Good afternoon, everyone.

This meeting will come to order.

Uh welcome to the April 6, 2026 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I'm Supervisor Mirna Melgar, Chair of this committee, joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Cheyenne Chen, and Supervisor Bilal Mahmut.

The committee clerk is John Carroll.

And I would also like to acknowledge Eugene Libatia from SFCup TV for staffing us during this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Please ensure that you silence your cell phones and other electronic devices.

Your documents to be included as part of any of today's files can be submitted 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 in writing in either of the following ways.

First, you may email your comments to me at J O H N period C A R R O L L at SFGOV.org.

Or you may send your written public comment via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

The address is one Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

If you submit public comment in writing, I will forward your comments 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 April 14th, 2026, unless otherwise stated.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Clerk, please call item number one.

Agenda item number one is a resolution adding the commemorative street name Officer Lewin Tankel Way to the 300 block of Eddie in recognition of San Francisco Police Officer Elia Lewin Tankle's courage and dedication to the people of the city and county.

Thank you.

But before uh we have uh the commander present, I'd like to turn it over to uh the co-sponsor of this legislation, uh Supervisor Mahmood.

Thank you, Chair Malgar.

Uh I'm proud to support the mayor's request to add Officer Lewin Tankle Way on the 300 block of Eddy Street in the tender line.

This commemorative renaming reflects our commitment to honoring individuals who have given back to this community and to recognizing the courage and strength of Officer Lewin Tankle demonstrated in service to tenderline residents.

It also acknowledges the life-changing injury he has sustained in the line of duty.

A profound sacrifice that underscores the risks first responders take every day to support and protect our neighborhood.

Designating this block creates a simple, lasting tribute to his service, his resilience, and the enduring impact of his commitment to the tenderline community.

And I want to acknowledge again, I know the officers and the community have been asking for this commemorative renaming for years.

And really appreciate the resilience and the advocacy uh for your fellow officers.

And it's an honor to serve you in the tender line and be supportive and uh really excited to get this finally up.

Okay, I spoke too soon.

Uh Supervisor Chen also wants to say a few words.

Oh, it would be great.

Thank you, Chairman.

I was very saddened to hear that Office Lewing Tankel was injury in that line of duty during a routine bicycle patrol.

Uh this was truly a heartbreaking event, and I want to recognize the courage and the strength of Officer Lou Win Tankel.

And Claire, would you please add me as a co-sponsor?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, Commander, go ahead.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Supervisors Melgar, Chen and Mahmood, and thank you for your support on this item.

I'm here today in strong support of the resolution to honor Officer Elia Lewin Tankle by naming the 300 block of Eddie Street in recognition of his courage and dedication to the people of San Francisco.

Officer Lewin Tankle represents the very best of San Francisco.

While serving the city, he responded without hesitation to a call involving a man armed with a gun.

An inherently dangerous and unpredictable situation.

On a bicycle with no barrier between himself and harm, he pursued a fleeing suspect in order to protect others.

During that response, the suspect struck Officer Lewin Tankel with his vehicle.

He survived but suffered a traumatic brain injury that has forever changed the course of his life and his family's life.

This resolution is not just about a name on a street sign.

It's about acknowledging courage in its purest form.

Running towards danger when others are running away.

It's about recognizing sacrifice, resilience, and a deep commitment to public safety and to the people of the city of San Francisco.

By naming a street after Officer Lewin Tankle, we ensure that his service and sacrifice are not forgotten.

It becomes a daily reminder to all who pass by of the risks our officers take and the human cost behind the uniform.

On behalf of those who served alongside him and the community he worked for, I respectfully ask for your continued support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commander.

Mr.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment in regards to agenda item number one.

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

And Madam Chair, it appears you have no speakers.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

I would like to thank all of the members of SFPD for being here for this item.

I appreciate your presence.

I would also like to be added as a co-sponsor for this item.

And uh I'd like to make a motion that we send this item out of committee to the full board with a positive recommendation.

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

Aye.

Chen I.

Member Mockwood.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I.

Madam Chair, there are three eyes.

That motion passes.

Congratulations, Supervisor.

Let's go to item numbers two through 15 together, please.

Agenda item numbers two through 15 are 14 ordinances amending the planning code to designate the following 14 properties as landmarks under Article 10.

First, the Bob Ross House, located at 4200 20th Street.

Shahar Zahav, located at 220 Danvers.

American Indian Historical Society slash the Chichaku House, located at 1451 Masonic.

The Bank of Italy Branch Building, located at 400 to 410 Castro.

The Castro Rock Stream Baths, located at 578 to 582 Castro.

Engine Company No.

13, located at 1458 Valencia Street.

Hose Company No.

30 Firehouse, located at 15, sorry, 1757 Waller Street.

The Full Moon Coffee House, located at 4416, 18th Street.

Guilefus on Guerrero, located at 102 Guerrero Street.

Mauds, located at 929 to 941 Cole.

Mission Folk Victorian Home, located at 361 San Jose.

The San Francisco AIDS Foundation building located at 514 to 520 Castro.

St.

Matthew's Church, located at 3281, 16th Street, and St.

Nicholas Cathedral, located at 2005, 15th Street.

Madam Chair.

We have uh Reneel Bajoy here from Supervisor Mandelman's office to present on these items.

Welcome.

Hello, thank you, Chair Melgar, uh, Vice Chair Chen, Supervisor Mahmood.

My name is Renew Bajoy, and I'm a legislative aide for President Mandelman.

Uh unfortunately, he could not be here today, so I'm here in his stead.

Items two through 15 before you today, our ordinances designating 14 properties as to in District 8 as Article 10 landmarks as part of our historic landmarking efforts in conjunction with the planning department.

San Francisco has a remarkable history, much of which is wrapped up in its architecture.

So we want to ensure that as our city builds the housing that we so urgently need, we proactively protect properties of historic merit from demolition.

These properties represent some of District 8's most unique and significant architecture from the site of the American Indian Historical Society, which was associated with the 1960s Red Power Movement and the an American Indian Civil Rights Advocacy to St.

Matthew's Church, which is an incredible example of Gothic Revival Architecture.

The resolutions initiating landmark designation for these properties were heard by this committee in October of last year, after which they were sent to the full board with positive recommendation.

They were then passed on to the Historic Preservation Committee by way of the planning department.

The Historic Preservation Committee has now returned these 14 properties to the board with their positive recommendation.

So with that, before I pass it off to Alex Westhoff from the planning department to present on each of these properties, I'd like to ask respectfully that you send these items to the full board with your positive recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Westhoff, do you have a presentation?

Yes, good afternoon, Supervisors.

Alex Westhoff, Planning Department staff.

I'm here to present 14 properties proposed for landmark designation under the Family Zoning Plan Landmark Program.

I previously presented to this committee more broadly about the program, and I'll try and keep the presentation brief.

Just a reminder that this is part of the broader family zoning plan.

So you've already, as was mentioned, heard the initiating resolutions in October, and the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed and recommended approval of all of these landmarks at their January 21st, 2026 hearing.

And on behalf of the planning department, I would like to extend a thank you to Board President and District 8 Supervisor Mandelman for championing this effort.

So I'll get into a brief overview of each of the properties, starting with 420 20th Street, the Bob Ross House.

This property is located in the Castro neighborhood and significant for its association with events surrounding the establishment of San Francisco's LGBTQ communities, specifically as the home of Bob Ross.

Ross, along with Paul Bentley, founded the Bayer Reporter in 1971, which is reportedly the oldest LGBTQ weekly in continuous production in the United States.

Ross remained the publisher of the Bayer Reporter until his death in 2003 and also co-founded the Tavern Guild, which raised money and provided support for numerous pro-gay politicians.

He held frequent political and professional events at the subject property.

The property's character-defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide.

The designation is supported by the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District, who provided a letter of support for this property and several others that came out of their chess report.

220 Danvers Street is located in the Corbett Heights neighborhood and is significant for its historical association with San Francisco's LGBTQ Jewish community.

The property was the original home of Congregation's Shaher Zahav, which is Hebrew for Golden Gate.

Sheherzahab was founded amidst the backdrop of great political change for LGBTQ communities in the 1970s.

The synagogue, sorry, was founded in 1977 by three gay men as San Francisco's first gay synagogue and one of only three gay synagogues in the United States.

The property's character-defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide.

The designation was originally proposed in the citywide LGBTQ Historic Context Statement and is also supported by the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District.

The American Indian Historical Society, Chautauqua House, is located at 1451 Masonic Avenue.

The property is significant for its association with the 1960s Red Power Movement, as well as the Costo family, who played prominent roles in American Indian civil rights advocacy.

The American Indian Historical Society was a San Francisco-based organization that focused on American Indian education, communication, and cultural development.

The organization was founded by Rupert Costo and Jeanette Henry Costo and 13 other California American Indians.

The Costos were married for nearly 40 years and worked together to bring attention to American Indian concerns, including writing and editing several scholarly works on Native American history and culture.

The Costos located a suitable home at the subject property in 1967, naming the headquarters Chautaqua House.

Establishment of the Chautaqua House occurred amidst the backdrop of the Red Power Movement for Native Civil Rights and Sovereignty in the 1960s and 1970s, which mobilized actions to incite changes in Native American affairs.

The properties character defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide.

Planning department staffed worked with the American Indian Cultural District and San Francisco Heritage on the landmark designation fact sheet for this property, and both parties have expressed support for the designation.

The history and significance will be discussed in greater detail in the American Indian Historic Context Statement, which is currently being drafted.

And notably, if designated, this would be the first landmark with an American Indian Association.

400 to 410 Castro Street is significant for its association with commercial development of the Eureka Valley neighborhood, now commonly known as the Castro.

Its construction, along with the development of the Castro Theater, Hibernia Bank, and a few automotive-related businesses reflect the establishment of Eureka Valley as an identifiable district.

The property is also significant as a good example of BeauArt's architecture.

The property's character defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide.

This designation is also supported by the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District.

578 to 582 Castro Street is located within the Castro neighborhood and is significant as a historic location of the Castro Rock steam baths.

Across the street from Harvey Milk's residence and camera shop, this Victoria building was home to one of the city's longest running bathhouses.

Bathhouses played an important role in LGBTQ community development as relatively safe and private spaces for queer men to meet.

The property's character defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide.

This designation is also supported by the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District.

Engine Company number 13 is located at 1458 Valencia Street in the Mission neighborhood.

It is significant as the oldest standing firehouse in San Francisco, and it's for its association with streetcar suburbanization of the mission district and as an intact example of Italian architecture.

Built in 1883, engine company number 13 was assigned to the subject property at the time of construction and remained there until 1958.

The property's character defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide.

Firehouse Hose Company No.

Street in the Hayde Ashbury neighborhood.

The building is significant as one of San Francisco's earliest extant firehouses and for its association with Haight Ashbury's early history, as well as an intact example of Italianate architecture.

The subject property was constructed in 1895 as a firehouse to hose engine company number 30 and operated as such until 1959.

The property's character defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide.

441618th Street is significant for its association, early association with the Castro as an LGBTQ enclave, given it was the location of the Full Moon Coffee House in the mid-1970s.

The 1970s represent a pivotal time in the Castro's history as the neighborhood established itself as gay San Francisco's cultural, economic, and political hub, drawing international attention to issues surrounding LGBTQ equality.

The Full Moon Coffee House opened in 1974 and was a unique as an early lesbian establishment during a time when the Castro was largely dominated by gay men.

The Full Moon is credited as San Francisco's first explicitly women-only venue.

The property's character-defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide.

This designation is supported by the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District, and next to Mods, this would also be one of the few landmarks with a specific lesbian association next to the Lion Martin House in Noe Valley.

The property is significant as a frontline survivor of the Great 1906 earthquake and fires, an intact example of a stick East Lake home, and an early example of the work of architect Henry Giofus.

The Great 1906 earthquake and fires destroyed much of San Francisco's building stock, and the subject property is one of the few in the Intermission North neighborhood which survived this disaster.

Giofuss was born in Germany in 1850 and immigrated to San Francisco in 1876, becoming a very prominent architect.

He designed both residential and commercial buildings and completed about 450 buildings in San Francisco total.

This represents one of his earlier works for a wealthier client, whereas other nearby properties were designed later in his career.

The property's character-defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide.

925 to 941 Coal Street is a historic location of Mods, which was located in the center two storefronts of the building.

Mods is significant for its early association with San Francisco's lesbian community, including prominent LGBTQ businesswoman and activist Ricky Stryker.

Located in Cole Valley, near the Haight Ashbury neighborhood mods, which opened in the mid-1960s, served as one of San Francisco's most popular and longest-running lesbian bars.

Well-known patrons of mods, including LGBTQ activist Phyllis Lyon, Del Martin, and Sally Gearhart, as well as Haight Ashbury Counterculture icon Janice Joplin.

The property's character defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide, as well as limited interior features called out to preserve the spatial volume and rear patio space that was integral to Mods.

The mission folk Victorian home is located at 361 San Jose Avenue in the South Mission neighborhood.

The property is significant for its association with early settlement of San Francisco's mission district, as well as being an early and intact example of folk Victorian architecture.

The home was constructed circa 1865 and is a one and a half story wood frame single family residence, along with other early settlement styles.

Folk Victorian properties represent a very early time in the city's development history, shortly after the California gold rush, when San Francisco began expanding from a small hamlet to an ever growing metropolitan region.

The property's character defining features are limited to exterior features on this slide, and the property owners have provided a letter of support for the landmark designation of this property.

514 to 520 Castro Street is located within the Castro neighborhood and is significant as the original location of the office of the Caposi's Sarcoma Research and Education Foundation, later renamed the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, one of the nation's first organizations specifically addressing AIDS.

In 1982, activist Cleve Jones was approached by Dr.

Marcus Conant about creating the foundation as a community-based organization to address the threat of AIDS and lobby the government for additional funds.

The property's character defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide.

This designation is also supported by the Castro LGBTQ cultural district as well as by the San Francisco AIDS Foundation.

St.

Matthew's Church is located at 3281 16th Street in the Intermission neighborhood.

The property was erected in 1907 by the German Evangelical Lutheran Church and has been owned and occupied by the group since then.

The Intermission North area was devastated by the great 1906 earthquake and fires, and development of the church was part of the first wave of intermission redevelopment following the disaster.

The property is a significant as an exuberant example of Gothic Revival Church, and the property also has a strong German American association as the only Lutheran church in Northern California to offer bilingual services in German and English.

The property's character-defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide.

And the church has provided a letter of support for this designation.

Lastly, St.

Nicholas Cathedral is located at 2005 15th Street in the Castro Upper Market neighborhood.

Built in 1904, St.

Nicholas Cathedral is significant as an exemplary example of a Gothic Revival Church.

In 1960, the property was acquired by the Russian Orthodox Church and renamed St.

Nicholas Cathedral, at which point the onion doomed finial and orthodox cross were added.

The property's character defining features are limited to exterior features as shown on this slide.

So that is all I have.

Again, the Historic Preservation Commission recommends approval of all 14 of these landmarks, and I am available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Westhoff.

I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or comments, but I just want to say thank you for all of this.

It's a lot of work.

So let's go to public comment on this edit, Mr.

Clark.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation.

Will now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers two through 15.

This is 14 ordinances making various landmark designations.

Please come forward.

Thank you, John.

Hello, my name is Woody LeBounty from San Francisco Heritage.

Thank you all for hearing these, and I want to thank Supervisor Mandelman's office and the planning department for all the work they put into this.

You know, when we started streamlining housing in the city through state laws and through our own efforts, uh, it became apparent that we also had to streamline the process by which we protect the important places that have not only architectural heritage but intangible heritage that you can see in this first batch.

We have LGBTQ history, we have American Indian history, Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox and German congregations, uh gay Jewish congregations.

These are all very important to not only commemorate what we have here, but to help keep the communities that are still here strong and have a sense of identity that they're represented here in the city.

So I know this is going through other districts.

I know there's, I think Supervisor Melgar has been talking to planning about some district 7 landmarks, and they're definitely amazing landmarks to be found in District 5 and 11.

So I look forward to working with each of you and the planning department on getting some more of these designated, and I hope you give a positive recommendation to the full board.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr.

Lebani.

Thank you for coming.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for these landmark designation ordinances?

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Um Mr.

Clerk, uh, I would like to make a motion that we send these uh forward with a positive recommendation to the full board.

The motion offered by the chair that these 14 ordinances be recommended to the Board of Supervisors, Vice Chair Chen.

Chin I member Machmood.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

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

Okay, that motion passes.

Thank you.

Let's go to item number 16, please, Mr.

Clark.

And item number 16 is an ordinance amending the environment code to update the city's climate action goals and planning processes and to update city department's roles and responsibilities regarding the city's climate action goals.

It also affirms the planning department's determination under CEQA.

This item is on our agenda as a potential committee report, and we've cleared a space for it on tomorrow's board agenda so that it may be sent for consideration.

That's the April 7th 2026 board meeting.

Yay, thank you.

Uh welcome.

Uh welcome, Director Ju.

Um yeah, go ahead.

Oh.

Thank you, uh Chair Melgore, members of the land use and transportation committee.

Uh first, happy Earth Month.

Uh, this is April, and so uh it used to be in 1970, we only got one day in Earth Day.

Now we have a whole month to uh celebrate sustainability and the environment.

So thank you for hearing this item.

Uh I'm gonna kick this over to our climate program manager, Cindy Comerford, who's gonna walk through our presentation about environment code chapter nine.

Uh, but did want to start off by thanking uh the leadership of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie and Board President Mandelman for sponsoring this uh item.

Uh this sponsorship reflects that climate is a core city function and responsibility.

Uh it's a culmination of a lot of work that's gone through all of our various departments over the past 18 months.

It reflects that work.

It also reflects a lot of input engagement we had with the public.

Um this has been a very long process but a necessary process to shape where we go.

And the reason why Environment Code Chapter 9 matters is it codifies all of our climate goals into law.

Uh it provides the legal foundation for our climate action plan and it gives those goals that we have in our climate action plan durability and continuity and accountability.

These are goals that stretch forward uh a number of years, as you'll learn about.

Uh this matters not just because of the long-term plans for our city, but also that these uh goals impact everyone's daily life from the cleaner air that people get to breathe, healthier buildings, stronger connected neighborhoods, and more resilient communities.

It sets this framework uh for us to move forward.

It reflects the latest science, the work that's already underway by many of our city departments, and it matches the urgency of this moment.

And so now I'll pass this over to Cindy who's gonna walk us through uh Environment Code Chapter 9.

Great.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Cindy Cummerford.

I'm the climate program manager.

Uh here we pull up the slides.

Uh we can see the agenda.

So this is what I'm gonna talk about today.

I'm gonna give a little bit of an overview.

I'm gonna talk about our climate action framework.

I'm gonna go through the key components of the legislation, I'm gonna talk about the main changes, and then talk about next steps.

So, Director Ju already talked about the mission of our department, but we are really here to make sure all these climate actions and goals turn into tangible, um tangible uh actions for our residents.

We want to make sure that they're able to see uh cleaner, greener city and make sustainability more affordable for our residents and our businesses.

And so in 2021, we released our last climate action plan, and that laid a really strong foundation.

Uh we had a very ambitious and credible roadmap.

Um this climate action plan helped us sustain our local climate leadership.

Our plan was both data-driven and equity centered.

And our last climate action plan, we actually developed something called an R seat tool, which was used to do a racial and social equity assessment for our plan, and we also used it on our 2026 plan.

And so our 2021 climate action plan really laid a great foundation for our future.

Here I just want to highlight some of our select accomplishments from our last plan.

Um we have 100% renewable electricity from Clean Power SF that was delivered two years ahead of schedule.

We've expanded EV charging throughout the city.

It's more than tripled over the last decade.

We now have a city management managed street tree farm, which is growing over a thousand trees to be planet in the future.

We've updated our all-electric ordinance to include major renovations.

We now have an edible food recovery ordinance that is not only diverting food from landfill, but it's also helping with food security in San Francisco.

As of last year, we have rescued over 6 million pounds of food to feed our residents.

And lastly, we've started innovative new programs such as our climate equity hub.

Since the inception of our program, we've helped two low-income families a week install clean energy equipment, saving each family between five to eight thousand dollars each.

So this slide illustrates the four key components of the legislation.

So the first is a typical, which we have in most legislation, we have our purpose and findings.

It talks about why it's an imperative for San Francisco to act on climate.

It talks about the evolving global science and climate risk, and it also talks about the importance of equity and the disproportional impact on our vulnerable communities and how we must protect them.

The next part sets out our targets and goals.

So we have two types of greenhouse gas targets that it specifies, and then it also specifies all of our climate action goals.

The third part is the requirements for our climate action plan.

It requires a plan with clear strategies and actions.

And lastly, it's our performance and tracking or what we talk about as governance.

It specifies all the roles for the different city departments and how we're going to monitor, evaluate, and report on the plan over time.

So this slide shows what our key changes are.

So we have some minor changes to the sectors that are in the plan.

We've revised most of the sector goals, and this is the biggest change of chapter nine from the last version that was public that was updated in 2021.

We've tried to streamline the department's roles and responsibilities.

We've tried to strengthen the monitoring and reporting, and we've also updated the future requirements for the plan.

And our sector-based targets are to reduce our emissions by 61% by 2030 and to be a net zero city by 2040.

We recommend keeping these targets the same.

We feel like they're still ambitious but achievable.

We are recommending removing our consumption-based emission target.

We had one for 2030 and one for 2050.

We'd like to keep our 2050 goal to signal our long-term commitment, but we're recommending removing the 2030 goal just because the measurements for consumption-based emissions, which measure our life cycle emissions from the goods and services and products and housing of our residents aren't as evolved, and we don't quite have the local policy levers to track those metrics.

So we're going to be developing a circular economy roadmap over time to be able to do that better.

Next are kind of the key changes to our sectors.

Sorry, we had transportation and land use were together.

We're now going to pair housing and land use, and we've also renamed our production and consumption to circular economy to better reflect our upstream work that we are doing.

So for energy supply it clarifies our commitment to 100% renewable energy and making sure that we have universal use of it by 2030.

For transportation we are replacing our mode shift goal with a VMT goal and we're also expanding our EV adoption to include heavy duty vehicles.

For housing and land use we're shifting away from an annual production goal to better align with our housing element to have 82,000 units by 2030 in well resourced neighborhoods.

For building operations we're replacing our goals we've already accomplished with measurable decarbonization goals for 2030 and 2040.

For healthy ecosystems we're moving away from carbon sequestration and we're really focusing on biodiversity, access to nature and urban tree canopy for water supply we have more specific water targets and also we've expanded local water resources to include resiliency.

And lastly for circular economy we're keeping our existing waste targets but we're adding a target for embodied carbon we've also updated our governance section to have stronger accountability so the key tenants of our governance section to make sure we implement the plan are to make sure it's impact driven, equity centered, that we focus on data and transparency and also coordination and collaboration.

We strengthen the executive accountability part to make sure the mayor convenes departments twice a year to review progress on the plan.

And we've also strengthened our ongoing reporting and metrics to make sure that departments are collaborating that we're tracking both our climate and equity metrics.

We've also updated our future requirements so our future requirements point to what we need to do over the next couple of years.

And so we'll be working on climate budgeting and that's how we integrate goals into the city's financial planning to align our investments with our climate goals around sustainability and resilience and we'll also be looking at carbon removal carbon dioxide removal strategies or CDR strategies.

And this is ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for any of our residual or remaining emissions.

So that concludes my presentation I just want to recognize the scale of our efforts we have made significant progress around our climate action plan.

It's laid a really strong foundation for what we have to do next.

Our next phase priorities are really going to be around governance and strong implementation and collaboration and coordination and alignment with our city departments.

That doesn't mean we don't have any challenges ahead as we continue this work it becomes more complex and needs more sustained investment.

But I think if we're able to invest in our plan we're well aligned to hit our goals of our 2026 climate plan which will be released after we pass Chapter 9 hopefully next week.

So thank you for listening to the presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you Ms.

Cumberford and we do have questions from my colleagues so stay up there.

Supervisor Mahmoud Thank you for the presentation and for the commitment to continued focus on the climate auction plan and making sure we meet our climate target goals.

I had a couple questions one on the key changes for climate option goals you mentioned on healthy ecosystems that we were refocusing from sequestration to biodiversity just maybe you could expand upon why my understanding was carbon sequestration is necessary to get to carbon net to negative and without that investment we're not going to be able to really meet that goal so curious on why the change so we in our one of our actions in our last climate action plan was to kind of study what the potential of carbon sequestration was in San Francisco.

And so the SFPUC had done a study of their Alameda watershed which is about 39,000 acres and which is much larger than San Francisco and found the potential for carbon sequestration was 0.4% of removing its emissions and so urban smaller geographic area the carbon sequestration is very small.

And so we want to focus more on the potential of our natural environment by making sure we're increasing our biodiversity that we're planting trees and also access to nature and that's not to say that carbon sequestration isn't important but in a dense urban area it doesn't do a lot to remove emissions.

Understood thank you.

Another question is just accountability.

This is obviously a resolution at the board, but the general plan, but how are we holding departments accountable for meeting these new targets?

Great.

So we plan to have really strong governance.

So part of it is having coordination with our mayor to have him convene these departments.

We're going to have stronger tracking.

So one of the big changes we've made in this climate action plan is each department is for all the actions we have departments who are assigned to them.

All of the actions are very measurable.

So we'll have a very comprehensive dashboard that is going to measure our progress and our department's accountability to those actions.

So our goal is to establish routines, convene with the departments, have a public dashboard to ensure both implementation and accountability of this plan.

That'll that'll ensure transparency.

With there are any penalties associated with not meeting our goals, like how do we really hold ourselves accountable to this framework?

That is a great question.

I don't know if there's any penalties, but hopefully having stronger executive accountability from the mayor's office will help along with our uh leadership keep departments accountable.

And then the last question, I guess, on on line that questioning is what can we do as a board to help you meet these goals, either in holding departments accountable or uh changes that you feel are impeding the ability to hit these goals right now that we could be exploring it legislatively here.

That's a great question.

Well, we would be happy to come back and report on our progress or barriers so you can have transparency into what's happening and how all of the departments are doing.

So I think that would be a great step.

Um, you know, as much as we can present to you and to the public, people can see our progress or lack thereof.

Um I think having that window into what we're doing can help move the plan along.

I'm sure all of us here would be very interested to help with any legislation, so let us know.

Great, and we'd be happy to come.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Millar.

And also again, thank you for the presentation.

And climate resilience and environmental justice is critical to our city and especially important to the diverse working community of the Southeast San Francisco, which I represent one of them.

San Francisco has adopted this uh very ambitious goals and played a leading role in climate innovations, and I know that we are moving closer towards our climate targets.

My main concern is how the city will implement this for effectively.

I think uh supervisor also you know asked similar questions.

Um I also know that the climate equity hub is a key component to this plan.

This is a complex court, and we need the technical support, program support, and unify approach that the climate equity hub has been developing.

So I would like to ask the question, see if you have anything more to add.

It's um with the budget, what the city's ability to meet its climate goal.

Um given the budget cut that is facing uh the San Francisco Environmental Department, and how would this impact the department's ability to enact the goals of the climate action plan that it's developed it?

That's a great question.

I'm gonna turn it over to Director Ju to answer that.

Thanks.

Um to answer that question, we're still in conversations regarding our our budget, nothing is uh settled.

As we know, that's a moving kind of dialogue and conversation.

Those conversations have been have been very productive.

Uh we're just not quite there yet in terms of what that means.

I would say on the implementation side, it is very clear that we have to shift our focus as what Cindy was mentioning towards how we deliver on these goals.

And I think this is what this plan and environment code sets sets up.

That we have these ambitions and targets that we want to accomplish as a city.

And the role of the climate action plan and all of the work is to identify all the strategies and actions departments need to do.

And that was similar to Supervisor Bakmood's comment of like how do you create that accountability across departments and it will require funding and attention.

And one of those actions you saw with climate budgeting is about tackling that, because there has to be uh the attention, both from a visibility and accountability, but also from uh funding and how you're prioritizing funding.

And I think this uh environment code chapter nine, the climate action plan starts to move us in that direction to get to what is it gonna take to fund it and how do you have a sufficient governance structure to actually implement over the next five years to set us up for success over the next uh 15.

Great.

Thank you.

Um Director, and also in addition to the funding, we also talk a little bit about the governance.

Um question about who has the authority to implement the actions that is needed to achieve some of the goals.

We talked a little bit about executive accountability, but I don't really see that um addressed it in the legislation.

So can you describe if you have anything more to add to what are the next steps to address this need?

Yeah, I think the to be to be very clear, like and Sydney, feel free to chime in.

This this reflects a shared accountability across all the departments.

And so the actions and the goals that you see here are not the San Francisco Environment Department's goals alone.

These were crafted in concert with all of our departments on the actions that they also have planned and that they want to be measured and accountable to as well.

As far as the additional kind of teeth, we're also adding that additional layer of governance and transparency through the benchmarking, the transparency, the kind of accountability with the reporting to the mayor every six months and then annually.

I think we're adding to that to make sure that this still remains front and center.

I think that's that's sometimes a challenge is you get normal drift, if you will, uh that happens if things aren't prioritized, that there are a lot of different competing priorities within the city, and whether you're a city department focused on doing a really good job with your core functions, it's easy to kind of like, oh, this this is kind of a longer term thing.

Let me focus on this a little bit more uh later on, and then I'm gonna focus on this immediate term.

And that's always going to be a conversation uh that has to happen regularly as you reassess where we are, where the gaps or barriers are, whether or not there's alignment on addressing those barriers.

I think that's just gonna have to be an iterative conversation as we move forward.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

So I had a couple questions.

Uh first, I was interested in your recommendation uh regarding the tracking of consumer um goals.

Um I understand what you said is like we don't quite have the data or or or methodology for assessing the data.

So I wanted you to talk a little bit more about that.

Um you know, the way that we consume has dramatically changed in the last uh 15 years or so with the rise of um delivery, Amazon, Uber Eats, and so um it occurs to me that like I'm not sure how we would you know sort of quantify that.

That's what you you're talking about.

But I can you talk a little bit more about that?

Yes, I'd be happy to.

So in 2021, we were one of the first cities to actually codify consumption-based emissions.

And as I said earlier in my presentation, what consumption-based emissions do is they measure the life cycle of emissions or the embodied carbon and everything we consume as a city.

So that could be anywhere from our housing to our iPhone, you know, to our textiles to our clothes.

And so we have a way of measuring on a macro scale.

We actually have like an econometric model that kind of shows where consumption-based emissions are.

And they're about four times more than our sector-based emissions.

So San Francisco is a very consumer-based city, as you said.

And what we're looking to right now is better understand the material flows into our economy, where they go, and then what gets to start it.

So we can have more specific metrics like around food, around construction.

And that's where we don't, we don't have that information.

So we're not able to measure the strategies as quantitatively as we like.

Those methods are evolving.

I think we thought by now they would have been farther along.

Um, but that's something that we plan to work on over the next two years to integrate into our circular economy roadmap.

And the other thing is we're really, you know, what are the policy levers for that um behavior change?

And that's what we need to better understand too.

In some areas, such as buildings, we have a lot of control of our buildings within San Francisco.

So the types of materials or the types of energy we use, but for things like consumer products, we have less control.

And so we're trying to kind of figure out what are our local policy levers to make those that change.

Thank you.

You know, I'm okay with um sort of you know, taking the recommendation so that you know you guys have time to build a model.

I guess my anxiety is that you know, like I regularly wake up at two in the morning, you know, worrying about my kids being underwater.

And uh I think that there's a lot of policy decisions that we should be making that um have a direct result on on this.

Uh, for example, you know, if we don't control the hours of deliveries of goods to like restaurants or you know, for example, and we incentivize by by negligence, you know, that folks you know come during rush hour, for example.

So the trucks are sitting, you know, on the bridge for an hour when they could be delivering at two in the morning when there's no traffic, for example, you know, or uh has New York has done incentivize um e-bike deliveries as opposed to cars, you know, they like there's all kinds of decisions that we're making every day on these things that I feel like we could be deciding differently and would make a difference, you know, if we don't have a target.

So I just I would love to at some point have a better idea of your progress and then the timeline on this because it is such a big you know part of this, and also because I know that people who have higher incomes consume more than low-income people when it's low-income people who suffer more from climate change.

So a recommendation might be when we finalize our circular economy roadmap, we can come back and present to the board.

I'm definitely happy to work through that with you.

And if we feel more confident about it in-term goal, we can always add it and update chapter nine again.

Okay, that sounds good.

Thank you, Ms.

Cumberford.

So I do have a question for Director Ju.

Um, and it's related to the questions that both my colleagues are asking, and you've certainly heard this from me plenty.

Um, and that I do think that our city government, um, and by you know, also our citizens, um, do you have all kinds of behaviors that have externalities that have a cost to the environment that we don't quantify?

Um and I'm wondering like how you see that, like whose job is it to do that, and how do we then capture it to make progress?

Um and then as it relates specifically to your budget, there's a bunch of activities that the city government does that have externalities that we've never quantified.

Um, and some of them actually have been qualified and collected through fees, but those have been collected by other departments from before your department was created.

And you know, for example, dust control when there's a building, you know, being built or demolition or excavation or you know, any number of things.

So I'm wondering if you have thought about how to um have the department of the environment be like have a more proactive role uh in all of those activities that are right now being performed by other departments and fees being collected by other departments that should be collected by the Department of the Environment.

Uh I I don't have any particular kind of opinion on on the fee on on the fees per se, but to to your point on externalizing impacts, I I do think that that's we do that in a lot of cases.

It's not just limited to the environment.

Sometimes we make decisions that seem like they make sense right now, and essentially what we do is we kick the can down the road for some future impact.

That that unfortunately is is just the nature of sustainability and climate work, right?

And any sort of long-range planning that you're looking 10 to 15 years out, which is usually a longer time horizon than a lot of people want to focus on in terms of the direct kind of impact on a day-to-day basis.

And our job as a department is to look at that 10 to 15 year time horizon and say, well, what's coming down the road?

You're just talking about consumption-based emissions.

When you unpack consumption-based emissions, you look at the entire life cycle of a product, right?

And that means where did you extract your initial resource to create that product?

How was that product then created?

How did it get transported over to you?

Then it gets transported to who has access to that product and what is the benefit or impact from that product on to your point, the communities or neighborhoods where that product might be utilized.

That is a very complex uh kind of issue, which is why we need time to unpack that.

And I think where we usually stop is we we stop on the direct impacts, and we don't think I will bring up the example of na natural gas, but just because that was most recent in terms of legislation.

We think around the impacts of natural gas from a immediacy of well, what does that do for development, which we should look at right now?

And then this board and the city also said, well, we also have to consider what's the health and economic impact of the future as well.

And I think that's more of what we have to move towards in terms of our thinking as a city is to kind of be proactive and to address those things where we know there are intervention points now we can make that offset future costs.

And so while the decision may be more difficult now, it will actually long-term yield some sort of positive benefit.

And I think if we think about our overall budget and our policies and our strategies that way, you end up with a slightly different kind of budgeting kind of economic model, if you will, for the city, which gets to the climate budgeting comic conversation that we want to clearly advance uh with the mayor and this board and with all of our city departments on how we capture uh those externalities.

So I think this plan reflects taking that first major step in that direction.

Okay.

Um that was a very exhaustive explanation.

I think between zero and every single little cost involved in you know a consumer good, there's an in-between.

Um I do think that one of the great things about uh the climate action plan is that it zeroes in on like what the biggest you know sources of our greenhouse gas production is and the smaller sources.

So if you just take the biggest source, which is you know, cars and transportation, uh, we could say, for example, that um, you know, the environmental cost of somebody walking to uh the corner store and picking up, say carrots, um, is probably lower, right, than uh ordering them from Amazon and having somebody, you know, pick them up across the world and bring them over there.

And I it wouldn't be like I mean, I don't know that it has to be all that exhaustive and track every single step.

But so for example, you know, we could uh tack a fee onto the delivery that we don't have, you know, when somebody buys that carrot at the corner store.

For example, this is what I was talking about, is like whose role then is it to figure that out for the biggest costs to our environment?

Because those externalities right now, nobody's paying for, you know, and so it's difficult to convince somebody to change behavior if it doesn't cost them anything.

And that's both to individuals and also for like our city structure.

And so I I'm glad for this climate action goal and be happy to move it forward, but since we are talking right now of cutting your department in this year's budget, I worry that we need to come up with some structure because it is costing us, and it's costing low-income and working class people more, not just in terms of money, but their bodies, you know, and what we deal with in uh terms of this issue.

Yeah, and we'd be happy to work with this board and with you on kind of exploring that issue further.

Okay.

Yeah.

I don't I don't have a uh I'm sorry, I don't have a firm answer of exactly where the fees or or the costs uh should come from because there's so many different different areas, but there are opportunities to fully capture the cost to your point and the the long-term health impacts, for example, by uh an associated action that's being taken.

Okay, thank you, Director.

Just to chime in real quick, our climate action plan does have a funding and finance section where we start to explore some of the things that Director Jew and you just discussed.

Um one of our first options is to do a memo on the social cost of carbon.

So to really look at the economic impacts, and that will start to break down some of the questions you asked.

And then there's different funding mechanisms we do want to explore.

So, for example, one would be how could we change the structure of our utility user tax?

So we're taxing people who are using gas more than clean electricity.

And so there is a pathway to look at those types of things.

Um, and then we also need you know the political will to help move them forward.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Thanks.

Um, with that, uh Mr.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation committee will now hear public comment related to agenda item number sixteen, this ordinance updating the city's climate action plan.

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

And the first speaker can come forward to the lectern at this time while folks line up behind them.

Please begin.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

This is Elena Engel from District 9.

I'm here in support of the proposed legislation.

And I have to say I totally appreciate the comments that you have made in terms of governance and fine and funding for this cap.

Totally on on totally on point.

Because this goes to the heart of how we are going to actually execute the climate action plan.

As for governance, the establishment of priorities across all departments, that goes to the top.

That's the mayor who has to say, we are going to do this.

I have not yet, so far in this administration, seen that priority come forward.

It also goes to the supervisors who have to declare the climate is a city priority, which all departments must be responsible for.

There must be transparency about are we doing this?

Are we really carrying this out?

And funding.

Couldn't be more on point.

In the mayor's budget this year, it allocates $545,000 to fund the environment department's climate action.

I mean, let's get real.

You cannot buy a house in San Francisco for $545,000, let alone run a department that is supposed to be in charge of changing the whole climate, the whole energy system from fossil fuels to to renewables.

So we have to do that.

We have to find funding.

And it can't just be a function of every year we go and creep forward and say, please could we have funding, general funds for this year?

And it's at the political whims of who's ever at the top.

We have to actually fund this department.

And long term we have to think of really how we're going to do it year after year after year, because this general fund stuff is not working.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

My name is Zachary Friel with SomCAN.

Something would like to congratulate SFE for the work they've done over the past couple years to update our city's climate action plan.

However, the pending budget cuts to the SF Environment Department pose a significant threat towards the city meeting its climate action plan goals.

And one program at particular risk that SongCamp participates in is the Climate Equity Hub, which has facilitated the installation of over 60 heat pump water heaters at no cost to property owners and renters.

The climate equity hub is a model for city governance, being an innovative partnership between SFE, industry partners, contractors, health professionals, and CBOs like us.

In February, the mayor told us directly he wants to see the climate work for SFE integrated across all departments.

And of course, that's exactly what the climate action plan does, and that's where you know general fund dollars go to supporting the staff who are in charge of coordinating climate action plan implementation across all departments.

The mayor also told us that throwing more money at the department won't solve the problem of effective environmental and climate governance.

And in part he's right.

So I ask that you support this plan today, not just with your votes, but take steps to ensure that this plan is backed with significant long-term funding support.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm Sean Auckland, SOMA resident and founder of Fairtrees.org.

I have been in touch with each of your offices uh recently about our neighborhoods 2.7 percent canopy and the effects in your environmental justice communities.

Where I come from, when a program fails, you admit it and you fix it.

Our last climate action plan failed our canopy.

We did not add trees, not 30,000, we lost over 300 of them.

Yet I have never seen a bureaucracy dig in deeper to portray perfection while completely ignoring its citizens.

The current action plan draft before you contains vague gestures toward, quote, an equity plan, but it is toothless.

In fact, Public Works responded in Dorsey's LOI last week that their environmental justice goals are not, quote, independently enforceable.

We don't need to.

My coalition suggested an amendment to fix this that is in your written public comments today, uh, so it's already in your file.

We need this binding language because public works also admitted in writing in that letter to diverting over a million dollars in local grant funds away from District 6.

Why?

They prioritize other districts because they are, quote, residential in character.

They claim SOMA should rely on developers for our trees.

That's insane.

But the mayor is currently advancing a bill, as you know, allowing developers to fee out.

If you do not make this climate action plan binding today, developers will then pay the fee, and public works will send SOMA's mitigation money to other neighborhoods.

You may also have seen that SOMA filed a complaint with the state over this environmental disinvestment.

I stand with 945 petitioners with Fairtrees.org, some of which are in your districts.

Uh, please adopt the suggested amendment in your file and mandate geographic equity because the departments themselves tell me they failed because the equity plans do not compel departments to do anything, so they don't.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

I'm Nancy Haber, District 7 resident and an active member of San Francisco Climate Emergency Coalition.

I came in today to speak to thank Mayor Lurie and President Mandelman for introducing this ordinance and to encourage this committee to approve it and pass to the full board.

It's a r okay.

I had a whole speech prepared, but I would rather say that I am sincerely encouraged and appreciate the comments of all committee members today, your uh knowledge of what the climate action plan should do and what the environment department might do and your sense of priority that the climate action plan must have.

Um I hope you will pursue these interests and concerns and also let the mayor know that in order to implement this climate action plan at all.

We need more money for the current the upcoming budget so that the climate team of the environment department can lead and implement the plan going forward.

It is significant that specific pathways are laid out in the updated plan for all the departments to carry out specific actions.

Um that's all.

Please, we we San Francisco has led on climate.

We need to continue to lead on climate now and in the future, and also seek better governance and more funding for the entire climate action plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Supervisors Melgar, Chin, and Mahmood.

My name is Dave Roadie.

I'm a 45-year resident of the City of San Francisco, and I'm also the San Francisco policy co-chair for Al Gore's climate reality project.

Thank you for considering this ordinance, which will amend the environmental code to incorporate it the updated 2026 climate action plan in Chapter 9.

I urge you not only to pass this ordinance, but to send it on to the full board with enthusiastic support, pass it there as well, and then proclaim it and celebrate it with all of San Francisco.

Most San Franciscans are unaware of the city's well-developed climate action plan.

They need to know so they can support it and participate in it.

They also need to know that the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor are going to do everything they can to fund the report, the department responsible for implementing our climate action plan.

The mayor's original proposed budget cost to SF environment would impact 13 staff members, eliminating nearly eight full-time positions.

Formally including the updated climate action plan in Chapter 9 means little or nothing without proper funding for the people who created it and who stand ready to make it happen.

So let's do more than just take these responsible steps.

Let's celebrate this city's commitment to climate action.

Celebrate it loud and clear for everyone to hear.

Let's tell the rest of the state and show the rest of this country that despite the climate deniers in the White House, our hands will not be tied when it comes to addressing the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar and members of the Land Use and Transportation Committee.

My name is Sebastian Garb.

I live in District 4 and I'm a proud member of IFPTE Local 21.

I'm here in support of the proposed legislation to update and amend Chapter 9.

Both Mayor Lurie and the board president Mandelman are sponsoring and co-sponsoring this ordinance.

This Chapter 9 update is the roadmap that San Francisco needs to continue moving towards a healthier and more resilient city with cleaner air, lower fossil fuel protect uh pollution, and a better quality of life for all of its residents.

With the rollback of environmental regulations across the country, now more than ever, San Francisco needs to lead.

The environment department has done detailed work to update the CAP as mandated, including the extensive stakeholder input solicited and consult and considered.

The 2026 update to the climate action plan aligns climate goals with the latest science and lays out specific strategies assigned to specific city departments to implement, providing targets and accountability mechanisms to move the city towards our climate action plan goals.

But implementing Chapter 9 and the Climate Action Plan won't be possible without the ongoing work and guidance of the Environment Department and the oversight of the Commission on the Environment.

So to that end, the city must adequately fund the environment department to enact the climate action plan.

Only SFE's climate staff do this specific work, and they are the employees who have the experience and expertise to guide the implementation of this climate action plan.

We know we need to also keep the commission in the charter and to not eliminate it.

The commission is the only citywide forum in which to discuss Chapter 9 issues, engage the public and hold everyone accountable.

And lastly, solve these funding issues not just for the short term but the long term.

We need to support implementation of Chapter 9 by funding by finding funding not only for ongoing work of the environment department staff.

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

Um making sure that this climate action plan moves forward.

Um just about a month ago, we had a rally outside of City Hall where we had tons of support from community members and standing in solidarity with protecting the climate action plan and also protecting jobs.

But these are beyond jobs.

I think you all just talked through kind of like the impacts of what our members do within the city within this department, and we want to make sure that it moves forward.

And um I just want to reiterate what Sebastian just uh shared that this climate action plan won't be possible without local 21 workers and the guidance that the department brings forward.

But one of the things that you all kept asking, each of you asked, like what can we do?

And um, one of those things is to make it a priority to invest in the department to make sure that we're not in this fight year after year after year so that we could actually have equity across the city on the impacts around climate justice.

Um so we we strongly urge as local 21 for you all to encourage moving this forward and have a positive recommendation and then to continue to hold departments accountable and also just have a long lasting investment so we're not constantly battling every year.

Um thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, good afternoon.

Uh my name is Isabel.

I live in District 1, and I'm the Northern California organizer at National Climate Nonprofit Food and Water Watch.

And just want to start off by saying thank you for the urgency that you're approaching this issue with.

Um I'm also here in support of the proposed legislation to update uh and amend Chapter 9.

Uh this Chapter 9 update is exactly what San Francisco needs to continue moving towards a healthier and more resilient city in the face of the climate crisis.

But as was mentioned already, um, implementing Chapter 9 and the Climate Action Plan is just not going to be possible without adequate funding the environment department and the Commission on the Environment.

Um so the SF Environment must be fully funded to actually enact the climate action plan, and we simply cannot meet our targets and climate goals without them and finding long-term funding for the department.

So with that, I strongly urge you to move this ordinance to the full board with positive recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello.

My name is Ronnie Diamont Wilson, and I live in Burnall Heights, and I'm a member of the 1000 Grandmothers.

I support the proposed legislation to update and amend Chapter 9.

Uh please vote to include the revised 2026 Climate Action Plan in Chapter 9 of the city's environmental code.

Your vote would be appreciated and forward thinking.

And I have to say that your questions were very forward thinking.

Thank you.

Um, CAP is vital for shifting the city to 100% renewable electricity and complete renewable energy.

Um fossil fuels.

It aims to stimulate natural gas in favor of all electric systems in all buildings, and it also emphasizes creating healthy and fair ecosystems and water supplies.

Funding and personnel are crucial for implementing these goals.

Furthermore, the Commission on Environment oversees major environmental and climate policy decisions and coordinates efforts across city departments.

It should remain active.

Reducing it as an advisory role would effectively strip away its authority on issues like climate action, waste contracts, and pesticides regulations.

Please update and amend Chapter 9 to include the latest climate action plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar and members of the committee.

My name is Juliana Keller.

I live in District 2, and I am here today with the Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter.

It is impossible, as everyone has said, to meaningfully support this plan without also protecting the core capacity needed to implement it.

With a proposed cut of roughly 80% to general fund support, the city would lose core capacity to coordinate and track the climate action plan and support much needed accountability across departments.

San Francisco needs to preserve the operational backbone that makes this plan real.

That means preserving the core staffing and oversight of the environment department, keeping the commission on the environment in the charter as a citywide accountability forum, and continuing to work toward long-term funding solutions.

San Francisco cannot pass this plan while hollowing out its implementation capacity.

I urge you to move this ordinance forward and protect that core capacity in whatever way you can.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar and members of the Land Use and Transportation Committee.

My name is Sam Gilbert.

I live in District 2, and I work with the Climate Reality Project.

I support updating and amending Chapter 9.

Acting on the city's climate action plan grows more urgent with each passing day.

As the federal government and corporate America retreat from commitments made to alleviate global warming, it is essential that local governments step in.

I urge the committee to approve the update and amendment to Chapter 9.

And I urge the city government more generally to fully fund the environment department, without which the urgently needed work can't get done.

I also believe that the Commission on the Environment should remain in the Charter.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Thanks, Speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

My name is Susan Weisberg.

I live in North Beach.

I'm a longtime environmentalist and a member of 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations.

San Francisco is a global leader on climate action and sustainability.

This is the statement that opens the city's revised climate action plan.

The goals in the revised plan are a laudable step in ensuring that we remain such a leader, and I urge formal adoption of the updated plan into the city's environment code.

But for these ambitious goals to mean anything, they must be funded and enacted by an active staff.

The questions about enforcement, accountability, and so forth raised in the presentations are something that the Commission on the Environment can study and address.

However, the mayor's commission streamlining task force's recommendation to downgrade and ultimately sunset the Commission on the Environment would be a move in exactly the wrong direction.

Rather, the city must keep the Commission in the charter and not eliminate or downgrade it.

Adequately fund the environment department to enact the climate action plan so that the experienced department staff can guide the implementation of the plan and solve these funding issues for the long term.

This is how we can ensure that San Francisco will remain a global leader on climate action and sustainability.

And with exactly the opposite coming from Washington, we need that leadership more than ever.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar and other members.

I'm Rosemary Jarrett.

I live in District 6, and I also am a member of the Thousand Grandmothers for Future Generations.

I appreciate your questions very much, Mrs.

Melgar.

Thank you for the work and for the opportunity to speak.

The CAP update is needed to guide the city and county towards a more sustainable future, a green greener city, a safer city and for one that our children can enjoy and prosper in.

But if there is no funding, no staff, the plan is useless.

It's futile.

Also, please leave the Commission on the environment as a government and not an advisory committee.

I think it's important that they continue to interface.

It's an opportunity for the public to communicate their feelings about their concerns about the environment.

We need a sustainable planet.

San Francisco should lead the way as they have in the past.

Please move this to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, Chairman Supervisors.

My name is Peter, and I'm with the Sierra Club as well, the Bay Chapter.

I'm here to speak in support of the ordinance.

San Francisco's climate action plans that's a target of 61% emission reductions by 2030 and that zero by 2040.

Building operations and transportation account for 88 percent of the city's emissions, which puts much of the implementation work squarely within this committee's jurisdiction.

I'm here to ask you to push back on the mayor's proposed cuts to the Department of Environment.

The proposed budget would reduce uh SFE's general fund support by 80 percent.

That means the layoff of approximately eight positions, including people working on building decarbonization, transportation electrification, and climate action plan implementation and tracking.

It would eliminate the climate equity hub, which installs free all electric appliances for low-income households and environmental justice communities like the Bay View, like Bayview Hunters Point and the Mission and connects renters to tenant protections during the building transition.

These are also the same staff that secure and administer outside funding.

SFE has brought in 14 million dollars, a 14 million dollar DOE grant for building performance standards and $640,000 in state equitable building decarbonization grants through the hub alone.

Cutting the positions that win and manage those grants means losing not just city capacity, but the leverage dollars that come with it.

The land use and transportation committee's decision or decisions that the committee oversees, building electrication policy, transit-oriented development, uh, and vehicle miles travel reduction all depends on SFE's technical capacity to connect these decisions to our climate commitments.

Please recommend this ordinance for packet passage at the full board and push to restore SFE's funding.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Can we have the next speaker, please?

John Anderson, District 2.

I'm a m a member of 350 San Francisco and also indivisible SF serving on their climate working group.

And I want to thank you all for uh your support of the uh climate action plan and uh support for immigration integrating it into the uh chapter nine.

Uh and your comments today were, I think, exactly what needed to be here said.

And I hope you also will back the uh commission on the environment and preserve it.

Um the next comment is just mine personally.

Um the I'm as a San Francisco, I'm very proud of the climate action plan, but I want to get a little finicky and talk about the transportation section, which was sparse.

And um I don't know what they mean what uh director you means by shifting from mode shift to VMT.

Um I hope they're not backing away from um expanding and aggressively and innovatively funding public transit, because otherwise it's going to be let them ride EBI scooters, and that's not gonna uh cut it.

So again, uh final note.

Thank you for your work and your understanding.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

So I'll shorten my lengthy diatribe by saying I absolutely agree with everything the folks in front of me said.

I'm Paul Wormer.

Um I am took I took the opportunity to read through Chapter 9 in some detail.

The draft language absolutely support it, needs to move forward.

It has aspirational language, which the city has never funded.

Which the city has never implemented.

Uh the connection of housing affordable at all levels coupled with transit and jobs.

It's a wonderfully aspirational statement.

That's a darn difficult thing to do if you're not going to have active government involvement in the planning of how to make these things happen.

And I wonder how that's going to happen.

I wonder how that's going to be funded.

Um Supervisor Melgar, I very much appreciate your comments on the consumption footprint.

Um that's been something that's been worrying me.

That's a major issue.

And I don't think anyone really has a handle on it.

More than that, while we need to deal with it, I go back to a philosophy that says there are things I can do by myself.

There are things I can do locally.

There are things we can do communally locally.

There are things we can only do at a regional level.

There are things we can only do at a national level.

And when we are talking about consumption and production footprints, San Francisco is not going to move the needle standing on its own.

I do not hear anything in the discussion about San Francisco's actions with respect to climate on how do we understand those different levels and how do we engage effectively to drive the larger changes in partnership with a much larger population of cities.

And that's important.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

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

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Thank you, Director Ju, uh Ms.

Cumberford for the presentation.

Thank you for all of the work that went into this plan.

I think that it is evolving.

We are as a city grappling uh with what our um responsibility is to the earth and how we live with each other on this earth.

So uh I appreciate the thoughtfulness in all of the work that went into it.

And I also want to thank the community for showing up and letting us know what's important.

So uh thank you very much.

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

Um, and we will keep uh talking about all of the issues that were raised uh today and also by the public commenters, um, especially as we go through this budget season.

Um and uh these coming couple years, I think that our budget uh challenges are not gonna be rectified for a little bit, and we absolutely must preserve the capacity of this department to help us collectively achieve these goals.

So with that, um let's uh made a motion, let's take a vote on it.

On the motion offered by the chair that the ordinance be recommended as a committee report, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I.

Member Makmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Okay, thank you so much.

That motion passes.

Um, is there anything else on our agenda today, Mr.

There is no further business.

Okay.

We're adjourned.

Thank you.