San Francisco Land Use and Transportation Committee Regular Meeting - December 9, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
San Francisco Land Use and Transportation Committee Regular Meeting - December 9, 2024
The Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors met on December 9, 2024, at 9:45 AM, chaired by Supervisor Mirna Melgar, with Vice Chair Dean Preston and President Aaron Peskin. Supervisor Shamann Walton also participated for several items. The committee considered seven agenda items, including code corrections, a landmark designation, laboratory use restrictions, a major transit project MOU, a fire station redevelopment, a special use district for a stalled housing project, and minimum density standards. Several items generated significant public comment and debate, leading to amendments and split votes.
Agenda Item 1: Building and Planning Codes – Code Corrections and Updates
- Discussion: Aaron Starr (Planning Department) presented the annual code corrections ordinance, amending building and planning codes to fix typographical errors, update cross-references, and make minor substantive updates. The Planning Commission recommended approval on September 19, 2024, with modifications already incorporated. A last-minute amendment request from a member of the public (related to 2270 McKinnon self-storage site) was deferred due to lack of city attorney review.
- Public Comment: Mark Gleason (Teamsters 665) and John Kevlin (project sponsor) spoke in support of the amendment, noting it would enable a self-storage project with a project labor agreement. No opposition.
- Outcome: The committee voted unanimously to recommend the original ordinance to the full Board. A duplicated file was created, amended to include a finding that the Planning Commission recommended additional amendments to be considered later, and continued to the call of the chair.
Agenda Item 2: Planning Code – Landmark Designation – Ladies’ Protection and Relief Society (3400 Laguna Street)
- Discussion: Pilar LaValley (Planning Department) presented the community-sponsored landmark designation for the Julia Morgan-designed main building, Stone Cottage, and front garden. The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval on October 16, 2024. The owner, Heritage on the Marina, supported the designation.
- Public Comment: Carolyn Kiernot (Page & Turnbull, representing owner) and Mike Hebel (Protect Our Marina’s Heritage) expressed full support.
- Outcome: Unanimous vote to recommend to the full Board.
Agenda Item 3: Planning Code – Laboratory Uses in the Urban Mixed Use Zoning District
- Discussion: Veronica Flores (Planning Department) reported that the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend disapproval on August 1, 2024, arguing the ban would conflict with the general plan, drive up demand in PDR districts, and harm job diversity. Laurel Arvenitis (OEWD) opposed the legislation, citing high vacancy rates and the need for in-person jobs. Supervisor Walton, the sponsor, argued the ordinance clarifies the 2021 removal of life science from UMU by including biotechnology in the prohibition. He noted that many life science businesses already exist in Dogpatch and Mission Bay and that the ordinance would include amendments to exempt the 700 Indiana project. Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi confirmed that because the Planning Commission disapproved, an 8-vote majority would be needed for final passage.
- Public Comment: Seven speakers: Alison Heath (Patrow Boosters) and J.R. Epler (Patro Boosters) supported the legislation, emphasizing the need to protect vibrant mixed-use neighborhoods. Jackson Nutier (Chamber of Commerce), Rolando Tirado (Chamber of Commerce), Christy Sherilla (Biocom California), and Catherine Domaney (Dogpatch resident) opposed, citing economic impact, job losses, and harm to small businesses. Donovan Lacey (Dogpatch Neighborhood Association) supported the ban, noting the Board’s 2021 decision to remove the life science SUD. John Kevlin (MBC Biolabs, 700 Indiana) requested a carve-out for projects with applications on file.
- Outcome: Motion by President Peskin to recommend to the full Board passed 2-1 (Preston and Peskin aye, Melgar no). Supervisor Walton indicated amendments would be introduced at the Board meeting on December 10 to exempt the 700 Indiana project.
Agenda Item 4: Portal Project Implementation Memorandum of Understanding – Transbay Joint Powers Authority
- Discussion: Hava Kronenberg (SFMTA) and Jesse Kaler (SFCTA) presented the MOU among six partner agencies for Phase 2 of the Transbay Program (downtown rail extension). The agreement has a term over 10 years and imposes no financial obligations on the city. The SFMTA Board endorsed it the prior week.
- Public Comment: None.
- Outcome: Unanimous vote to recommend to the full Board.
Agenda Item 5: Endorsement of Key Terms – EQX Jackson SQ Holdco LLC – Fire Station 13 and Mixed-Use Tower
- Discussion: President Peskin introduced the resolution, noting that a 2020 agreement with Related California was no longer viable post-pandemic. Jonathan Cherry (OEWD) and Matthew Whitty (Related California) presented a revised project: a new standalone fire station on Battery Street, a 200-key hotel, 20 stories of office space, and activation of Merchant Street. The resolution is non-binding; a final development agreement is expected in mid-2025.
- Public Comment: None.
- Outcome: Unanimous vote to recommend to the full Board.
Agenda Item 6: Planning Code, Zoning Map – 30 Van Ness Avenue Special Use District; Amendment of Agreement for Sale of Real Estate
- Discussion: Monica Giacomucci (Planning) and Lee Lutenski (OEWD) explained that the 30 Van Ness (Hayes Point) project, approved in 2020 with 333 units and 25% on-site affordable housing, paid $41 million in impact fees in 2023 and began construction but paused in September 2023. The project does not qualify for the city’s pipeline fee reductions because it had already paid fees. The proposed SUD would waive the Section 415 inclusionary requirement (25% on-site) in exchange for the $41 million already paid, making the project financially viable. President Peskin proposed amendments to reduce the inclusionary requirement to 12.8% (on-site, off-site, or in-lieu) but not grant the additional 33% fee reduction, and to require the developer to waive any right to claw back the $41 million if the project fails. The developer’s counsel, Jim Abrams, argued the SUD already ensures the fees are not refunded and that the project needs the full 33% fee reduction for feasibility. Supervisor Preston expressed concerns about the loss of affordable housing, the discounted land sale ($17 million less due to affordable housing commitment), and the community agreement with SOMCAN that still requires 25% inclusionary. The developer acknowledged discussions with SOMCAN are ongoing. Supervisor Melgar noted the absence of District 6 Supervisor Dorsey and that the matter would go to the full Board.
- Public Comment: Tracy Everwine (Civic Center CBD) and Scott Nielsen (Intersection for the Arts) supported the project, highlighting benefits to public realm and arts. Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition) urged support for the original SUD as approved by the Planning Commission, warning that partial reduction might not make the project feasible. Jim Abrams (Lendlease counsel) reiterated that the SUD already protects the city’s fees.
- Outcome: President Peskin’s amendments were adopted 2-1 (Preston and Peskin aye, Melgar no). The amended ordinance was then recommended to the full Board on a 2-1 vote (same split). Supervisor Melgar voted no, noting she reserved the right to vote differently at the full Board.
Agenda Item 7: Planning Code – Minimum Densities for Residential Projects in RM, RC, and RTO Districts
- Discussion: President Peskin presented the ordinance, which was amended the previous week to adopt Planning Department recommendations establishing objective minimum density standards. It applies to RM, RC, and RTO districts (excluding R1, R2, R3, and Mission RTO) and includes provisions for expansions of single-family homes.
- Public Comment: Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition) expressed concerns about feasibility for small or irregular lots, but supported the intent.
- Outcome: Unanimous vote to recommend to the full Board.
Key Outcomes
- Item 1: Recommended to full Board (unanimous); duplicated file continued for future amendment.
- Item 2: Recommended to full Board (unanimous).
- Item 3: Recommended to full Board (2-1); amendments to exclude 700 Indiana to be introduced at Board meeting.
- Item 4: Recommended to full Board (unanimous).
- Item 5: Recommended to full Board (unanimous, non-binding endorsement).
- Item 6: Recommended to full Board as amended (2-1); amendments reduce inclusionary housing from 25% to 12.8% but do not include 33% fee reduction; sunset date of May 1, 2029, if construction not commenced.
- Item 7: Recommended to full Board (unanimous).
The committee canceled its next meeting, marking the last meeting of the year.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon, everyone. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the December 9th regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I'm Supervisor Mirna Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by the Board of Supervisors President Aaron Paskin and Vice Chair Dean Preston. The committee clerk today is John Carroll. And I would also like to acknowledge Kalina Mendoza from SFGov TV for helping us in this meeting. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you've brought with you into the chamber today. If you have any documents to include as part of any of today's files, you shall submit them to me. I'll meet you up front at the rail. 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 J-O-H-N, period. C-A-R-R-O-L-L at SFGOV.org. Or you may send your written comments via U.S. Postal Service to our office in City Hall. The address is one, Dr. Carlton B. Goodlitt Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102. If you submit your public comment in writing, I will forward your comment to the members of this committee and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting. Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of December 17th, 2024. Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Let's please call item number one. Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the building and planning codes to correct typographical errors, update outdated cross-references, make non-substantive revisions to clarify or simplify code language, and make other minor substantive updates to various code provisions. Directing the clerk of the Board of Supervisors to forward this ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development upon final passage, affirming the planning department's secret determination, making findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section 101. And adopting findings that the public necessity convenience and general welfare would be met under planning code section 302. This item is agendized as a potential committee report and may be sent to the board meeting tomorrow, December 10th. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Uh we have uh Mr. Aaron Starr here today to present. Welcome. Uh thank you. Uh good afternoon, Supervisors Aaron Starr, Manager of Legislative Affairs. The latter item before you is our 2024 code corrections ordinance. Uh this ordinance amends the building and planning codes to correct type agroquil errors, updated out um update outdated cross-references, and make non-substantive revisions to clarify or simplify the code. It also makes other minor substantive updates to various code provisions. Um as this committee is acutely aware, the planning code is amended a lot. Although individual ordinances are reviewed by the planning department and city attorney's office, the volume of legislative actions and complexity of the code ensures that errors will arise. So about once a year we put together an ordinance that compiles all our known errors and brings it before you for your consideration and action. In this ordinance, some of the proposed changes fix incorrect or omitted references. Some add missing information, some amendments add back provisions that were inadvertently removed during the legislative process, and some add additional clarity to make um recently passed amendments more clear. I'm happy to go over and explain any of the proposed amendments if you have any questions. The planning commission heard this item on September 19th of this year and recommended approval with modifications. The commission's modifications have already been added to the ordinance.
openpublica.com