Land Use and Transportation Committee Regular Meeting - March 3, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Land Use and Transportation Committee Regular Meeting - March 3, 2025
The Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors met on March 3, 2025, to consider two ordinances amending the Planning Code, Zoning Map, and General Plan to reduce commercial development requirements in the Central SoMa Special Use District and remove the Transit Center C-3O SD commercial special use district. The meeting included presentations from the Planning Department and the Controller's Office, public testimony, and a unanimous vote to continue the items to the March 10, 2025, meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- David Wu (Soma Pilipinas): Expressed support for the legislation as amended, noting that maintaining key site commitments for affordable housing and neighborhood amenities will ensure space for low-income and working-class families. He emphasized the importance of honoring the seven-year community engagement process.
- Wes (neighborhood resident): Stated that building more market-rate housing would benefit market-rate renters like himself, and that the plan should be more ambitious given housing demand.
- Zach Weisenberger (Young Community Developers): Expressed initial concern that the legislation would undermine affordable housing development rights at 88 Bluxome, but praised the inclusion of amendments that guarantee land dedication for 100% affordable housing, safeguarding community commitments.
- Tommy Chan (BXP): Represented a developer owning a key site; supported the legislation as it provides flexibility to consider alternative uses (e.g., housing) given the 35% office vacancy rate.
- Rudy Gonzalez (San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council): Supported the plan revisions, noting that honoring community benefits allows full support. He highlighted that infeasibility of projects leads to joblessness among construction workers, with 700 craft workers currently out of work.
- Philip Raffle (SFEMB, Noe Valley homeowner): Supported the update, stating the original plan was for a world that no longer exists after the pandemic, and the changes will revitalize SoMa and address the housing shortage.
- Scott Rowitz (Yerba Buena Partnership): Supported the legislation, noting it will increase the number of residential units in the neighborhood beyond the original 1,016 units, and appreciated the collaborative effort.
- Jesse Blout (Strata Investment Group): Supported the legislation as a surgical change that will unlock new housing. He noted that new office construction is far off, as his firm recently purchased a distressed office building at a quarter of replacement value.
- Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition): Voiced support, stating the legislation removes arbitrary barriers, promotes transit-oriented mixed-use development, and aligns with housing element goals.
- Raquel Redondius (Soma Pilipinas, Planning Equity Council): Supported the pivot to housing but had concerns about original lack of protections for amenities and affordable housing. She thanked the sponsors for amendments that preserve those benefits.
- John Avalos (Council of Community Housing Organizations): Expressed appreciation for the amendments that restore pre-existing agreements. He stressed the need for downtown recovery to serve all residents, especially given federal funding cuts.
Discussion Items
- Supervisor Matt Dorsey (co-sponsor) introduced the items, explaining that they remove a requirement that large sites in Central SoMa and the Transit Center District provide two-thirds of their square footage for non-residential uses. This barrier to housing production is being updated to reflect current market conditions, where office space demand has plummeted. He noted that amendments will be prepared by March 10 to incorporate the Planning Commission's recommended modifications: limiting the exemption to projects 600 feet or lower and retaining site-specific benefits like affordable housing, open space, and complete streets.
- Joshua Switsky (Planning Department) presented background on the Central SoMa Plan (2011-2018), which rezoned light industrial areas for 9,000 housing units and 32,000 jobs. The plan required large sites to have a high proportion of commercial space, but the pandemic and remote work have shifted demand. He explained that key sites were entitled with qualified amenities (e.g., 100% affordable housing land dedication, public open space) but are not moving forward, creating an opportunity to unlock housing.
- Audrey Merlone (Planning Department) stated that the Planning Commission approved the ordinance with recommended modifications to retain commercial requirements but offer exceptions for projects that provide community benefits tied to impact fees. The sponsors are working with the city attorney to draft amendments, which they expect to be ready by March 10.
- Asim Khan (Controller's Office of Economic Analysis) presented an economic impact report: office attendance has plateaued at <45% of pre-pandemic levels, office vacancies rose from 5.2% (Q3 2019) to 34.3% (Q4 2024), and office values dropped 40%. Removing the commercial requirement is estimated to yield 325 additional housing units over 20 years, reducing housing prices by 0.1% and generating $38 million in annual GDP and 200 jobs. He concluded the removal will have positive economic benefits.
Key Outcomes
- The committee voted unanimously (3-0) to continue both items to the March 10, 2025 meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee, to allow time for the preparation of consensus amendments that incorporate the Planning Commission's recommended modifications. The motion was made by Supervisor Dorsey and seconded by the committee.
- The amendments are expected to limit the exemption from non-residential requirements to projects 600 feet or lower and retain previously agreed-upon site-specific benefits (e.g., affordable housing, open space, recreational facilities) for key sites.
- The committee expressed appreciation for the community engagement and the work of the Planning Department, Controller's Office, and City Attorney's Office.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, good afternoon. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the March 3rd, 2025 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I am Supervisor Cheyenne Chen, Vice Chair of the Committee, and I'm joined by Supervisor Balama Mu and Supervisor Matt Dorsey today, who are stepping for Supervisor Melga. The committee clerk today is John Carroll. And I would also like to acknowledge SFGOC TV, Jeanette Ickenoff at SFGV for staffing this meeting. Mr. Clare, do we have any announcements today? Yes, thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices that you've brought with you into the chamber today. If you have any documents to be included as any of uh as a part of any of today's files, you can submit them to me. Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda. When your item of interest comes up in public comment is called, please line up to speak along the right-hand side of this room. Alternatively, you may submit your written public comment by sending it to our office in City Hall at 1, Dr. Carlton B. Goodlit Place, Room 24, San Francisco, California 94102, or you can email your written comments to me at J-O-H-N, period C-A-R-R-O-L-L at SFGOV.org. I will forward your public comment to the members of this committee and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting. And finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of March 11th, 2025, unless otherwise stated. Great, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. And I would also like to make a motion to excuse Supervisor Melga from this meeting. Mr. Clare, would you please uh call the roll? On a motion offered by the Vice Chair to excuse Supervisor Melgar from attending the meeting today. Uh Member Dorsey. Dorsey, I, Member Machmood Machmood I. Chair Chen. Aye. Chen I. Madam Chair, there are three eyes. Thank you. The motion pass. Um Mr. Clare, would you please call item one and two together? Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map to reduce commercial development requirements in the Central Soma Special Use District and remove the Transit Center C 30 SD commercial special use district. Agenda item number two is an ordinance amending the general plan to reduce commercial development requirements in the Central Soma Area Plan and the Transit Center District sub-area plan areas. Both ordinances affirm secret determinations from the planning department. They make findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and they adopt findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare under planning code sections 302 and 340, respectively. Madam Chair. Thank you. And I would now turn it to Supervisor Dorsey, who's who is a co-sponsor of this ordinance for any remarks. Great. Thank you so much. Uh Vice Chair Chen and Supervisor Mockmood for having me today. The items before us today are part of an exciting and important legislative package to reimagine this sub-neighborhood of downtown and to unlock more housing. This legislation removes a requirement that large sites in Central Soma and the entirety of the transit district provide two-thirds of their square footage for non-residential uses. This requirement severely limits these parcels from being developed for housing, a much more pressing need today than uh for the office space we once contemplated needing at the time for the that the uh Central Soma plan was originally enacted. As we policymakers lead what is in many ways a much needed reimagination of our downtown that is better suited to the demands of the mid-20th 21st century, the policies we're updating would remove a key barrier to housing production. Um these sites have not been developed uh as was hoped at the time the original plan was passed, and the city has not received any pen public benefits or impact fees as a result.
openpublica.com