Good afternoon, everyone.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the July 14th, 2025, regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I am Supervisor Mirna Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Cheyenne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmoud.

The committee clerk today is John Carroll.

And I would also like to thank uh Jeanette Engelauf at SFGov TV for staffing this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do we 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 be included as part of any of today's files, you can submit those documents 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 written public comment 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.

That is one, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit Place, room 244, the clerk's office, 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 July 22nd, 2025, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

Please call item number one.

Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the planning code to first principally permit certain non-retail sales and service uses, including general office, design professional business services, non-retail professional services, and trade offices on the ground floor in the C three districts through December 31st, 2030, after which such uses will be conditionally permitted and make accompanying revisions to required ground floor uses and floor area ratio.

Second, principally permit retail sales and service uses on the second floor and above in the RC districts.

Third, principally permit non-retail sales and service uses on the second floor and above, and conditionally permit catering and laboratory uses on the ground floor in the RC districts.

Fourth, update transparency and fenestration requirements for ground floor activities uses and exempt child care facilities, homeless shelters, mortuaries, religious institutions, reproductive health clinics, and school uses from those requirements.

Fifth, modify the definition of a window sign.

Sixth, modify planning review and approval of changes in copy of a sign and wall and window signs applied to doors, windows, or other building facades.

Seventh, modify the definition for a non-residential use for the purposes of certain development impact fee waivers, and eighth, modify permitted and required ground floor uses in the RHDTR district, including uses in certain historic buildings subject to various conditions.

The ordinance affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes findings of consistency with the general plan and planning code section 302.

And finally, Madam Chair, this item is on our agenda as a potential committee report and may be considered during the committee report agenda tomorrow, July 15th, 2025, if sent by land use.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Clerk, for that mouthful.

It's a bit uh nevertheless.

I think it's um common sense uh reforms to our permitting system uh and what we want to see on the street.

I think we have Carrie here from the Office of Small Business.

Uh, you don't have a presentation.

Do you want to say a few words?

Okay.

Um, we uh continued this uh from last time because uh we made some amendments that were uh substantive, so um we don't have to rehash it.

Thank you for being here unless uh someone has any questions or comments about the legislation or the amendments.

Okay, with that.

Let's go to public comment on this item, please, Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you, madam chair, land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment on agenda item number one related to fenestration transparency and sign requirements generally.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lecture and madam chair, it appears we have no speakers.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Mahmoud, as your co-sponsor, would you like to make a motion?

I'd like to send a motion to vote to send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report.

Motion offered by member Mahmoud that the ordinance be recommended as a committee report.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Mockwin.

Mahmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I, Madam Chair, there are three eyes.

Thank you.

That motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, um, I uh am expecting Mr.

Strong from uh MOH from uh the administrator's office to present on um number two, and uh they're not here.

Oh, you're gonna present.

So they're not here yet.

So I'm gonna uh move on to item three, uh, which is the mayor's office of housing, and I do see them here.

So let's do that out of order, and we're gonna wait for Mr.

Strong to come.

Agenda item number three is an ordinance accepting irrevocable offers of public infrastructure associated with Petrero Hope SF project phase two, including improvements located within portions of 25th, 26th, Arkansas, Connecticut, and Wisconsin streets, and improvements associated with a new switch gear within a building, and an offer of dedication for real property underlying portions of 25th, Arkansas, and Connecticut streets, dedicating this public infrastructure for public use, designating the public infrastructure for public use and roadway purposes, accepting the public infrastructure for city maintenance and liability purposes subject to specified limitations.

Establishing official public right-of-way widths and street grades, amending ordinance number 1061 entitled regulating the width of sidewalks to establish official sidewalk widths on 25th, 26th, Arkansas, Connecticut, and Wisconsin Streets, and accepting a public works order recommending various actions regarding the public infrastructure.

It delegates limited authority to the public works director to accept specified infrastructure and authorizes related official actions.

Also, it adopts sequel findings and makes findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1.

Okay, thank you.

We have Mr.

Andrew Strong here, not Brian, to present on this item number three.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Um good afternoon, Chair Melgar and committee members Chan and Mahmood.

My name is Andrew Strong, and I'm a project manager at the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development.

I'm here to present on item three, file number two five zero six five six for an ordinance which would accept public infrastructure for city maintenance and liability, dedicate to public use and designate for street and roadway purposes, accept real property underlying 25th Street, Arkansas, and Connecticut streets, and establish official public right of way and sidewalk widths and grades as part of Petrero Hope SF redevelopment.

Hope SF was created by Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2005 in response to diminishing federal funding for San Francisco's largest and most neglected public housing sites, namely Alice Griffith, Hunter's View, Sunnydale, and Petrero.

Hope SF represents a 20-year human and real estate capital commitment by the city to achieve reparations for the insidious impacts of past and ongoing trauma, systemic and institutional racism, and deep and persistent poverty.

Part of that commitment includes not only building replacement housing, but also new infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, and utilities for the Petrero community.

We are excited to come before you today to accept these phase two infrastructure improvements for the public.

Petrero Hope SF is the active redevelopment of the existing Petrero Terrace and Annex Housing Authority site through the city's Hope SF program.

At completion, the Petrero Hope SF project will consist of approximately 1,700 residential units, including 619 replacement affordable units, approximately 200 additional affordable housing units, and approximately 800 market rate units.

The master plan also includes all new streets, utilities, and infrastructure, as well as 3.5 acres of new open spaces and approximately 45,000 square feet of new neighborhood serving retail and community spaces.

Bridge housing is the master developer across the site.

Block B, now known as Eve Community Village, Petrero Hope SF's affordable parcel for phase two.

Received their temporary certificate of occupancy in June 2025, and is in the process of leasing up its 159 units.

Demolition for phase three is anticipated to start following block B leaseup in fall of 2025.

Construction of Petrero Phase 2 infrastructure began in February of 2021 and phases 2A and 2B improvements have been completed.

The ordinance proposes delegation of limited authority to the Director of Public Works to accept phase 2C, the final phase for phase two improvements once complete, anticipated this quarter, Q3 of 2025.

This work was delayed due to conflicts with vertical construction of block B.

Public improvements being offered for dedication include streets, sidewalks, curb ramps, sewer, water, power, street lights, trees, and bike parking racks, as well as electrical room improvements within the block B building, which will be accessed through an easement to SFPUC.

A new public street, an extension of Arkansas Street between 25th and 26th streets, has been constructed and is offered for dedication to the city.

Work on 25th Street, 26th Street, Wisconsin Street, and Connecticut Street are improvements to existing streets.

I'm joined here today by Adrian Aguinaldo from Bridge Housing and Shauna Gates from the Department of Public Works, who can assist with any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

I do have a just a small question about the infrastructure that's uh now going into the jurisdiction of the city.

So uh there was an article uh in the paper this past week about the number of unincorporated or unaccepted streets in the city and how many of them are in Bayview.

I'm wondering if any of the uh current streets that we are transitioning over or planned uh in this development are um you know formerly unaccepted streets.

Hi, Shauna Gates, San Francisco Public Works.

I saw that article too.

So I think that's um mostly in the candlestick point area uh within the Petrero, certainly within this phase, there's not there, um Arkansas Street is complete, and today the delegation that we're requesting is that the director of public works can sign off on that once fully complete, which we believe isn't gonna be in August of this year.

Um there are not to my knowledge any unaccepted streets within the master development of Petrero Hope SF.

Okay, yeah, so it's never a big improvement.

Thank you.

We are we are addressing the other areas um yeah as much as we can.

All right, thank you so much.

Um Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I'm very pleased to support this dedication of public infrastructure for the petroleum Hope SF project.

Uh the residents put their faith in us with Hope SF, and we must continue to do the work to deliver our promises to them as well.

Alongside the public infrastructure, the new affordable housing demonstrates that we continue to fulfill promises to make San Francisco more affordable while improving the condition in community that have had to deal with neglected and um dilapidated housing.

So I appreciate uh the word.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, supervisor.

Um, Mr.

Clerk, uh, since I don't see anyone else on the roster, uh, let's go to public comment on this item, please.

Thank you, madam chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number three street and public infrastructure for Petrero Hope SF phase two.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to electorn at this time.

And Madam Chair, it appears we have no speakers.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to make a motion to move uh this piece of legislation uh to the full board with committee with positive committee recommendations.

On the motion offered by the vice chair that the ordinance be recommended to the Board of Supervisors, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmood.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Mr.

Clerk, we have been joined by uh sister.

One supervisor, uh Connie Chan, who is the sponsor of the legislation uh agenda, says number four.

So out of deference to her, let's go to number four now, please.

Agenda item number four is a resolution opposing California State Senate bill number seventy-nine housing development transit oriented development introduced by super by Senator Scott Weiner.

And similar future legislation unless amended to give local governments adequate ability to formulate local plans through its local legislative process, in which local governments and residents have adequate review and oversight of community planning, including affordability requirements and residential and commercial tenant protections.

This item is also on our agenda as a potential committee report and may be sent by the committee for consideration by the Board of Supervisors tomorrow, July 15th, 2025.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Supervisor Chan, welcome to the land use and transportation committee.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Malgar, and thank you, committee member.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chen and Supervisor Mahmood.

Thank you so much for scheduling this item at this time, and so we can put San Francisco on the record in strong opposition to state Senate Bill 79 unless amended.

As I have already mentioned at introduction of this resolution two weeks ago, affordable housing developers and tenants groups had already attempted and failed, unfortunately, to secure sufficient amendment from the bill's chief sponsor, Senator Wiener, and Assemblymember Haney at his land use committee, at his housing committee.

But it is our role as local elected representatives to stand up and intervene when bad policy is being rushed through.

SB 79, as written, amounts to a developer giveaway and only further incentivized speculation of development and land grab by the real estate industry in our neighborhoods.

Just to imagine, colleagues, if Senator Scott Wiener and assembly member Matt Haney are willing to give up even one units of rent control units to developers in this bill.

And who is this bill really created for?

So Chair Malgar, so with this emphasis, I'm circling the uh circling these uh amendments uh to circulating these amendments to the committee, and uh ask for your adoption.

Um, and first we start on page one line 10, uh simply just asking adding uh the word and and on page two line 21.

Uh, we want to make sure that we reflect accurately that we currently have 70,000 fully entitled units um of housing.

Um, and then uh and then on uh which is most critical on page four line fourteen seven, we want to add a this clause, um, whereas SB 79 puts tenants at risk of displacement by allowing ministerial demolition of rent control buildings with less than three units in San Francisco, which would impact approximately 35,000 units according to SAP planning data in a city whose population is over 65 percent renter.

Um thank you so much for your consideration and discussion today on this issue.

I understand that there are many issues that we have to face, not just with this resolution with SB 79, but I think that SB 79 highlighted a critical issue for San Francisco at this moment is that the state in its attempt to build housing and housing development everywhere, it is not really considering what San Francisco is about.

And this issue around rent control units, highlights that approach.

And what we're asking for today, colleagues, is that you could first adopt amendments as proposed and consider to move this item to full board with recommendation with positive recommendation, either as a committee report or even allow discussion, but let us be on the record to be voted on this resolution at the full board.

As I understand that that Assembly Member Matt Haney is going to take on this SB 79 again this week.

But I think that it is probably best that we are on the record tomorrow to be able to articulate to our state legislature, as particularly those represent San Francisco, where San Francisco stands.

Should this come a week later, I think again, all I ask is that we send this out of this committee and allow our colleagues to have a discussion and also vote on the record about where we stand, not just about SB 79, but particularly right now at this rent control uh units issue.

And thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Melga.

Um, colleagues, I am a co-sponsor of this resolution because I also believe in it is important that our state policies are centered in equity, include robust affordability provisions, and not filled displacement in low-income communities.

We should be providing the tools and resources for local communities to lead with community-based planning.

SB 79 does exactly the opposite.

It imposed a blanket solution that ignores many of the place-based uh vulnerabilities around transit corridors.

San Francisco adopted a framework of priority equity geographies for a reason.

We recognize that in areas that we have borne the burns of displacements, our policies should not cause any further harm and should help mitigate the impacts of displacement.

Policies that incentivize transit-oriented development can be beneficial.

They reduce commute, lower carbon emissions, and reduce uh reliance on cars.

However, our policies must be tailored.

We can incentivize development in areas that can absorb it without causing harms, such as areas with robust existing infrastructure and less displacement risks.

For neighborhoods facing displacement, we must prioritize anti-displacement strategies.

Robust tenant protection, protection for our stack of rent control housing and significantly investment in truly affordable housing, rather than simply adding more market rate units.

Otherwise, our policies will likely trigger increased speculation again that raise rents and property value, push out families and businesses that are and have built the fabric of these communities for generations.

This must also be about preserving cultural social network and economic stability.

And I really appreciate Chair Melga and Supervisor Chen.

You actually worked together on this resolution and also the early co-sponsor of Supervisor Feuder for her co-sponsor.

And I with that I also would like to make a motion, Chair Melga, to adopt the amendment as threat into the record by Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chen.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

We'll vote on the amendments after.

Yeah.

Just want to thank Supervisor Chan and Supervisor Chen for introducing this resolution and starting this conversation.

Because as we all know, housing and affordability is an intricate balance, and while we have differences of opinion sometimes on how to approach it, it is a conversation worth having.

We all know that we have an ambitious housing affordability goals in San Francisco and in the Bay Area.

And I just wanted to kind of like say on the record what it's important to remind ourselves what SBS 79's objectives are, and from my perspective, it will help build the vibrant diverse communities across the region and across the state, because what it is intentionally focused on is overcoming the barriers to meet those goals of affordability by focusing on building housing near transit corridors.

Specifically, it will allow projects up to 75 feet near high capacity transit stations and 65 feet near light rail and bus rapid transit stops.

And it encourages growth near those transit stations, specifically BART and Caltrain stations locally, so that we can reduce congestion in the city, build housing for workers closer to where they live, and improve the financial health of the transit system that San Franciscans rely on.

I'm reminded of the impact and the importance of this legislation, even in the tenderloin.

I was talking, I remember a couple months back last year with some of the corridor sweepers and the people who are responsible for the street cleaning teams in the tenderloin, and one of them told me how because it was too expensive for him to live near transit, he lives all the way in low die and commutes nearly two to three hours back and forth every day because we do not have enough affordable housing near transit stations.

Had we had the ability to pass legislation like SB 50 many years ago, we would have potentially been able to build the housing that we need near transit so that our workers and our and the most vulnerable communities were able to live where they work.

I recognize also a lot of the concerns that were expressed around displacement and rent control, but um it is important to recognize that Assemblymember Matt Haney and his colleagues did actually create allow for this legislation to enable cities to create their own plans that will allow for local flexibility.

The bill that with the amendments that he introduced added anti-displacement and demolition rules, and it does not override local protections.

The structure of the bill prevents overriding of local affordability requirements, like our inclusionary housing fees to help deliver the much needed housing we need at all levels, and the revenue from the new market rate housing construction is an important funding source for the affordable housing construction as well.

Um I understand that there are concerns around rent control duplexes in priority equity geographies, and I'm hopeful that forthcoming amendments can be addressed to better handle those situations as well.

I do acknowledge again and respect my colleagues' uh desire to have this go to the full board so all of us in the board can have the ability to express our opinion.

And so I'm in support of while I agree with SB 79 and um do not uh support necessarily in no position uh on SB 79.

I am in support of having this be heard at the full board so all of us can express our opinion.

Thank you.

Uh Supervisor Mahmoud.

Um thank you, uh Supervisor Chan, for uh putting this resolution forward.

I want to clarify, Supervisor Chen, that I did not write this legislation or cooperate with uh Supervisor Chen, but I did schedule it because she asked me to.

So I am not a co-sponsor because there are uh some framing uh in this resolution that I just don't agree with, although I am not in a place where I am supportive of Senate Bill 79 yet, for some of the reasons that um Supervisor Chan Um talked about, the main one being the preservation of our geography uh priority equity communities, which is one of the foundational principles of our um housing element, the other one being the preservation of rent controlled units.

Uh so I also know I have been following this uh very closely and also uh weighing in, coordinating and organizing with other folks around the state to try to get some better language in front of our state legislators in Sacramento.

So we have definitely rolled up our sleeves and been active in that space.

And we were able to get some language in there, still not language that is clear enough for me.

And so what is at stake in terms of Senate Bill 79 for San Francisco's equity geography areas is mostly at Broad Street in District 11 in Lakeview, which is in Supervisor Vice Chair Chen's district, and areas around 3rd Street in District 10.

Because it's one of the foundational principles of our housing element, I really feel like the language needs to be clearer.

But having spoken to Senator Weiner and his staff, I know that they are open to working with us still.

And it's not just us, it's also LA, Berkeley, lots of other municipalities around the state who have worked on their housing elements and have similar issues that we have.

And I bring that up because many municipalities around us would be completely transformed by SB 79 in a way that we would support.

So in the past couple years, Milbrae, Burlingame, you know, Brisbane, lots of municipalities in our area have resisted development of rental housing, Mellow Park in their transit-oriented corridors, and particularly resisted affordable housing.

And it is a regional issue, which is why we created the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, why we are fighting for affordable housing at a regional level.

We're not all in the same place.

And so it is difficult to be able to have legislation that will deal with a housing crisis in California while respecting the local control that some of us have been able to achieve to preserve affordable housing and renters' rights.

But I think it can be done.

I'm hoping that it can be done for the next generation.

The things in the resolution that I have a little bit of a challenge with, and that I don't quite see the same way, is about the framing of the issue to begin with.

Because besides, you know, the preservation of communities, which is important to me, I also think we are dealing with decisions that were made by prior generations that have created an affordable housing shortage, a housing shortage in my district in District 7, definitely a shortage of rental housing.

So the two major transit hubs in District 7, West Portal and Forest Hill are surrounded by homeowner-occupied single family homes that were created with developments that had exclusionary language and were redlined by our federal government to prevent people of color from purchasing homes in those areas.

And so we are living with legacy of prior generations and also land use decisions that we have made here in these chambers in San Francisco to preserve low density and a car-centric lifestyle when we are now dealing with a climate crisis.

So there are lots of things in SB 79 that I like, and I want to work with the authors and our state legislators to try to come up with better language that protects the things in the housing element that I care about, which are rental protections, affordable housing, and the equity geography areas.

And I know that it can still be amended until September.

So I am not quite willing to go there yet and would rather keep working on it.

But I appreciate having this conversation and having us all be put on record about how we're feeling about this, because it is really important, and I wish people were actually paying more attention to what is going on in Sacramento and also locally.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number four, resolution opposing California State Senate Bill 79.

If you have public comment for this item, please line up to speak along that western wall, and we'll hear from the first speaker now.

I'm the state and federal legislative liaison.

Speaking on my own behalf.

Following up on my written submission, thank you to Supervisors Chan and Chen for sponsoring this legislation.

The coalition has taken a position of outright opposition to SB 79 Wiener.

San Francisco is the second most densely populated city in the U.S., second only to New York City.

San Francisco has a transit system in which approximately 90% of the city is within one half mile of a transit stop.

Bills like SB 79 would have an outsized impact.

Also, during Scott Weiner's opening remarks on SB 79 at the April 22nd hearing of the Senate Committee on Housing, he made a number of derogatory comments on the bill analysis, which include: it was extremely negative.

It was an avalanche and laundry list of negativity.

It contained debunked arguments contradicted by an avalanche of evidence.

The coalition has issued a formal apology to the author of the bill analysis, Allison Hughes, for Senator Weiner's bad behavior.

Senator Weiner also made a derogatory remark against the committee chair, Aisha Wahap.

The coalition has also issued a formal apology to Senator Wahab for Senator Wiener's bad behavior.

And both of these objects of Senator Weiner's disparaging remarks were women.

Urging the committee to move this forward as a committee report.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Meg Heisler.

I'm here on behalf of the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition in support of the resolution before you.

San Francisco should oppose SB 79 unless amended to expressly prohibit the demolition of rent-controlled housing.

Given restrictions imposed imposed elsewhere by state law, San Francisco is limited in its ability to implement and enforce demolition controls and tenant protections above and beyond those explicitly outlined in the bill.

As you've mentioned, the bill will allow for the demolition of tens of thousands of rent-controlled units in San Francisco, and consequently expose thousands more tenants to a host of displacement threats from harassment to Alice evictions.

There should not be a carve out for two unit buildings.

SB 79 should prohibit projects from being built on sites requiring the demolition of any rent-controlled units.

This resolution is a needed reminder to Sacramento that the rent controlled housing is an essential stabilizing force across San Francisco and must be protected.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Uh, good afternoon.

Uh, my name is Eric Wu.

I'm assistant staff of the Chinatown Community Development Center, which supports the resolution.

Uh, I'm here to speak to express our concerns regarding SB 79's expected concentration of impacts on low-income residents and communities of color.

Um, SB 79 concentrates most of its significant upzoning impacts around high volume transit corridor stops.

Uh, this disproportionately affects low-income residents in San Francisco and other urban areas across the state uh who live along these corridors precisely because they depend on public transit.

Uh, SB 79's uh proposed upzoning combined with the anticipated influx of new market rate housing in low-income communities is likely to have uh directly harmful effect impacts on nearby uh low-income residents.

Um, despite these foreseeable adverse impacts, SB 79 further erodes our city's ability to protect existing uh residents from displacement and to prevent the demolition of our scarce rent controlled housing.

Uh, for these reasons, we urge support for the resolution before this committee.

Um CCDC has also previously submitted a letter opposing SP 79, unless it is amended uh to the California um uh local government committee.

Uh, I have copies of the letter uh for the record uh for the for the clerk.

Yeah.

I'll retrieve those.

Uh you can just leave them there.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Melgar and members of the land use and transportation committee.

My name is Steven Torres, and I'm speaking in support of Supervisor Connie Chan's resolution to oppose California Senate Bill 79 unless amended.

As there is as written, SB 79 threatens to further undo the thoughtful community planning regulations and local controls that were instated by municipalities and communities across the state in the wake of disastrous planning and implementations of the past, like redlining and the federal redevelopment programs of the 60s and 70s.

Members of this city's government and planning department have thrown up their hands and stated we have no choice but to pass and implement unnecessary and speculative rezoning, approved problematic projects, and not be able to hold developers accountable because of mandates and legislation that have been put upon us at the state level.

It makes no sense to further facilitate that.

Furthermore, while the planning department and state politicians have continued to assure us that no threat to rent controlled housing exists, this kind of legislation makes it clear.

This is true of SB 330, it is true of SP 79, and it is true of the upzoning plan that abandons most of the city's hard-fought housing element.

In a city that is 65% renter, you can't help seeing this as throwing owner vulnerable tenants under the bus who are clearly viewed as collateral expenditures in making San Francisco abundant again.

Nationally, protections for the people and the land of this country are being repealed by the day.

Does it make sense to further imperil our state and city with this irreversible giveaway to extractive wealth?

In fact, the only core mandate incumbent upon this body is to look for more ways in which to protect the people of the city and state and not instead private and corporate interests or any legislation on their behalf.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Calvin Welch, Hadeshbury neighborhood council, the board of the council uh supports the resolution uh in uh uh every way imaginable.

We have just experienced a muni diminution of service in the Haight Ashbury.

Indeed, four of the lines that were reduced in service serve the area that the mayor is proposing to increase density in.

So we have the exact opposite relationship occurring in San Francisco now.

We are reducing muni service in areas earmarked for increased density.

I would urge the committee to amend this resolution to state that in those cases at the state level, in which there is an actual reduction in muni services, no state density bonus should be allowed along those routes.

That we should, if we're doing anything other than virtue signaling, and kind of hypocritically embracing transit-oriented development when we're living in a period in which we are seeing the dramatic reduction of public transit.

We should stand up and say no density, density will be only allowed if, in fact, service continues to be maintained.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Quinton Mecky, Executive Director of the Council of Community Housing Organizations.

We are in support of this resolution, and we urge you to do the same.

This is your opportunity.

One thing to be very clear no matter where you stand in the conversation around housing in San Francisco.

SB 79 in its current iteration would absolutely and fundamentally upend the upzoning that you will be reviewing later this year.

I want everyone to sit with that because that is this bill would completely upend that map and make it moot and expand it in a way that no one is prepared and planning is certainly not prepared to actually handle it this moment.

So either there's some exemptions or you exempt San Francisco, but the way this bill is currently written would undermine all of the process that the mayor's legislation is trying to put forward at the stands right now.

And I would further note that the opportunity around this conversation around amendments is because we at Choo Choo and other organizations are part of the statewide coalition that have been pushing for every single amendment that you have seen in this legislation since it was introduced.

And we're not done yet, and we shouldn't be done yet.

Most importantly, and I think thank you, Supervisor Melgar.

I know your office has been involved in this conversation.

There is no alignment between the city attorney's office and how they interpret the effects of SB 79 with what the intention of what the authors think is happening in Sacramento.

And this is the challenge because right now there is not a conversation between the city and county and Sacramento government around housing and land use in San Francisco.

And this is why we're sitting here today, having to put forth this resolution to ensure that there are at least an ongoing conversation and amendments before this bill moves forward in Sacramento.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors.

Um I first want to say that my name is Brianna Morales from the Housing Action Coalition, as they're a community organizer.

Um, and we are in a housing crisis in San Francisco.

That's pushing out teachers, workers, young families, and lifelong San Franciscans.

At the same time, we're facing a climate crisis that demands bold action to reduce car dependencies and create sustainable transit-oriented communities.

And at the heart of this conversation is something that I hear from a lot of the residents that we need more house housing, more housing choices, for people that are real, our family members are neighbors to be able to stay in the city that we love.

I want to also acknowledge that there's a lot of real concerns about displacement, especially in neighborhoods with deep cultural roots and long history as a fighting to stay.

So we're proud of initiatives that are able to take that and try to make sure that we're not going back to those very problems that we're trying to mitigate and correct.

And bills like SB 79 are working towards that, including working on affordability and anti-displacement uh practices, just like in SB 330, to ensure that the homes we're adding are not destroying the homes that exist.

And it's really about creating choices and stability and not about displacing people.

And that's why it's so critical to have these conversations, but also to work with strong tenant protection leaders that are building tools that continuously strengthen longtime residents' protections in their communities and benefits and new investments.

We're really encouraged to see collaboration like this between local leaders and the state to solve these big challenges together.

We need more cooperation if we're going to address the housing and climate crises, that we're in the middle of.

So thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar and Land Use Committee, Chantal Laborinto and the Race and Equity and All Planning Coalition.

We appreciate Supervisor Chan's leadership in pushing back to prevent SB 79's disastrous impacts and urges committee to recommend to the board that the city take the official position to oppose SB 79 unless significantly amended.

SB 79 puts tenants living in tens of thousands of rent controlled units across the state at risk.

In its current form, the bill will allow for the demolition of two unit rent controlled housing, which is often occupied by very vulnerable tenants.

And planning is estimated that there are 35,000 two-unit buildings just in San Francisco alone.

The Rep Coalition and the SF anti-displacement coalition, in addition to advocates across the state, have been advocating to our state leaders to remove the exemption for the two-unit buildings and prohibits SB 79 projects from being built on sites requiring the demolition of any rent controlled units or where any rent controlled housing has been demolished within seven years of a development application.

We must protect rent controlled housing full stop and deny any policy that attempts demolition of rent controlled housing.

Advocates have also been clear in stating that transit oriented development is important and we believe it can be done right, but SB 79 advances a one size fits all approach that misses the mark.

As it stands, not only does the bill put rent controlled housing and tenants at risk, it also does not include strong investment in affordable housing and much needed transit infrastructure.

As such, it effectively undermines the critical equity actions in the housing element that prioritize affordable housing, land banking, community planning, and the stability of tenants and small businesses.

Please support this resolution and oppose SB 79 unless amended.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone furtherwise public comment for agenda item number four from whom we have not yet heard?

Seeing none, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, and thank you, everyone from the community to who came to weigh in on this issue.

Um before we go uh for a vote on the uh motion to amend, I just wanted to say a couple things, address a couple of the things that were said during public comment, just to uh clarify a couple things about SB 79.

Uh the first is that um many of the neighborhoods that were talked about during public comment Chinatown, the mission, um, have already been upzoned.

That is not the issue uh with SB79.

Um, I just want to be clear about that because it was also said that it would affect um the upzoning that we're trying to do on the west side.

Um, and uh, you know, it does only that it um the underpinning of our the philosophical framework of our uh housing element is to protect the equity geography areas.

But I just want to make sure that we all understand that in those neighborhoods where we that's precisely why we um you know made them priority equity geographies is that for many years, and especially when we did the eastern neighborhoods rezoning, a lot of these areas have already been upzoned and they have uh actually taken almost entirely all of the development that has happened in San Francisco, while the West side has not, and it has particularly not seen any new rental housing or affordable housing, and that is an inequity.

So these are all complicated issues, um, and I appreciate the conversation from all of my colleagues.

Supervisor uh Vice Chair Chen has made a motion to uh approve the amendments.

Oh, public comment is now closed.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Um uh Vice Chair Chen has made a motion to amend to adopt the amendments as ran into the record by Supervisor uh Chan.

On the motion offered by Vice Chair Chen that the resolution be amended as presented, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member McMahon Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

I Melgar, I, Madam Chair, there are three eyes on the amendment on the amendments.

Thank you.

Um I would like to make a motion that we send this at resolution to the full board as uh Supervisor Chan has requested uh without recommendation, as not as a committee report.

And I'd like to do that, Supervisor Chian, just because there is a meeting on Wednesday, uh, and I'm hoping that uh some uh agreements and conversations that I've been have actually result in something before this gets to our um board.

And I uh, you know, that's the motion that I'm gonna make.

Motion offered by the chair that the resolution be forwarded without recommendation as amended to the Board of Supervisors that would be then considered on July 22nd.

Correct.

On that motion, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I.

Member Machmood I.

Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I, Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Okay, now let's go back to item number three because I see uh Brian Strong is here.

Item number two, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry, that Brian, yes, number two.

Agenda item number two is a resolution adopting the 2025 hazards and climate resilience plan as San Francisco's update to the 2020 local hazard mitigation plan.

Good afternoon, uh members of the land use committee.

Uh my name's Brian Strong and the Chief Resilience Officer and oversee the Office of Resilience and Capital Planning.

Thank you so much for having us here.

I know typically I'm talking about our capital plan, um, but today I'm talking about our hazards and climate resilience plan, which is equally important.

Uh and unfortunately, well, fortunately, maybe for for our staff reasons, it only comes up every five years.

Um, but this is where we put all of our strategies together.

This is where we pull everything that the city's doing to adapt to climate change to address seismic risk, earthquakes, um, heat events, all the different types of natural disasters that the city's facing.

And we know that um just just based on reading the news uh all around the country, we're we're seeing these challenges and they're becoming more and more frequent.

And unfortunately, we've also seen the federal government sort of stepping away, and they had their building resilience and communities grant program, which was over close to six billion dollars, that was that is is no longer in existence.

Um that doesn't mean that it isn't still important that local communities and that San Francisco isn't being very aggressive in how we're planning and being very um when I say aggressive, I mean um attentive.

Uh we're working with community folks, and we're trying to be very deliberate, deliberate, because as we know, um resources are becoming fewer, and we need to be addressing more and more of these sort of challenges um, you know, together.

So we we cannot afford to look at them separately.

Uh so with that, I'm gonna introduce Melissa Higby, who is the uh manager of our resilience program to walk through a brief presentation.

Thank you, Brian, and thank you, Chel Melgar and members of the committee.

Again, my name is Melissa Higby.

I'm the resilience program manager in the Office of Resilience and Capital Planning.

We're within the Office of the City Administrator.

And um, in summary, we're asking this committee to recommend approval of the resolution to adopt the 2025 hazards and climate resilience plan as San Francisco's local hazard mitigation plan.

So this would really demonstrate San Francisco's continued commitment to hazard mitigation planning and climate resilience.

It would allow our office to obtain the final approval of the plan by FEMA Region 9, which would then make San Francisco eligible for FEMA pre-disaster mitigation grants and make San Francisco eligible for reduced local cost share for post disaster FEMA public assistance per AB 2140.

Should we have a major disaster in the city?

So a little bit more background about this plan.

Um, as Brian mentioned, it's a citywide action plan to improve our resilience to all the different types of natural hazards and climate change impacts that we have here.

We update it every five years per those FEMA requirements.

So it has a set of buildings, communities, and infrastructure priorities, a range of projects, plans, and programs, and a vulnerability risk assessment for 13 different hazards.

So there's three different reasons we have it at the federal, state, and local level, again at federal level, the eligibility for FEMA grants, which is becoming increasingly uncertain in the current environment.

But there's also a couple really important state laws that underpin this, including SB 379 and AB 2140.

Those require the cities to link this with the safety and resilience element of the general plan, which we've done.

And then at the local level, this plan is really a companion to the general plan, to emergency operations plan, and the city's climate action plan, where this focuses on resilience to climate change impacts and natural hazards.

So again, I've been mentioning vulnerability and risk assessment to 13 different natural hazards.

You can see them here, it's really a wide range.

So we have 75 different actions in the plan that address these 13 different hazards.

I can't talk about all of them today.

I do just want to highlight three of them for you from a risk assessment perspective, one of them being earthquakes.

We do have a 72% chance of a major earthquake in the next 30 years with high potential for damages and loss of life, so that's really a high priority.

Secondly, I also want to highlight extreme heat.

We've, you know, we're blessed to have Carl the Fog here for much of the summer.

But extreme heat is the number one killer in the United States of all natural hazards.

Just a couple years ago in Seattle, also a city with a mild climate, they had a heat dome event that resulted in at least 140 deaths.

And we know because of climate change, we're going to be experiencing more extreme heat days in the future.

So we're really keeping that on our radar.

And then lastly, I'd also want to highlight the flood risks that we have in San Francisco, being a city with water on three sides, and climate change projections again telling us that we will likely experience more extreme storms and also sea level rise, with again a really high level of potential damages without adaptation.

So I will focus on those hazards and some of my further remarks in this presentation.

Another thing that this plan does is make hazard data more accessible to the public.

So we have all of the hazards available on our website so community members can toggle on and off.

They can zoom into their neighborhood and learn more about the risks and what actions the city and community members are taking to be more resilient.

And then just a little bit about our process to update the plan for a 2025.

We actually started this two years ago in July 2023.

We kicked off and we started meeting quarterly with a planning team, which included a lot of members of different departments from around the city.

We updated the hazard profiles, we looked at the actions and saw which ones had been completed, where we need to start new ones.

And also within that period, we had a seven months of more concerted community engagement events.

So for community engagement, we really took a road show approach where we reached out to organizations that had participated in our 2020 plan and also community-based organizations in environmental justice communities and reached out to them and offered to come present at their existing meetings.

So this took a range of different formats.

You can see here my colleague Alex presenting to seniors at the Richmond Senior Center.

We also did presentations at community meetings and exercises at larger events as well.

You see a picture there of our Life Lines Council that we also did a workshop with.

So that plan, those planning team meetings and the community engagement allowed us to put together a draft plan that we put out to the public for two months and accepted public comment during that period.

We also did a range of commission presentations about that draft plan to all the different department commissions that are involved in the plan, like the PUC, the port, the planning department, just to name a couple.

We made revisions and submitted that draft to Cal OES and FEMA.

They reviewed it.

We've made some minor revisions to meet all the different criteria for their planning checklist.

And now we are here today submitting it to you all to hopefully have it fully approved and adopted by the end of this month.

So a little bit about what's new in this plan versus the 2020 version.

We actually were able to reduce the number of actions by using prioritization criteria.

So we've gotten down to 75.

At the same time, about a third of those actions are actually new actions, and two-thirds of them are actions that were continuing on from 2020.

We've incorporated new climate change, climate change research and planning, some of our newer seismic safety programs.

We've also tried to highlight nature-based solutions as a big part of our solution set, and that's something we heard a lot from the community the importance of biodiversity and nature-based solutions.

We've also highlighted energy resilience actions quite a bit.

That was another item we heard a lot from the community.

People are interested in having more access to backup power, to electrification resources, and overall concerns about the reliability of the grid.

We've also incorporated resilience efforts related to housing and development changes.

So we've included a lot more of the activities going on on Treasure Island to make that neighborhood more resilient as a accept more housing and grow that community.

So a little bit about the structure of the plan.

We have three pillars buildings, communities, and infrastructure.

We have 17 different objectives that you see here, and 75 different actions.

So in the building space, you see here a lot about improving our existing vulnerable buildings and also designing new highly resilient buildings.

In the community space, you'll see a lot here about public health, bolstering our community resilience networks, capacity building through collaboration.

And then in the infrastructure space, you see some of the things I mentioned before about our power systems, communications, transportation, nature-based solutions, the waterfront, and our water systems.

So I can I'm not going to speak to 75 different actions, but I do just want to give four different examples of the types of actions in the plan that relate back to earthquakes, extreme heat, and flooding, as I mentioned before.

So one example is an action around earthquake safety implementation program.

This program has successfully completed the soft story retrofit program and also the retrofitted of unreinforced masonry buildings.

And this program is now moving on to address concrete and tilt up buildings.

So DBI and our office are implementing the concrete building screening and voluntary retrofit ordinance that was recently passed here.

And we're also working to retrofit or replace high-hazard city-owned concrete buildings through programs like the earthquake safety and emergency response ESER geobond program.

Earthquakes doesn't only affect buildings but also horizontal infrastructure.

So the Lifelines Council is a really important action that we have to collaborate around improving the resilience of horizontal infrastructure like power, roads, and water.

And the Lifelines Council is currently working to update the Lifelines Restoration Performance Project.

It analyzes timelines for restoration following a major earthquake and sets goals and recommendations to improve the restoration of lifelines after an earthquake.

And then in the community space, I mentioned extreme heat as a key concern.

So we do have a heat and air quality resilience project that partners with the community and academic stakeholders to develop and implement medium to long-term resilience actions that support our more short-term emergency response.

So some of those actions that are in the HCR include green infrastructure priority zones, installing temperature and air quality sensors in our libraries and health clinics, connecting asthma patients with home weatherization resources, and CBOs with equipment and trainings.

And then lastly, around our flood hazards, I also wanted to highlight an example in the infrastructure space.

We recently got a 1.5 million dollar grant to develop a San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Plan to be submitted to BCDC as required by Senate Bill 272.

So this will include a vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan for all reaches of the Bay Shoreline.

So it's going to next going to knit together some of our existing plans, like the Ports Waterfront Flood Study, the Yosemite Slough Neighborhood Plan, major development projects like Treasure Island and Pier 70.

And it's also going to develop some new adaptation strategies for some of the gaps we have around our shoreline, like in our southern and northern waterfronts, along with community participation.

So now that we've drafted the plan, departments are really turning towards implementation, and our office is looking at maintaining this plan.

So each of the actions identifies lead and partner departments.

They are working to identify and seek resources to implement the actions.

Our office also holds an annual planning team meeting to reconvene those departments that put together the plan to kind of assess how are hazards changing, how is our risk changing?

Do we have new priorities that we need to be working on together?

We also draft a mid-point progress report to see how the city is doing on implementing those 75 different actions.

And we also will be continuing community engagement around resilience.

Often that is through the specific actions in this plan, but we also seek out other opportunities to do engagement about the HCR overall, like what you see here in the pictures around doing engagement at the Youth Climate Summit.

And we welcome any partnership with the board as well for doing doing ongoing community engagement.

So with that, I will be happy to answer any questions.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms.

Higbeat, wonderful presentation, and thank you, Mr.

Strong, for all of your work on this and many other issues.

Colleagues, I am sponsoring this item and respectfully request your support.

You know, our adaptation and mitigation strategies have to accompany changes in our behavior and land use pattern to make sure that our children are inheriting a more sustainable world and a more sustainable city.

So our city is, of course, surrounded by water on all three sides.

We are seeing the effects of the rising of the water table.

And on the west side of town, what is happening to the Great Highway, and along our port.

Our ferry building, our port infrastructure, is seeing that.

If you go out there on a day where the king tides are strong, you will see it yourself.

And much of our infrastructure is underground for Muni.

And we are seeing the effects of our changing climate already.

So much of our financial district in districts one, three, six, not to mention Treasure Island, nearby Wena Island, our, you know, build on fill, and the water is getting higher and warmer.

So I am, you know, really hopeful for our collective efforts and for planning ahead.

And I also I'm daunted by the money it's gonna cost to do the what we need to do to preserve our city, because we will need uh not just FEMA money, but uh some pretty serious investment to um make sure that our infrastructure is preserved um and that we can continue to thrive as a city surrounded on water by three sides.

Uh, in the case of Treasure Island and Yoruba Island, the whole thing.

So, again, thank you so much uh for all of this incredible work.

Um and colleagues, I um ask that you support this.

Um I will uh um pass it on to Vice Chair Chen before we go to public comment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Malgar.

I also want to echo, I want to thank Director Strong for your strong leadership.

Uh I know that building a safer and more resilient future, it's a defined challenge of our time.

So it requires a fundamental shift in our mindset.

Moving away from merely reacting to disaster toll, proactively reducing their risks.

And I think we all know in San Francisco the question is no longer if a disaster will strive, but it's more of a question of when and how well and how will we be prepared for it.

So um, and we all know the consequences of not being prepared can be deficiting.

Devastating uh devastating, uh, not just disrupting our economy, uh dismantling our infrastructure, but also impacting our communities, and this is why we resiliency it's also a community effort.

I appreciate the role of your office in empowering our local neighborhoods with strategy that are linguistically and culturally accessible with knowledge, uh preparedness, skills, and tools for collaboration.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chen.

Um let's go to public comment on this item, please, Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number two, the 2025 local hazard mitigation plan.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lecture at this time.

I want to say thank you to department staff and to chairperson Melgar for your work on this as a Californian and in my lived experience, this is something that is very important to me.

Uh my great-great-grandfather died in 1906.

I lived through the Northridge earthquake, um, also the Mexico City earthquake in 2017, where I experienced real death in person, and however, in 2017, those deaths were significantly lower than in 1985.

And the reason why was because of their advanced warning system.

We had an advanced warning system here for tsunami that was left over from the cold war, and it still has not come back.

Um this could be an incredible tool in saving thousands of lives that especially those who do not have access to telephone and um something we saw at La Haina was that you know cell service internet falls out in disasters, and we need to continue to support our infrastructure in terms of hardline.

Um also, you know, I appreciate what you said.

I look at this very holistically as well, and I think in terms of how we are mapping and planning for the future, we also have to recognize that when we are building anywhere in California, but especially here, that flooding is because of how much land we've taken away and we've and how much of the wind shear affects our buildings is also because of development and the fog itself is contingent on open ground and open water.

So all of these things we have to remember when we approve plans and look at these things holistically, not just divorced from each other, because as anyone who's lived here in this state knows it's a beautiful state, but also a cataclysmic one.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any further speakers for agenda item number two?

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Uh, with that uh public comment is now closed.

Um I would like to make a motion that we send this out uh with a positive recommendation to the full board, please.

Motion offered by the chair that the resolution be recommended to the board of supervisors, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, I, Member Machman, Machmud.

Makmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I, Madam Chair.

There are three ayes.

Thank you.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Clerk, do we have any other items on our agenda?

There's no further business.

Okay, we're adjourned.

Thank you.