Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use & Transportation Committee Regular Meeting (Dec. 15, 2025)

Land Use and Transportation Committee — Monday, December 15, 2025

BodySan Francisco, California

SessionLand Use and Transportation Committee

DateMonday, December 15, 2025

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:25:13

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:00

Good afternoon, everyone. The meeting will come to order. Welcome to the December 15,

0:08

2025 regular meeting of the Land, Use, and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco

0:12

Board of Supervisors. I am Supervisor Mirna Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair

0:19

Supervisor Cheyenne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The Committee Clerk today is John Carroll,

0:26

And I would also like to thank Jeanette Engelauf at SFGovTV for staffing us during this meeting.

0:34

Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements?

0:35

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

0:36

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

0:42

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

0:47

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

0:50

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.

0:55

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

0:59

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

1:07

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

1:12

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

1:18

If you submit public comment and writing, I will forward your comment to the members of this committee

1:22

and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting.

1:26

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of January 6,

1:30

2026, unless otherwise stated.

1:35

Thank you.

1:36

Mr. Clerk, please call item number one.

1:38

Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the planning code to indicate districts

1:42

where reproductive health clinics are principally permitted and to make other conforming changes

1:46

to the planning code and zoning control tables as required by Proposition O,

1:50

passed by the voters in November of 2024.

1:54

The ordinance affirms the Planning Department's secret determination,

1:56

makes findings of consistency with the general plan

1:58

and the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1,

2:01

and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare

2:04

pursuant to Planning Code Section 302.

2:07

And additionally, by prior arrangement,

2:09

this item is on our agenda as a potential committee report,

2:13

and it may be sent to the Board of Supervisors

2:15

for consideration tomorrow, December 16, 2025.

2:18

Thank you.

2:19

We have brief remarks from Aaron Stark from the planning department.

2:23

This legislation was required by Proposition O, which passed last year.

2:27

That's correct.

2:28

So as introduced by Mayor Lurie, this ordinance was necessitated by the passage of Prop O,

2:33

which was passed by voters last November and legalized reproductive health clinics citywide.

2:39

As required by Prop O, this ordinance would amend the planning code to indicate districts

2:42

where reproductive health clinics are principally permitted

2:45

and to make other conforming changes to the planning code and zoning control tables.

2:50

The Planning Commission heard this item on June 5th and adopted a recommendation for approval.

2:54

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

2:56

Thank you.

2:57

Supervisor Mahmoud.

2:59

Don't have too much time.

3:00

Thank you for bringing this legislation forward.

3:02

I just wanted to say in supporting PROPO last year as well,

3:05

because I feel that the city should be doing everything it can to encourage safe access

3:09

to reproductive health services for all residents,

3:11

and I'll be requesting to sign on as a co-sponsor to this legislation as well.

3:14

Thank you. Supervisor Chen.

3:18

Thank you, Chairman Malgarz.

3:19

I just want to appreciate you for moving this legislation forward,

3:25

and I also want to convey my full support.

3:27

When the voters of San Francisco passed the San Francisco Reproductive Freedom Act in 2024,

3:34

by an overwhelming margin,

3:36

we make a commitment as a city to protect access to comprehensive reproductive health care,

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Affordable Housing███████████████████████████████████35%

Economic Development██████████████████████████████30%

Transportation Safety███████████████15%

Community Engagement██████████10%

Workforce Development█████5%

Elections And Governance█████5%

Summary of Proceedings

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Land Use & Transportation Committee Regular Meeting (Dec. 15, 2025)

The Land Use & Transportation Committee met on December 15, 2025 (regular meeting) under Chair Supervisor Mirna Melgar, with Vice Chair Supervisor Cheyenne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood present. The Committee advanced multiple Planning Code items—including implementing 2024 voter-approved Proposition O on reproductive health clinics; advancing tenant anti-displacement protections tied to residential demolitions; and modernizing the definition of “family/household” to legalize common shared-housing arrangements. A proposal to allow expanded driveway parking was continued to January 12, 2026 for amendments, and interim zoning controls for certain “laboratory” uses in PDR-1-G were advanced with a parallel duplicated file continued for additional amendments and a requested Planning study within six months. Per the Clerk, items acted on were expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda on January 6, 2026 unless otherwise stated; several items were also noted as potentially going to the Board as soon as December 16, 2025.

Consent Calendar

None stated.

Public Comments & Testimony

Driveway parking ordinance (Item 2):
- Scott Feeney (SF resident): Spoke in opposition; urged full environmental review (challenging CEQA exemption) and warned expanding legal parking would “induce more car ownership” and increase vehicle miles traveled (referencing SB 743). Cited a Planning Commission statement about “about 135 active complaints” the ordinance would “close out,” and asked to retain a driveway-access requirement to avoid “driveway to nowhere” outcomes after ADUs.
- Tom Radulovich (Livable City): Raised concerns and requested clarification; questioned intent (housing/garage conversion vs. doubling parking), asked whether commercial vehicles/uses would be included, and flagged tradeoffs such as loss of gardens, street trees, sidewalk restoration, and unclear interaction with parking maximums.
- Public commenters (unidentified speaker; Paul Wormer): Expressed concerns about sidewalk obstruction, privatization of curb space, impacts on mobility (including scooters and e-bikes), and lack of clarity on parking maximums and properties with multiple driveways.
Tenant Protection Ordinance (Item 4):
- PJ Eugenio (SOMCAN): Expressed support; framed the ordinance as necessary to protect tenants impacted by demolitions and linked it to concerns about zoning legislation. Also noted work on a resolution urging state changes to SB 330.
- Joseph Smook (Rep Coalition): Expressed support; emphasized early notice, maximum relocation assistance, and right-to-return protections within state limits.
- Teresa Flandrick (North Beach Tenants Committee; ADC): Expressed support; highlighted speculation tactics and displacement concerns.
- Meg Heisler (SF Anti-Displacement Coalition): Expressed support; described threats like harassment and under-the-table buyouts and said the legislation equips tenants and community organizations.
- Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition): Expressed support; stressed balancing tenant protections with new housing, and described the proposal as reinforcing “no net loss” principles.
- Peter Stevens (Build Affordable Faster California) and Mitchell Omerberg (Affordable Housing Alliance; ADC): Expressed support and encouraged SB 330 reform.
Interim zoning controls for lab uses in PDR-1-G (Item 5):
- Supporters (multiple speakers):
  - Scott Feeney (D9 resident): Expressed support; said high office vacancies elsewhere mean AI companies have alternatives.
  - Asia Nicole Duncan (Build Affordable Faster California): Expressed support; argued PDR was intended for working-class jobs, not “tech billionaires” or “drone delivery innovation.”
  - Tony Delorio (Teamsters Local 665; Teamsters Joint Council 7): Expressed support; raised safety/privacy concerns about delivery drones and thanked Supervisors for compromise.
  - Hannah Haber (D9 resident): Expressed support; cited safety concerns and argued the City should focus on homelessness/affordability and ensure corporations contribute.
  - Susana Rojas (Calle 24 Latino Cultural District): Expressed support; argued “progress without centering” vulnerable communities drives gentrification; stated “12% raises on rents” and referenced the Mission’s displacement.
  - David Harrison (SF Chamber of Commerce): Expressed qualified support focused on ensuring climate/medical research companies are not burdened; thanked sponsors for amendments.
  - Roses Shields (SF Labor Council; representing 100 unions / 100,000 union members): Expressed support; warned of loopholes for AI/tech companies and cited concerns about companies like DoorDash.
  - Larissa Pedroncelli and Kelly Hill (United to Save the Mission; SF Made): Expressed support; described displacement pressures in PDR space and loss of local suppliers, arguing AI uses accelerate displacement.
  - Zach Weisenberger (Young Community Developers): Expressed support and urged a comprehensive assessment of PDR citywide.
  - Eric Argueta (Calle 24 Latino Cultural District): Expressed support; referenced the Mission’s loss of “12,000 Latinos since 2000.”
  - Jen Bowman (Mission resident): Expressed support; emphasized loss of working-class jobs and neighborhood traffic/safety concerns.
  - Gwen McLaughlin (SF DSA; D1 resident): Expressed support; raised drone safety and job-loss concerns.
Shared Housing Reform Act / Household definition (Item 3):
- Resident in shared housing (unidentified): Expressed support; described current rules as irrational (e.g., a 7-bedroom home limited to five unrelated people) and cited the former Surgeon General’s 2023 report on loneliness to argue shared housing supports social connection.
- Jay Cumberland (Sustainable Economies Law Center): Expressed support with suggested technical fixes; urged consistency changes (including revisiting “dwelling unit” language about cooking) and questioned itemization of group housing uses.
- Ray (speaker): Expressed support; emphasized affordability and community, and argued current rules reduce effective housing supply.
- Abdullah (newcomer; former refugee; medical doctor): Expressed support; described shared housing as both affordable and community-building for newcomers.
- Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition): Expressed support; emphasized objective enforceable standards and asked for continued refinement to avoid unintended impacts to family-sized housing and residential care settings.

Discussion Items

Item 1 — Planning Code updates for reproductive health clinics under Proposition O (Nov. 2024):
- Aaron Starr (Planning Department): Stated the ordinance was required by Proposition O (passed by voters in November 2024) and would map districts where reproductive health clinics are principally permitted with conforming zoning table changes; noted the Planning Commission recommended approval on June 5.
- Supervisor Mahmood: Expressed support for Proposition O’s goals and requested to co-sponsor.
- Supervisor Chen: Expressed full support, emphasizing low-barrier access to comprehensive reproductive health care and the city’s commitment following the 2024 measure.
Item 2 — Driveway parking ordinance (up to two operable vehicles in setbacks/yards):
- Lisa Gluckstein (Planning Dept., for Mayor’s Office): Said amendments were still being finalized and supported continuing the item.
- Committee discussion centered on the need for amendments and concerns raised in testimony (CEQA, transit-first alignment, sidewalk impacts, and parking maximums).
Item 4 — Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance (demolition replacement, harassment/buyout safeguards, relocation and right-to-return-related protections, Ellis Act and other disclosure changes):
- Supervisor Chen (author): Framed the ordinance as recentering policy on tenant impacts amid SB 330’s preemptions; described protections as establishing earlier safeguards before demolition permits, addressing harassment/improper buyouts, and strengthening relocation assistance and protections for lower-income tenants.
- Supervisor Jackie Fielder (appearing; co-sponsor/supporter): Thanked staff and expressed support for a “meaningful and strong” tenant protection approach.
Item 5 — Interim zoning controls (18 months) for specified “laboratory” uses in PDR-1-G:
- Supervisor Jackie Fielder (sponsor): Cited the 2009 Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan’s PDR goals; argued “laboratory” definitions have broadened to include automation/AI and can place pressure on limited PDR space. Noted Mission district demographic shifts including loss of approximately 12,000 Latinos; sought conditional use controls while stakeholders develop permanent policy. Proposed amendments to exclude traditional bio/chem labs (including cancer research) from conditional use requirements.
- Supervisor Mahmood: Expressed concern about unintended impacts on life sciences/climate/medical innovation; introduced amendments to narrow scope (e.g., focusing on certain development/engineering lab uses and considering noise impacts), and said he would request duplicating the file to continue conversations.
- Supervisor Chen: Noted PDR’s role in providing stable jobs for the “50% of San Francisco residents who do not have a college degree,” and raised questions about how the City will protect job-accessible PDR uses while accommodating emerging technology.
- Chair Melgar: Proposed splitting into an original file advanced to the Board with one set of amendments, and a duplicated file incorporating additional amendments and continued while Planning returns with data/study.
- Planning Department (Aaron Starr): Confirmed interim controls require a six-month report, and said specificity helps.
Item 3 — Shared Housing Reform Act (define “family” as “household,” remove numeric/meal-sharing limits, clarify enforcement authority; related issues for residential care facilities):
- Supervisor Mahmood (sponsor): Argued the current definition (blood/marriage/adoption or meal-sharing) is outdated, can discriminate against chosen families, and is unnecessary given building code occupancy protections. Cited existence of about 65 DIY co-ops (per the Sustainable Economies Law Center). Provided historical context tracing the restrictive definition to 1973. Described structure including separate definitions for existing vs. future residential uses, including a cap of nine leases for future residential uses to prevent subversion of affordability requirements. Noted amendments responding to Chinatown CDC concerns, adding findings stating: “Nothing in this ordinance abridges or otherwise alters any private contractual rights, nor does this ordinance abridge the rights of families with children or other dependents to live together.”
- Planning Dept. (Aaron Starr): Reported Planning Commission action on November 13 recommending approval with modifications; said the Commission also recommended (1) making all residential care facilities a residential use and exempting them from inclusionary requirements, (2) ensuring household definition includes single- and multi-provider households with dependents, and (3) monitoring for unintended consequences and reporting back 24 months after the effective date. Starr also stated he was leaving the department on January 2.
- Supervisor Chen: Asked about monitoring impacts on family housing; Planning staff responded that family housing category remains and the department would monitor impacts.

Key Outcomes

Item 1 (Reproductive health clinics / Prop O implementation):
- Voted out of committee as a committee report with positive recommendation, 3-0 (Melgar/Chen/Mahmood Aye).
- Noted as potentially going to the Board as soon as Dec. 16, 2025.
Item 2 (Driveway parking in setbacks/yards):
- Continued to a date certain: January 12, 2026, 3-0.
Item 4 (Residential Tenant Protection Ordinance):
- Voted out of committee as a committee report with positive recommendation, 3-0.
- Noted as potentially going to the Board as soon as Dec. 16, 2025.
Item 5 (Interim zoning controls for specified lab uses in PDR-1-G for 18 months):
- Duplicated file created; the duplicated file was amended with Supervisor Fielder’s amendments and continued to the call of the Chair, with two motions approved 3-0.
- The original file was amended with Supervisor Mahmood’s amendments and then recommended as amended as a committee report with positive recommendation, with both motions approved 3-0; described as queued for Board consideration Dec. 16, 2025.
- Committee direction indicated Planning would return with an interim-control-related six-month report/study.
Item 3 (Shared Housing Reform Act / household definition updates):
- Amended (as read into the record) and voted out of committee with positive recommendation, 3-0.
Adjournment / Next meeting:
- The next regular Land Use & Transportation Committee meeting was announced for Monday, January 12, 2026.

Meeting Transcript

Good afternoon, everyone. The meeting will come to order. Welcome to the December 15, 2025 regular meeting of the Land, Use, and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I am Supervisor Mirna Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair Supervisor Cheyenne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The Committee Clerk today is John Carroll, And I would also like to thank Jeanette Engelauf at SFGovTV for staffing us during this meeting. Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices you may have 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 comment 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, 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 commenting. Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of January 6, 2026, unless otherwise stated. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, please call item number one. Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the planning code to indicate districts where reproductive health clinics are principally permitted and to make other conforming changes to the planning code and zoning control tables as required by Proposition O, passed by the voters in November of 2024. The ordinance affirms the Planning Department's secret determination, makes findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1, and findings of public necessity, convenience, and welfare pursuant to Planning Code Section 302. And additionally, by prior arrangement, this item is on our agenda as a potential committee report, and it may be sent to the Board of Supervisors for consideration tomorrow, December 16, 2025. Thank you. We have brief remarks from Aaron Stark from the planning department. This legislation was required by Proposition O, which passed last year. That's correct. So as introduced by Mayor Lurie, this ordinance was necessitated by the passage of Prop O, which was passed by voters last November and legalized reproductive health clinics citywide. As required by Prop O, this ordinance would amend the planning code to indicate districts where reproductive health clinics are principally permitted and to make other conforming changes to the planning code and zoning control tables. The Planning Commission heard this item on June 5th and adopted a recommendation for approval. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Supervisor Mahmoud. Don't have too much time. Thank you for bringing this legislation forward. I just wanted to say in supporting PROPO last year as well,

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com