Good afternoon, everyone. This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the December 8, 2025 regular meeting of the Land, Use, and Transportation Committee

of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I'm Supervisor Myrna Melgar, Chair of this committee,

joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Cheyenne Chen, and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood.

The committee clerk today is John Carroll,

and I would also like to acknowledge James Kawana from SFGovTV for helping us broadcast this meeting.

Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

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

If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, you can submit them directly to me.

Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda.

When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called,

Please line up to speak along your right-hand side of this room.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment and writing in either of the following ways.

First, you may email your comments to me at john.carroll at sfgov.org,

or you may send your written comments via U.S. Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

The address is 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

If you submit public comment and 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 speaking.

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of December 16, 2025,

unless otherwise stated.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Clerk, please call item number one.

Agenda item number one is a resolution adding the commemorative street name

Brian Craig Kelly Way to Hollister Avenue between Jennings Street and Engel Street

in recognition of Brian Craig Kelly and to enshrine his legacy in the Bayview-Hunters Point community.

Thank you. We are joined by Supervisor Shimon Walton from District 10, the sponsor of this legislation.

Welcome, Supervisor.

Thank you so much, Chair Melgar.

I just want to say to the public that this is a long time coming.

We have been working with the family on this commemorative street name designation for quite some time

to honor the name of Brian Craig Kelly, who was gunned down years ago.

And Hollister is the street that he grew up on.

He's a member.

He was a member of the Bayview Hunters Point community,

upstanding member of the community.

He comes from an amazing family, and he has family here with us this afternoon.

And so just excited to bring this forward so that we can honor his memory

and do right by his memory.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your efforts, Supervisor Walton.

Let's go to public comment on this item.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number one,

Brian Craig Kelly Way.

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

I'm pointing it out with my left hand.

I think that we have some speakers who are ready to speak on this item.

Madam Chair, it appears we have no speakers.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

I would like to be added as a co-sponsor of this legislation, please, supervisor.

And thank you on behalf of all mothers and children in San Francisco for acknowledging this.

With that, Mr. Clerk, I will make a motion that we send this out to the full board with positive recommendations.

and I failed to close public comment, so I'm going to do that now.

Public comment is closed.

Madam Chair, I forgot to mention that this item was, sorry, no, that's correct.

Madam Chair, I'm recording a motion from you that this item be recommended to the Board of Supervisors

on that motion, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, aye. Member Mahmoud?

Mahmoud, aye. Chair Melgar?

Aye.

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

Thank you. That motion passes.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton.

with that Mr. Clerk let's go to items two through four together please agenda

item number two is a resolution declaring the intention of the Board of

Supervisors to vacate portions of Hawes Street Griffith Street and Bancroft

Avenue for the development of the fire department training facility at 1236

Carroll Avenue and setting a hearing date for all persons interested in the

proposed vacation of street areas within that that item is on our agenda as a

potential commutary report and may be sent for consideration by the board tomorrow, December 9th,

2025. Agenda item number three is an ordinance amending the zoning map of the planning code to

change the zoning use district designation of various parcels along the full width of Bancroft

Avenue between Griffith Street and Hawth Street and the full width of Griffith Street and Hawth

Street between Carroll Avenue and Armstrong Avenue, collectively known as the 1236 Carroll Avenue

project from production distribution and repair district 2 to public changing the height and

bulk district designation of the aforementioned parcels and the sr and assessor's parcel block

number 4852 lot number 001 from 40x to 90x the ordinance affirms the planning department's

secret determination and makes other findings agenda item number four is an ordinance ordering

the vacation of portions of hawes street griffith street and bancroft avenue for the development of

the San Francisco Fire Department training facility at 1236 Carroll Avenue,

reserving public utility and access rights in favor of the city,

and easement rights for existing PG&E overhead electrical facilities.

It approves the interdepartmental transfer of the street vacation area

from Public Works to the Fire Department,

authorizes official acts in connection with the ordinance,

affirms the Planning Department's secret determination,

and makes other findings.

Madam Chair.

Thank you very much.

We have a few presentations from the fire, public works, and planning department.

But before that, I will turn it over to Supervisor Walton in whose district this project is in.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

It looks like we've got a few items on the agenda this afternoon.

One, just want to say that this is very important for the city and county of San Francisco,

for the fire department, but also exciting for the Bayview-Hunters Point community

to have the fire training center as someone who has participated in fire ops and had the

opportunity of course to learn from our fire department and to see the amazing work that

they do every day in community.

To have a facility like this in your own backyard is something that I think will be benefit

to all of our community.

There are benefits that are coming along with this facility in terms of street improvements,

opportunities for jobs and resources.

So just wanted to say that I'm happy to be here to support all of these items and look forward to moving these forward so this state-of-the-art training center can be in our community.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Supervisor Walton.

The first presenter that we have is Gareth Miller, Assistant Deputy Chief for the San Francisco Fire Department.

Whatever you all think.

Okay, okay.

Excuse me.

So yes, let's have planning go first.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'll be brief.

Rebecca Salgado, planning department staff.

On October 16, 2025, the Planning Commission passed a resolution by a vote of 6-0

recommending approval of the Zoning Map Amendment ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.

The Commission did not request any modifications to the ordinance as proposed.

This concludes the Commission report, and I am available for any questions.

Thank you.

Okay, so we will now have Gareth Miller.

Welcome, Deputy Chief.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, Supervisors.

It's a pleasure to be here and thank you for the opportunity to address this legislation

and the project that it impacts.

As you know, since 1866, the San Francisco Fire Department has been protecting lives

and property.

Today, we are truly an all-hazards agency.

In addition to extinguishing fires, we're mitigating medical emergencies,

behavioral crises, and affecting technical rescues.

The current fire department training facility was built in 1954.

and most of our training occurs at the formal naval facility on Treasure Island that's scheduled for demolition.

At a new division of training, all of our SFFD firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics will begin their service.

They'll take up the mission and the values of the fire department

and return throughout their career for skills maintenance, updates, and professional development.

The legislation you're considering is a foundational component of this project,

which is truly essential for our department and our city.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

And we have also Scott Moran from the San Francisco Department of Public Works.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Supervisors.

Apologies for the miscommunication earlier.

So I'll give you a quick overview of the project and the legislation.

The project is a consolidation of the two existing training facilities for the San Francisco Fire Department,

one on Treasure Island and one in the Mission at 19th and Folsom.

These two facilities are going to be consolidated and moved to a new facility

at 1236 Carroll Avenue in the Bayview District.

This shows a rendering of where the project is or the site is relative to the surrounding area.

It is across the slough, Yosemite Slough, from Hunter's Point on the south side

at just west of the old Candlestick Park location.

It is directly across from the original Alice Griffith housing,

which has since been demolished,

and the new housing is just to the east or the right of that.

This area has the surrounding uses.

Directly to the north is Light Industrial, PDR2,

And then directly to the west is a site owned by a company, Prologis,

and it currently does organic material recycling.

Directly to the east is California State Parks land.

That land, they are eventually planning to build a state park visitor center.

And then the Prologis site to the left has a potential option

of building a four-story distribution center at that site.

Directly south is part of the Candlestick Point redevelopment area,

mixed use of housing and high density, and then more light industrial to the left.

The planned build-out of this site puts all of the occupied buildings,

which are the main classroom, the apparatus building, and all the support buildings,

up against Carroll.

And then at the back of the property are the unoccupied training structures.

They're simulated buildings that are not occupied, and they're only used for training purposes that simulate a variety of different conditions in San Francisco.

There are all the access to the site will be from Carroll Avenue, the primary access being on the east side.

This is a rendering of what the buildout will look like.

Again, the training buildings, which are a mix of different kinds of buildings in San Francisco, in the back on the left.

and then the occupied buildings more in the red color along the front of Carroll.

The improvements also include all new street improvements and trees along Carroll Avenue.

This is another rendering showing it from a different perspective looking towards Hunter's Point.

This is the main primary entrance for all vehicles coming and going from the site

as well as the public entrance.

This is the pedestrian entrance from Carroll Avenue,

and then just looking down some of the improvements along Carroll Avenue.

The legislative overview, this site is actually made up of 26 individual parcels

on two city blocks and three paper streets, streets that have never been built.

The total legislation includes the vacation of the three streets

and the planning code map amendments to change the zoning from PDR2 to P

and the bulk height from 40X to 90X.

The street vacations, this shows more clearly where those streets are,

the paper streets that have never been built, three of them.

And then this shows in perspective those three streets.

And they basically, because of the landscape and the slopes,

It would be very difficult to actually build streets, and they would go nowhere because the bay is right there.

This shows another view, also showing that it drops off 15 feet on the north side.

In those paper streets, there are some existing utilities.

There is a large box sewer, 18 by 18.

That's the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

And then there's also a 3'6 by 2'9 sewer main that runs under Griffith Street.

On the far west side of Hawes Street, on the left side of the page, you can see the green lines.

Those are the overhead power lines that feed the two buildings directly to the north of the site,

the industrial buildings.

For the existing utilities, we have met with PG&E,

and we have easement language that's incorporated into the ordinance.

Also for PG&E, we have the easement language.

For PUC, we have a memorandum of understanding that was signed for this property

regarding the use of the space and going forward.

The adjacent landowners who would be affected by the closure of these two,

the vacation of these two streets, the state parks to the east

and prologists to the left have both written letters of support for the vacation.

The planning code map amendments.

This shows the site relative to the existing use, the mix of PDR2 and P,

and the plan is to change it all to P.

The bulk height change is primarily due to the fact that we have two taller training structures,

one that is a training tower that's seven stories tall to simulate an apartment building or an office building,

and then also a simulated communications tower, 80 foot tall,

to do rescues of people who might have been electrocuted from a tower.

This shows the build-out of the site relative to the potential future build-out of Candlestick

Park, or Candlestick Point development, and the building to the south or the east of the

site, the west of the site, I'm sorry.

And then the next page shows sections.

This is looking down Carroll to the east, showing the relative heights compared to the

future development across the street for the Candlestick Point development.

The two taller buildings are purposely pushed as far away from Carroll,

so it's not an imposing element in the design.

Then looking from Carroll at the bottom of the page and looking north towards the slough,

it shows it relative to the potential future building that would be built to the left.

This again shows that rendering of the site with the simulated communications tower in the center

and then the tall tower for office building simulation.

Community outreach.

These are all the different meetings that we've had with the community.

The one in particular I wanted to point out was the number six, which was on August 20th.

It was a meeting of the Bayview-Hunters Point Citizen Advisory Committee,

where they voted unanimously to recommend to the planning commission the approval of the planning code map amendments.

So in summary, the street vacation, we have legislation of the street vacations, the three paper streets,

and then the planning code map amendments to change the zoning and the bulk height.

That is the summary of it, but in addition to that, we submitted this morning, Madam Chair, some amendments to the ordinance,

and those were in response to some comments that we received from PG&E about some specific requests.

That was the primary area was focused.

I've also been told by the city attorney to point out that based on the street vacation laws,

the January 6th meeting that is proposed for the hearing of the street vacation

will require the board to sit as a committee of the whole while considering the ordinance.

And that is it.

and open it up for any questions you might have.

Okay. Are there no more presentations?

No.

Okay, great. Thank you so much.

I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or concerns among my colleagues.

So with that, 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 numbers 2, 3, and 4,

which all relate to the proposed project at 1236 Carroll Avenue

and a potential street vacation order.

If you have public comment for these three items, please come forward to the lectern at this time

Madam chair to please with no speakers. Okay, public comment on this item is now closed

Supervisor Walton, did you want to make any further remarks before I make a motion?

No, thank you chair Melgar. I just want to make sure that

Obviously these three items go forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. Okay. Thank you very much

supervisor but I because it's a little bit complicated and there's amendments

I'm gonna take them one by one so first I would like to make a motion to send

item to file number two five zero eight two one the resolution of intent street

vacation for 1236 Carroll Avenue to the full board of supervisors with a

positive recommendation as a committee report as amended we haven't amended it

yet okay I'm sorry let's do the amendment first sorry let's do the amendment as

was circulated madam chair agenda item number two is the resolution that

schedules the committee of the whole among other things and the amendment

that would be necessary for agenda item number two is just a slot in the date

and time for that committee of the whole hearing dates that we can conduct all of

our noticing it fills in a blank that is on the final note it so let's take a

a vote on that first on the amendment thank you and the date and time that's proposed is january

6th it is the first meeting of the year for the meeting is 3 p.m on a motion offered by chair

melgar to amend agenda item number two to include the committee of the whole hearing date vice chair

chen chen i remember makhmood makhmood i chair melgar i melgar i madam chair there are three

eyes on the amendments thank you so that motion passes so now let's go to item

number two file number two five zero eight two one as amended I'd like to

make a motion that we send it out as a committee report to tomorrow's meeting

on the motion by the chair that the resolution in agenda item number two be

recommended as a committee report as amended for consideration tomorrow

Vice Chair Chen. Chen, aye.

Member Mahmoud. Mahmoud, aye.

Chair Malgar. Aye. Malgar, aye.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that motion.

That motion passes. Thank you.

Now I would like to make a motion

to send item number three,

file number 250823,

the Planning Code Zoning Map

for 1236 Carroll Avenue

to the full Board of Supervisors

meeting on Tuesday, January 6,

2026 with a positive

recommendation.

On the motion offered by the chair that agenda item number three be sent with the recommendation of land use and transportation for consideration at the board meeting on January 6th, 2026.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, aye.

Member Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that motion.

That motion passes.

So now item number four, file number 250824, the street vacation order and inter-departmental property transfer for 1236 Carroll Avenue.

I'd like to make a motion to adopt the amendment as read into the record for item number four.

On the motion offered by the chair that agenda item number four be amended as presented by the department, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, aye.

Member Mahmoud, aye.

Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Thank you.

And finally, I'd like to make a motion to send item number four, file number 250824,

as amended, to the full board meeting on Tuesday, January 6th, without recommendation, as amended.

On the motion offered by the Chair, that agenda item number four be sent as amended

for consideration by the board on January 6, 2025,

without the recommendation of land use and transportation.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, aye.

Member Mahmood, aye.

Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that motion.

Okay, that motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton.

The next one is yours, too.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Let's go to item number five, please.

Agenda item number five

is an ordinance delegating authority to the Public Works Director

to vacate certain streets and public service easements

in the Petrero Hope SF project site,

generally bounded by 26th, Wisconsin, 23rd, Missouri, 22nd, Texas,

25th, and Connecticut, south of 25th streets,

including portions of 22nd, 23rd, 25th, 26th,

Arkansas, Connecticut, Dakota, Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin streets,

Turner Terrace, and Watchman Way

to expedite implementation of the Hope SF project.

It authorizes the city to transfer its interest in the vacation area

to the San Francisco Housing Authority or the project sponsor,

delegating to the director of property authority to grant, accept,

and terminate easements to facilitate the street vacations.

It adopts a public works order recommending the street and easement vacation processes,

waives the application of Administrative Code Chapter 23

regarding real estate transactions to the extent inconsistent with the ordinance,

finds that the street vacation areas are exempt surplus property under the California Surplus Land Act,

authorizes other official acts as defined within the ordinance in connection,

and adopts findings under CEQA as well as findings of consistency with the general plan

and the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

This item is also on our agenda as a potential committee report,

and it may be sent for consideration by the board during their meeting tomorrow, December 9, 2025.

Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk.

We have Shawna Gates here from Public Works.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Supervisors Melgar Chin and Mahmood.

My name is Shawna Gates.

I'm a Project Manager with Public Works.

I'm joined today with colleagues from the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development,

Public Works Subdivision and Mapping, and the Potrero-Hope SF Development Partner,

who are available after this presentation to answer any questions you may have.

Today I'll be presenting on a proposed ordinance that would delegate authority

to the Director of Public Works and the Director of Real Estate to approve vacation of certain

street and public service easements in the Petrero Hope Development Area to facilitate

implementation of the development agreement.

Petrero Hope SF received approval of a development agreement in 2017 and is proceeding in phases

to complete the redevelopment and reconstruction of new public streets, utilities, and open

spaces within the 38-acre site.

The infrastructure phase one is complete and phase two is nearing completion.

Demolition of existing unoccupied buildings in the phase three area will be completed next year.

The graphic on the right shows in bold dashed line the Prochero-Hoposuf development boundary

and the existing streets that will be vacated in the future subject to this ordinance are shown in gray.

The anticipated phase lines are also shown for reference.

This ordinance proposes to delegate authority to the Public Works Director to vacate streets

and public service easements within the Petrero-Hope SF development boundary, and delegate authority

to the Director of Property to execute and record deeds for transferring interest in

the vacated area to the housing authority or project sponsor to facilitate the development

agreement and grant, accept, and terminate easements needed for street vacations.

this ordinance would also perform other related actions listed on the slide

including waiving any conflicts of the administrative code chapter 23 declaring

the vacated areas exempt from surplus property authorizing necessary official

acts to implement the ordinance adopt CEQA findings and confirm consistency

with the city's general plan and planning code the proposed delegate

delegation has been recommended for approval by both the planning department

and director of real estate and is supported by mo CD housing authority of

San Francisco and the development partner as evidenced by support letters

found in the items board file under the current process and without this

legislation each application for street vacation requires full board approval by

ordinance which takes at least six months from date of application because

the development is proceeding in phases multiple phases of street vacations would

be required under the proposed delegation of authority public works would be able to evaluate

applications coordinate with the affected city departments and make determinations for street

and easement vacations without requiring further board authorization this would greatly reduce the

amount of time and effort involved for approvals required to support the development this ordinate

ordinance recognizes the necessity of street and easement vacations within the development area to

fulfill the intent of the development agreement and deliver new public streets and utilities that

will support new housing and public spaces public works would continue to review applications and

perform the same steps to evaluate for approval including conducting a public hearing confirming

the street or easement vacation facilitates delivery of the project and is appropriate

based on phasing incorporates any necessary conditions including provision of easements

or access requirements, and also confirming all the conditions that would have been required

for board approval, including making findings under the California Streets and Highways Code,

approving an SUR map and legal descriptions for the areas to be vacated, assigning APMs

for the affected parcels, obtaining planning department's general plan consistency and

CEQA findings, and that the developer has demonstrated a good faith effort to obtain

consent from the adjacent property owners.

Once this process has completed, Public Works would then issue and record an order approving the vacation with any required conditions.

I hope today's presentation has demonstrated the benefits of the proposed legislation to facilitate and expedite the redevelopment of the Potrero Hope SF project

and request that the committee move this ordinance forward to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Thank you.

I'll take any questions you have.

Thank you so much.

Ms. Gates, that was a very thorough presentation.

I appreciate it.

I don't see anyone on the roster with questions,

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

Land, Houston, Transportation will now hear public comment

related to agenda item number five,

street vacation for various streets

related to the Petrera Hope SF project.

If you have public comment for this item,

please come forward to the lectern at this time.

Madam Chair, to praise you, we have no speakers.

Okay, public comment on this item is now closed.

so I would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with a

positive recommendation as a committee report motion offered by the chair that

this ordinance be recommended as a committee report vice chair Chen Chen I

member of Mokhmud Mokhmud I chair Melgar I Melgar I madam Trither three eyes

Thank you. That motion passes. Let's go to item number six, please.

Agenda item number six is an ordinance of many of the planning code to allow additional uses as principally or conditionally permitted in historic buildings citywide.

Exempt historic buildings in certain eastern neighborhood plan areas from conditional use authorization.

Otherwise required to remove production, distribution and repair institutional community and arts activities uses.

and from providing replacement space for such uses,

make conforming amendments to provisions affected by the foregoing,

including zoning control tables.

It also affirms the Planning Department's secret determination

and makes findings of consistency with the general plan

and the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1,

as well as findings of public necessity, convenience,

and general welfare under Planning Code Section 302.

Like the previous item, this item is on our agenda

as a potential committee report

and may be sent for consideration by the board at their meeting tomorrow, December 6, 2025.

It is on our agenda as a committee report,

but we have gotten a request from the mayor's office to continue this item to the call of the chair

so that we can work out some details, particularly as it pertains to buildings in Districts 9 and 11,

as I understand it.

Is there anything that you want to add, Ms. Gluckstein?

No, that's correct.

We are requesting a continuance, and thank you for your work with us on that, Supervisor Melgar.

I just wanted to mention for the public who might be tuning in that we do plan to incorporate amendments

coming out of the recommendations from the public at the last hearing to specify that formula retail,

hotel uses, and cannabis uses in Chinatown, but working with District 11, Supervisor Chen,

citywide to ensure that cannabis uses, those controls would not change as would be the case

for hotel uses and formula retail uses. So we're working on those amendments and appreciate your

patience with this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gluckstein. So let's go ahead and take

public comment. We're going to continue this item and I will make a motion after public comment.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number six,

adaptive reuse for historic buildings. If you have public comment for this item, please come

forward to the lectern at this time. We may have a speaker approaching.

Afternoon, Supervisor.

Cynthia Gomez, you're not here, Local 2. So if I understand the announcement

right this what I'm about to say is moot and will mostly apply whenever this is

reheard but wanted to just flag that I think our issues as the last time the

last time as regards to hotel use were amended and so assuming that that we are

that we'll get a chance to read them we will have read them before the next

hearing it sounds like there will be more to discuss as well so I think that

that's all we need to say now and we will be back whenever this is reheard

Thank you, Ms. Gomez.

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

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And I would like to make a motion that we continue this item to the call of the chair.

On the motion offered by Chair Melgar that this ordinance be continued to the call of the chair, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, aye.

Member Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Malgar aye. Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Thank you. That motion passes.

Let's go to item number seven, please.

Agenda item number seven is an ordinance

amending the Planning Code to

first, require property owners seeking

to demolish residential units to replace

all units that are being demolished.

Second, require

relocation assistance to affected occupants

of those units and to former occupants

who vacated due to harassment,

improper buyout agreements,

owner move-ins

pursuant to the Ellis Act or other

serious and imminent hazards with additional assistance and protections for lower-income

tenants. Third, modify the planning code definition of demolition. Fourth, modify the conditional use

criteria that apply to projects to demolish residential units, amending the administrative

code to, fifth, require landlords to provide additional relocation assistance to lower-income

tenants who are being required to vacate temporarily due to capital improvements or rehabilitation

work. Sixth, update the standards and procedures for hearings related to tenant harassment.

Seventh, require additional disclosures and buyout agreements. Eighth, require an additional

disclosure in notice of intent to withdraw units under the Ellis Act. Ninth, making various

non-substantive changes and clarifications, affirming the planning department's secret

determination, making other findings throughout the ordinance. Madam Chair.

Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk. Supervisor Chen, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Malgar.

Collie, I really appreciate all your collaborations as we move this legislation closer to the final form.

I understand that Supervisor Malgar's amendments are also ready today to present and for the committee to be considered.

But before we move those amendments, my office would like to work on additional standards to achieve deeper affordability in priority equity geographies.

Since my office don't have these amendments ready,

so I would like to require referral back to the planning commission.

So I would like to make a request to duplicate the file today.

And with that, I'll pass back the floor to you, Supervisor Melger,

to present your amendments.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you so much, Supervisor Chen.

It has been a complicated set of circumstances and complicated legislation.

I'm so grateful to you and your staff for tackling it.

and including so many people in the discussion.

Really particularly grateful also to Milena

and the planning department for all her work

and our city attorneys who have worked overtime on this one,

so I'm grateful for that.

Unfortunately, this piece of legislation

didn't receive as much press as the family zoning plan,

and it's too bad because I think this will be

by far more impactful,

and it covers the entire city as it should have years ago.

I appreciate everybody's work and very much appreciate the patience of the advocates

who have put in also long hours into getting this right.

There are provisions here such as assistance for tenants temporarily moving out

for capital improvements, for fire damage that are long overdue.

I think in all of our districts we've experienced this.

I'm happy that we had this vehicle to improve things for tenants on those longstanding situations.

I have some friendly amendments, as you alluded, Supervisor Chen, which were drafted in partnership with the advocates.

And thank you again to the city attorney for all their work.

They are substantive, so they are going to have to sit for a week before we vote on them.

The first amendment starts on page 13.

It is to rejigger the conditional use criteria that the Planning Commission uses when granting demolition permission.

So that three of them are now requirements in order to be granted permits rather than options.

The three criteria have to do with first complying with the relocation assistance for tenant, not harassing tenants,

and third, properly filing a buyout agreement with a rent board.

Then on page 1617, the criteria that the Planning Commission uses to determine whether a project

has reached a threshold of 70% that are also reordered as F, G, and H.

Then on page 21, section 317.2 would be amended so that the landlord who conducted a good-faith

buyout but failed to do so perfectly can petition the rent board to rule that they

substantively complied with a spirit of 37.9 E's buyout requirements. And on page 55, the process

for a landlord to petition the rent board is described and also sets a timeline to make this

decision. And that completes my amendments. I don't know if you have any further comments on

that supervisor Chen okay so if that is at the case and I don't see anyone else

on the roster and there's no other questions let's go to public comment on

this item please mr. Clark thank you madam chair land use and transportation

will now hear public comment related to agenda item number seven tenant

protection ordinance if you have public comment for this item please come

forward to the lectern that I'm pointing out with my left hand and if you're

waiting for your chance to speak you can line up to speak along that wall oh

Oh, please come forward.

You're the first speaker.

You may begin.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Zach Weisenberger with Young Community Developers.

We want to thank Supervisors Chen and Melgar for their diligent work on this critical legislation.

We also want to thank Supervisor Chen and the committee for moving to duplicate the file, which we hope happens,

which will enable us to continue developing PEG-specific demolition protections, a critical component of this legislation.

Strengthening PEG-specific safeguards would fulfill the core purpose of these designations,

protecting communities that have shouldered much of the city's growth while experiencing the greatest inequities.

We also want to voice our strong support for REP's request to continue tightening the demolition definition.

Fully closing loopholes related to renovations is vital to ensure tenants are not displaced through construction practices

that circumvent the intent of the ordinance.

Thank you again, and we hope to move this work forward with the duplicated file,

and we look forward to continuing our collaboration

to ensure strong, equitable protections

for tenants and pegs.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Madam Chair, members of the committee,

again, Fujioka.

I'm with Chinatown Community Development Center

and also with the San Francisco

Anti-Displacement Coalition.

I want to express our appreciation

for both Supervisor Malgar

and Supervisor Chen

for working on this complex piece of legislation

and recognize the staff that have put in extraordinary hours.

I know we just got amendments about, well, at 1 o'clock today,

and we're looking through them, and I have to say it looks good to us on first review.

I think the whole project, the whole challenge of trying to –

One of the key challenges is the threat of evictions, displacement in the city is so high, it's increasing today.

And it is enormously challenging to protect tenants against all the pressures that the new incentives for development create.

So, but I want to, again, appreciate the efforts to address those issues and anticipate those challenges in advance.

So, we understand this will be coming back next week.

And, but, again, thank you all for your work.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number seven?

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

So, Mr. Clerk, as I heard it, Vice Chair Chen wants to duplicate the file before we make

the amendments and refer it back to planning to talk further about priority equity geography.

Can we do that?

So, that would mean that the version of the ordinance that we have right now with

if no other amendments gets referred back to the planning commission for

consideration.

That way it would be different from the amended file that we vote on.

Deputy,

deputy city attorney Brad Russey.

I think the committee could amend the duplicate file next year and have that

amended version go back to planning for consideration or I,

or it could be,

I guess,

referred back now and have those amendments discussed there before coming

back to the board when they're made.

unless the clerk disagrees with that procedure.

I think normally the amendments would be made here

and then sent to planning if it required referral back.

Correct, but the amendments that we're making today

do not need to go back to planning.

The amendments that need to go back to planning

have not yet been written,

but it is about having further protections in geography,

priority equity geography areas,

which is a different concept.

Right, I understand that.

I'm just saying normally I think the amendments

would be made to the duplicate here and then referred back to the commission for consideration

but I think this procedure will work I think this will work yeah okay so I'm recording a duplicate

of the item that is on our agenda presently unamended that's where we're at so far that

was at the request of supervisor Chen and then for the original file I would like to make a motion

that we adopt the amendments as I read into the record, please.

On the motion that the original file be amended as presented by Chair Melgar, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, aye. Member Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that amendment.

Thank you. And since my amendments are substantive, I would like to continue this item to the meeting

of Monday, December 15th as amended.

on the motion by the chair that the original file be continued as amended

for consideration at next week's land use and transportation committee meeting

December 15th 2025 vice-chair Chen Chen I remember Mahmoud Mahmoud I chair

Malgar I Malgar I met him to there are three eyes on that motion thank you let's

go to item number eight please oh we still have the matter of the duplicate

file which I recommend that you continue to the call the chair I I'm sorry yes

let's continue the duplicated file to the call of the chair on the motion that

the duplicated file be continued to the call of the chair of vice chair Chen

Chen I member Mahmoud Mahmoud I chair Malgar I Malgar I met him to

there are three eyes thank you thank you okay now let's go to item number eight

please agenda item number eight is a hearing on the status of San Francisco's

Electric Vehicle Curbside Charging Feasibility Study,

Status of the Electric Vehicle Curbside Charging Pilot,

Next Steps for Implementation of a Scalable Public Electric Vehicle

Curbside Charging Program,

and Requesting the MTA, Department of the Environment,

Public Works, and Public Utilities Commission to report.

Thank you.

This is very exciting,

and we are now joined by Board President Rafael Mandelman.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Melgar,

and thank you colleagues for making time on your agenda today to hear from our city departments

about the city's efforts to roll out EV curbside charging.

This is a topic I've been interested in for some time,

mainly because I hear from my constituents on a regular basis wondering why we don't have it

when they see other cities in the United States and internationally

moving forward with curbside EV charging.

It's a conversation that I started having more earnestly with MTA and Department of the Environment

and other departments back in 2023.

And we began working with them on asking them to look more systematically at opportunities

for implementing a scalable EV curbside charging program in San Francisco.

In March of last year, we passed a resolution supporting the efforts of the department at that time

to implement a curbside EV charging feasibility study that they actually had already begun

and urging the Office of the Mayor and departments to leverage all available funding sources

to implement a curbside EV charging pilot program this year.

The study was completed earlier this year,

and I believe today we're going to be hearing about what that study found.

And the mayor, the prior mayor, last year got a jump on the pilot

and rolled working with departments.

The mayor's office, Joe Swice at the time,

rolled out a pilot inviting EV companies to make proposals

to put their chargers on our sidewalks.

In April of this year, we saw a couple of those chargers roll out.

We're going to hear more today about that pilot, about what they've learned, about where we're going from here and how we get more of these on our sidewalks.

So with that, I believe we have Nicole Appenzeller, Senior Clean Transportation Specialist at SF Environment, who will kick us off.

Great. Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Before I begin, I just want to confirm that our presentation is working.

SFGovTV, will you please display the slides?

There we go.

Great, thank you.

Again, my name is Nicole Appenzeller, and I serve as the city's electric vehicle ombudsperson

at the Environment Department.

I'm here today on behalf of our interagency city team working on curbside EV charging

in San Francisco, and I'll be presenting alongside Broderick Paolo from SFMTA, and

I'm joined by colleagues from SFE, MTA, DPW, and SFPUC to help us field questions.

We're also joined by Shannon Delaney from It's Electric, who will also be presenting

on their experience on the curbside pilot as a current Office of Emerging Technology

permittee.

This joint presentation is in response to Supervisor Mandelman's resolution calling

for a curbside charging feasibility study.

Our goals today are to provide context for why curbside charging is important,

share findings from the feasibility study and demonstration pilot, and outline our next steps

for building a long-term program. Our role at the San Francisco Environment Department is to act as

San Francisco's climate accountability, coordination, and equity engine. This work is guided by the

city's clean transportation commitments in the 2021 Climate Action Plan. As a transit-first city,

we prioritize walking, biking, rolling, and transit. But at the same time, we recognize that many

residents, commuters, and visitors still rely on vehicles. Where vehicles are necessary, we want

them to be zero emissions. Our targets are ambitious. 25% of registered private vehicles

are electric vehicles by 2030 and 100% by 2040. To reach these goals, we must ensure the right

charging infrastructure is in place. A 2020 International Council on Clean Transportation

study found that San Francisco will need 1,760 public chargers by 2030. We currently have 1,067

level 2 chargers and 237 DC fast chargers installed. That leaves the need for about

two, excuse me, for about 450 additional chargers within the next five years.

The MTA recently secured funding to install 250 level 2 chargers in city-owned parking garages,

which will make a significant contribution toward meeting our 2030 goals.

Curbside charging is just one small piece of the puzzle.

A robust network must also include home, workplace, fleet, and public charging.

Much of the expansion will happen off-street at city-owned garages,

retail parking lots, and fast-charging hubs.

These sites generally have fewer traffic or jurisdictional conflicts,

but are often far away from where residents live and park,

and may require drivers to charge during costly peak hours.

That's where curbside charging fills a gap.

It offers the closest option to at-home charging for the 60% of San Franciscans who rent or

live in multifamily housing without dedicated parking.

Our rough target is 100 curbside charters by 2030 to help meet this near-home need.

To date, the city has taken several steps.

We've completed the curbside charging feasibility study to explore business models and identify

priority sites.

We've launched the mayor's demonstration pilot, which created a new permitting pathway

and brought in vendor-funded pilot sites.

We've secured $150,000 of Prop L funding through SFCTA

to support a portion of long-term planning and implementation.

And right now, we are finalizing the demonstration pilot installations

and shifting toward citywide planning.

This next phase will focus on establishing a permitting pathway,

site selection process, and partnership model for long-term deployment.

Based on lessons learned from the study and pilot,

our goals for a citywide curbside program include

prioritizing overnight charging for renters and multifamily residents without on-site charging

by focusing on lower power level 2 chargers in locations with a high density of renters

and multi-unit dwellings and avoiding commercial corridors. Planning for demand while also ensuring

equitable deployment. That means prioritizing areas with high charging needs but also encouraging

deployment in underserved neighborhoods, both where charging is limited today and in vehicle

reliant areas where vendors may be hesitant to invest their own dollars.

Part of evaluating any new sites will involve community engagement to better understand

what the community wants.

We also want to establish clear expectations for private providers using the CURB, such

as siting criteria and community outreach requirements, so they can bring forward well-prepared

projects that they will own and operate.

And creating a permitting framework, including a long-term permitting solution and operating

terms that address driver access, pricing, maintenance, licensing, and potential revenue

sharing. With that, I'll turn it over to Broderick Paolo from SFMTA to dive deeper into the findings

of the feasibility study and the demonstration pilot. Thanks, Nicole. Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Broderick Paolo, and I'm a planner at SFMTA on the parking and curb management team,

and I've had the pleasure of serving as the project manager for the pilot program. Today,

I'm thrilled to be providing you with a high-level overview of the feasibility study and providing

a brief overview of the pilot. The study, sponsored by President Mandelman, explored whether it was

feasible from an operational, financial, and regulatory perspective to install, maintain,

and operate a public-facing charging network at the curb. The study identifies the risks and

opportunities of operating a curbside network and identified practical solutions and recommendations

to help advance the network beyond the pilot phase.

Of course, lessons learned from the pilot were incorporated into the study.

Overall, we found that the biggest challenge is navigating the complex permitting and regulatory process.

Additionally, we can expect hurdles with the electrical grid, both in terms of readiness and overall capacity.

These factors reinforce the need to site intentionally, building not just individual chargers, but a connected network.

The good news is that our analysis shows revenue generation is feasible for both the city and the vendors, provided implementation is thoughtful and strategic.

As you are well aware, there are a suite of agencies that have the authority and jurisdiction over the public right-of-way, adjacent private parcels, and the energy grid.

The cast of characters includes Public Works, SFMTA, DBI, SFPUC, and PG&E.

Despite these complex conditions, the city has experience and a track record of working with private vendors in these complex spaces.

Examples of these partnerships include the bike-share program, the car-share program, and the city's contractual relationship with vendors such as J.C. Decoe.

One of the recommendations from this study is to develop a long-term curbside EV permitting pathway.

This effort must identify clear roles, including a lead agency responsible for coordinating and implementing the legislative changes to support a permitting process with key approvals and a partnership model.

The study conducted a citywide suitability analysis that found every district has viable curb for EV charging.

The consultant Arup used several data layers, including existing parking regulations, EV registrations, grid capacity, multifamily unit density, and equity indicators to help identify suitable locations.

The map and analysis assumes that areas with metered parking, bikeways, daylighting zones, and color curbs are incompatible with charging infrastructure.

It will also be important to consider local block-level conditions and community readiness as we look to site charging stations in the future.

In June of 2024, we launched a pilot with the spirit of learn-by-doing to begin testing a variety of curbside charging models.

We designed the program to be technology agnostic, which gave the vendors the flexibility to bring in a variety of curbside charging products.

That includes chargers mounted to existing utility poles, pedestal chargers, and even a bring-your-own-cord model, like the one shown here, which is San Francisco's first station operated by It's Electric.

Now, vendors who meet our program guidelines propose sites that work best for their technology.

Their proposals must account for accessibility, avoid transit or bike conflicts, and consider a range of parking configurations from parallel, angled, and perpendicular.

Once the site is approved, the vendor takes on full responsibility to own, install, operate, and maintain these chargers.

To energize these chargers, vendors have one of two options.

They can either establish a new service directly with PG&E or PUC, or they can tap into excess panel capacity from a nearby property.

For the demonstration pilot, Public Works issued an emerging technology permit.

The initial permit lasts for two years, with the option of it being extended to 10.

The Emerging Technology Permit is available as a short-term permitting mechanism

to test out new innovations with the goal of informing the development of new permits that may be needed.

We are now at the stage we need to establish a long-term permitting solution

for curbside charging to scale programming.

And finally, a few other permits are needed to make this work.

Excavation permits from Public Works if the project requires trenching.

Electrical permits from DBI.

SFMTA legislation to designate the curb for the exclusive use of EV charging, and verification

from the utility if new electrical service is needed.

The pilot is currently working to complete one demonstration site with each of our approved

vendors.

It's Electric, Urban EV, and Volt Post.

To date, we've reviewed about 65 sites from these vendors and have two sites in progress

and one is operational.

Site selection is challenging,

as providers need to consider existing street furniture,

vertical clearances, and power connection.

One of the biggest takeaways from the pilot

is that vendors need clear, upfront requirements

from the city to inform site selection.

Even with these guidelines,

site selection often requires close collaboration

as each site is unique.

Now, as we plan for the future of curbside charging,

we can build on the following siting principles

from the pilot.

First, focus on demand. Placing chargers where they'll actually be used.

Second, avoid conflicts with existing or planned street uses like transit lanes or bikeways.

Third, prioritize locations with a high density of renters and multi-unit buildings, and avoid commercial corridors.

Finally, consider underserved areas with limited charging and high vehicle reliance.

Right now, we're working with Urban EV and Volt Post to finalize site selection,

and we expect those last two pilot sites to be operational within the next six to nine months.

Next month, Urban EV will be seeking MTA board approval for a potential site in the dog patch,

and Volt Post is currently working with SFPUC and PG&E to assess two different potential sites.

Once those sites are established, the city team will wrap up the pilot by

ensuring vendors are maintaining their infrastructure, monitoring pattern usages,

conducting a community survey, and making adjustments to improve performance as needed.

Of course, these data-driven insights will directly inform the design of the future citywide program.

To date, we've been able to utilize 311 reporting data, driver feedback, and support from our parking control officers

to begin implementing changes at our first site to foster higher utilization.

And now I'll hand it over to Shannon from It's Electric to share their perspectives and lessons learned on the first site.

I would like to note that It's Electric will be speaking in its capacity as a current Office of Emerging Technology permittee reporting on its experience so far.

Thank you, Broderick, and hello, supervisors.

My name is Shannon, and I am the Director of Public Affairs for It's Electric.

It's Electric's first-of-a-kind approach to curbside EV charging has enabled us to provide the first curbside chargers in the city of San Francisco.

In 2025, as you've heard, the city identified grid access and readiness as a challenge in the deployment of public charging.

This is a problem not isolated to just San Francisco.

It is a leading issue cities across the country are facing in scaling EV charging infrastructure.

This boils down to the complexity of coordination, time, and cost around connecting to the grid.

It's Electric identified this and in response created the first charging system that avoids this issue

and allows public chargers to be powered instead by the extra capacity in buildings.

The second issue we identified to solve was charger downtime caused by failure or vandalism of attached cables.

And so we imported the European solution of detachable cables.

We send drivers a free, lightweight cable to charge with that they keep and carry in their car.

This also makes us fully interoperable.

are operable. No adapters needed from drivers, as with other public charging solutions.

But back to building power. An incredible side effect is that this allows us to be the only

community-requested charging solution. When we scale in a city, we crowdsource site locations,

which we then share with our city partners for approval. Building power also allows us to have

chargers in the ground fast, and only two days after permits and approvals are granted. This is

critical as low cost and high speed are the key drivers to scale. Next on finance, our model is

one that is at no cost to the city, taxpayers, utility, or the property owner. We pay our

electricity use from that charger directly to the utility, and with the revenue we earn, we share 20%

of it back to the building owner. This pilot was designed to have the selected vendors share data

to iterate with speed and agility with the city. We were able to do just that in the first four

making two key changes to ensure the success of these stations.

The first challenge was the spots were often blocked by gas-powered vehicles

or by EVs that were parked but not plugged in to charge.

The solution surfaced was enforcement by SFMTA from driver reporting to 311,

and next, the spots were painted to visually underscore

that these are reserved spots for EV charging only.

The second issue was that the original pricing structure

had drivers paying based on the time they were plugged in

rather than by kilowatt hour.

Based on driver feedback and in coordination with the city, we made the switch in 24 hours.

Utilization has moved from 10% to almost 56% in just six months.

To underscore how remarkable this is, it took New York City's curbside pilot on a much larger scale of deployment

over two years to reach the same level of utilization as San Francisco did in just four months.

The city, SFMTA, Department of Environment, and Supervisor Mandelman and his office deserve to be commended for this work.

It's Electric is here to support San Francisco's curbside charging goals and growth.

In the six months we've been in the ground, over 125 buildings have signed up to power a charger and receive revenue share.

100 drivers have signed up to use the active chargers, with another 140 drivers waiting for us to expand,

both active EV drivers and, more importantly, aspiring EV drivers who are waiting for infrastructure in order to make the switch.

Thank you so much for your time, and I'll pass it back to you, Broderick.

Thank you, Shannon.

As we work with the remaining providers to complete two more pilot sites,

the city team is transitioning to focusing on developing a long-term permitting process to support citywide curbside expansion.

In the last two months, we've worked across departments to identify agency roles for a citywide curbside planning.

MTA will be leading project development, management, and operations for a new citywide program.

Led by MTA's Taxi Access and Mobility Services team, also known as TAMS, MTA will lead on developing a long-term permitting pathway, a revenue model, and operational terms.

Public Works will support all processes and permits for operation within the public right-of-way

and provide input on site selection requirements.

SFE will provide EV charging subject matter expertise to advise on policy development,

research, outreach, and monitoring and evaluation practices.

SFPUC will provide utility expertise to help shape site screening and eligibility.

By combining operational expertise, permitting authority, utility planning, and EV technical knowledge, we are working together to create a program stronger than any single department could have done alone.

Now, as we move to the next phase of the program, we'll use available Propel funding to support essential planning and establish a strong foundation for citywide expansion.

A key priority is creating a long-term permit and streamlining interagency processes to the extent possible so providers have a predictable, coordinated path for deploying curbside charging.

We're also developing a consistent site selection framework to ensure locations are feasible, equitable, and responsive to community needs.

We're developing a mapping tool providers can use to inform this site selection.

In parallel, we're exploring mechanisms to identify vendors capable of operating a reliable,

well-maintained network that also supports a sustainable revenue approach.

Throughout this work, we remain committed to ongoing engagement with communities and

stakeholders to guide deployment and build public trust.

Underpinning all of these priorities is a strong cross-agency collaboration, bringing

together MTA, Public Works, SFPUC, and SFPUC to create a scalable and resilient curbside

charging program aligned with the city's long-term mobility and climate goals.

And lastly, if any EV charging company would like more information on the city's long-term

permitting program, which is currently under development, they should visit SFMTA's curbside

website to sign up for our distribution list, and MTA will reach out to those companies

once there's more information about the long-term program.

That concludes our presentation, and thank you very much.

Thank you. President Mandelman.

Thank you, Chair Milgar, and thanks to everyone who's been involved in the feasibility study

and the pilot. I do have some questions.

so one relates to the scale and timing of the goal

so the feasibility study determined that we need 100 curbside chargers

and I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about that

because it seems like a low number to me

but you're also setting the goal of having that done by 2030

which seems like a rather long time out to me

and so could you talk a little bit more about the 100

and a little bit more about the 2030.

Yeah, I can speak to that.

So as we were developing our 2030 goals,

we wanted to just take into account

what other charging projects are underway

or what we think might be realistic in the off-street space.

As mentioned, we were successful in working with MTA

to access funding of $2.3 million

to help install 250 new level two chargers in off-street city-owned garages.

And since we needed to develop a long-term permitting strategy in order to scale curbside,

we wanted to make sure that our goal was reasonable

and determined 100 to be a reasonable goal over this five-year period

so that in the next five years we could also collect data.

And if we're able to go past that goal, that will be excellent.

that will continue to help support our goals for charging expansion as we move to 2040.

But we wanted to make sure that our goal was realistic with what we could do

based off of our current status transitioning from a pilot to a citywide program,

which requires significant upfront work as we establish that long-term permitting pathway.

And I appreciate that.

I do I mean I just think there's

and I'd be curious I mean I assume that these two chargers

in Dubose Triangle are showing there's demand

you're nodding yes yeah

it's showing extreme extremely good demand

of its 60% utilization thus far

but we have also recognized that you know curbside

charging projects can be a little bit more complex based off of

the model and where the utility interconnection is.

We're still gathering data as we deploy the remaining

two stations with our approved vendors, Urban EV

and Volt Post. We're still

evaluating how we can scale this model further

and that's why we focused on a goal of 100 chargers to help meet

that near-home demand, knowing that we'll need to expand that goal

as we set our eyes on 2040 with 100% electrification.

You know, and I recognize that there's many ways

to meet our need for chargers

to support people moving to electric vehicles.

And it may be, you know, that curbside charging

is not going to be a huge chunk of that effort.

However, it seems like potentially an elegant solution for people who live in

multifamily buildings that don't have chargers and and it has been sort of

identified in city documents going back at least to 2019 if not prior to that as

something that we wanted to explore. So I guess I just want to, while you know

expressing gratitude for the work you've done, sort of also express urgency around moving more quickly to deploy more

and trying to make that more of a priority.

And I'm hoping that the administration, you know, I've had some conversations with Alicia John-Baptiste.

I'm hoping that the administration, if they believe and you believe that these curbside chargers are part of the EV solution,

that we should move more quickly than 100 by 2030.

and maybe that's 100 by 2028, I don't know,

but it seems like we should move more quickly than we are moving.

But then I want to get into a little bit about why things seem to be going rather slowly.

So we have two that went out in April.

None have been deployed since then, right?

Although we do apparently have a lot of interest coming.

Well, I don't know if we have a lot of interest.

Can you talk more about why this is hard and what's taking so long?

Yes.

So as Broderick noted, we've received over 65 applications to date across our three approved curbside charging vendors.

And something that is difficult is site selection.

So we've been able to work closely with each approved vendor to provide them with key requirements.

but it does get tricky as we're navigating this for the first time through the demonstration pilot

and each site is different so what might work for one block doesn't necessarily work for the other.

Additionally, another added layer that can complicate it is there's different technology types

that we're currently experimenting with.

So, for example, one of our approved vendors is called Volt Post and they're lamppost-mounted chargers.

So they're looking at lampposts and where those are located.

So each site selection process requires determining, you know, if the curb use is viable for curbside.

But we also need to take into account things like existing street furniture, where utility interconnection point is.

and things like vertical clearance, which complicate it

and lead to a lengthier site selection process

and assessment process.

So we have some lessons learned over the last year,

but that's also some of that information

that informed that 2030 goal of 100.

You know, we want to be realistic with how fast we've

been able to move to date.

Do you think you're close to having more moving out?

Or?

Yes, we estimate that the next two sites will be available within nine months.

We have a big target to hopefully open the next two sites by climate action month and week.

So we're excited to move those forward.

But that is after a long process with both of the remaining vendors that have gone back to assess multiple sites for each of those vendors.

so it hasn't been cut and dry for the site selection process.

Do you have thoughts about how to speed this up?

Because two a year feels inadequate

or like this is not a problem.

If this is a project we should take on,

we should be doing it more quickly.

If it's a project we shouldn't take on,

we should cut bait and have folks working on other things.

So do you have a sense of whether we're going to be able

to move things along more quickly than two a year, or what really is inhibiting that?

Yes, I agree. We are moving too slowly. As an electric vehicle ombudsperson, I want all of the

charging infrastructure in the ground now, but we do know that this is a gap that we need to fill.

Close-to-home charging solutions are going to be critical for our residents, especially when

public charging can oftentimes be less convenient and more expensive.

I don't doubt that you share the urgency around it.

What I'm not getting is the, is this a gap we can close and what's the problem?

I mean, if I think this is a problem and you think it's a problem, how do we get it done more expeditiously?

Like what's going to be the thing that makes that happen?

Establishing a long-term permitting pathway so that site vendors can apply to specific site criteria set by the city and can apply for more than one permit moving forward.

So as we transition to citywide planning, we want to open up that permitting pathway so each vendor can apply for more than one site at once.

and we've received input from each of the curbside vendors

that they want to scale and do something like 20 sites each.

So by opening that pathway, that permitting pathway,

we're going to be allowing that permit pathway to move faster.

And as we determine the final technology needs

for the remaining two vendors,

we'll have a good blueprint that what we can follow

and we can establish which technologies we can pursue

as we open the citywide. Maybe you can explain how that's gonna help to me

because I had understood that this emerging technologies permit was you

know a great way of speeding things up and and that that was responsible for

the relatively quick approval of the the two chargers we have but it seems like

it's kind of somehow gotten bogged down and city permitting is not necessarily

expeditious so how do we think the pathway the permitting pathway that is

going to be created I guess under MTA maybe this should be an MTA problem or

question so so one of the I mean one of the recommendations in the feasibility

study is expedite permitting and improve oversight and talks about the need to

identify a lead agency and I guess part of the work leading up to this hearing

has been MTA sort of perhaps grudgingly or perhaps happily,

but being willing to take on the responsibility of this project

because it has felt like nobody has wanted to be the lead

on EV curbside permitting.

But maybe can you talk, how do we make this an expeditious process

that results in more than two EV curbside chargers a year?

Hi, thank you. I'm Kate Torn. I'm the director of the Taxis, Access, and Mobility Services Program at the SFMTA.

How did you get stuck with us?

And we are excited. We are stepping in and stepping up and excited.

Thank you.

And, you know, are strongly committed to the goal, to the project.

And we're thankful that this is one part of the solution, and Nicole talked about that,

because we do have a lot of factors that are complicated,

and having a long-term permitting process

doesn't necessarily mean it is going to be faster

than the OET permitting process.

Thankfully, we're building on the great work

and the lessons learned of the team and the collaboration,

so we're not starting from zero,

but we do need to level set on expectations

and say we are committed to the work,

We're committed to going faster, and we will look for all those opportunities to create a more efficient process.

But permitting in the city is complicated, and the slide that Brody laid out with the cast of characters,

with the agencies that need to issue permits, that will remain.

But that's a choice for us, right?

Well, it is how our city is structured.

So there's charter authority for various city agencies to issue permits within their purview.

So that is established.

MTA is not going to issue a PUC permit or a DBI permit.

But what we are going to do is we're going to be the front door for the permitting process.

and we will work to create streamlined process on our side

and create a process where we approve eligible vendors

and then they will need to go get the permits as applicable as may be needed.

So it might be there's trenching involved

and they're going to have to go to Public Works for that excavation permit.

So what we're hoping to do is make it clear, have a clear front door for interested vendors,

and be clear with upfront requirements, create a mapping tool, which, again, we've talked about as part of the presentation.

But it is a complicated process when you're putting something in the public right-of-way

that requires power and attachment to the grid.

It is just a complicated endeavor.

I get it.

And yet somehow cities are managing to do this.

Yeah.

So we will figure it out all over the world.

If it is a problem with our charter,

I mean we have all sorts of conversations

about charter reform happening over this year

and we can go to the ballot.

But if we need to go to the ballot with the EV curbside ballot measure, I can't imagine who's going to vote no on it.

So if we need to carve out charter authority.

Well, and I think that's a conversation.

I don't want to imply it's a problem, but I want to imply there's expertise at various agencies.

So MTA has expertise with setting up permit programs, with curbside, managing the curb.

Public Works has expertise with excavation permits, encroachment permits.

DBI has that expertise with power and making sure that piece of this is working as needed.

So, you know, again, I don't want to imply that there's a problem,

but I want to state that there's different expertise involved with the various elements of this.

So we want to, you know, identify and work as a team,

and there's a great structure set up whereby MTA, Public Works,

there's, you know, an existing interagency collaboration happening,

which is really great.

So we're hoping to build off of the relationships

and understand where there is room for streamlining the permitting,

where there's room to potentially delegate authority

for various aspects of the permitting.

And if it's delegated to the MTA,

of course we need to make sure we have the in-house expertise

so that we don't say, hey, we can do it all

and not have that expertise needed.

So it is a team effort across city agencies.

Do you have a time frame within that

which that conversation about permitting is going to be had?

Well, it's already started, which is nice.

We're not waiting for the pilot to end.

We're kind of parallel play here, and we're hoping to get something in place for 2026,

the structure in place in the coming months.

I don't have a specific date at this point, but we're certainly happy to come back and

provide an update.

But we do expect to have that within 2026.

What would it mean for the pilot to end?

Because it sounds like we have something like 65 applications and we're anticipating two more going out in the next year.

Yeah, that's.

So the pilot seems like it could go on for a very long time.

Well, I think that's wrapping up.

So as those two additional sites are put in the ground, then, and the team can correct me if I'm wrong,

that we have selected that maximum number of participants, three,

and once we finalize those sites and get those into the ground, that is it for the pilot.

for new participants.

So the pilot is anticipating a total of how many chargers on the street?

It's electric.

It has their two installed currently.

Urban EV is proposing five sites in the dog patch,

and Volt Post is proposing two chargers,

either in the Sunset or Treasure Island.

So the pilot would be a total maximum of nine.

And then at some point between now and then, a different permitting process takes over under Kate.

That's correct. That's when Kate's team will take over.

Okay. Looks like some of my colleagues have questions and comments.

Okay. Thank you, President Supervisor Mahmood.

I was actually going to ask similar questions to President Mandelman about the charter reform process.

So is it your understanding then that to create maybe say a one-stop shop for this permit, we do need charter reform?

And do you have a sense of which parts of the charter we need to change to make that possible?

I'd have to take a look at that.

That is – I'm not sure.

But so I guess more to come on that.

I don't have a specific, you know, ready-to-go answer there.

Got it.

Is there one concrete non-charter-related administrative change that you can make today that if you could do that today, which would you be to actually move this further along?

Well, there is something that is under discussion, and that is a delegation of authority from Public Works to the MTA on the encroachment permitting.

So we are exploring that, and that is an active conversation.

And so we can report back on that, but we're not ready.

We don't have an outcome from that yet.

Of course, we have to work through the city attorney and make sure that, one, it's allowable by what mechanism,

and then, again, making sure if it's delegated to MTA that we have the in-house skills to do that, to issue those permits.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor. Supervisor Chen. Thank you, Chair. You know, I haven't seen a lot of public EV charges in District 11, so I think this is the equity questions.

District 11, we use all modes of transportation, and I know that in my district, we do have some public parking space.

for example, Mission and Norton Street sites.

So I just want to ask, what is the city doing

in selecting new sites to expand public facilities?

Well, do you want to jump in?

Yeah.

Yes, so the city is assessing all of our city-owned

public parking garages and lots to determine power capacity

and applying for funding to bring EV chargers

into those lots that are managed by MTA.

In addition, through my role as EV ombudsperson,

I am in a support role for any EV service provider

that's trying to bring charging to San Francisco

to help them assess sites, troubleshoot permitting,

and talk to supervisors like you

to see what demand is like in your district.

So I'm excited to share.

There has been some interest in bringing chargers to District 11 through Iona, who's contemplating a large fast charging hub.

But we want to also consider things like curbside or bringing charging to districts that don't have any through outside funding, through state and federal funds.

So our department's been successful in doing that in Bayview-Hunter's Point most recently this year

and continue to apply for funds so that if we're not seeing the market bringing funding to underserved areas,

the city can subsidize those chargers.

Thank you for that.

And, yes, District 11 can use more.

Another question, personally, I also have experiences

in especially using chargers that is

broke down, so I want to also hear from you

what are the protocol and procedures to ensure that existing stations,

which in my district is also very limited,

and that the stations, the existing ones,

are reliable and operational.

Yes, the state has strong reliability standards for chargers, and we followed suit.

So for any chargers that are supported by funding through the city or kind of sponsored by the city,

we're instituting those same requirements.

So for the curbside program, as part of the current emerging technology permit,

we have reliability requirements.

and during the first initial two-year term, we'll evaluate each site, provide feedback,

so they can make any adjustments as needed.

And at the end of that term, we can evaluate and provide feedback on their status.

So if they are not meeting our core requirements, we will cancel their permit

and have them pull out that charging infrastructure themselves.

But of course, we want to get ahead of it.

So we keep an open line of communication with any vendors that we work with.

And then also for charging projects that we're not a part of as a city, if folks come to me and have complaints about chargers being down or inoperable, I'm reaching out to those EV charging providers to find solutions.

I think what's worse than not having charging in the ground is charging that's not working.

So we're also working with EV providers to get their equipment online and find out what's going on with those chargers that are always down.

Thank you. So I have lots of questions. Sorry, supervisor. I'm confused a little bit by the presentation that Ms. Delaney made. So as to the pilot program, what is exactly the relationship with the building owner? I didn't understand that.

Sure. So one of the reasons why it's been so difficult for legacy EV charging companies to deploy at the curb is because they're connecting directly to the utility. And so that site selection process is determined by the interconnection process, which can take up to 18 months.

Why the building? I don't understand. If this is a public curb, why the building has anything to do with it?

Well, because they have power at the correct voltage and they have spare capacity in that building.

So essentially we're just mimicking what happens if you live in the suburbs and you have a driveway or garage

and you install your own at-home charger, your own level 2 charger.

It's the same amount of power that a dishwasher requires.

So we pull that power out of the curb.

Yeah, but that's assuming the curb belongs to the building and it does not.

The curb belongs to the public.

So yeah, there's actually two different processes that we're going into.

There's the contract with the building to pull their power,

and then we're going through all of the processes with the Environment Department and SFMTA

to pull the appropriate permits.

So the building doesn't own that curb.

It's privately powered, but it's a publicly accessible spot.

And who's paying for occupying that spot while that car is charging?

So all of these parking spots are public parking spots.

So you're saying it's free?

Well, you pay for the charging service, but you're not paying for the parking itself.

Okay, that clears it up.

Thank you.

Okay.

So after all that presentation, and thank you so much, I am still at a loss of who's in charge for propelling this thing forward.

So in Swedish, that word ombudsperson means go between.

I still am not sure who you're going between and who is leading the charge on this.

Okay, the SFMTA is leading the charge.

We are the lead agency.

We will be the front door for the new permitting process,

and we are creating what that process will look like,

but it is intended to be a welcoming, open front door for vendors.

We will assess eligibility to participate in that permitting program,

and maybe we will issue the encroachment permit,

depending on how our conversations go.

So MTA is the front door,

and the other permits will still be required,

depending on how the charger will be set up.

And so if you're company A

and you make it through the welcoming front door

with the clear expectations and the site mapping tool

and we determine you are eligible,

then you are eligible to go get the next permit on the list

to complete the project.

And then once you've done that and you've gotten your permits,

you come back to the MTA for that final check, right?

So we're, again, as the lead agency,

we're going to check that vendor A

has successfully received all of the permits needed

and then will issue the final permit to operate.

Okay, I understand about the operationalizing

of the permit processing.

Okay.

So my question, though, is if it's the MTA

that's going to be in charge,

What is your goal for this program?

What are the goals?

Our goal will be to establish those 100 charging locations at the curbside by 2030.

So that's my understanding of that is our goal.

And our goal is to then streamline the process and have a clear, understandable, legible process for interested vendors.

See, in that, I do feel some kind of way about that, President.

because to me the goal should be much broader than that so it shouldn't be just issue 100 permits

so you know I was here during the pandemic when we rolled out the um parklets you know the the

shared spaces program and it was a very similar thing you know to I mean we had to do it very

quickly because we were in a pandemic but there were multiple goals uh it wasn't just about issuing

the permits, right? I think that's fair. Forgive me. It just seems to me that there's multiple

goals here too, and perhaps some goals that you are not even taking into account because you're

the MTA and not necessarily the PUC or the Department of the Environment. Aside from our

climate action goals and getting people to move towards this, there's equity goals about who has

access to these things that may or may not line up with the infrastructure that's already there.

There are goals around the use of these things in commercial spaces versus residential, for example.

There's the goal also of generating revenue.

We do have vendors that right now use private land for charging, and they're making money off of that.

And we are giving away the curb for free.

So it seems to me that the PUC also has a goal of providing public power.

They do so for our public buildings.

I'm not sure why we wouldn't have them do it here for this public, although privatized for a tiny thing, activity.

It just seems to me that there are multiple goals and that we are looking at it in a very small way when we should be looking at it bigger.

But that is just a comment, not a question.

I do have one more question, and that is who is making the decisions for site selection process?

So aside from the map that you talked about, I know, again, with the experience of the shared spaces, we talked about ADA.

We talked about fire accessibility, like all of those things, in addition to equity and what was needed.

So who's making the site selection for the next 100?

it. Yeah. I will just say fair point. And if I zoomed in too closely on the goal, I appreciate

your point and to reorient us to the larger picture. And there are those larger, broader goals.

So I agree. And yes. And if there's a possessory interest about the use of the curb, then that's

a conversation with TTX. And we're happy to have that conversation. So, oh, sorry,

Treasurer tax collector's office.

The treasurer's office.

Why is that?

You charge for parking on commercial corridors.

Why would you give this away for free?

If there's not a meter on the spot, I think you're talking about is the spot metered.

Right.

We're assuming that everything that's not metered is free.

Right.

That's an assumption that you're making.

Right.

But you don't have to maintain it.

The MTA still has a responsibility to keep up that curb, to maintain it, to pave it, to paint it.

That's right. Agreed.

Okay, so all of that needs to be considered.

And I guess I was just trying to address the point.

If there is a private company using the public right-of-way to make money,

then there is a mechanism under the possessory interest, under the treasurer's office, to charge for that.

So I just wanted to say we are aware of that, and we'll make sure that that's considered.

And the site selection is we are working to build out an interactive mapping tool,

but it will include those aspects that you mentioned.

And we have a very robust accessibility requirement that's built in,

and there's community readiness, which is part of that conversation.

So that is something that is under development.

Okay, thank you.

Let's go to public comment.

Thank you.

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

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

Madam Chair, it appears to have no speakers for agenda item number eight.

Okay, public comment is now closed.

Mr. President, what would you like us to do with this?

Well, again, thank you committee members for taking a little bit of time this afternoon for this conversation.

I feel frustrated.

I'm happy that we have two more chargers on the ground now than we did two years ago.

I also feel like this is one of those conversations that seemingly goes on forever in San Francisco,

and I think we were hoping that the feasibility study would set us up to really address the things that we are now talking about addressing

and move quickly to dramatically expand out the network of curbside chargers.

and it feels like we're setting ourselves up for yet another rather long conversation

where we have a lot of people in government talking to each other

about how to make something happen without showing the results for it

that I think we all believe we want to see.

So I've had some conversations with, as I said, Alicia John-Baptiste about it.

I think I'll have some more.

I'm hoping that the resources and urgency around this will come not just from the Board of Supervisors

but from the administration as well.

I do think we can do more than two curbside chargers a year,

and I do think that the goal should be to get this rolled out sooner than 2030.

And thanks again to the MTA for taking this on.

Some of the supervisors on this committee, I believe, are going to be part of the charter conversation.

Actually, probably all the supervisors on the board are going to be part of the charter conversation.

And so, you know, to the extent that this requires charter changes, we want to know.

We want to know if this requires admin code changes.

We want to be partners in helping move things along.

But we also want to deliver quickly and not be using our staff time and resources on projects that don't end with good results.

so I would like to have this hearing

continued to the call of the chair

and I'd like to bring us back in say three months

and I hope some of the thinking at MTA around permitting

will have moved forward

and maybe we'll be able to hear a little bit more

about progress on the pilot

but I think this is sort of a check-in

and hoping we'll have more good news in the spring

okay um i don't think i closed public comment did i public comment is now closed um

i would uh first want to say thank you uh president middleman for the situativeness

because you've been talking about this for as long as i've known you so i'm really glad

um and yeah i hope that we can make some progress on things um that it makes sense i mean especially

for my district which is a little more suburban where we could really use this

for sure that would be really great okay so I would like to make a motion that we

continue this item to the call of the chair motion offered by the chair this

hearing be continued to the call of the chair vice chair Chen Chen I member

Mahmoud I chair Malgar I Malgar I madam chair there are three eyes okay that

Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's go to item number nine, please.

Agenda item number nine is a motion approving final map number 10-8-5-7

for a 20-commercial unit condominium project located at 1301 to 1341 Evans Avenue,

being a subdivision of assessor's parcel block number 5237, lot number 037,

and adopting findings pursuant to the general plan and the eight priority policies

planning code section 101.1 this motion is on today's agenda as a potential

committee report it may be sent for consideration by the board at their

meeting tomorrow December 9th 2025 okay thank you we have a presenter here from

the surveyors office mr. Elias French

Hi, welcome.

Thank you.

Nice to meet you all.

I'm here on behalf of Public Works Department of the City and Subdivisions and Mapping Office of the City and County Surveyor.

I'm the City and County Surveyor, having started fairly recently.

Thank you for inviting me.

This map here before us is a 20-unit commercial condominium subdivision map.

It was received by our office in 2021.

It duly circulated to city agencies.

They responded with their feedback and comments,

which are very minimal.

The applicant completed the required conditions.

I believe the only condition required

of this commercial condominium subdivision

is a conversion of existing commercial space, to be clear.

was to get a building inspection, which they did, and perform any required building code update work.

And then they proceeded to final mapping.

So we issued tentative approval.

They completed the required conditions and then submitted the final map to our office.

So we reviewed all of that, approved the final map, and I signed it.

and then we forwarded along to Board of Supervisors,

as is customary for all subdivisions of five lots or units or more.

That's a summary of the project.

It is 1301 Evans Street.

It's an existing two-story, 20-unit commercial building on Evans Street,

and they're converting the existing units into commercial condominiums.

Sounds good.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Mr. French. Mr. Clerk, I don't see anyone on the roster with comments. Why don't we go to public comment on this item?

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number nine. Does anyone have public comment for agenda item nine?

Madam Chair, it appears we have no speakers.

Okay. Public comment is now closed.

Mr. Clerk, I would like to make a motion to send this item out of committee with a positive recommendation as a committee report.

Motion by the chair that this motion be recommended as a committee report.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen, aye.

Member Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Chair Malgar.

Aye.

Malgar, aye.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Okay.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

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

There is no further business.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.