Good afternoon, everyone.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the September 8th, 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 Mahmood.

The committee clerk today is Mr.

John Carroll.

And I would also like to acknowledge Matthew Egnao at SFGov TV for staffing this meeting today.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Please ensure that you silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you've brought with you into the chamber today.

If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, 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 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 send your public comment via email to me at J-O-H-N, period C A R R O L L at S F G O V dot O R G.

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.

Goodlett, place room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

If you submit 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 on today's agenda are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of September 16th, 2025, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

Please call item number one.

Agenda item number one is an ordinance ordering the summary vacation of a public service easement for public utility purposes at 112 Kensington Way, authorizing the city to quit claim its interest in the vacation area to Kevin Jenkins and Lalita Chandra Sekar for $20,000.

Affirming the planning department's secret determination, adopting findings that the actions contemplated in the ordinance are consistent with the general plan in the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and authorizing other official acts in connections with the ordinance as defined within the ordinance text.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

I don't see anyone here from the Department of Real Estate.

Oh, okay.

Come on up.

Are you Sandy?

Yes.

Hi.

Last minute was told this morning.

It's okay.

Colleagues, uh, this legislation proposes to quick claim the city's interest in the vacation area to the owners of 112 Kensington Way in District 7 to help facilitate a construction project pursuant to the provisions of the agreement for sale of real estate.

It is a very small sliver of land, uh, as you can see in the map at the Sandy will present.

Uh the easement is was established to facilitate the development of the land.

Somebody wants to develop a house there, so I'm going to turn it over to Sandy to present.

I don't have a presentation of slides today.

Um I've been on vacation.

I came in this morning and they're like, you're going to facilitate.

Okay.

Um it's not actually a sale of land.

Could we have you right on the mic, please?

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

It's not a sale of a sliver of land.

It's a strip of land that the city had the right to use.

So we're not giving up anything that we own other than the access right.

Um and it is an empty lot.

They've been waiting to build a house there, the owners for many, many years.

Uh, and and we and I've been working there for years to try and just make this happen just to make their ownership clean.

Um and it has been, it was bought, and as I said in the statute, it was bought for the purpose of providing sewage lines for a proposed housing development at the top of the hill.

Instead, it became a park.

So the park and PUC both said we don't need it anymore.

We're not going to build any land here.

We have and I have confirmation from PUC saying we did not make any approvements in this space.

It's just something that was historically obtained and never used.

And they both commissions, and it's submitted to the clerk, um, have given permission.

Everyone has given permission under the sun.

Okay.

Thank you so much, Sandy.

Um, so uh with that, if there's no questions or comments from my colleagues, uh let's go to public comment on this item.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related specifically to agenda item number one, public service easement vacation and quick claim at 112 Kensington Way.

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

And Madam Chair, it appears we have no speakers.

Okay, thank you so much.

Uh seeing as we have a recommendation from the director of real estate, the PC, Rack and Park Department, a very eager family who wants to build a house.

Um, I would like to propose that we send up to make a motion that we send this item out of the committee to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Oh, public comment is closed.

Thank you.

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

Chen I, Member Machmood Mahmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three eyes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you, Sandy.

Uh, let's go to item number two, please, Mr.

Clerk.

Agenda item number two is a resolution urging a preventative interagency and data-driven approach to ending severe and fatal traffic crashes by designing and enforcing safer streets for all San Franciscans with a particular focus on protecting children, seniors, and other vulnerable populations.

Thank you so much.

Um, I want to say thank you to all the advocates are here today and to Supervisor Chen for um joining us at the rally earlier.

I am proud to bring forward uh the San Francisco Street Safety Act.

It's a resolution that builds upon a decade of work, urgency, and also heartbreak, unfortunately, around traffic safety in the city.

It builds on the work that was done by former uh District 7 and president of the Board of Supervisors, Norman Yi.

Most people in the city walk, bike, take transit at some point during the day, uh and they deserve streets uh that are safe, that protect their lives, where it's not a gamble to just cross that street.

Back in 2014, this body passed its first Vision Zero resolution, committing to the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and injuries within uh 10 years.

That resolution laid a critical foundation, but nearly 10 years later, we are still losing lives on our street.

Despite many good quick build traffic calming projects and many successful tools that have been deployed and also enforcement efforts, serious and fatal traffic crashes remain far too common, especially among seniors and vulnerable children, people with disabilities, people walking, enrolling.

We also know that the conditions on our streets from autonomous vehicles and ride share to massive SUVs and increased distractions have changed dramatically since 2014.

It's time for our strategies to evolve as well.

The Street Safety Act moves us from a piecemeal progress that is to a more coordinated interagency approach, one that breaks down silos and clearly defines the responsibilities of every core agency involved in designing, maintaining, and protecting our streets.

This is not just the MTA.

Um it is not sustainable or fair to place a full burden of this life-saving work on one department.

This is why this resolution lays out specific actions from the MTA, but also uh the uh police department, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Public Health, the County Transportation Authority, the fire department, and even the school district, each with clear timelines, implementation plans, and reporting expectations.

To ensure that this doesn't collect dust, the resolution includes public dashboards, data collection mandates, and an annual hearing hosted by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority.

I also want to acknowledge that we've been in conversation with the mayor's office about what it will take to implement the policies outlined here.

And those conversations have been very productive and promising.

So I'm really grateful for this mayor's uh collaborative approach.

There is shared recognition that traffic violence is preventable, that our city must act together and work together to save lives.

This is about prevention, coordination, and accountability.

It's about shifting from reaction to responsibility.

And most of all, it's about ensuring that every San Franciscan, regardless of where they live or how they get around, can move through our city safely.

In advance, uh advancing this the Street Safety Act out of committee and towards a future where we fully treat traffic safety as an urgent system-wide issue that it truly is.

Um and at this time I would like to ask uh SFMTA director uh Julie Kirschbaum uh to uh approach the mic, but be before you start talking, I wanted to turn it over to um committee vice chair uh Shyen Chen, who wants to say a few words.

Thank you, Chair uh Malga.

I'm very appreciative of your leadership in moving forward this resolution.

And I think the San Francisco, the driving landscape has changed so significantly in the last decade.

Drivers have shared the drivers have to share the roadway with so many other users, from uh driveless vehicle to the proliferation of shared transportation, texting, and other destruction while driving.

The this introduction is so much needed, and also with so much new technology that it's also introduced in today's um uh in today's world.

So the city also has learned a great deal from its first attempt through Vision Zero, and we have lessons learned about how better to design and implement a more comprehensive street safety strategies.

And I very I am very appreciative.

Uh the interdepartmental approach that is taken in this resolutions, uh class sets of benchmarks, and also an NU report cart process.

And I am very happy and that I will be voting in favor to support the resolution today and tomorrow.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Uh okay.

Uh hi, Director.

Hi.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, uh Julie Kirschbaum, Transportation Director at the SFMTA.

Uh thank you for the opportunities to speak today and for your continued uh leadership on transportation safety.

I I wanted in particular to thank Supervisor Melgar and uh the strong group of partner supervisors uh that have come together on uh the this Safe Streets Act.

Um I really like that it is actionable, uh it has clear expectations, um, and as a city family, we are excited to deliver it.

Uh we have already uh started that hard work.

Uh we met as a group of department heads along with uh the Transportation Authority and the school district uh to review um the act and to make sure uh that we were each set up to be able to deliver.

Uh we also really appreciate all of the time uh Emma Hare in your office has taken uh to work through the details.

I believe it will make it a uh stronger work product.

Um at SFMTA uh we believe and recognize that while human error is inevitable, serious injury and death are not.

Um that is embedded into all of the work we do.

Under the act, uh, we're supporting clear commitments to address the updated 2025 high injury network, continue our quick build program, prioritize electronic enforcement, including speed safety cameras, expanding daylighting and ensuring compliance, improving our traffic combing program, and reporting on outcomes to build public trust and accountability.

Safety is central to everything uh that we do.

And uh while the Vision Zero uh deadline has passed, it has not um we have not slowed down for one minute.

I'm incredibly proud of what we have accomplished uh this year, including bringing new tools uh that San Francisco streets need.

Uh, that includes launching the first uh speed safety camera program.

Early data shows that drivers are slowing down, uh, and that more than anything is what we are trying to accomplish.

Um where we've made safety improvements, we've seen collisions drop by 16% and even more people walking, uh, which we're really proud of.

Um I really appreciate Supervisor Chen, you pointing out the the difficult trends and headwinds that this work is facing.

Um, and uh that is just made us uh uh redouble our our commitment to this important work.

Um we know that there is more work to do.

Uh we know that the work is interagency and really requires the um safe systems approach um that the city departments are so committed to.

Uh, we will continue to work transparently, collaboratively, and equitably because safety is not just a goal.

You know, we really believe it is a shared responsibility.

So thank you.

Thank you so much, Director Kirschbauman.

Thank you uh for your leadership and bringing people together in a way that is collaborative and always keeping the task at hand.

So I appreciate you.

Thank you.

Um next uh we have uh Dr.

Susan Phillip from the public health department.

Welcome, Dr.

Phillip.

Good afternoon, thank you, Chair Melgar, thank you, Supervisor Chen and Mahmood, for the opportunity to be here.

My name is Dr.

I'm the health officer for San Francisco, and I'm the director of the Population Health Division at SFDPH.

As we've uh heard from you today, uh our street should be safe for all our residents.

There's a huge equity component to this health issue as well.

The San Francisco Department of Public Health will continue to support efforts to make our street safer for everyone in collaboration with Director Kirschbaum, her team, and the other departments that are involved.

Our uh primary responsibility, which we will continue is to collect our work, to continue our work to collect, analyze, and publish crash fatality and injury data.

And we look to continue to improve our ability to do that, to look for new ways to inform the work as we collaborate together with the rest of the city and uh communities that um are asking for and deserve safe streets, as you said.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dr.

Phillip.

Uh so uh colleagues, before we go to public comment, I do want to talk about a few amendments that I will make to the resolution.

Um that has been some amendments that were requested by the fire department and the recreation and parks department, which was not initially included, but want to be included in the spit of spirit of collaboration.

Um page six line nine, I would like to add uh number six San Francisco Recreation and Park Department shall work to identify and implement safe loading zones that parks undergoing major capital improvements, and B integrate transportation related safety education into RPD programming for children and seniors.

And C decrease automobile congestion in parks and encourage mode shift towards active public transportation by implementing paid parking.

And D implementing implement daylighting acrosswalks where accessibility improvements are planned.

And on page six, line 13.

I would like to add and revisit the guidelines if new street design features are recommended.

On page six, I would like to cut lines 14 and 15.

On page eight, after line 17, I would like to add C, coordinate with the SFMTA to jointly establish a maximum review period, which shall be no longer than 120 days.

The review timeline shall be determined by the complexity of the project and may only exceed 120 days for projects deemed complex by both departments.

And colleagues, uh, if there's no questions or comments uh from either of you, um, I would like to hear what the public has to say because we have a robust public comment here for this item.

Let's go to public comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number two, the Street Safety Act.

If you have public comment for this item, please line up to speak along that western wall that I'm indicating with my left hand.

As folks are lining up over there, I will also mention we have by prior arrangement an ADA accommodation to provide public comment remotely via telephone, and we will open the line right now for that first speaker.

Could we please be connected to that speaker?

All right, good afternoon, Chair Melgar and committee members.

My name is Siona Hindley.

I do serve on the SFMTA board, and specifically I chair our newly relaunched Vision Deal Subcommittee.

I would like to thank Chair Melgar and Emma Hare from your staff for this comment for bringing forward this common sense street safety act, specifically that it is most calling out uh commitments from all departments, um, and really calling out that street safety is a cross-departmental issue that every department in the city needs to be held accountable for, including MTA, uh fire, police, and GPW and etc.

Um as a committee, we are looking forward to bringing forward to the board um our next iteration of our street safety policy.

Um to our full board MPA board, and also we hope that after that is over, we can use the street safety act.

We continue to hold departments accountable as a board of directors.

We can we hope to use the Street Safety Act as a framework to hold departments accountable.

So again, thank you to Supervisor Malgar for creating the framework for the political together.

And also for your outside governing bodies to help hold them accountable.

And we thank you for your work and you advision.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Thank you to SFGov TV staff and the operations staff for getting us connected.

We're now ready to hear from our first in-person speaker.

Please come forward to Lectern if you're the first speaker.

Yes, hi.

My name is Maxina Ventura.

I live in the lower height.

And I walk a lot.

And it's it's dangerous.

It's dangerous also not to walk, not to get that exercise.

So I'm out there on the streets all the time.

And I want to just tell you what happened to me, probably two weeks ago or so.

I was walking down Dubose Street.

I got to Guerrero.

I had the right of way walking north.

And I went into the in the crosswalk.

I started to go across.

Two cars, two people in cars like turned right in front of me.

However, I wasn't yet to the other side.

But what was especially shocking was that when I stepped into the lane, you know, in the crosswalk, my right-of-way, um, about to finish the cross, there was a Waymo car.

I have a little residual site.

So I had looked over at the cars, and there was a Waymo that was stopped before making a left.

So I thought I was safe to go.

Oh, no, I was not safe to go.

It went from a stopped position to um to turning left right in front of me, nearly clipped me.

I wish I could say this was uh you know, just an a one-off.

I've had this kind of experience again and again and again, and it's it's really scary.

Um it's just it's really scary.

And what I want to know is why so many people, you know, in city government feel like they need to roll over and let more cars.

We worked really hard.

I was part of the early critical critical mass bike rides.

And people worked so hard for so many years fine doing education and finally having people understand that we are part of the traffic.

And no, they don't have precedence over us.

And speaker's time is concluded.

Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee.

We'll hear from the next speaker.

Did we get a one-minute warning?

Uh you'll hear a soft charm that means you have 30 seconds remaining.

Okay, thank you.

Please begin.

Uh my name is Tina Martin, and good afternoon, supervisors, and good afternoon, other people in the chamber.

Uh my name is Tina Martin, and I live in Parkside, where Supervisor Melgar represents us very well.

Thank you, Supervisor Melgar.

Uh, and thank you for author I authoring the Street Safety Act.

I'm gonna repeat that authoring.

Okay, and she's been supporting it in many, many different ways.

So I was born in 1945, so I'm older than the baby boomers, and people born the year I was are called victory babies, meaning victory over fascism.

And I'd really like to see victory over fascism again, along with victory over dangerous streets.

So I thank you, Super Advisor Melgar and others who are supporting this resolution, which will be voted on tomorrow, as I understand.

Um I want to say that I'm also old enough to know Simon and Garfunkel with the lyrics slow down, you move too fast, you got to make the morning last, and the word groovy, meaning cool, rad, dope, stay, lit, fire, or if you're older than me, swell.

And not only is it groovy to slow down, but it's safer for everyone.

And the Street Safety Act takes on dangerous speeding in many ways, including by reforming the neighborhood traffic calming program.

So the final words of assignment is that my one minute or two-minute warning.

You have 26 seconds.

Okay.

Uh slow down, don't drive too fast.

We cherish life, want it to last.

And severe crashes too.

Street safety acts the thing to do.

So let's pass this.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Diana Mato.

I am a senior citizen and I live in District 6.

Get off the sidewalk.

These are the words I shout at people who ride their scooters and their e-bikes on the sidewalks, day or night, crowded sidewalks during rush hour, during ball games, and quiet residential sidewalks, when they quietly come racing up behind you, speeding past wheelchairs, past strollers, past people who are unaware as they walk out of their homes.

Even when there is a street or bike lane six six feet away.

I've been flipped off, called names, and threatened.

I believe the result of the erratic behavior by these irresponsible and lawless people who use the sidewalks is so they can feel safer, but then they make every person who walks on the sidewalk in danger of being killed or severely injured.

Where is the responsibility and the accountability to protect and ensure the safety of all the people who walk the sidewalks of San Francisco?

Walkers in this city are having to defend this shrinking paved path for pedestrians as the rules and the laws are ignored.

Because the one small area that pedestrians are supposed to feel safe on is no longer as safe as it could be.

Are we just going to continue to get injured and killed because pedestrians come last?

Or will you pass the Street Safety Act and put the welfare of pedestrians first?

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Nancy Arbuckle.

I'm a senior and a car-free resident of District 3.

I want to commend Supervisor Melgar for giving us the Street Safety Act.

I really like the thinking behind it.

An act means action is in the works, and that is exactly what we need.

I'm here to support what I call street safety action.

Action means not just talking about and aspiring to safe streets, but actually doing something.

Action means moving in an aggressive, committed, dedicated, and caring way, urgently.

Action means key agencies implementing effective solutions.

Action means lowering speeds on high injury arterials and residential streets.

Action means lane reductions and slowing left turns.

Action means SFPD speed enforcement and more speed cameras.

Action means accountability.

Thank you, Supervisor Melgar, for the Street Safety Act.

Let's put it into action, ASAP.

Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, land use uh and rules committee, or sorry, land use and transportation committee, Griffin Lee here at District 2 resident and also on the staff of Connected SF.

Um I'm here to oppose the Safe Street Safe Street Act for a couple reasons.

Um, we condemn, I condemn any death that happened on our streets, whether it's related to transportation, drugs, etc.

Um the reality is I I didn't hear much in this um legislation regarding the civil grand jury report.

Um, the number one reason this that uh the conclusion that the civil grand jury report came out with is enforcement.

And I I unless my hearing is bad, uh, it is bad.

I didn't hear enforcement in any of this um resolution.

Speed cameras are our good first step.

We have to um enforce the law.

But since 2020, when we actually changed the the requirement to get uh traffic calming program requests through to the SFMTA, uh deaths have only started to spiral back up.

And it's cost us millions of dollars.

Uh secondly, education.

I I I support um mayor or sorry, Supervisor Melgar's um sentiment around education.

We need to be collaborating with the police department and streets division to further educate not just drivers, but pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities, seniors on how to cross safely and and do the activities that are will prevent death.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi there, everyone.

Marie Harabiel, District One resident, and I'm with Connected SF.

And of course, you know, regular people can't really be here to speak up.

We've got a you know a lot of activists who are able to come and ask for what they want.

Um, but this is really Vision 02.0, and Vision 01.0 was a big failure.

We talk about data and being data driven.

I would really like to see this become a data-driven program because we all want to see deaths on our streets eliminated.

However, it's clear that the data can be manipulated.

And I'll just give you one example.

On the SFMTA website, Vision Zero is touted as a success.

It takes 2013, which was not part of Vision Zero, and ends in 2023.

And it claims a 24% reduction in fatalities.

But if you use the same formula and you look at 2014 and 2024, which was the beginning and end of actual vision zero, that same math will show you a 115% increase in fatalities.

Vision zero data does not support continuing vision zero.

What we really need is education and a lot of mass sentiment around all of us taking more responsibility for ourselves and others, because that's not happening right now.

And in the same time, since 2018-19, I just want to note total bike trips in the city, according to SFMTA's own counters, are down 30%.

So Vision Zero isn't working for anybody.

So let's figure out a better plan and go with that plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, I am Nan Harrison.

I live in the mission.

I'm one of the lucky, unlucky ones.

I was in the crosswalk at 16th in Guerrero about six years ago.

I saw a car heading towards me who I thought wasn't gonna stop, and he didn't.

I because the driver wasn't going that fast, I was lucky, my injuries were not severe.

I'm here with you today.

It's easy to imagine a different ending to my story.

For too many people, the ending is tragic, whether it's a death or a devastating life-altering injury.

The fact that nine of the 12 pedestrians killed this year are seniors is deeply troubling.

If an older person like me is hit, and especially if the driver is speeding or the vehicle is large or heavy, the odds of surviving are slim.

It shouldn't require luck to make it across the street safely.

That's why I'm here today with my wholehearted support for Supervisor Melgar's Street Safety Act.

I urge your action as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, I'm Lisa Platt, a D2 resident and regular person.

I stand before you today, not to make your long meeting even longer, uh, but to share my story of a left hand that can't grip properly and without full feeling in this half of my face.

Luckily, I don't remember my bike crash, but I have lasting effects, nevertheless.

As a runner, walking tour guide, cyclist, and transit rider, I see every inch of the city by foot, and it feels like it's not if my next crash will happen, but when.

When I began bike commuting, I had to worry about cars.

I still very much do, but now daily I dodge scooters and electric skateboards and bicycles, riding on sidewalks because the bicycle infrastructure is incomplete or filled with delivery motorcycles, whizzing by as I try to cross scary Franklin Street and support my local businesses on Polk and Union.

The modes have very much changed, but our streets are still designed for cars in a society where most young people don't even want to own one.

Daily I 311 dozens of delivery vans parked in red zones, adding to my risk of being hit as cars fly up the hills towards me and don't see me, despite my neon running outfits.

It's exhausting.

I am desperate for hardened daylighting and other safety measures.

I know you all know and live this.

Supervisor Melgar, thank you for introducing the Street Safety Act.

I hope this is the beginning of a strong commitment by the city to save our lives.

I am counting on the board's unanimous support.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello to the committee.

Thanks for prioritizing this.

I'm here speaking in support of the Street Safety Act.

My name is Dave Parrish, uh proud 30 years plus resident of District 8.

Um I can remember when Vision Zero was a new thing.

Uh I think we can all agree it was a good idea that has not had any meaningful results other than bringing awareness.

So in my district last year, uh pedestrian was killed.

This is at the corner of Parnassus and Stan in streets.

Um my daughter walks through that intersection to go to her piano lesson.

My son walks through there every morning to catch the bus.

Um happy, by the way, to see that uh Supervisor Mountain is also a co-sponsor of this measure.

Um we have to do more.

I'm happy to see this uh measure as an evolution of Vision Zero.

Uh glad to see that it has accountability that is holistic and cross-departmental.

Uh I do want to speak about the amendment uh that was brought up today and daylighting.

Uh full disclosure, I am a driver and street parker.

Um enforcing daylighting is going to make my life very inconvenient in a bunch of ways.

But we have to do it.

Please, yes to daylighting.

Please, yes to making my life as a someone who parks on the street a little bit more inconvenient.

Um please vote yes on this measure, including the amendments, and please vote yes tomorrow.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, next speaker, please.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Uh, my name is Joe Wazalk.

I live in Supervisor Melgar's district, District 7.

Uh, Supervisor Melgar, thank you very much for your leadership on this issue.

And thank you to Supervisors Chan and Mahmood as well for the work on this committee.

Uh I just want to offer some public comments in kind of two contrasting capacities, my personal one and my professional one.

Personally, I'm the father of a two-year-old who really likes this little balance bike.

Well, he doesn't get much of a voice in a choice at this point, but I am all in favor of the Street Safety Act and its prioritization of users who are particularly vulnerable, and for people who either by choice or by capacity can't afford to drive.

And in my professional capacity, I'm actually a neuroscientist and a neuroethicist.

I study traumatic brain injury and the cognitive behavioral consequences of that.

Uh, you might not be surprised to learn that the number one source of a traumatic brain injury uh pretty much across the whole planet is motor vehicle accidents.

Um something like 80 percent of the clients and the patients that I see suffered their injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

So both my professional and my personal halves are aligned with this issue.

I strongly support the Street Safety Act.

I thank Supervisor Melgar for her work and authorship of that, and I would encourage you to pass it in this committee and vote for it in the uh full supervisors committee tomorrow as well.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Richard Bauman.

I live in District 1.

I just want to point out that even though Vision Zero didn't accomplish its purpose of eliminating traffic deaths, the city has made a lot of improvements to make pedestrians' life easier and safer.

For example, one I've noticed recently is the retiming of the traffic lights to give pedestrians a head start crossing the street.

I think that's a big deal.

So I strongly support Supervisor Milgar's act, and I urge you to adopt it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Uh hello, my name is Stan Glance.

I'm a retired UCSF professor of medicine.

I live in uh the Sunset and District 4, and I'm uh speaking in support of the proposal.

Um I've I've lived in the city since the mid-70s.

And uh I think we've made quite a lot of progress in making the city friendlier for pedestrians and cyclists.

And I think in the last few years, there's been a lot of notable progress.

The traffic calming, the daylighting, the improved bikeways, uh, uh, the JFK.

And I see this legislation as a way to continue the progress and to systematize it and to increase coordination among the different departments, uh which, you know, given the complexities of doing anything in the city, having a formal policy uh enacted by the board mandating uh cooperation among the relevant departments, I think is an important thing.

Um the other thing that I think shouldn't be lost here is that that a lot of these changes actually make the city safer for people in cars too by uh reducing speeding by uh the daylighting.

I mean, I can tell you I live I live just south of Golden Gate Park, and pulling on the street I live on onto Fulton or part of me onto Lincoln Way can be quite exciting.

And the daylighting, I mean, in a car, and the daylighting means I can see if there's something coming.

So I think it's really a mistake to portray this bill as anti-car.

It's making the city, I think, safer for everybody.

So I thank you for sponsoring it and urge its passage, and then staying on top of the mayor and the departments to make sure they actually do it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

The next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Melgar, Supervisor Chen, and Supervisor Mahmood.

My name is Glenis, and I spoke last time as well on my uh unlucky timing on when I was opening my window um in August a few years back when the uh small child was pushed into the intersection with the right of way and was hit by a car.

That car was in a legitimate right turn lane, but did not notice that it was about to hit children.

And what I love about Vision Zero is that it is data-driven and focusing on how we can prevent cars from ending up in situations where they don't realize how little attention they were paying, where we pay attention for them.

That is the important part.

Education is great, but education stops when the person forgets it.

And having traffic calming and a focus on fixing things so that people who aren't thinking don't have to think is what's going to really save lives.

And vision zero being a data-driven and focused with focused on bringing groups together, is going to get us closer to that place we want to be where I don't have to fear opening my window to hear the screams of a mother watching her child die ever again.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you for your comments.

Um resident of San Francisco and a U.S.

citizen.

Um thank you, Supervisor Melga, for being for both inviting me his day, and also being the only person in government or who seems the only people in government who responds to my emails about this.

It doesn't seem that government is taking this very seriously.

Um and I think this is extremely serious.

I have a three-year-old girl, and my wife is pregnant with twins.

We walk along roads parallel to the Visitor Street every day because I cannot hack walking on the Visio Street itself.

Um Scotland Project.

It's still not good enough.

I should not have I should have rights of way on these roads.

Other countries in the world and cities in the world um on par, or even less than par, in fact, in terms of wealth and so on, then this city have solved this problem.

If I see a green light for a pedestrian or the green man, or the white man in this country um on the on the light, I have a right to go.

That is how it works.

You talk here about um getting a head start.

I don't want a head start.

I have rights of way.

That's it.

No one has any rights to come anywhere near me when I'm crossing the road.

Or my wife or my child.

That does not happen multiple times.

And let's give numbers three times a week at least for months, years since I've been here four years ago.

We have people driving into us.

We've been hit.

Um's been hit, I've been uh nearly hit, my stroll has been hit.

Um people drive off, people do not care.

I do not understand how in this country driving and the laws around it and the enforcement around it, and that's a big one that was mentioned earlier by somebody.

Um Franklin said by Barrick.

This is not acceptable.

I do not understand how this continues in this city.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

The next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jaime Veloya.

I'm the outreach and organizing manager for San Francisco Transit Writers and a proud tenderloin resident.

Um I'm here to express my support for the Street and Safety Act.

Thank you to Supervisor Melgar for introducing it and authoring it, and thank you to the committee for what I hope would be a unanimous vote.

Um my favorite thing to do, one of my favorite things to do in San Francisco is to walk.

And I think everybody in this room um has the same thing to do because it's a gorgeous and beautiful city.

And it's such a small city that we can go from end to end and experience different cultures.

Um the problem with this was decades into making um and it will take some time for it to be resolved.

And I think um a continuation of the Vision Zero walk work is something that this street safety act will uh provide.

Um I can point out to the work that we've done in the tenderline.

Um when we moved to our office um Leavenworth and um Golden Gate, the first thing we experienced was seeing somebody get um run over.

Um, and this person passed away.

Um then a week later, um, a student got run over, and thankfully she he was okay.

And so we put our minds together, and you know what, we're done with this.

Uh we stop traffic, we push back against you know, um the continued uh way they treat our neighborhood, and now we have scrambles.

Um and ever since then I haven't heard a single um crash on that intersection.

I used to be very afraid of crossing that interaction intersection.

So that's like one example of what we can continue.

Um thank you for um introducing this I can continue to work.

Um and also I just want to point out um I was in a meeting and somebody mentioned that there's misery when you're in a car and waiting for traffic and looking for parking.

Well, that misery is nothing compared to somebody being hit.

That misery is different from a family having to deal with it and all of that other things uh people have to do in order to keep themselves safe.

So I want that 30, 40 years from now I'm able to walk safely on the streets and not be here again asking for the same thing.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, supervisors.

Uh thank you, Supervisor Melgar, for your leadership on this.

My name is Robin Pam with Streets for All San Francisco.

I'm here on behalf of our organization and also as a parent myself.

Um I want my kids to grow up in a city where they can walk and bike and take the bus and get places they need to go independently without having to worry when they get to an intersection that they're gonna get run over by a car.

Right now, though, it feels like San Francisco is falling short.

It feels like we're falling behind our pure cities and getting there.

A lot of our roads feel less safe than they did just a few years ago, and some of that is factors outside of our control, but there's a lot more we could be doing.

There are some bright spots.

SFMTA's own data and analysis has shown that projects that they do actually do deliver results.

Especially when we build protected bike lanes, uh when we do quick build projects, they reduce crashes for all road users, not just people walking and biking, but people driving too.

Speed cameras and traffic calming are working, they're slowing down drivers.

Slow streets, which happened during the pandemic, are reducing crashes and reducing speeds too, and bringing uh a respite for people to travel on slower, quieter neighborhood streets away from speeding cars on our arterial boulevards.

And so to become a leader again, San Francisco just needs to double down on these things that are working.

And I think that's where the Street Safety Act provides a lot of hope for what those next steps can look like.

So we applaud this act for bringing the city departments together and forcing accountability and transparency from all of the city departments.

SFMTA can't do this work alone.

We really do need public health and public works and fire and police and all of these stakeholders sitting at the table.

We also appreciate the commitment to transparency and accountability, bringing data to the conversation and focusing on the outcomes that we're trying to drive.

For parents and families across the city, the stakes really can't be higher here.

So we support this legislation, we urge you to pass it.

Um keep working on this issue until our streets really are safe.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm Dylan Fay, Risk Community and Policy Manager at San Francisco Transit Riders.

Here to urge you to support uh the Street Safety Act.

Um last year in San Francisco, more people died in traffic crashes than by homicide.

And countless other people have been injured or had close calls that some many of which probably have never even been reported.

Um 2024 also marked the second year in a row when a crash killed children just outside a major transit hub.

First at Forth and King in 2023, and then at West Portal in 2024.

Uh our streets touch every transportation mode and every aspect of everybody's lives.

So it's only through comprehensive interagency action that we can get to vision zero.

And that's what this act proposes.

I also push back a little bit on the narrative that vision zero was a failure.

I think when you look at traffic crashes nationwide, they've skyrocketed over the last few years.

Here we've managed to keep it relatively stable.

But it is true that our goal should be zero, zero deaths anywhere in the city.

And that's what we need to be moving for.

That's what this act takes the first step in getting towards.

So I urge you all to uh vote in favor and move this forward and get this done.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Claire Mobley, and I'm the director of advocacy for the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.

I'm originally from the tenderloin and now I live in the Excelsior in District 11.

I'm a lifelong muni rider and have biked around in the city since I was 15 years old.

And like Streets for All, we want that to be a reality for all of San Francisco's kids.

I'm here today on behalf of our thousands of members and constituents in San Francisco to support this resolution because everyone deserves to be and feel safe on our streets no matter how they get around.

Since San Francisco adopted Vision Zero in 2014, and despite some how some people feel about this, our city has made great strides towards making our streets safer for people who take transit, bike and walk, and we must take the successes of Vision Zero and multiply them tenfold to finally end traffic fatalities and severe injuries on our street streets.

Quick builds significantly improve safety on our streets, not just for people who walk in bike, but even those who drive.

And you hear this all the time that quick builds should be quick.

We've seen time and time again projects get approved and constructed, sometimes in three weeks, um, because of political will, and others that have been delayed for years because of political interference, and that is unacceptable.

This resolution is the first step towards better coordination, greater independence, and a data-driven approach that will reduce such interference.

Streets that are designed for transit and people in mine also have a role to play in our city's economic recovery.

Improving traffic safety citywide brings life to our streets, more people walking, riding bikes, and hopping on and off.

Munich increases foot traffic, which means more people stopping on a whim at neighborhood businesses and spending money locally.

So thank you so much, Supervisor Melgar, for showing real literature leadership by introducing this act.

Thank you, Supervisor Montmood for co-sponsoring and Supervisor Chen for being out there with us today.

Um so please send this resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

I am Gladys Swong.

I live at 47 Lucky Street in D9.

I'm a 78-year-old senior, and I have mentally adjusted to unsafety on my street, San Francisco Street.

I always try to be aware out walking in crosswalks for pedestrians, supposedly have ride-away.

Twice I have almost been hit in the crosswalk, green light by autos making a left turn on from 24th Street within about two feet 24 inches of me.

Um I've been hit by a bike at going too fast, and I'm sprawled out on the street.

But I've managed to stay alive and recuperate from all the injuries.

It's suspicious.

Why isn't lucky no parking?

And it's not acceptable.

Not acceptable.

It should be safety first for all.

Okay, thank you very much for the hard work, and I hope for the best.

And I have papers.

Can I pass them out?

You can leave them at the rail and I'll pick them up.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hello, and thank you, Supervisors Melgar, Chen, and Mahmood.

Uh my name is Alice Mosley, and I live in District 8.

First of all, thank you so much for authoring the Street Safety Act, and thank you all for your support of it.

I myself have been uh the unlucky recipient of some of the speeding habits in our city.

I was uh biking to work and an Uber driver who was keen to pass a lane of cars waiting to turn left, knocked me off my bicycle.

Uh I've also so resulting in a broken arm.

Luckily, I've recovered from that.

But there have also been other incidents near to where I live, Stanyan and Parnassus, it was mentioned before, where a dumpster truck on his way to a construction site at UCSF knocked down and killed a pedestrian who is crossing on the green light.

So it um I strong I would also like to compliment some of the improvements that have been made.

For instance, that it's a huge improvement now.

If you want to bike on Masonic Avenue, they've put in a protected bike lane.

And this is the kind of thing that will make it safer, both and for pedestrians because people don't ride their bikes on the sidewalk anymore because they have a very good bike lane.

So I strongly urge all to support the Street Safety Act.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors Chen and Melgar and Mahmood, and thank you for all being superstars for safe streets.

Um I name is Martha Lindsay, I'm the communications director with WAC San Francisco, and we advocate on behalf of everyone who walks in our city.

And I just want to also recognize all the people who have spoken today in support of the Street Safety Act.

And I know they represent like a tiny tiny fraction of people in our city who are feeling the urgency for change and for real action, Nancy.

Action.

Um I love that.

Um the Street Safety Act reaffirms San Francisco's prior commitment to Vision Zero to end severe and fatal traffic crashes.

And this is crucial.

Without this core commitment as a city, traffic safety will not be prioritized.

It is that simple.

And vision zero and zero is still and always will be the right goal.

So I just really want to thank Supervisor Melgar for affirming that in this resolution.

But the Street Safety Act does a whole lot more than that.

Uh it really is the blueprint for getting our city to design and enforce streets that truly keep everyone safe, no matter how they're getting around.

And it has a suite of targeted actions for agencies that is everything from leaning into automated enforcement, really evolving the vision zero approach to be more systematic and at scale, which is crucial for its success, reforming the residential traffic calling program, and then making sure streets are left with more safety fixes than they started with when they are paved or painted, and a lot more.

There's deadlines, there's dashboards, there's red tape cutting, and there's that accountability that is so so needed.

Um I just want to thank you ahead of time for for again making this um act not just uh a wonderful resolution, but to bring action to it that we so so desperately need.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment following this speaker for agenda item number two?

If so, please come forward to the lectern.

Hi, supervisors.

Thank you for your support with this.

Um people get injured on the sidewalk too.

They don't just get hit by cars every single week.

The city spends hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I've been in the meetings where you guys approve the spending for all the lawsuits that the city faces.

Um I'm in support of this.

I've supported it with memos and advocacy, things like that.

But there will be limits to how successful this can be.

So I just want to use this as an opportunity to cite some of those bottlenecks.

Um PUC is not included in this bill.

Streets don't just move people, they also move water, and the ability to narrow streets is limited by the ability to limit the carrying capacity of water.

So flooding needs to be taken into account with this because if we want to slow down speeds for cars by narrowing the street, we will also need to plan for how we're going to deal with the water.

The division between public works and the MTA is an untenable split that creates all kinds of bottlenecks and communication and redundant administrative work that make this very, very slow progress.

I believe that those organizations should be combined into one so that people understand who they're talking to and who they're holding accountable, and so that nobody can point the finger at the other and say it's their fault things are moving slowly.

Um most importantly, highway code 5610.

It's a state law that makes sidewalks the responsibility of building owners, which means that for the land use of the city, sidewalks are really not a part of the toolkit in terms of designing really public space.

We don't just need us to be less dead in the public realm.

We need to be more alive.

But the opportunity to actually make more vibrant public spaces is limited by a state law that does not allow or mandate the city take responsibility for its public space.

I write a skateboard for transportation.

I'm very sensitive to all the small non-ADA compliant pieces of the infrastructure of which the city is liable and is not aware and has a 25-year cycle on repairing just those that it knows of, let alone the millions that it is not.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone further request public comment for agenda item number two?

Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you very much.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Uh Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

Uh, I just wanted to thank you for leading on this legislation because it really takes a comprehensive approach to looking at every department in City Hall and assessing how everyone can contribute in its role to addressing traffic safety and street safety from MTA, DPH, DPW, school district, the fire department, the transit authority, and the police department as well.

Um in that context, I wanted to uh I know there were some comments about that enforcement wasn't part of this legislation, but uh in reality, if you look at page four, uh there is a whole section on enforcement, and I wanted to read some of the uh impressive things that uh Chair Melgar uh has incorporated here, which I think are really forward and forward looking on addressing this issue.

And it notes that uh the San Francisco Police Department shall develop and release a plan to increase traffic enforcement efforts, data-driven warnings and citations, including through automated enforcement from MTA on the behaviors that are most likely to result in severe injury and death, including but not limited to speeding, recklessness, intention, failure to yield, and intentional disregard of traffic control devices by December 2026.

It also says that the SFPD must conduct monthly high visibility enforcement focused on dangerous speeding on priority high injury network streets to complement locations and effectiveness of the speed camera program, and include statistics on traffic citations and severe and fatal injuries from vehicle collisions to monthly precinct crime reports.

And lastly, it notes that in cooperation with the Office of the Medical Examiner, provide timely crash and victim reports to the municipal transport agency and department of public health on every traffic collision death.

So in combination with all the other department recommendations, I think this is a very strong uh focus on enforcement as well as preventing traffic deaths and commend uh chairs Melgar on leading on this initiative and running the collaborative process that she has.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh supervisor for pointing that out.

Um thank you to everyone from the community who came to speak uh about this and to uh the departments for their collaboration and willingness to do this, and above all to the MTA for leading these discussions and the Department of Public Health for providing us with the data of this uh very important public health issue.

I think it is um not just a moral issue, it's about preserving lives, it's also an economic issue.

It costs us an awful lot of money uh as a city, but also individually as families to deal with injuries, to deal with loss of time, work, health, all kinds of things.

And so I'm really proud that we are putting this next um iteration forward and that we have learned a lot of things from Vision Zero of how to make this work and what things we need to do better on.

So uh I uh also want to point out, because I heard a couple of public commenters talk about us voting on this tomorrow.

This was not agendized as a committee report, so we actually won't be voting on it tomorrow.

We won't we will be voting on it next week, next Tuesday.

So with that, um Mr.

Clerk, I would like to make a motion that we adopt the amendments that I have read into the record.

Um then I would like to um uh move this out of committee to the full board as amended with a positive recommendation.

Two motions.

The first motion offered by the chair that the resolution be amended and then the second motion that the resolution then be recommended as amended to the Board of Supervisors on those motions, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Mockwood, Mahmoud I, Chair Melgar.

I think Melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three eyes on each motion.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, let's go to item number three.

Agenda item number three is a resolution granting revocable permission to bridge Petrero Community Associates LLC to maintain encroachments in the public right of way, including but not limited to custom paving materials, benches, landscaping, irrigation, drainage facilities, walkways, and retaining walls, delegating authority to the public works director to assign responsibility for sidewalk maintenance and liability to various entities, adopting CEQA findings, making findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1, and authorizing the public works director to enter into amendments or modifications to the permit that do not materially increase the obligations or liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the permit.

Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, uh Mr.

Clerk.

We have Andrew Strong here from MOHCD who will present.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar and Committee members Chen and Mahmood.

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

I'm here to present on item three, file 250831 for resolution, which would approve a global master encroachment permit, also known as a GMEP for the Petrero Hope SF Phase 2 development area, which would permit the permittee, in this case, Bridge Petrero.

Uh Community Associates, LLC, to own and maintain encroachments in the public right-of-way.

This resolution also approves delegation of authority to the director of the Department of Public Works to incorporate future phases of the Petrero Hope SF development in the encroachment permit area.

This is a follow-up to uh the recent phase two street acceptance ordinance of Petrero Hope SF, which was approved July 29, 2025.

Uh 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, Hunters 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.

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 space and approximately 45,000 square feet of new neighborhood serving retail and community spaces.

Bridge housing is the master developer across the site.

And Block B, now known as Eve Community Village, Potrero 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 lease up this fall 2005.

The global master encroachment permit permits Bridge Potrero Community Associates LLC to maintain the non-standard encroachments in the public right-of-way and sidewalks.

These non-standard encroachments include cobblestones and pavers, benches, cobblestones at tree wells, landscape areas, including plantings, irrigation systems and related elements, drainage, facilities, stairwells, railings, retaining walls, and community gardens.

The image on this slideshow shows the location of encroachment within the first phase.

However, similar encroachments are anticipated throughout the larger Petrero Hope SF site, which would be permitted by this GMEP.

The resolution also delegates authority of the following to the director of Department of Public Works.

The ability to divide the GMEP into separate major permits, master permits, or individual street encroachment permits.

Two, to improve the addition of additional phases into the GMEP.

We have uh phases three, four, and five still coming up for Petrero Hope SF.

Uh, and then uh the third uh point to delegate authority is to approve the assignment conveyance or transfer of the rights and obligations of the GMEP from the original permittee to the permittees agent, successor, or assignee.

The benefit of this delegation of authority is to improve efficiency as future phases of infrastructure completed.

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 you might have.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Strong.

I don't see anyone on the roster with questions uh or comments.

Uh I will just say I'm really glad we're finally here at this point, and thank you for all your work in making this vision a reality for folks who have lived on that hill and put up with uh housing that is outdated and dangerous for a long time.

So thank you so much.

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

Clark.

Thank you, Madam Chair, land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number three, uh global master encroachment permit for Petro Hope SF.

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

And Madam Chair, it appears you have no speakers.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Um I would like to make a motion to send this item out of committee to the full board with a positive recommendation.

On the motion offered by the chair that the ordin I'm sorry, that the resolution be recommended to the Board of Supervisors, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmodin.

Machmud I, Chair Melgar.

I Melgar I, Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh let's please go to item number four.

Agenda item number four is an ordinance amending the subdivision code to establish procedures regarding resale prices, capital improvement costs, marketing and sales policies for conveyance through inheritance, title changes, owning, occupying, and refinancing below market rate condominium conversion units, and clarifying effective dates for requirements applicable to below market rate units under subdivision code 1344 purchased on or after October 1st, 2025.

Okay.

Uh my favorite subject.

Making the rules better and easier.

Thank you, uh Deputy Director of Mayor's Office of Housing Community Development, Maria Benjamin, for being here to uh present.

Uh it's all yours.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Again, Maria Benjamin, Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development.

I'm joined by Sissy Yin, who is our uh director of homeownership and the brains behind the whole program at this point.

Um we are here uh let me sorry.

We are here to talk about the condo conversion program, um, which was an affordable homeownership program originally of the Department of Real Estate that was created in 1979.

And uh the mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development began administering the program in 1988.

The last time the program was updated was 2009 under subdivision code.

And uh yes, Supervisor Melgar was the director of home ownership at that point.

Um and uh uh led that update.

Um we are although the subdivision 1344 already states that the manual inclusionary manual in effect at the time that a homeowner uh purchases a condo conversion unit.

Um the code also regulates those units, the the subdivision code.

And those legacy subdivision codes sometimes are in conflict with the inclusionary manual.

And we are updating those even though it's very confusing for our homeowners who who look at the subdivision code and look at the manual and when there's when there are conflicts.

So the goal in working with the city attorney's office to update the uh subdivision code.

The goal of the amendment was to clean up that conflicting language so that our homeowners can clearly and consistently follow the rules of the program.

There are uh 400 and currently 415, a total of 415 condo conversion units.

This amendment will only apply to 303 of them, however, because there are a hundred and twelve original subdivision subdividers that the they don't they're not required to sell their unit through the city.

The um so this amendments don't apply to those folks.

In summary, the uh we're not introducing new policies or new procedures.

There's nothing new that we're updating into the subdivision code.

We're just uh making sure that the older policies and procedures do no longer conflict and that they're we're ensuring successful administration across all of the programs by having uh consistent rules and regulations.

And I'm myself and Sissy are here.

If you have any questions or uh thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Benjamin.

I appreciate you.

Um I um colleagues, you know, sometimes people think, oh, San Francisco has all these programs, and it took a while to figure out how to uh operationalize our good ideas around below market rate units and how to make sure people, you know, uh understood them and the lenders understood them.

So uh thank you so much for your constant work and especially thank thank you, Sissy, your uh rock star for um you know keeping up and making sure that uh the rules are uh transparent and also uh consistent across uh all the units.

So um with that, let's go to public comment on this item because I don't see anyone on the roster with any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair, land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number four subdivision code relating certain below market rate condominium conversion units.

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

And Madam Chair, I depreciate those speakers.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Um I would like to make a motion that we send this out uh of committee with a positive recommendation.

Motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be recommended to the Board of Supervisors, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, member of Machmud, Machmud I, Chair Melgar.

I Melgar I, Madam Chair, there are three eyes.

Okay.

Uh the motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you, ladies.

Um let's go to item number five, please.

Agenda item number five is an ordinance amending the building code to remove local requirements regarding commercial lighting, rooftop mechanical penthouses, driveway and sidewalk road load limits, and the slope protection act and affirming the planning department's sequetermination.

Okay.

Uh thank you so much.

Uh we have Tate Hanna here from uh DBI, but are you gonna uh uh present, Lisa?

Okay.

So uh we also have uh Lisa Glucks scene here.

Um yeah.

Floor is yours.

Great.

Uh thank you, Chair Melgar, and hello, Supervisors Chen and Mahmoud.

It's good to be here with you all.

I'm Lisa Gluckstein.

I am in the planning department and I'm working on uh all the legislation that's coming out of the mayor's permit SF effort, uh, which is a broad effort to make permitting more streamlined, logical, uh, and less onerous in the city of San Francisco.

Um this, these two next two items on your agenda are both permit SF related items uh that amend building standards.

And we're advancing these as part of the day 200 package of permit SF legislation as a way of pulling back uh redundant standards that are already protected under state law um or that don't add value to our building and health code processes.

So um with that, I will kick it over to Tate Hanna in DBI to talk to the specifics of the DBI legislation.

Um on the next item, Jen Callaward will be speaking into that.

But I'm here available if any of you have any questions.

Thank you, Lisa.

Thank you, Lisa, and thank you, Chair and Committee.

Tate Hannah, legislative affairs manager with Department of Building Inspection before you file number 250805.

If we could get the PowerPoint brought up, please.

Thank you very much.

So as Lisa mentioned, uh this is a permit SF ordinance.

These ideas originated from a uh what we've dubbed the code streamlining committee, which was an internal effort with some senior staff members to review all building code and existing building code local amendments to determine if there was a uh possibility of removing or altering certain provisions to reduce the impact on customers.

Uh as Lisa was mentioning, we want to make sure that the customer has a efficient, easy experience with DBI and the permitting process.

Uh there are four code streamlining committee ideas that have been looped into this one ordinance.

Uh first is removing the slope and seismic hazard zone protection act.

Second, removing outdated commercial lighting requirements.

Third, removes unnecessary design limitations on rooftop structures, and lastly, removing unnecessary standards for driveways and sidewalks.

Uh on slope protection first.

Uh San Francisco has established specific regulations to project proposed on areas with above average slopes.

Uh there are two geographic-specific provisions, the Northwest Mount Sutro Slope Protection Area and the Edge Hill Mountain Slope Protection Area.

The third uh slope protection act is the slope and seismic hazard zone protection act.

That applies broadly across the city with eligibility criteria.

And in addition to those three specific provisions, the building official retains the discretion to apply similar protections for any project with special features or special design procedures similar to those in the Northwest Edge Hill and General Slope Protection Are the General Slope Protection Act applies if any portion of the property falls within the earthquake-induced landslide areas on maps produced by the California Department of Conservation, or if the property exceeds an average slope of 25%.

That portion is the portion that is a bit difficult to discern for staff.

The ordinance doesn't provide tons of detail on where that 25% is calculated.

If it's the back portion of a parcel, if it's the overarching parcel, and it has put limitations on developments on parcels that are really not that sloped at all.

Once you know that the parcel is eligible, the project types that are included are any horizontal or vertical additions of over 500 square feet of new projected roof area, as well as any projects that include shoring, underpinning, or grading.

All of those will be uh forced to go through the slope protection act processes.

If subjected to those processes or other slope-specific regulations, applicants must submit a report by a geologist and geotechnical engineer identifying development risks and providing recommendation recommendations to abate those risks.

Once that report is reviewed by DBI staff, it can be determined by the director or staff that the report and project may be subject to third-party review by another geotechnical engineer.

If that review is insufficient, the director can then raise to a structural advisory committee or a SAC.

That involves hiring four different members, a geologist, geotechnical engineer, structural engineer, and architect uh at the cost of the applicant.

That can be upwards of $50,000 for the applicant.

It can be a month-long process, upwards of six months long for that four-member body to review the project.

It's also a public process that requires requires public noticing and must be uh subject to the Brown Act.

The ordinance before you seeks to remove the Slope and Seismic Hazard Zone Protection Act in review with senior staff at DBI, it was determined that the Slope Protection Act is unnecessarily applied citywide, subjecting customers to expensive timely review without notable safety benefits.

The geographic specific provisions, that is the Northwest Mount Sutro and the Edge Hill Mountain Slope Protection Areas, as well as this general discretion for the building official to apply similar regulations, all of that will remain.

So if there are parcels identified in the Northwest Mount Sutro or the Edge Hill Mountain Slope Protection Areas, those are still subject to this, and the building official does retain discretion to instigate a SAC for any project.

Moving on to the second proposal within this ordinance, it's related to Chapter 13D and commercial lighting.

Currently, Chapter 13D regulates lighting in commercial buildings, including limitations on mercury content, energy efficiency, and other requirements.

Those were provisions added back in 2010 to try to get ahead of federal regulations we knew that were coming in 2012.

Those federal regulations were indeed passed in 2012, meaning that the provisions in Chapter 13D have been preempted federally for over a decade.

So this ordinance seeks to remove those provisions given they're no longer effective.

The third uh proposal within this ordinance is related to rooftop structures.

San Francisco has more stringent requirements applicable to rooftop structures.

Uh those are structures on top of a building that house mechanical, electrical, or other building equipment and infrastructure.

Uh the California Building Code uh does not include this regulation that essentially restricts the rooftop size to the minimum clearance required for that equipment to be installed, installed or no larger than the vertical shaft opening in the roof.

Uh senior staff reviewed this and found no safety benefits, nor do they find more efficient uh building design as a result of this provision.

The ordinance before you seeks to outright remove that provision as well.

And then lastly, related to driveways and sidewalks, the California Building Code establishes baseline live loads that sidewalks and driveway driveways are expected to be constructed to withstand.

San Francisco has adopted a stricter standard for both driveways and sidewalks.

The stricter standard is an unnecessary burden on property owners and blurs the jurisdictional lines between DBI and public works with regards to sidewalks.

File number 250805 will remove this uh additional burden and will revert back to the California Building Code.

Uh this ordinance was reviewed by both the Code Advisory Committee and its structural subcommittee, made up of structural engineers.

Uh both the CAC and the structural subcommittee provided a unanimous recommendation for approval.

I will also note uh folks with the CAC and the structural subcommittee had to recuse themselves as they've been involved in this process.

So even members that seek to gain money from this process are recommending that it be removed.

Uh the building inspection commission also reviewed this ordinance on August 20th.

They provided a unanimous recommendation for approval.

Uh both the CAC and the BIC are requesting that an info sheet be provided to provide a bit more guidance on when building official discretion will be used, and staff have already, excuse me, staff have begun that process of editing uh S5.

The department recommends approval of this ordinance and has no proposed amendments.

Thank you very much, and happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you so much.

Uh so that was a very thorough presentation.

Uh Mr.

Hanlet, I I appreciate that.

Um I also thank uh uh Ms.

Gluckstein for her work in trying to uh get rid of redundancy um and make things uh more straightforward for our folks.

Um the Edge Hill uh soap protection area is in my district and um you know it is needed, so I'm you know grateful that you uh kept where it's needed and got rid of the redundancy where it wasn't.

So uh it that was a thoughtful approach and I appreciate that very much.

Um I don't see anyone on the roster with uh questions or comments, so let's go to public comment on this uh item, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number five.

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

Good afternoon, commissioners.

It's nice to see everyone again after the recess.

Um I'm here to express my support for this ordinance, which takes long overdue steps to address regulations that go above and beyond what the state requires.

Regulations that too often add unnecessary delays, complexity, and cost to housing projects.

As someone who works at the Housing Action Call Coalition, we speak with builders and families and industry people all the time.

And I don't think I need to reiterate that San Francisco is in a housing crisis at this moment, and we see it in the families who are priced out of their own neighborhoods and the workers who commute long hours just to get jobs here, and the young people who need no longer see a future here.

And so we really do need the industry professionals to build those homes that we need and get people housed to create that affordable, more predictable ecosystem.

And a part of that means to clear away and start making thoughtful steps towards clearing the red tape that have built up over time and now stand in the way of delivering the housing that people need.

This ordinance is a step in the right direction by eliminating duplicative and overly discretionary rules like the Slope Protections Act.

We make it easier for good safe housing projects to move forward.

This is the kind of reform we committed to on our housing element, and it reflects what good government should do, remove inefficiencies, align with state law, and make it easier for people to build and for people to live in the homes that we build.

Um we appreciate what this ordinance is trying to do.

We thank the mayor's office, the supervisors and other departments that have collectively worked and collaborated on this.

So thank you.

We would love it to see it move forward, and thank you for bringing more homes to San Francisco.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any further comments for agenda item number five, Madam Chair?

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Uh really excited to co-sponsor this legislation, and I would like to make the motion to vote to send this item to the board with a positive recommendation.

Motion offered by Member Machmood that this ordinance be a recommended to the Board of Supervisors on that motion.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machwood.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I, Madam Chair, there are three eyes.

Thank you so much.

Uh, and thank you all for the presentation and the effort.

Um, let's go to item number six, please, Mr.

Chen.

Agenda item number six is an ordinance amending the health code to clarify the city's enhanced ventilation standards by codifying the requirement that all new buildings and major renovations of buildings that contain a sensitive use certify that the building's ventilation system is capable of maintaining positive pressure.

Limiting applicability of the city's enhanced ventilation standard to single family homes effective January 1st, 2026 to align with state law.

Making findings under the California Health and Safety Code and affirming the planning department's secret determination.

It also directs the clerk of the board of supervisors to forward a copy of the ordinance to the California Building Standards Commission upon final passage, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you so much.

We are now uh joined by Jen Callawort from the Department of Public Health, who has a presentation on this item.

Um and uh after the presentation, I'll turn it over to uh Supervisor Mahmoud, who has some amendments.

So welcome.

Thank you.

Um Jen Calvert, uh Environmental Health Acting Director.

Um we're here to talk about the amendments uh to Article 38 as described.

Um Article 38 is uh been uh in the health code for uh since 2014, and it requires new development of major renovation within an air pollution exposure zone where sensitive receptors like housing or schools um require enhanced ventilation uh that sufficiently moves um uh PM 2.5 on particulate matter uh by using uh uh a filtration equivalent to um ERV 13.

And it also currently provides positive pressure in every unit.

Um the air pollution exposure zone is also used in the environment code, chapter 25 for uh clean uh construction as well as um for sequel processes with the planning department.

Um in uh 2025 uh the California building energy efficiency standards um were amended.

They go into effect January 1st, 2026, and this requires the state of California for any multi-unit residential dwellings to um new or change in the ventilation systems itself to have MERT MERV 13 and um uh MERV 13 filtration as well as balance pressure.

Um the so the uh local code is now in conflict with the state code, and so uh we are amending to uh remove the multi-unit residential um requirement under the sensitive use definition, as well as um uh simplified the and define the positive pressure requirement and balance pressure requirement in the legislation which was missing before.

Um we have always required positive pressure um in the units, um, so this is just redefining it in the code.

And then we also um just to make a note that the amendment won't affect um any of the other codes that the other city agencies use for the APES, and part of the permit SF process um is also to uh reduce wait times to support businesses and the development in San Francisco.

So this removes a 10-day barrier for permit um plan review check by the health department, which is great news.

I'm here if you have any questions.

Okay, um if I could uh have Supervisor Chen asks uh some of her questions before we go to uh amendments.

Go ahead, supervisor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um Thank you, Director Hover, for your presentation.

Uh in my district, we we are heavily impacted by major roadways and freeway, which produce air quality and which produce air pollution hazards.

Um this definitely will disproportionately affect the households who live adjacent to this mobile uh pollution sources.

I understand that based on the study conducted by DPH, uh over 80% of the people who live adjacent to freeways are immigrants, people of color.

So this is also an environmental justice issues in San Francisco.

It is really really important to me that as a city we are maintaining an exceeding minimum standards in order to protect community health.

Um I have a few questions, uh, which the first one is like can you clarify the differences in how they protect health between Article 30A standards and the California energy co-standard, which regards to multiple family buildings adjacent to high pollution, high pollution zones.

Thank you.

Um it's a really great question.

Um the state is finally caught up with San Francisco, which is um uh the what I would like to start off with.

So providing uh MERV 13 filtration and balance pressure across the city of San Francisco, which is more than what we are currently doing, as you can see the map um on my presentation.

This is the um air pollution exposure zone.

So the new law actually covers all of the city for enhanced ventilation systems and balance pressure.

So balanced pressure is um you can't have any air come in or come out, so you're not letting air escape outside the building, nor are you letting anything from the outside come in.

So this is extremely protective to health on the citywide level.

We will still maintain the positive pressure at schools, child care, um, adult uh services institutions, hospitals, um, so that APES doesn't go away, and then single family homes as well.

So those aren't covered by the state standard.

Um, but having a streamlined process for any development in San Francisco is is uh is is good because we don't want a different process if you're literally on the other side of the APES, um, but it is very um the state standard is protective of public health and more than I've seen statewide um since I've been in the um department for almost 20 years.

Um but it is very um the state standard is protective of public health and more than I've seen statewide um since I've been in the um department for almost 20 years.

Thank you for that answer.

Um then I also have another follow-up question.

It's uh I I have been advocating for more affordable housing, especially also nearby uh transit corridors.

Uh one example it's uh uh industrial eleven, it's next to bar station.

Uh uh the co Capusel uh affordable housing projects.

You know, next to freeway, next to bar station.

So those it's really important to make sure that um affordable housing project like those is continue to have and able to maintain good health, uh good air qualities.

Um then how are the filters inside the facilities and what it's the oversightful, like making sure that uh it's actually working those f uh filters.

Yeah, it's a good question.

Um currently the code provides um maintenance of from the building uh owner to change out the filters.

Um so that is the expectation in the code.

Um I can't I don't want to directly speak for the Department of Building Inspection, but I know that they have accountability for when uh something goes in that's required by law that it be maintained, and there's a process if that doesn't happen.

But I'm sure um DBI can speak to their complaint process.

I can tell you with the maintenance code right now, we do respond to anybody that is concerned about their filtration not being other MER13 filtration not being um changed.

Uh I've gotten two um concerned citizens in the last decade.

Um, but they were um in compliance.

Um I think the reason is is that these systems are very expensive and the building owners want to invest in their ventilation systems.

And if you don't maintain your filters, other problems can happen with your system.

So I think it's uh um a mutualistic um want with uh switching out the filters.

Great.

Thank you.

It's actually yeah uh a piece of mind, only two people coming in the last decades.

Yes.

To me too.

It's a really good piece of legislation.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Um I just uh wanted to say, so I was once a member of the asthma task force way back then when we were doing this like early work.

Uh and it's actually really great to see what has resulted um in terms of standards for everything, um, but that the state has followed suit.

So uh I think San Francisco once again was like at the forefront of a lot of this stuff.

And um, you know, I and thank you for your work in you know, standardizing uh, you know, making sure that there is a process that's consistent for everybody and uh you know that permits people to do the right thing uh when it's needed.

So uh with that I'll turn it over to Supervisor Mahmoud who has amendments that he wants to introduce.

Uh colleagues, I would like to make a motion to move the amendments as right into the record by the Department of Public Health.

Um the motion will be in order after we've taken public comment on the item.

Oh sorry.

Sorry.

Okay.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, land use and transportation with not here, public comment for agenda item number six.

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

No speakers, madam chair.

Okay, public comment is now closed.

And I have recorded a motion now from Member Machmood that the ordinance be amended as presented on that motion, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Makmoon.

I Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

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

Uh I'll also like to make a motion to now send the uh legislation as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation.

On the motion offered by Member Mockmood that the ordinance be recommended as amended to the Board of Supervisors, Vice Chair Chin.

Chin I, Member Machmood.

Mahmoud I, Chair Melgar.

I Melgar, uh, Madam Chair, there are three eyes once again.

Thank you so much.

Uh that is uh passed.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh Mr.

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

There's no further business.

Okay, we're adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.