San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Good Good afternoon, everyone. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the 04/20/2026, regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I am Supervisor Myrna Melgar, chair of the committee, joined by Vice Chair Supervisor Chyanne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The committee clerk today is Mr. John Carroll. I would also like to acknowledge Jaime Ecevarie at SFCOP TV for staffing this meeting. Mister clerk, do you have any announcements?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Thank you, madam chair. Please ensure that you've 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, you can submit them directly to me. Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda. When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak along your right hand side of this room. Alternatively, you may submit public comments in writing in either of the following ways. First, you may email your comments to me at j o h n period, carroll@sfgov.org, or you may send your written comments via US 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 acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors' agenda of 04/28/2026 unless otherwise stated.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much. Mister Clerk, please call items one through 15 together.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item numbers one through 15 are 15 resolutions initiating landmark designation under article 10 of the planning code for the following properties. First, the California Masonic Memorial Temple located at 1111 To 1171 California. The Chinese telephone exchange building located at 743 Washington. Finocchio's located at 500 To 508 Broadway, the Fugazi Building located at 678 Green, the George Perrin House located at 535 Powell, The Great China Theater located at 626 To 638 Jackson. Italian excuse me. Italian Athletic Club located at 1630 Stockton. The Maybeck Building located at 1736 Stockton. Mona's candlelight located at 643 To 6 sorry, located at 463 To 473 Broadway. Nam Kueh School located at 755 Broadway. Excuse me. I'm just tripping all over it. Located at 755 Sacramento. Old First Presbyterian Church located at 1751 Sacramento. Sing Chong Building located at 615 To 625 Grant. The Transamerica Pyramid located at 600 Montgomery. The University Club located at 800 Powell, and finally, Vesuvio's Cafe Building located at 253 Columbus.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: All right. This committee would like to welcome District three Supervisor Danny Sauter. The floor is yours.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter]: Okay. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, colleagues, for welcoming me to your committee today for these items and then one more piece of business. Before you, you have more than a dozen resolutions to create new historic landmarks in District 3 across Chinatown, North Beach, Nob Hill, and Union Square. I hope these will earn your support today. They make up the first round of our family zoning plan landmarking effort, which I know you've seen go forward in other districts, and we are excited for our moment as well. These new Article 10 landmarks will bring well deserved recognition and protection to iconic buildings, including the California Masonic Memorial Temple Vesuvio Cafe, Great China Theater, and Transamerica Pyramid. Through these landmarks, we will celebrate LGBTQ plus entertainment spaces, important Italian American heritage spaces, and iconic Chinatown buildings. Many of these buildings are the sort of buildings that you look at and you would have thought already that they would have been landmarked. So we're really excited about what's in this package. They tell a story of integrity of the building and architecture, of course, but also the stories inside those walls that have helped shape San Francisco's history. And this is part of our efforts in District 3 to show that we can both celebrate and protect history and embrace the pressing needs today of housing, infrastructure, and economic development. As you look through this list, I do want to note that I'll be asking that we continue items number two and number 12 to the College Chair. I'll ask your support in that. We need a little bit more time for those particular items to engage with the building owners. That's again items two and twelve. But I'm excited to take this opportunity for everyone to learn more about these historic buildings in our district through this process. We also have Chyanne Ferguson from the Planning Department here today to speak a bit more about this round of nominations. But I hope to have your support on these resolutions. Thank you, colleagues.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Of course. Thank you, Supervisor Sauter. Welcome, Ms. Ferguson.

[Shannon Ferguson (SF Planning, Senior Preservation Planner)]: Thank you, Supervisor. Hello, my name is Shannon Ferguson, senior preservation planner and project manager of the District 3 Family Zoning Plan Landmarking. Currently, the city has three twenty individual landmarks and 14 Article 10 landmark districts, with many more individual landmarks and several new districts in process. District 3 has 77 existing individual landmarks. A few examples are indicated on this slide, and they range from the San Francisco Art Institute's beautiful Mediterranean revival architecture and the Crown Zellerbach Building's international style architecture to important neighborhood spaces like churches and libraries. Phase one of the family zoning plan landmarking focuses on existing category A properties that are non residential or are single family residences outside of public and RH zoning districts. Properties identified as potential landmarks within our cultural historic context statements have also been included. For phase two, we'll review category A properties within the RH zoning districts with the highest significance and integrity. Phase three will consist of properties posed for landmark designation through SF survey, as well as future recommendations from cultural historic context statements as they're completed.

[JR Eppler (Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association)]: And

[Shannon Ferguson (SF Planning, Senior Preservation Planner)]: finally, phase four, we'll look at the remaining survey findings of properties recommended for landmark designation. All the proposed landmarks will go through a series of public hearings with opportunities for community participation held in both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Final approval of a landmark requires a majority vote by the Board of Supervisors and the mayor. This effort is unprecedented approach to expedite landmarking for properties which we already know have cultural, historical, and architectural significance. These properties merit the highest level of city protection. And we've worked with the city attorney's office to develop abbreviated nomination forms with the necessary content. These are the landmarks in District 3 that are being proposed as part of this phase one of the family zoning plan landmarking. The city is committed to ensuring that growth associated with ambitious housing production goals is aligned with San Francisco's longstanding dedication to preserving historic places. All the proposed landmarks in District 3 are existing category eight buildings, meaning they've already been identified as historic through past surveys. All of these properties are located outside of RH districts. We initially identified 19 properties as having the highest historical significance and integrity. Four of those properties requested that they be removed from their proposed list. And this leaves us with 14 landmarks before you today 15 before you today. In summary, this effort is a concerted approach to ensure the protection of San Francisco's most precious historical resources, underscoring the city's commitment to historic preservation. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you so much, Ms. Ferguson. Let's go to public comment on this, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you madam chair land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers one through 15 called together initiating landmark designations if you have public comment for these items please come forward to the lectern now And Madam Chair, appears we have no speakers.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. I would like to make a motion that we continue items two and twelve to the call of the chair.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair that agenda item numbers two and twelve be continued to the call of the chair, Vice Chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, aye. Madam Chair, those two items may be continued to the call, Chair.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Great. So now I'd like to make a motion that we continue items one, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen to the full board with a positive recommendation.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: To recommend the balance of the items. On the motion offered by the chair to recommend the balance of the items to the Board of Supervisors, Vice Chair Chen, aye, Member Mahmood Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Aye.

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

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Great. A motion passes. Let's go to item number 16, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number 16 is a resolution supporting California state assembly bill twenty two seventy six introduced by assembly member is more of the Sorrier which will establish a statewide pilot program requiring the installation of active intelligence speed assistance drive devices for drivers convicted of severe speeding related offenses.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. Again, Supervisor Sauter.

[Supervisor Danny Sauter]: Thank you, Chair Melgar. Colleagues, next I'm asking for your support on this resolution in support of AB two thousand two and seventy six, also known as the Stop Super Speeders Act. This is a bill from Assembly Member Soria which would establish a pilot program requiring certain reckless speeders to install active intelligence speed assistance devices in their cars before returning to the road. These are devices that actively prevent a vehicle's speed from exceeding the legal speed limit. A recent pilot of a similar program in New York City is showing us the promise of this with a 64% reduction in total time spent speeding. Now under this bill, individuals who have offenses including reckless driving, engaging in speed contests, or driving more than a 100 miles per hour could be required to install such devices in their vehicle for a set period of time if they wish to drive again after being convicted. This bill also includes provisions to protect low income drivers by establishing an income based fee structure for the costs associated with installing an ISA device. This year we've already seen eight pedestrian fatalities on our streets in the first four months of the year, and it underscores the urgency in which we must act for safer streets. Local organizations like Walk SF and Family for Straits, Family for Safe Streets have been advocating hard for this bill because they know it will make a real difference. I do have amendments today which I'm presenting and I'll ask for your support on which would reflect small changes in the bill as it has moved through the Assembly. In particular, the original language when we first put forward the resolution had this as a statewide pilot program that has now been changed to include only seven counties. San Francisco is not currently one of the seven listed in the bill, but we have learned from the bill's author that they intend to add San Francisco to the list in the next phase of the Assembly Committee process. And I think this resolution would speak to the importance and the desire for San Francisco to be on the list. We've been working with Assembly Member Haney, he has been supporting that effort, as has the mayor's office. So in anticipation of that, and to reflect the changes that have already been made, I would like to amend the resolution to ensure that the language is not outdated by the time it reads the legislature. And copies of those amendments have been circulated with your offices. I want to thank this committee for your time to hear this, and also to Supervisors Mahmood, Dorsey, and Mendelman for their cosponsorship. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, Supervisor. Add my name as a cosponsor as well, please. And good job lobbying to have San Francisco included. You may remember, colleagues, that while we were meeting as a transportation authority, we discussed this bill and agreed to recommend it, if amended, to include San Francisco. So thank you so much for all that. I don't see anyone on the roster with comments or questions, so 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 number 16, a statement to position in support of Assembly Bills two thousand two and seventy six. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern at this time. And Madam Chair, it appears we have no speakers for this item.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment on this is now closed. Supervisor Mahmood?

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: File to make a motion to vote yes on the amendments as read into the record by Supervisor Sauter, and then to vote to send the item as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, Supervisor. Mr. Clark?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Two motions, both offered by Member Mahmood. The first to amend the resolution as presented by Supervisor Sauter, and the second to recommend as amended. On those motions, Vice Chair Chen? Aye member Mahmood aye chair Melgar aye melgar aye madam chair there are three ayes on those two motions

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: great the motion passes thank you let's go to item 17 please

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: agenda item number 17 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's public works. Also, amending the public works code to reflect the authority of the SFMTA to issue permits for the curbside electric vehicle charging station program, and also amending the transportation code to authorize the SFMTA to impose administrative penalties for violations of electric vehicle charging station permits. The ordinance also affirms the planning department's secret determination.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much. Colleagues, we heard this last week, and we continued it because there was substantive amendments. We don't have a presentation today. We do have Mr. Raul Ramos here from the MTA to answer any questions should they arise. But I don't see anyone with questions. So let's go to public comment on this item, please. Greg.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Land use and transportation. And I'll hear public comment related to agenda item number 17, electric vehicle curbside charging. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward now. And, Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. I would like to make a motion that we send this item out of committee to the full board with a positive recommendation. Oh, public comment is now closed. On

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: the motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be recommended to the board of supervisors, vice chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: That motion passes. Thank you. All right. Let's go to item number 18, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number 18 is an ordinance first temporarily excluding certain sites from the provisions of California Senate Bill number 79, SB 79, that require local jurisdictions to allow residential uses at various densities, heights, and 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 o, and p. And sites with a walking path of more 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 s b 79, including making findings that the alternative 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 six directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to transmit a copy of this ordinance to the California department of housing and community development and affirming the plan planning department secret determination as well as making findings of consistency with the general plan And the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1, and public necessity convenience and welfare findings under Planning Code Section three zero two.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. We continued this item from last week because it had substantive amendments. We are joined today by District six Supervisor Matt Dorsey. Before I go to you, supervisor, or any other comments from my colleagues, I do want to invite up somebody, I guess Josh Sawicki, from the Planning Department, because there are minor non substantive amendments that we need to incorporate today. Welcome, Mr. Sawicki.

[Josh Sawicki (SF Planning)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. There is one minor amendment that the city attorney's office has recommended to add small provision in the alternative plan section of the, I believe in the alternative plan section of the ordinance that basically says that authorizes the department to update the tables as necessary after adoption to make any refinements based on ongoing refinements through discussions with HCD, provided that the ultimate outcome of the alternative plan has not changed. It would remain a citywide alternative plan. There are some minor data refinements that will be needed over the next couple months. The MTC has just published their preliminary draft map of the station locations. So, station locations will slide a few feet here and there, some minor changes. No new stations will be added. Actually, stations will probably be coming off the map as a result of MTC's determination that some of the stations we did include are not actually eligible. So, our map was overly conservative. So, we will have to make those refinements as we send the final table to HCD for their final review.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: So just in practical terms, Mr. Soiesky, that means, for example, God forbid, but if, say, the parcel tax or the regional sales tax doesn't pass and we have to cut back service and eliminate stops, then it would change the MAX.

[Josh Sawicki (SF Planning)]: That's a circumstance I yeah, we haven't

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: You don't want to pint about that.

[Josh Sawicki (SF Planning)]: We'll pint about that, but this was more about stations, existing stations, that we there are some interpretive questions around which stations qualify, particularly bus stations based on the location of the transit lanes and those sorts of things. And we conservatively assume more stations actually qualified than MTC has determined actually qualified.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: And

[Josh Sawicki (SF Planning)]: so, some of those stations will come off. Also, if you recall on our map that we had showed, we had included some planned stations, particularly in the Bayview for services that are in preliminary planning processes, including potential BRT on Geneva Avenue, as well as a potential Caltrain station in the Bayview at Oakdale. MTC has actually determined those are not actually eligible. They do not meet the standard to be considered planned transit stations under SB 79. So those will be coming off the map. They were included on our map conservatively. They will not be on the final map. So, it does reduce some of the areas subject to SB79 and some of our calculations.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sawicki. Supervisor Dorsey welcome.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey]: Thank you Chair Melgar. I want to thank you for having me today to just share my perspective on this item. I want to start by saying that I am generally satisfied with this plan. I know that Mayor Larry's office worked closely and thoughtfully with senator wiener' office to craft legislation that accomplishes our shared goals of producing more housing and this alternative plan has been put forward to put us in control of how we accomplish that. I do think however that there are some reasonable ways to improve the plan. SB 79 does allow cities to exclude industrial employment hubs however I am uncomfortable with the position that these areas should never have transit oriented development. We are a transit first city and we should be all all be proud of that. I really do believe in transit oriented development I live in one of them in fact and I do want to see San Francisco move the needle on producing more housing near transit. Decades ago, more parts of my district could have been considered industrial employment hubs, but are now thriving high density neighborhoods. Mission Bay, I think is a good example of that. PDR space is important to our economy, of course, but I don't think we need to make the one or the other trade offs that we might have been in a mindset to make in years past. I appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into this plan and I do think it has raised legitimate questions about the best and highest use of our land near transit stops. This is a worthwhile policy discussion even if SB79 were were not the law of our state. In my conversations with the planning department and the city attorney's office, understand that because we are pursuing an alternative plan, we can't allow SB 79 to apply to some areas and not others. We would have to present a parcel level plan to accomplish similar heights and densities. We are, as I understand it, now on a tight timeline to pass and get this to HCD for review so our options for this plan are limited. I do have an amendment that I circulated to this committee for your consideration. This amendment would change the permanent industrial employment hub exemption to temporary and sunset that in 2032 which would align with the beginning of the seventh cycle housing element. I heard from some advocates over the weekend that there is interest in moving that up to 2028 and that would align with the sixth cycle housing element mid cycle check-in. I think the benefit of that would be to hold us more aggressively accountable to housing capacity in those areas and I would certainly be amenable to that in my district. Regardless of when this section would sunset, however, an amendment like this I think would give us maximum flexibility for the future. We could decide that the best policy is to permanently exempt them. We could make changes to our underlying zoning that would give us even more housing capacity than SB79 allows. We could decide SB79 is the right vehicle to increase housing capacity. Or we could pursue a more fine grain option that would enable us to have other exemptions. Even if the committee doesn't accept this amendment, we still have other options. And we have plenty of times and ways that we can work on this. There are multiple ways to accomplish the objectives of SB 79 so I do want to commit that I will be working to identify policy changes that could increase housing capacity in my district particularly in the West Soma neighborhood independent of our SB b 79 plans I gladly sign up to be held accountable to a 2028 or twenty twenty two thousand and thirty two check-in I look forward to hearing what the committee has to say about this amendment and I would thank the the planning department for for their work the mayor's office, Senator Weiner's office, and obviously everybody at the San Francisco City Attorney's Office for all of their hard work on this. So thank you for allowing me to be a guest star today. Chair Melgar, thanks.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much, Supervisor Dorsey. Let's go to public comment, if that's Okay. And then we can discuss the amendments and the legislation after.

[Supervisor Matt Dorsey]: Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Go ahead, Mr.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Chair. Land use and transportation. I'll not hear public comment related to agenda item number 18, transit oriented residential Hold

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: on, mister hold on. Before you start, I see a staff person for District 9 office, Anna Contreras. If I could have her come up first, I'd appreciate it.

[Anna Herrera (Legislative Aide, District 9)]: Thank you, Chair Melgar, for giving me the opportunity to speak today. Good afternoon, committee and Supervisor Dorsey. I am Anna Herrera, legislative aide for Supervisor Fielder in District 9. Our office is in support of the legislation as is before you today. And we're grateful to the Planning Department for all the community engagement on this plan. I was able to attend more than one of their presentations, including those attended by a broad coalition of District 9 community groups. A large part of their presentation and discussion for this alternative plan highlighted the permanent exemptions of the industrial employment hubs, which for District 9 means the exclusion and preservation of PDR spaces. For over a decade, the Mission District Community and Planning Department have worked to implement the Mission Action Plan, a community led planning effort to address the retention of low and moderate income residents, organizations, and businesses in the face of rising displacement and gentrification. The Planning Commission has unanimously endorsed the MAP twenty twenty and MAP 2,030 plans, a cornerstone of which is preserving PDR spaces as they are some of the last remaining locations for high paying working class jobs for low income communities here. We just learned our office just learned about the proposed amendments to the language around the permanent exclusions of the industrial employment hubs. And we urge the committee to instead recommend approval of the legislation as is today, as this would undo decades long of community planning. And we haven't had any community engagement on changes. Our office would be happy to participate in future discussions with District 6, District 10, and other impacted communities around zoning changes, around the zoning, as part of a regular legislative process. And we welcome that dialogue. We just don't think this is the appropriate way to do it. So please support the item as is today, as this was the only one that was proposed to the District 9 community and was engaged with. And I'm here to answer any other questions. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you so much, Ms. Herrera. Okay.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: We're ready to begin public comment for agenda item number 18. If you have public comment for this item, please line up to speak. And we have a speaker who's coming up to lecture now. I'll start your time.

[Griffin Lee (Connected SF)]: Good afternoon, Land Use Committee and Transportation Committee. Griffin Lee here, representing District 2, and more importantly, Connected SF staff and membership. We support, supervisor Dorsey's proposed amendment to, change the provision on, I think it's, line item number two of the legislation to, change from permanent to permanent exemption to temporary exemption, of the different employment hubs, in the Bayview Bayshore West Selma Mission. And secondly, we do support adopting the alternative plan, which I think is, line item number four or five in the legislation. So thanks, Supervisor Dorsey, for making this amendment, or proposed amendment. And, we appreciate the potential to move forward supporting the alternative plan. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker please.

[Unidentified public commenter (SoMa West resident)]: Hello. I have lived in the SoMa West neighborhood for seventeen years. I'm here today to speak to the urgent need for pro housing development in our community, which the s b 79 alternative plan blocks. Over the years, I have watched SoMa West fall behind the rest of the city due to poorly considered policies and exemptions made by the city. While other neighborhoods have seen growth and revitalization, we've experienced economic stagnation and visible decline. This is the basis of the complaint SOMA West Neighborhood Association filed to the state that the city of San Francisco is intentionally and consistently violating the AFFH legal mandate. I urge this committee to walk the Sally zoned areas you are protecting, as I just did this this morning. What you will see are dead zones with no with little to no pedestrian activity, dotted with vacant and neglected buildings that have sat unused for years. Killing the SB Alternative Plan would allow more housing, which brings much needed foot traffic that supports small businesses, improves safety, and strengthens the local economy and sense of community. Right now, the alternative plan denies SOMA this opportunity so that the wealthier high resource neighborhoods can be illegally protected through zoning and gerrymandering. Supervisor Dorsey and the Land Use Committee's continued determination to treat SoMa as a containment zone unworthy of economic opportunities as other neighborhoods not only reinforces the HCD complaint, it makes you complicit. I urge this committee to comply with state housing laws and remove SOMA exemptions that block progress. Any delay or prolonged sunsetting politics is unacceptable as this equates to six plus more years of no housing development. Thank you.

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

[Theresa Delalas (SOMCAN / SoMa Pilipinas)]: Hello. I'm Theresa Delalas with Zomcan, and on behalf of Zomma Filipinas, also, we ask that you continue to support the permanent exemption of industrial hubs in the SB79 alternative plan, and oppose any attempts to remove them. PDR plays an important role in providing higher wage jobs to people with less educational opportunities, especially when compared to service sector jobs. Protecting PDR uses is a matter of racial and social equity, ensuring that the city is investing in a variety of job opportunities, not just tech and retail. This is emphasized in the city's general plan under industry policy 4.5, which reads, control encroachment of incompatible land uses on viable industrial activity. Production, distribution, and repair areas offer economic opportunity for adjacent neighborhoods, especially for low income communities and communities of color. PDR businesses can provide stable job opportunities, good wages, and diversity in types of activities and jobs. Restrict incompatible land uses, such as housing and office, and the conversion of industrial buildings to other building types in PDR districts and in areas of concentrated PDR, construction or utility activities. Current PDR zone sites in SoMa are home to a variety of businesses that provide economic diversity in the South Of Market. South Of Market needs a diversity of uses. We should not just become a blanket of luxury market rate housing and tech office towers. Protective zoning exists for a reason, and we should not give into full scale deregulation because this is clearly gentrification, and this is our community's perspective. Thank

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

[Leah Edwards]: Hello. My name is Leah Edwards. I've been a resident of District 6 for more than a decade, And I just want to express my confusion and disappointment, specifically over supervisor Dorsey's support for the s b 79 alternative plan. You built your tenure on ending exclusionary zoning. You sponsored the housing constraints legislation, supported proposition d with senator Weiner, voted for family zoning, and champion SB 10 implementation. SB seven nine for your district is the next step, ministerial approval for mixed income housing in your transit. It is everything you have said you stand for, which is why it feels like such a betrayal that you are supporting the alternative plan. While I understand you have shifted away from a permanent ban in favor of 2032 sunset, SOMA cannot be forced to wait six years for economic revitalization simply to serve as a mathematical denominator for an alternate plan that protects other mandate other, districts from state mandates. The claim that there is no legislative path to carve SOMA out is a political choice that sacrifices our neighborhood. It is not a legal reality. Supervisor Dorsey, you will be termed out well before 2032. This isn't a commitment to SOMA. It's kicking the can down the road to your successor so that you don't have to stand up for this residents of SOMA that live here today. I'm asking you to vocally oppose the s p seven nine alternative plan and work to implement the default provisions of s p seven nine. Our transit rich neighborhood deserves by right housing production that you've been spent your career advocating for, not a carve out that preserves the status quo. 400 constituents have signed a petition supporting SoMOS Neighborhoods Association HCD complaint in two weeks entirely through word-of-mouth. We have not promoted it in any way, and we are having more people sign on every day. That should tell you something. You campaigned as a pro housing supervisor for d six, not the supervisor who protects exclusionary zoning everywhere while sacrificing SOMA. If you ope support this plan, you are owning the fact that your pro housing record ends at SOMA's border.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: This time has concluded. Thank you for sharing your comments to the committee

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Just as a a gentle reminder to public commenters, please refrain from targeting your comments with specific supervisor and address the committee as a whole. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Let's have the next speaker, please.

[David Singer]: My name is David Singer. I'm a resident of Western SoMa. This legislation concerns housing including zoning code Sally and WUO, Western SoMa mixed use. The city and state have urgent need of housing and Western SoMa has been at the forefront of providing it and is willing to continue to do so. Yet quarter century old zoning and this legislation exclude large tracts of Western SoMa from housing, tracts well served by transit and freeways, underused by the outdated zoned use. Western SoMa supports the citizen state's strategic goals. Western SoMa supports diverse mixed population and mixed uses, including all the existing ones. The cynical exclusion is explored in the h c d complaint. The complaint would be greatly strengthened by passing this. Do not pass it. Leaving these areas underdeveloped is in the interest only of those parts of the city that resist housing, resist services, and the interest of treating SOMA and its citizens not as equals, deserving respect and support, but as a containment zone. Passing this legislation is not in the fiscal interest of the city, so it contributes greatly to both sales and property tax revenue. This zoning depresses both. Passing this legislation would penalize a neighborhood that has supported the city's goals and reward neighborhoods that resist those goals. Actions speak louder than words. Western SOMA is willing to work with the city. Passing this would make it clear this is not reciprocated. We urge you, listen to the state, listen to your own strategic needs, listen to your Western Soman neighbors who want what you say you want, build housing, not opposition. Vote no.

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

[David Wu (SoMa Pilipinas)]: Hello, supervisors. David Wu, Somo Pilipinas, the Filipino Cultural Heritage District located in the South Of Market. We ask that you keep the permanent exemption of industrial hubs and PDR space in the city's SB 79 alternative plan. The remaining service arts and light industrial PDR zoning in the South Of Market is essential for economic diversity and job opportunities for working class people. The city the city is still reeling from the economic effects of the bottoming out of the office sector due to overconcentration in office and tech. PDR provides economic diversity that helps to weather our economy against the inevitable ups and downs of the office sector. The failure of the Central SOMA plan is a clear indication of this. A plan which took a hatchet to PDR zoning in SOMA. Opening up PDR to market rate housing development and up zoning means the removal of PDR. Protecting PDR space is smart planning and is all it also promotes job equity. I will quote the planning department on the importance of PDR, quote, PDR is essential for the city's economic and social diversity. It provides middle wage jobs with good pay relative to education and opportunities for people with a diversity of skills and interests. It also provides space for arts and creative activities that culturally enrich our city. And the majority of the remaining PDR space in the South Of Market is located within the Cultural District, but we were never consulted or made aware of the proposal until the last minute to remove PDR exemptions. We oppose any removal of protected PDR zoning in the South Of Market. Thank you.

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

[Zach Weisenberger (Young Community Developers, Bayview)]: Good afternoon, supervisor. Zach Weisenberger with Young Community Developers in Bayview. We are here again in support of the original SB 79 implementation ordinance and in strong opposition to any amendments that would sunset exemptions for industrial zones. Permanent protections for all industrial land are nonnegotiable. These areas are located in priority equity geographies and low income communities of color, the same communities that have already absorbed over 80% of new housing production in the past two decades. We cannot allow spaces that serve working class residents to be speculated on and redeveloped for the benefit of the affluent. Allowing the conversion of industrial land to housing will, over time, lead to its full replacement. Once industrial land is converted, it does not come back. These jobs are among the last stable middle income pathways accessible accessible without college degrees. In neighborhoods like Bayview, PDR is central to community stability and economic opportunity, and these spaces are deeply valued by residents. This amendment is a drastic shift in our zoning that would accelerate both job loss and displacement in communities that have already borne the brunt of the city's growth. If these protections sunset, it will intensify displacement pressures on black and brown communities while further narrowing our economic base at a time when the city is still recovering from overreliance on boom and bust industries like tech. SP 79 is not the appropriate vehicle to debate rezoning all of our industrial land. There has been no outreach to stakeholders or impacted communities and no analysis of the impacts on working class jobs or neighborhoods. Making a decision of this magnitude without a thorough process is deeply irresponsible. As s p 79 moved through the state legislature, we worked closely with the sponsor to ensure cities retained the ability to exempt industrial areas. This amendment undermines that work and disregards the intent of those changes. We are on a time crunch to implement s p 79, and the planning department has put forward a thoughtful proposal with clear, durable guardrails. For these reasons, we strongly urge you to reject this amendment and support the original ordinance created by the planning department. Thank you.

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

[JR Eppler (Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. JR Eppler, president of the Potero Boosters Neighborhood Association here in favor of the original as legislation and against the amendment as proposed. I think all the speakers here show that we are dealing with the tension between two competing land use needs. One is the need for additional housing. One is the need for economic diversity for the city and for blue collar jobs that help support our dwindling middle class. And when you have this sort of tension, a blunt force tool is not the right way to work through these land use issues, and that's unfortunately what this amendment would be. I've advocated to the planning department, to supervisors, that we need to take a look at our light industrial portfolio. And we need to perhaps consider how it works in today's time period. But that's more of a community based process. It's a process that looks specifically at zoning areas because not all of these zoning areas are the same. They each have different uses. They each have different struggles. They each have different needs, and they each need to be dressed uniquely, if addressed at all. This isn't to say that our neighbors in Wesloma are incorrect in what they identified that their needs are. What's incorrect right now is the mechanism of using s b 79 to put a date on when those needs aren't even addressed specifically, but addressed in a sort of broad way that may allow housing in areas incompatible for it and create additional issues. We did that once in the city. It was when LiveWorx started to move into the industrial areas. And in order to fix it, we had to go through a community driven process that resulted in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, a plan that has been extraordinarily successful in developing parts of this city and preserving blue collar jobs. I think that community engagement around rightsizing our industrial portfolio is important, and I hope that you will consider that instead of going through the process of sunsetting the protections on our industrial areas. Thank you.

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

[Peter Papadopoulos (United to Save the Mission)]: Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, supervisors. Peter Papadopoulos today speaking on behalf of United Save the Mission. First off, I want to thank the planning staff for their diligence in this implementation plan for being responsive to community throughout the process and trying to ensure that they are achieving the most constructive outcome possible under the law. As someone who did participate again with the sponsor and amendments on the state level, We think these changes are really important given the negotiations that took place as well. We think it's critical to leave the original version at this time. It appears to do two things we think to the best of its ability. It ensures we're minimizing the impacts of this SB 79 based up zoning particularly in our priority equity geographies which as a ycd stated have already built 80% of the housing in the city that roughly large handful of communities and recent granular studies do show that new market rate housing among low income workers increases the risk of displacement by 11 to 14%. Second, it' the protection of these vital pdr jobs particularly for our immigrant community our black and brown community of the East Side. These are the best paying jobs. We don't want a gold rush to come on with the anticipation that every low cost warehouse can now eventually be upscale housing. It's going to lead to a clearing of thousands and thousands of good paying jobs, and those folks will have to fall back to lower paying retail, etcetera. So, I don't think any of us want to see that, so I think there's a good conversation And to have that's why, you know, we think this is supported, particularly if you look at the mission. It' even part of the mission statement of mission action plan 2020 and 2030. It' called out on the housing element as critical to stabilizing these communities and the Eastern neighborhoods as you just heard from Mr. Epler calls it out as an important part of this framework. We hope you'll support the original version. You.

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

[Sean Ochlan (SoMa West Neighborhood Association)]: Good afternoon my name is Sean Ochlan I serve on the board of the Somma West neighborhood association. Our supervisor proudly claimed that there is no daylight between him and Senator Scott Wiener on housing. Yet this I'm proposed sorry.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: I'm going to stop you again because this happened during this public comment. Refrain from targeting your comments to a specific supervisor and speak to the committee as a whole.

[Sean Ochlan (SoMa West Neighborhood Association)]: So we're discussing policy for my district. There's no way to address policy

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: in That my is without singling out a specific person. Just be respectful and follow the rules. Thank you.

[Sean Ochlan (SoMa West Neighborhood Association)]: Okay. We will leave off campaign commitments from today's comment, then. Thank you. The proposed amendment does the exact opposite of that commitment on his signature legislation. If you allow any housing ban today, regardless of the sunset date, you will have failed SOMA again. Let us be honest about the alternative plan. Slide 11 from last week said the quiet part out loud. By officially exempting SOMA, the city artificially lowers its total housing capacity requirement. This whole group here is perfectly willing to sacrifice our district as geographic filler to protect the West Side. I want to be clear, we are highly sensitive to displacement and care deeply about our three cultural districts. Have personal relationships with folks that feel differently about this and I care about them but the parcels we are talking about today are not existing homes nor are they existing filled businesses there are hundreds thousands of commercial and office spaces that have been vacant for years nearly bordering on ineligible because of the s b 79 text to save this map your office is now proposing to shift to a 2032 sunset that is completely unacceptable. We that is as Leah said kicking the can down the road to your successor and pushing SOMA's recovery into the next decade. As other neighborhoods have recently shown putting political convenience over the interests of your own residents has consequences. SOMA desperately needs economic revitalization and buy right housing today. 2028 Sunset is the absolute maximum compromise that the coalition could possibly accept. And let me reiterate, the neighborhood never asked for this ban, does not consent to it, wants and needs housing, we demand that you strike it from it. We expect you all to lead. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your questions. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 18?

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Supervisor Mahmood.

[Supervisor Bilal Mahmood]: Thank you, Chyanne. Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey, for coming in to share your perspective amendments as well. And I want to thank everyone who came out today in public comment on both sides of the choice before us today. I want to speak quickly in support of amending the legislation, as Supervisor Dorsey has illustrated, specifically on exempting until 2028, as opposed to the permanent exemption that is in the current legislation. We have a hard deadline where the housing element requires us to have about 29,000 units of building permits approving those number of units by around 2028. If we don't have that approved, we have a circuit breaker that will effectively go off. And we will have to take a hard look at other options to fully complement the options of creating more homes. The 2028 deadline, as proposed by Supervisor Dorsey, as a temporary exemption, can serve as a forcing function for the city to find other solutions that we won't be able to justify extending this SB79 exemption, and housing will be allowed in the industrial hubs. I have talked to Senator Weiner's team, and they have informed me that when they authored SB79, it was not their intention to offer a permanent exemption for PDR. And what I believe is this compromise that Supervisor Dorsey has proposed is not permanently exempting, obviously, these zones. But it gives a couple years to the respective supervisors of District 69, And 10 to do that community engagement to come up with a permanent plan going forward. And so today is not the day that we're going to change the underlying zoning in the industrial areas. That's not what this amendment does. But it makes clear that we desire to potentially have a future where we have housing near transit access and preexisting mixed use environment like SOMA. And I believe that this legislation, combined with the amendments, can allow us to add realism to the trade offs that we have to make in a very short period of time. And so I will move that the amendment is read into the record by Supervisor Dorsey, with the effectuate a 2028 sunset date for the exemption be moved after when we start to vote.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you, Supervisor Mahmood. I don't see anyone else on the roster, so I will provide my comments. I will not be supporting this amendment, and I will be supporting the legislation as presented by the planning department. And my reasons are as follows. This is part of the process that we started a few years ago to comply with all of the new state law that has come down the pike for several years now, starting with SB three thirty, SB 35, SB four twenty three, SB twenty eleven. I mean, there's a lot of legislation that has happened. At the same time, we have a new housing element that is more robust than I've ever seen it. And we have just rezoned twothree of the land in San Francisco, which is something we should have done decades ago. Unlike some public commenters stated, we are not protecting the West Side. In fact, we have just up zoned the West Side and the North Of San Francisco. Now, SOMA, Mission, and Bayview went through a robust planning process that resulted in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan twenty five years ago. Twenty five years is a long time, and things change. Things have changed in terms of industrial uses from the first.com boom till today. I do generally think that having permanent prohibitions on things is not a great planning thing because the world changes. And so I am open to engaging in a conversation with all supervisors as to whether the definitions and the prohibitions are appropriate Today and going forward, I'm open to that. But I don't think this is the vehicle to do it. We need to pass this in order to be exempted from SB seven eighty nine. That's something we consistently told everyone for the past year as we were negotiating the family zoning plan. We told community this. We told all communities this. I want to thank, in particular, Madison and Supervisor Dorsey's district, and also you, Supervisor Dorsey, because you fought for your district, made sure the help was included in the family zoning plan, and have been consistent in supporting the need for housing. Do I think we have it right? Probably not. I would like to see housing above the Costco, for instance. But is it appropriate to have it above all industrial uses? I don't think so. I just think that this is nuance, and it requires a thoughtful process that, above all, involves all the communities that are involved. And this idea just hasn't been vetted by all communities. We can see just from the public comment today that there's dissent among folks about how we should proceed. And that's precisely why we have a robust planning process, is to incorporate all of the conversations, the history, but also the hopes and dreams for the future among a very diverse group of communities. So this is why I think we should take our time. I look forward to Supervisor Fielder being back and engaging in this conversation, since her district is very much affected. And I do also look forward to reviewing what the definitions and prohibitions are in Sally, in PDR, in all of these districts to see if they are appropriate today, and they will be appropriate tomorrow. So with that, I will be supporting the legislation as written today. Oh, Okay. Supervisor Chen.

[Supervisor Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Chair Melgar. I echo a lot of what you share. And, Colleen, I also want to repeat myself that my goal is that we should continue to incentivizing development in areas that can absorb it without causing harms such as area with less displacement risk. The industrial employment hubs are area of the city where we have historically instituted controls to protect production, distribution, and repair uses. And I believe it's continued to be critical as of today to retain protection that don't further incentivize the displacement of PDI use that sustain our blue collar workforce. That's why because there's an intense competition for land, and without protection, we'll lose out on critical contribution of our PDI sector to help stabilize working class families, and also help to sustain the economy and the cultural diversity in our city. As mentioned, this amendment would impact many areas, not only in District 6, but also in District 9 And 10, where we have this goal to protect the PDR industry sector that provide accessible, good paying job opportunities for our local blue collar workforce. In crafting this ordinance, I believe that we should continue to utilize the full exclusion and exemption allowable under the law. SB79 allows for the industrial employment hubs to be permanently excluded for good reason. This is why today, I also wasn't able to support the amendment, and I will continue to support the legislation as written. Thank you.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you, supervisor. So I think that we need to vote on the amendment first, and then I will proceed with more motions.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: There's a motion that's been offered by Member Mahmood that the Land Use and Transportation Committee amend the ordinance as presented with amendments from supervisor Dorsey on that motion to amend vice chair Chen Chen no member Mahmood Mahmood aye chair Melgar no Melgar no madam chair there is one aye and two nos with Supervisors Chen and Melgar in the dissent.

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: Thank you. Sorry about that. Supervisor Dorsey and Supervisor Mahmood. I will now make a motion that we amend the legislation as presented to incorporate the amendments as presented by Mr. Sawicki to the table, and that we recommend the legislation as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Two motions both offered by the chair the first to accept amendments presented by the planning department and the second to recommend as amended on those motions vice chair Chen. Chen aye member ma'am aye chair Melgar aye Madam chair there are three ayes

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: okay that motion passes thank you mr clerk do we have any other items on our agenda today

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: there's no further business

[Supervisor Myrna Melgar (Chair)]: thank you were adjourned