all out. And certainly, mayor's office in putting forward this ordinance and the planning department feel that, you know, honoring the work that's been done by the hard work by our legislature and the public to craft the zoning across the city that more than meets the obligations of SB 79, as you heard, by several 100,000 units that we ought to let our existing zoning continue to be the law of the land, and if the board so chooses to change it, the board can change our zoning moving forward.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: We're currently under litigation for multiple lawsuits saying we don't do enough to meet the requirements of the housing element. My understanding is this would put us basically at the minimum allowed by state law, so why shouldn't we be going a little bit above?

[Josh Switzky]: No, this is not the minimum. As we stated, our local zoning exceeds SB79 requirements by hundreds of thousands of units.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Okay. Talking about the why are we precluding housing from being built in the industrial employment hubs? It sounds like that's the exemption that the state provides, correct?

[Josh Switzky]: That is one of the exemptions, yes.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: It's noted, I think, some of the community advocates had noted to us that in the Western SOMA Industrial hub, the mixed office use zone actually allows for ADUs pursuant to the city's local ADU ordinance. And the Service Arts And Light Industrial District also allows ADUs under the local ordinance plus 100% affordable housing projects. So that seems to maybe but those also are within the industrial employment hub regions as well. Has the city sought the opinion of HCD as to whether these parcels in these districts are eligible for withdrawal or not?

[Josh Switzky]: ADUs are not principally permitted where housing is not principally permitted. ADUs are only allowed to the extent that there is existing housing on those parcels. So you could not build an ADU on a property in those districts that didn't already have housing on it.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Even those zoned to allow for it?

[Josh Switzky]: Yes, you can't have an accessory dwelling unit if you don't have a primary dwelling unit.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: There's also an allowance for plus 100% affordable housing projects.

[Josh Switzky]: In the Sallie District, affordable housing is not principally permitted none of these districts principally permit housing of any kind, which is a requirement of the bill. It is true that 100% affordable housing is can be discretionarily conditionally permitted in the Sally, but we believe in our close reading of the law is that law is talking about principally permitted uses.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Okay.

[Josh Switzky]: There are multiple confusing references in the law that you have to dig down, we believe it is talking about principal permitted uses.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Understood. I think I'll just raise again the closing components. I know you're saying this is over 100,000 beyond capacity. But I think there's still concerns that the family zoning plan may not meet the necessary components of our housing element. And so I think there's a potential, I think I've heard from activists, that we may need to consider to re review whether these limits are going to be holding us back from being flexible in meeting our goals. And so my hope would be that we can at least duplicate the file to ensure that we can continue to have those conversations and iron out some of what those discrepancies might be.

[Josh Switzky]: Yeah, we would agree with that. There's nothing preventing the board from taking up other zoning changes in the future.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Okay, thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you. Yes, we can always do better. I'll just point out that we're being sued by both sides. Supervisor Chen.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen]: Thank you, Chair Melgar. Just want to share when SB 79 was introduced, this board engaged it in substantive discussions about the impact of the legislation and the need to adopt safeguards. I believe all of us on the board want to support transit oriented development done the right way. I believe then and I continue to believe that the transit oriented development can be beneficial. It reduces commutes, lower carbon emissions, and reduces reliance on cars. I also believe that we should be incentivizing development in areas that can absorb it without causing harm, such as area with robust existing infrastructures and less displacement risk. For neighborhoods facing displacement, we must prioritize anti displacement strategies, robust tenant protections, protection for our stock of rent controlled housing, and significant investment in truly affordable housing, I recognize that crafting this legislation has been a complex task and appreciate the work of the department. Thank you. In crafting this ordinance, the department has utilized all the lawful provisions available in SB 79 to achieve this goal, including the permanent and temporary exclusions and exemption that at least until 2032 and I will be voting in support of this legislation today and thank you for the work.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Thank you so much. With that let' go to public comment on this item please mr. Clerk.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Land use and transportation will now take public comment related to agenda item number three, transit oriented residential development. If you have public comment for this item, please line up to speak along that western wall and come forward to the lectern. You're the first speaker.

[Zach Weisenberger]: Afternoon, supervisors. Zach Weisenberger with Young Community Developers. I am speaking in support of the SB 79 implementation ordinance before you today. When SB 79 was introduced in the state legislature, we opposed the bill due to its concentrated impacts in low income communities of color, disproportionately affecting residents who rely on public transit and are already vulnerable to displacement. As San Francisco's housing element documents, between 02/2020, approximately 85% of new housing production occurred in just a handful of low income neighborhoods on the city's East Side. And without intervention, SB 79 will continue and accelerate this pattern. That outcome would directly contradict our housing element's core AFFH obligation to ensure an equitable distribution of growth across all neighborhoods. However, the legislation before you today is SF's implementation ordinance, and that distinction is critical. If we don't pass this legislation, SB 79 will override local zoning across much of the city. This ordinance allows San Francisco to take back some control by applying clear guardrails that limit the limit the continuation of past inequities. In particular, the ordinance's exemptions for PDR zones are essential. These areas provide critical blue collar job opportunities for working class communities, immigrants, and communities of color, and are spaces the city has been steadily losing for decades. Earlier versions of s p 79 would have allowed these industrial employment hubs to be converted to housing. As the legislation moved through the state legislature, we engaged with the bill's sponsor and secured amendments allowing cities to exempt these job centers. Strong local protections for PDR remain essential to maintaining economic diversity and preventing displacement of working class jobs. Without this implementation ordinance, SF would be exposed to the full force of SB 79, including increased pressure to convert remaining PDR space to housing and further concentration of market rate development in vulnerable communities. At a time when the city is already grappling with the long term loss of industrial land and middle income job pathways, it is critical that we preserve what we have. For these reasons, we urge your support today. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker please.

[Sean Aukland]: Good afternoon supervisors. My name is Sean Aukland. I'm on the board of SOMA West neighborhood association. Our association represents the neighborhood running from fifth street all the way to Van Ness Market to Townsend yet we receive zero of the community outreach that was described here today we strongly urge you to reject the proposed sb 79 alternative plan unless section three is completely removed section three permanently exempts transit rich corridors in our neighborhood from Sb 79 making mixed income housing effectively illegal and we stand with the m b s f and grow s f that have both taken the same position. For some of us this legislation is a tool for economic suppression we need more residents to create street safety support local retail and prevent the conditions that lead to open drug use and encampments as highlighted in recent s f chronicle coverage they called this provision the preservation of blight our neighborhood is actively asking for more market rate housing instead the city' methodology blocks mixed income housing by claiming a site is an industrial employment hub by the way many of those parcels are vacant and boarded up while simultaneously allowing shelters and 100% affordable housing on that exact same parcel this is it this zoning does not preserve a thriving industrial base it preserves blight from the nineteen ninety' s Because of these ongoing exclusionary practices, we currently have an active fair housing complaint pending with HCD. Furthermore, I would just point out that designating WMUO, Western so a mixed use office parcels as permanently exempt because they are industrial I think is silly because of the name itself. Classifying those is also regulatory bad faith. We need mixed income housing near Civic Center Station we ask you to remove section three and work with supervisor dorsey to implement s b 79 early in soma our tax receipt data just showed negative 50% for Soma and plus 25% taxes tax revenues in Mission Bay. We are struggling to grow, and we need housing to do that. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number three? Madam Chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Okay. Looks like public comment is now closed. So colleagues, thank you for engaging in this conversation. Thank you for planning staff and members of the community who weighed in. I think that some of the feedback that we heard today, and certainly I have gotten, is more about our existing zoning than about how SB79 will affect us. And I think that is something, as Mr. Sawicki commented, if folks in the community, if residents of San Francisco working with this body want to change Sally or the PDR designation or any of the underlying zoning. I think we can tackle that. But I think that that's not exactly what we're doing today. So with that, I would like to make first a motion that we make the amendment to fix the clerical error in the ordinance and long title, replacing WMUG to WMUO, and to make the additional amendments to the parcel tables and the amendments presented by staff. So let's do that first. Mr. Clerk, let's call the roll on that.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair to make an amendment to correct the clerical error and also to make the change regarding the parcel table vice chair Chen Chen aye member Mahmood Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, aye. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that motion to amend.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Okay, thank you. And so I am cognizant. Supervisor Mahmood expressed a desire to keep working on this. And certainly, when we passed the family zoning plan, we were in constant communication with the staff at each city to make sure that we stayed in compliance and that things were being done in a way that would preserve our collective goals. So with that in mind, I would like to duplicate the file, as was requested, and make a motion to make an additional amendment to the duplicated file, which will include in the findings a reference to the state HCD. Continue working and consulting with them. Let's call the roll on that amendment.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: A motion offered by the chair that a duplicate of the file made incorporating the court with previous amendments be then amended to incorporate the change about the HCD for the review. Vice Chair Chen on that motion? Aye. Member Mahmood? Aye. Member Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Madam Chair, are three ayes on that motion to amend the duplicated file.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Okay. So now I would like to make a motion that we continue that duplicated file as amended to the call of the chair.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair that the duplicated file be continued as amended to the call of the chair. Vice Chair Chen. Chen aye. Member Mahmood aye. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar aye. Madam chair there are three ayes on that motion to continue to the call of the chair as amended.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Okay, thank you. Now, the last motion would be to continue the original file as amended to the next meeting on Monday, 04/20/2026.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair that the original file be continued as amended to 04/20/2026. Vice Chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member Mahmood? Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Malgar, aye. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that motion to continue the original file as amended to 04/20/2026.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: Okay, great. Mr. Clerk, do we have any other business on our agenda?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: There's no further Okay.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar]: We are adjourned. Thank you.