Good afternoon, everyone.

Uh this meeting will come to order.

Uh uh welcome to the April 13th, 2026 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

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

The committee clerk today is uh John Carroll, and I also would like to thank Jeanette Engelau from uh SFGup TV for staffing us during this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, thank you.

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

If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, you can submit 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 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 comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

The address is one Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit 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 on today's agenda are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors Agenda of April 21st, 2026, unless otherwise stated Thank you so much.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, please call item number one.

Agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the zoning map of the planning code to change the height and bulk districts for the one oak street project to increase the allowed height for the proteum of the building from the current base height of 120 feet to 140 feet, affirming the planning department's secret determination and making findings of public necessity convenience and welfare under planning code section 302 and findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 Thank you so much.

Uh we will hear from Madison Tam from Supervisor Dorsey's office who will present on this item, followed by Joseph Sachi and Veronica Flores from our planning department.

Welcome, Ms.

Tam.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh good afternoon, Chair Chair Melgar, Vice Chair Chen, Supervisor Mahmood, Madison Tam here representing Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you for hearing this item today.

Uh SFGov TV, can I get slides up?

I first will walk you through the project, and then I will talk about the need for the legislative action before you today.

One oak is one of the most important sites in the market in Octavia area plan, and it's a significant share of the many units long promised to this neighborhood.

This amendment is a small but meaningful change that will bring even more units to this site and activate this vital corner.

The project will bring additional housing into a neighborhood that is well served by transit on the edge of downtown, and the project will not displace any existing housing.

Here you can see how the project has changed from its previous 2022 design.

The modified project will have additional units, bringing the total count to 541, with some modest increases in parking, bike parking, and the item requiring the legislative action today is the podium height increase.

There will also be construction of a new public plaza.

This modified project maintains the same building envelope as previous versions, and the 400-foot tower height remains consistent.

As I stated, the increased podium height from 120 to 140 is what necessitates the legislative action.

This amendment will bring the podium height of the project in alignment with its neighbor at 30 Van S.

This project and its corresponding legislative amendment have received broad community support, including from the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association and many partners in labor.

The supervisor would like to thank planning staff for their diligent work on this project and the legislative item.

Planning staff and the one oaked project team are here if you have questions best directed at them.

Thank you, Chair.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you, Ms.

Tampa.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Joseph Sackey, Planning Department staff.

After hearing this item on March 19th, the planning commission voted 5 to 1 to adopt a recommendation for approval.

This concludes the commission report, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

That's it for the planning department, right, Ms.

Flores and Okay.

Thank you, Chairmelga.

I support housing, and I think uh this is the location is ideal for new housing's development.

And it's well served by public transit.

It's also primarily an empty lot in the area of high-rising beautiful high-rise buildings.

But it's not a perfect project, however.

There's absolutely some trade-offs.

I can say that I'm not disappointed that we would be losing the All Stack Cafe, the nicest, most pleasant people working behind a little counter.

I want to urge the developer to work closely with uh with the All Star Cafe to provide a relocation plan and assistance.

I'm also disappointed by the developer.

It's opting to fee out for affordable housing for the proposed 541 residential units.

I strongly believe that it is better for our city to have an on-site affordable housing with real mixed income communities.

At the very least, the city can with real mixed income communities that we can leave, but at the very least, the city can still leverage the 24 million in fees for off-site hundred for 100% affordable project.

I'm also curious that uh I understand the site it's also subjected to the recent changes to the market and OTV and Ottavia plan fees.

Can someone from the planning department or OEWD tell me that what is the actual financial benefits to this project from that fee reductions?

And I also know that this matter before us, it's a zoning map amendment to increase the allow it high for the podium of the project, and I will be voting in support of the U.S.

Hi, Commissioner.

Um, could you perhaps uh repose your question regarding that?

The question is I understand that the the site it's also part of the recent changes uh to the market and OTV Otavia plan feeds.

That was uh uh a fee reduction for impact fees.

Uh so uh do we know actually how much financial benefit of this project actually benefited from the fee reduction, the impact fee reductions.

Uh in terms of the precise calculations of what the the difference between the the previous fees would be and now I can find those numbers.

I don't have them immediately at hand.

Um but I think just generally the the legislation was adopted um for the overall project feasibility.

If the the fees were still applicable, it would go to infrastructure and other kind of capital improvements in the uh immediate area.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I don't see anyone else on the roster.

Um I will uh say that um this project has been around for a very, very long time.

I think I voted on the first iteration uh many years ago when I was on the planning commission, and here we are still uh without a project.

So hopefully uh this will get in uh moving.

I also share uh your fondness for um our little donut shop uh that also makes great sandwiches.

Uh there are so few affordable options in this neighborhood, and I know that a lot of um city workers actually rely on this little place.

So um I I agree.

Uh but I'm glad that this is going.

So with that, 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 related to agenda item number one, planning code zoning map changes for the one oak street project.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lecture at this time, and I'll start your timer.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Clerk, Madam Chair, and members of the committee, Rudy Gonzalez with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

Um we're really talking about taking the the abstract and what's on paper, which I think frustratingly we we have experienced, right?

We have over 70,000 units of entitled housing in the pipeline, and we're always talking.

Uh I know I've I've spoken with each of you individually about this in your districts and citywide.

Uh and this gives us a real opportunity, uh, not just for this project.

You're gonna hear, I think, from my from my colleagues about the workforce development opportunities and the revenue opportunities and all the great things that come along with uh this kind of investment in our city.

But I want to draw your attention to mid-market.

I think it's really important that Supervisor Dorsey's office is here and supports this.

We certainly have seen uh underutilized uh ground floor retail space in the mid-market corridor.

Uh even SFRS's location was something of a matter of contention with this body because we're really focused on what's happening or not happening in this mid-market corridor.

It's absolutely essential, it's transit oriented, which I know is also on your agenda later.

Um, but this is a key area, and the investment at this scale will not only produce the benefits associated with this one project, but this is the type of project that will make dirt fly up and down that corridor.

So we have other projects in the work that are all watching to see what's the emerald fund gonna do?

What are the trades gonna do?

What's city hall gonna do?

So this vote is important for this project, but it's also very symbolic in terms of how the city is going to take action with urgency in the mid market span.

So respectfully urge you to uphold the planning commission's uh report and and recommendation uh and please help us move the project forward.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, members of the San Francisco Land and uh Transportation Committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Jay Anthony Menhivar, and I'm an organizer with the North Coast States Carpenters Local Union 22 here in the beautiful city of San Francisco.

I'm speaking today on behalf of my brothers and sisters who live and work in this city in strong support of 1500 Market Street Housing Development One Oak.

I was born and raised in San Francisco and continue to reside here.

It is only since I became an organizer that I realized a successful career as a union carpenter in San Francisco or anywhere for that matter, relies a lot on good stewards.

We're all good stewards of development here and recognize that the quality and standards we want to achieve can only be delivered with a union general contractor.

Emerald Fund Incorporated, committed to using union labor on this project is critical.

That commitment directly translates into creating good union jobs for San Francisco, including opportunities for women and minorities to begin or continue their career in the construction industry.

For our members, this means strong wages, family supporting benefits, and career pathways that sustain households and build the next generate generation of skilled carpenters, all while delivering the highest standards of safety and craftsmanship.

The housing development represents a meaningful step towards economic recovery and revitalization.

Emerald Fund Incorporated have demonstrated from the offset a commitment to doing the right thing by working collaborating with organized labor.

There are plenty of local developers who are unwilling to make this commitment.

On behalf of the North Coast States Carpenters Local Union 22, I respectfully urge the commission to support and approve the proposed housing development at 1500 Mark Street.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and Supervisors.

My name is Joe Sanders.

I'm a representative with District Council 16, Painters and Drywall Finishers Local 913, and I'm here today with the building trades.

We're here to support the One Oak project and ask you to move it forward.

This project has been in the system for a long time.

It's gone through environmental review.

It's been approved here before, it's been revised.

At a certain point, we've got to ask when do we actually build.

San Francisco talks a lot about the housing crisis.

Uh, but part of the problem isn't just what we approve, it's what actually gets built.

There are a lot of projects sitting on paper right now.

One oak is ready.

It's in the right place, right on top of transit, and brings hundreds of new homes.

If a project like this can't move forward after all this time, then it's hard to say what can.

We need to start showing that when a project goes through the process and meets the rules, it can actually happen.

We respectfully ask you to support the planning commission and move forward this project.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Members.

My name is Walter Oriana.

I'm with uh local 300 Plasters and Cement Mesa Local 300.

And I am here to if you allow me one second.

I just want to speak for the bigger picture right now.

One oak has been worked on for years.

It's been reviewed, changed, approved, and still not built.

We see this a lot in San Francisco.

Projects grow through the process, but they never but they don't get to the finish line.

That creates a lot of uncertainty for developers, for the city, but especially for workers.

Because of us, these projects aren't obstructing their jobs, their careers.

The whether people can stay here and make a living at some point, the process has to be something.

If a project doesn't what it's supposed to do, it should be able to move forward.

This is one of the moments where the city can show that approvals matter and the projects can actually get built.

We ask you to support this planning commission, the planning commission, and move this forward.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, uh Chair and Committee members.

My name is Israel Vargas.

I'm a representative with Plasters and Cement Masons Local 300.

We see this as an opportunity to make a good idea feasible and translate that into opportunity for workers.

Workers who can feed their families throughout this project.

Workers who need affordable housing.

Please support this project and move forward.

Hey, the planning commission agreed with us.

We hope you will too.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors, Mark Gleason.

Speaking on behalf of the Teamsters, we're very proud to be uh part of the uh building and construction trades council.

Uh our members, of course, deliver the uh concrete aggregate and other supplies.

Uh these developments are very important, and of course uh constructing homes uh for for San Franciscans to remain here in the city and to remain with good paying jobs is very important.

So again, we really want to support you uh moving forward with this uh recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members.

My name is Eddie Reyes, president of Iron Workers Local 377 here in San Francisco.

We support one oak because it's exactly the kind of project the city has been planning for.

This site, Mark and Vaness is one of the biggest transit hubs in San Francisco.

If we're serious about building transit near housing near transit, this is where it should happen.

The city has spent years putting these plans in place.

Zoning, density, all of it.

This project follows those rules.

It's not asking for something outside the system, it's what the system has designed to produce.

So the question here isn't whether this is the right place.

It clearly is.

The question is whether we're going to follow through on the plans.

We've already adopted.

From our perspective, this is exactly the kind of project we should be moving forward with.

We ask you to support the Planning Commission and let this one move forward.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Uh good afternoon, members of the land use and transportation committee.

Uh, my name is Sean Whitfield.

I'm an assistant portfolio manager for Washington Capital, a hundred percent employee owned investment manager, uh representing mostly union building trade pension funds.

I'm a former resident of San Francisco and currently office in the financial district here in the city.

Our firm invests in and finances commercial real estate projects throughout the country and have been extremely active in Northern California and San Francisco specifically over the last uh 20 plus years.

Since 2002, our funds have been involved in 13 large projects in Northern California, uh, with five of them in San Francisco.

Using very rough wage assumptions and hard cost breakdown.

We estimate that these projects have created over four million labor hours for our union clients.

Our firm manages the fund that owns the One Oak Street project, and we've been working with Emerald Fund and SCB since 2023 to re-entitle it for more density.

The team has done an excellent job balancing form and function to create a project that would provide up to 541 units of much needed housing to the city.

In my prior life, I worked for a large union contractor as a project manager and superintendent and saw firsthand the positive impact that a project like this can have on the men and women of the building trades and the neighborhood at large, bringing short-term and long-term jobs to the project and the neighborhood.

My ask today is that you support the expansion of this project as proposed.

Supporting one oak is not only adding more uh much needed housing on an underutilized site, it is also supporting union workers here in the Bay Area and investments in union funds.

Thank you and your staff for your time and thoughtful consideration of this project.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm Brandon Brockamonte with Sprinkler Fetters Local 483, and I'm also a delegate with the San Francisco Building Trades.

We support One Oak because for us, this is about jobs and it's about housing.

This project means real work, union jobs, apprentices getting hours, people being able to stay in the industry and also stay in the city.

Right now, a lot of projects aren't moving.

And when projects stall, that hits work working people first.

It means fewer opportunities, fewer paychecks, and a lot of uncertainty.

At the same time, we all know we need more housing.

Projects like this do both.

They create jobs now and housing for the long term.

And just as important, moving this forward sends a signal to San Francisco, sends a signal that San Francisco is still a place where things can get built.

That matters for workers, for the industry, and for the city's recovery.

We ask you to please move this project forward.

Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you.

My name is John Corso.

I'm a business representative for the plumbers and steam fitters, local 38 here in the city.

As well as as our Union Hall being across the street from the proposed uh project.

Um, you know, a project like this uh it creates jobs uh not just for construction workers.

It creates jobs, you know, prior to construction, during construction, and after construction.

If we're creating jobs and we're creating housing in San Francisco at a spot like that, local 38 is asking you to move move this project forward.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, members.

Alex Lanceburg, research and advocacy director with the electrical industry.

I want to associate myself with all the comments that you've heard before.

I don't think there's any point in my repeating them.

Um I do want to underscore a couple of points.

We we heard from uh we heard from a bunch of different trade people talking about the importance of this project.

And I think part of what I hope you can take from this moment is that uh getting a project like this out of the ground takes an extraordinary amount of coordination and cooperation between a variety of different skill trades.

Uh so we see carpenters here, they they comprise a third of the hours.

We see uh electrical plumbing, uh we don't say sheet metal, but iron workers, sprinkler fitters, that's about another 35 percent, 40 percent of the hours, and then with the balance being the other building trades affiliates.

But what this shows is just really the importance of keeping the keeping everything in our minds uh as a complete package.

Is that is that when projects like this move forward, it it they do create tremendous amount of opportunities, they create apprenticeship opportunities, as we heard, and they allow a diverse economic ecosystem to continue to thrive here in San Francisco.

So I am certain you will be supporting this uh and I look forward to seeing this come out of the ground.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, members.

My name is David Ku.

I'm a resident of Lower Heat.

Um I've lived in San Francisco for the past uh five years and just wanted to advocate for this project at Van Essen Market.

Um I'm also a trained landscape architect and urban designer, and I think this is a perfect area to add high density housing next to public transportation.

So I wanted to just advocate for this project.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

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

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Um thank you, everyone who came to uh provide uh public comment on this really important project.

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

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

Aye.

Chen I, Member Mockmood.

Machmud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

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

Okay.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

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

Clark.

Agenda item number two is an ordinance amending the administrative code to authorize the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to establish a curbside electric vehicle charging station permit program for the installation and operation of curbside electric vehicle charging stations on city sidewalks, and provide that permittees are not required to obtain a sidewalk encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works.

The ordinance also amends the public works code to reflect the authority of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to issue permits for the curbside electric vehicle charging station program and also affirms the planning department's CEQA determination.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, Vice Chair Chen, Supervisor of Mahmood.

I am Kate Torrin, the director of the Taxis Access and Mobility Services Team for the SFMTA.

And I'm here with my colleague Broderick Paulo, who is the lead transportation planner on the curbside electric vehicle charging pilot.

And we were last before you in December with a report out on the curbside electric vehicle feasibility study and an update on the EV charging pilot.

Today we're pleased to be before you as we head into climate week, and we're here to provide a brief presentation and to request your approval to authorize the SFMTA to establish the long-term curbside EV charging program.

I want to highlight that this is a collaborative effort across the city family.

We work very closely with public works, the San Francisco Environment Department, the Public Utilities Commission, Office of Disability and Accessibility.

This is a priority for the mayor and President Mandelman, uh, who have co-sponsored this legislation.

And as a team effort, we're building on existing experience, lessons learned, and a motivated and committed team, and we're excited to be part of the climate change solution.

So in summary, today we're asking for you to amend the administrative code to authorize the SFMTA to establish the permanent curbside electric vehicle or EV charging program to authorize the SFMTA to issue permits to allow installation and operation of curbside EV charging stations on city sidewalks and to waive the requirement for an encroachment permit from public works, uh, which will be replaced if approved with the MTA issuance of site permits.

There have been a few additional proposed amendments to the ordinance, and I've included a couple slides at the end of the presentation so we can walk through those as well.

The curbside electric vehicle charging program is one important part of SFMTA's larger vision of supporting the economy in combating climate change by offering low emission public transit on our Muni system and supporting the resiliency of the city's infrastructure as we transition to zero emission vehicles.

With Muni looking at the big picture, while the transportation sector is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in California, we are very proud that the Muni runs the greenest fleet in North America and emits less than 2% of transportation sector emissions in San Francisco.

Parking garages.

So in addition to creating this permit program, the SFMTA also has electric vehicle charging in our off-street parking garages.

We currently have 110 EV parking stalls that are serviced by 55 dual port level two chargers.

And so this curbside program will be in addition to these chargers.

And then we're also happy to be part of a grant that was successfully will be success uh was successfully achieved by the city administrator's office to help transition the city's non-revenue vehicle fleet toward zero emission vehicles, and MTA is part of that.

We we will be transitioning, um adding 140 chargers that will be installed in Muni facilities.

So and now I'm uh gonna ask uh Broadwick Paulo to do the next few slides.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Torrin.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Broderick Paulo.

I'm a planner in the parking and curb management group at MTA, and I've been serving as the project manager for the pilot program.

I'll begin by saying to reach our goals, we must ensure the right charging infrastructure is in place.

Today we have about 1,300 chargers publicly available in San Francisco, which leaves room to install 450 more chargers to reach our 2030 goals.

And I'm happy to say that MTA has 250 level two chargers coming down the pipeline to be installed in our garages.

This will make a significant contribution to reaching our 2030 goals.

So this is where curbside charging can fill the gap.

It offers the closest option to an at-home charging experience for the many of San Franciscans who rent or live in multifamily unit housing without dedicated parking.

We're aiming to install about a hundred of these curbside chargers.

Of course, this is a floor and not a ceiling.

The program will continue to monitor demand and adjust accordingly.

Curbside will just be one small piece of the puzzle to increase charging access throughout the city.

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

This body of work is guided by the city's clean transportation commitments in the climate action plan.

As well as the EV roadmap.

Our vision is simple.

Supporting the city's zero emission goals improves air quality for everyone who lives, works, and moves through San Francisco.

So how did we get to where we are today?

Well, we started off with the feasibility study to explore whether it was feasible from an operational financial and regulatory perspective to install, maintain, and operate a public-facing charging network at the curb.

The study identified the risks and opportunities of operating a curbside network and identified practical solutions and recommendations to help advance the network beyond the current pilot phase.

Then came our 2024 technology agnostic pilot program.

The pilot allowed us to test a variety of curbside charging models at a handful of locations to inform the development and design of the future permanent program.

All this said, let us not forget, as a transit first city, we prioritize walking, biking, rolling, and taking transit, but at the same time and coming from the on-street parking group, we recognize cars to be a major component of our transportation system, keeping in mind that many residents, commuters, and visitors rely on vehicles.

So where vehicles are necessary, we aim to support zero emission options to foster our vision for a future filled with clean air and a stable climate.

Alrighty.

To share a few lessons learned from the pilot.

I'll start by saying site selection is challenging as providers need to consider curb use, accessibility requirements, power connection, and community readiness.

We also experience hurdles with the electoral cook grid in terms of access and overall readiness.

Community engagement remains vital to ensure these chargers align with the neighborhood's transportation priorities.

Of course, we want to build public trust through this program by planning with the community and not having the community reacting to our planning.

We've been able to test three different charging models with our three approved pilot vendors.

First, we have It's Electric, which uses a bring your own cord model and taps into a fronting properties power.

This site is going to celebrate its one-year birthday this month.

Urban EV uses a pedestal charger by establishing a new utility connection with PGE.

Last month, the SFMTA board approved installing five of these chargers in the DOC patch.

And finally, we have Volt Post, which mounts charging hardware to existing utility pools.

They are continuing to work with both utilities, PG ⁇ E and SFPUC to assess technical feasibility.

I'll finish by noting that the program came at no cost to the city.

The vendors take on full responsibility to own, install, operate, and maintain these chargers.

With that, I will pass it back to Director Torrin.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just a couple of specifics on the permit program.

We're working to achieve efficiencies and based on lessons learned from the charging pilot.

We're working to create a legible and welcoming entry point for operators, provide clear requirements and technical support.

Again, of course, building on our lessons learned.

Really important for us to continue the cross-agency collaboration.

This is uh while MTA is the lead agency here.

There are other city agencies that may be issuing permits depending on the type of technology used, so uh helpful to maintain a supportive structure throughout the permitting process, and then we're looking to achieve efficiencies wherever possible throughout the process because it will remain complex.

Um, if approved by the Board of Supervisors, the MTA will issue the site permit.

MTA will also assess the site accessibility designation of the EV charging stalls has been delegated to the SFMTA Director of Transportation, and that will also help speed up the process and remove some of the friction.

In terms of addressing the complexity with site selection, we're working on an interactive mapping tool to provide block level information regarding potential EV charging sites.

So we're developing a competitive application process again if approved.

Um, and then MTA will approve and permit both the qualified operator and the sites.

And once approved, successful operators will still need to obtain other site specific permits as needed, hence our supportive process and collaborative process with our partner agencies.

We talked about community outreach, which is very important, and then the operators responsible for constructing and establishing the service connection and uh responsible for all the costs.

Uh here's uh an image showing the mapping tool.

This is just intended uh as uh illustrative, but again, intended to provide block level information.

Uh you can see the the green areas on the maps would be areas that would be feasible, uh the red not feasible, and then we have some um yellow, which require a little bit more review.

Our key milestones and timeline.

We introduced the legislation on March 10th.

We're here, oh sorry, the MTA board approved the permit program last week.

Although it's effective, only pending Board of Supervisors approval.

We're here before you today asking your approval for the ordinance.

And then there again are subsequent meetings to follow.

We, while there has been an amendment that is intended to be introduced, we are hoping that we can still maintain the schedule as we are very keen on staying on track and launching the competitive application process this summer.

This is a big picture schematic of the timeline.

I'm not going to get into all the details, but happy to answer any questions here.

But it's intended to show that even after the permit application launched, there are multiple and critical key steps toward implementation and other permits may be required.

And I'll get into the proposed technical amendment if we're at a good point for that.

So subsequent to the ordinance being submitted and introduced, the city attorney's office has proposed a technical amendment that would clarify the MTA's authority to impose administrative penalties for violations of the permit terms and then for installation or operation of an unpermitted electric vehicle charging station.

And as I understand it from city attorney's office, these clarifications are consistent with our current practice on similar legislation.

And the language for the proposed amendment from city attorney is on page six and in the ordinance in the revised ordinance, and the language is here as follows, and very specific to the penalty.

So in addition to any penalty established by the California Vehicle Code related to parking, the MTA may impose administrative penalties in the transportation code.

So that is what we have before you today.

We're happy to answer any questions and there may be other amendments, I understand.

Okay, Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chairman Malgau.

I'm pleased to see the legislation coming before this committee that is advanced, San Francisco's local climate equity and public health goals.

Last week we advanced the climate action plan, and now we have the curb site electric vehicle charging program.

This legislation is a crucial part of our strategy.

If we are able to achieve our goal of having 25% of all register private vehicles electrics by 2030 and 100% by 2040.

This is a critical need for residents who cannot charge at their residence.

And I know that my own district is one example of those.

So I want to thank you all, and I want to thank Supervisor Mandelman and also to SFMTA for all your work to move this legislation forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor.

I had a couple questions.

So going back to your presentation, you had a map of where things are feasible, not feasible, and still.

Can you uh just explain what the methodology was for figuring out what what the different colors yes, absolutely.

Thank you for the question.

And I will say this is configurable, so this is intended to show at a high level the support we're providing.

But for um because as Vice Chair Chen mentioned, we're targeting the residential neighborhoods, right?

That um we're intending to provide that information to interested parties.

And the chargers are level two, they're slower chargers than the level three, and they make more sense in a residential context.

And so there's certain areas that uh which we have designated in the red as not feasible, and that is intended to be because of the nature of this charging program.

So there would not be chargers installed in daylight zones, for example, that would not be feasible.

I think that's clear.

Muni stops, very clear, right?

So we looked at a number of different mapping layers to make sure that again, as we want, and once we publish this, we have not published it yet, but that we're guiding the applicants and interested parties to the right areas.

But color curb areas is another, not feasible, bike lanes, narrow sidewalks, future separated bikeways.

So those are again some areas intended.

They have other uses, and it wouldn't make sense to have the use of an E curbside EV charger.

So that's the intention with the red versus the green.

Okay, thank you.

Another question I had was of the three vendors that we are currently working with for the pilot program.

Uh one of them is working with a PUC as opposed to PG ⁇ E, which I think is really excellent.

Um I'm wondering how that will be assessed in terms of the success of you know one vendor over another.

Okay, that's a great question, and I may bring my colleague Broderick to answer.

He is the lead on the pilot, but I will say at a high level, and I think this is very obvious that we all know, but I just want to state it that access to the grid is the most important part of this.

And while MTA can create the welcoming front door in the permit program, we're reliant on all of our sister agencies and the grid for access.

And there are multiple ways in San Francisco to access the grid.

And part of how we're thinking big picture on how to best set up the program for success is building in those lessons learned from the pilot.

And I would say there are a couple of key lessons learned, and that is and key lessons that we're learning through our conversations with our colleagues at PUC.

Uh one is, and I'm gonna I'm gonna ask my colleague Broderick to say if I don't say any of this right, I'm gonna ask him to correct me.

But what we understand is that if you're using an existing power source, that's gonna go a whole lot faster.

If you're existing a building, a fronting building that that already has capacity that running the conduit in establishing that charger is gonna go more quickly.

And then also the PUC controls the grid in redevelopment areas, and that's another key lesson learned, and we are hoping to have an overlay on our mapping tool so we can make sure vendors, applicants understand, you know, how how will it be most efficient for me to run my business to get this charger installed?

So we're working with PUC.

We've started talking about some technical resource documents.

It's a if I could just paraphrase a little bit of what you're saying.

So the the time factor, because we control the grid uh versus perhaps you know, an outside company, uh, might be taken into account uh when you're assessing like the length of time that it takes to get the permits and all of that.

That's correct.

And then also the pole-mounted technology, Broderick mentioned that Volt Post is has proposed this uh pole-mounted technology, and that's a little bit of a newer type of uh business model for us, and there have been a lot of lessons learned under the pilot, and so while it's been there have been challenges with that proposed technology, it looks like we are working to create a path forward with PGE.

Sounds like PGE has you know uh a plan for that.

So there's a whole lot to it.

It's very technical, um, and we're learning as we go and building on the knowledge in the pilot.

Does that help answer?

Thank you.

Okay, I don't see anyone else on the roster.

Um we have someone here from uh Supervisor President Mendelman's office who is a sponsor of this legislation.

Hi, welcome.

Hello, uh Reneal Bajoy, uh legislative aid for President Metalman here.

Uh our office is proposing, in addition to the uh amendment the MTA already spoke about, our office is proposing an additional amendment to this legislation, which has already been circulated with you all uh as follows on page three, line 19.

We'd like to add Section F.

The Board of Supervisors urges the SFMTA to design and implement the curbside EV charging program to discourage commercial fleet vehicle charging and maximize charging station access to private individuals in order to meet the legislative intent of providing electric vehicle charging opportunities for residents who do not have access to off-street garages within their homes.

So the intent here is pretty simple.

We believe it important that the benefits of these added curbside chargers through this new permitting process flow directly to the San Franciscans who need them most.

So these are the people who own EVs but rent or live in apartment buildings or multifamily buildings, and all too often have no access to chargers within their home.

These are the people who, for reasons of climate or affordability, would like to purchase an EV, but they can't make it work because of our city's currently existing limited curbside capacity.

And these are the same people who for years and years now have been asking the city to expand curbside charging first through the pilot and now through this legislation.

So this amendment recognizes that fact, that truth, and urges the MTA to ensure that curbside chargers benefit the people directly instead of being co-opted for commercial fleet purposes.

So with that, pending your questions, I respectfully ask you to adopt this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Bajoy.

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

Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number two, electric vehicle curbside charging.

If you have public comment for this item, please line up to speak along that wall and you can come forward to the lectern.

Afternoon again.

Uh Supervisors Mark Gleason, uh, Teamsters joint council seven and our affiliate uh locals.

Uh we are in support of the curbside uh uh program.

Uh it's going to be a great benefit for residents and working people in San Francisco who haven't had access to being able to power their EVs.

But we also are very appreciative of the amendment that uh President Maneman is uh putting forward.

It addresses the concerns that we have about the conditions and indeed the practices of large global commercial companies to take advantage of some aspects of the infrastructure that we have in San Francisco.

Uh but again, we are very supportive of this uh curbside uh uh program post pilot.

We were uh supportive of it during that time as well.

And we hope that you uh look well on President Manaman's amendment.

And uh we look forward to working with everyone going forward on this very wonderful project that's gonna benefit residents and workers in San Francisco.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

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

Madam Chair.

Okay.

Uh public comment on this item is now closed.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, I'd like to make a motion that we amend this legislation as read into the record by Mr.

Bajoy, and then send it out uh with a positive recommendation to the full board.

Uh, Madam Chair, just for clarification, there I believe were two different amendments, one that was proposed by MTA and one that was proposed by by Supervisor Mandelman's office.

Were you doing just one of those two portions?

I stand corrected.

Let's do both of them and then uh send it out as amended.

I'm sorry.

Um go ahead, Deputy.

The amendments that we requested that the MTA add to the legislation are substantive, and so we'll need to continue this to next week.

But to meet their schedule, of course, you could agendize it next week as a committee report for the next day's meeting.

Thank you.

Let me amend my motion to amend uh this uh legislation uh as read into the record by both the MTA and Mr.

Bajoy.

Um, and then we continue it to the meeting of April 20th.

Two motions, one of them to uh accept both sets of amendments and then a second motion to continue as amended to April 20th, each of those motions offered by Chair Melgar on those motions, Vice Chair Chen.

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

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

Thank you.

Uh that motion passes.

Thank you all.

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

Clerk.

Agenda item number three is an ordinance temporarily excluding certain sites from the provisions of California Senate Bill No.

79, SB 79, that require local jurisdictions to allow residential uses at various densities, heights, and floor area ratios on sites within one half mile of a transit-oriented development stop.

Second, permanently excluding from those provisions of SB 79 sites located in industrial employment hubs, including certain sites zoned M, SALI, PDR, WMUG, and P and sites with a walking path of more than one mile to the closest transit development stop.

Third, amending the planning code to permit additional density and height for residential projects on certain parcels within one half mile of a transit-oriented development stop.

Fourth, adopting an alternative plan to SB 79, including making findings that the alternate plan provides equivalent development capacity.

Fifth, making findings that these exemptions and the city's residential capacity meet the requirements of SB 79.

And sixth, directing the clerk of the Board of Supervisors to transmit a copy of the ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The ordinance also affirms the planning department's secretetermination and makes other findings, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

Welcome.

We have the planning department, Sarah Richardson and Josh Sowitzki here to present as well as Ms.

Glockstein.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Chair Melgar and Supervisors Mahmood and Chen.

I'm Sarah Richardson, planning staff.

Thank you for having us today to consider the adoption of the proposed transit-oriented residential development ordinance, San Francisco's plan for implementing California State Senate Bill 79.

This legislation was introduced by Mayor Daniel Lurie on February 10th and was recommended for approval with modifications by the Planning Commission on March 19th.

It is board file number 260132.

We have been before you to discuss SB 79 in the context of the family zoning plan, but in today's presentation, I will still provide you with some background on SB 79.

Then I will give a brief overview of the ordinance, and finally, I'll walk through the key components of the ordinance in more detail.

SB 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act was passed last year by the state legislature and takes effect on July 1st.

To create more capacity for housing near transit, it sets minimum height and density limits within 200 feet, one quarter mile, and one half mile of both existing and planned transit stops, creating concentric circles around each qualifying stop.

Note that a few of the planned stops shown on this and subsequent subsequent maps, including the potential Oakdale Caltrain station and BRT stops on Geneva Avenue, as well as a handful, a small handful of existing bus stops, were previously assumed to be subject to SB 79, but are now unlikely to be included based on updated draft guidance and maps published by MTC within the past few days.

Back to the basics.

More than three-quarters of properties in San Francisco, that's 120,000 or so parcels, fall within areas subject to SB 79.

SB 79 allows for cities to exempt parcels that meet certain criteria from these requirements.

Some of these exemptions are temporary and others are permanent.

And finally, SB 79 also allows for jurisdictions to adopt an alternative plan in place of implementing the default heights and densities required under SB 79.

Here are the default densities and heights under SB 79 overlaid on the city irrespective of our existing zoning.

On the left, you can see that the densities range from 160 units per acre within 200 feet of tier one stops to 80 units per acre for parcels that are between one quarter mile and one half mile from tier two stops.

On the right, you can see the heights, which range from nine stories adjacent to the stops to five stories further from the stops.

Now this map compares the SB 79 heights with our existing height limits and denotes those differences with color.

San Francisco has higher height limits downtown and along commercial corridors, which you can see in the greens and blues, while SB 79 height limits are higher off corridors in residential districts, which you can see in the orange and yellow.

This map also shows the outline of the recently passed family zoning plan area.

And you can see how along neighborhood commercial corridors our existing heights are one to four stories taller than what would be allowed under SB 79, such as along Irving Street in the sunset, whereas in the residential area surrounding it, our existing heights are one to two stories lower.

This means that under the default SB 79 heights, the areas in orange and yellow would increase in height.

I should note that in many places SB 79 does not necessarily allow more units or more developable floor area on these parcels than our zoning allows.

It sometimes just allows more height.

Now to the proposed ordinance before you.

It has four primary parts.

It permanently excludes three industrial employment hubs from being subject to SB 79.

It temporarily exempts low resource some low resource census tracts.

It amends the planning code to add a new density and height exception to Article II.

And finally, it adopts an alternative plan under SB 79, including demonstrating the housing capacity to qualify.

Now I will discuss each of these components in a little more detail.

SB 79 allows the permanent exclusion of parcels that meet certain conditions.

The first is if the parcel is in an industrial employment hub.

These hubs must be zoned and identified in our general plan to be for industrial and employment uses, not generally permit housing, be contiguous, and be over 250 acres.

There are three of these in San Francisco, as shown in shaded pink on this map, in the south of Market and Mission, Bay Shore and Central Waterfront, and Bayvie neighborhoods.

Collectively, the industrial employment hubs consist of just below 2,000 parcels.

These parcels will not be subject to the provisions of SB 79, and this reflects existing zoning and general plan policies and helps to preserve the types of businesses and core city functions that operate there, that operate there, the jobs they support, and the economic diversity they bring to the city.

The second condition that qualifies for a permanent exclusion is if parcels are more than a mile walk from a qualifying transit stop, but that does not apply in San Francisco.

An exclusion means that the parcels there do not count in the baseline against our alternative plan requirements.

However, by making these permanent exclusions from SB 79, it does not in any way permanently freeze zoning and land use policy in these areas and says nothing about the future local land use decisions or zoning in these areas, including related to housing and other uses.

The legislation before you includes a temporary exemption for parcels and census tracts that the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee or TCAC identified as low resource, but just those that are in Mission Bay and south of 16th Street.

Additionally, as is reflected in this map, a proposed amendment before you would also include the low resource tracks that overlap with the proposed industrial employment hub north of 16th Street.

This means that the parcels in industrial employment hubs that are also in low resource tracks would appear on both exemption lists.

The low resource areas are in purple here and include approximately 32,000 parcels.

They will be temporarily exempted from the pre from the provisions of SB 79 until one year after our next housing element is adopted in 2032.

This gives the city additional time to plan for increased housing capacity in these areas and to clarify the relationship of SB 79 to redevelopment areas and potential transit stops.

It also allows the city to conduct more deliberate planning policy discussions, enable community conversations about the future of these areas, and provides additional time to work with HCD around certain unclear provisions of the law.

The other temporary exemptions for parcels allowed in the law aren't necessary for us to invoke because the ordinance pursues an alternative plan.

There are three main requirements for pursuing an alternative plan in place of the default SB 79 heights and densities.

The first is that the total net capacity of existing heights and densities in aggregate across all of the alternative plan area, which in our case is the entire city, is greater than what would be allowed under SB 79.

This requirement is met primarily due to the recently passed family zoning plan, which added a whole lot of additional capacity for housing on the north, central, and western sides of the city.

The other two requirements say that to qualify, each parcel within the SB 79 geography and each aggregate station area must allow at least 50% of the density allowed under SB 79.

Our existing zoning doesn't quite meet those requirements.

There are approximately 2,000 parcels in color on this map in the east and south sides of the city that would need to allow additional density.

Most of the colored parcels are orange, indicating that they would need to allow just one additional unit from what is allowed today.

As the parcel gets larger, the increase in units is higher.

This map also shows the temporarily exempted low income census tracts in purple.

The parcels shown in low resource areas, approximately half of the 2,000 parcels would not need to meet this requirement, this density requirement until 2032 because those areas are being exempted from SB 79 and the alternative plan until then.

To meet those last two requirements of a citywide alternative plan, the proposed ordinance includes a planning code amendment.

It adds a new density and height exception to Article II, Section 2071 that permits additional density and height for residential projects on parcels within one half mile of a qualifying transit stop, up to 50% of the density permitted under SB 79, and on the few parcels in these areas with a height limit that's less than 40 feet, it would allow 40 feet.

The parcels must meet several criteria, including but not limited to, they must be in a zoning district that principally permits housing.

Not within the family zoning plan area, not seeking a density bonus, and not on a parcel with a listed historic building, whether it is individually listed or landmarked or contributory.

With this planning code amendment, the entire city would qualify for an alternative plan.

Taking this into account with the permanent and temporary exemptions, the total housing capacity and density in San Francisco is greater than what would be allowed by SB 79 by about 170,000 net units and 230 million net square feet of floor area.

Note that SB 79 does not allow the counting of all the zone capacity in this area and caps each parcel at twice what SB 79 allows.

If all of San Francisco's zone capacity was counted in these areas, it would exceed SB 79 by almost 400,000 units.

So this means that no parcel in the city will be subject to the default SB 79 heights and densities.

A small number of parcels will be eligible for a new density exception for up to 50% of the density allowed under SB 79, all outside the family zoning plan area.

This will create another way for properties to build four to six units in RH districts outside the family or in RH districts outside the family zoning plan area.

This does not change what the underlying zoning requires, such as with unit mixes.

In 2032, the temporary exemption for low resource tracks will expire and additional parcels will be subject to the 50% density requirement.

And the alternative plan, nor the exemptions prevent the city from making future zoning and land use policies in these areas, including related to housing.

There's been some misinformed public comment and advocacy about this.

This is strictly about the application of SB 79 in the near term.

By providing the options for the alternative plan and other exclusions in SB 79, the state legislature affirmatively recognized that certain major changes in land use policy should not be forced on cities on July 1st of this year or any time thereafter as a result of SB 79.

Generally, the proposed ordinance prevents SB 79 from overriding local zoning in the immediate term and leaves the city in control to undertake whatever land use and zoning discussions it wants to have in the future with an appropriate timeline and desired terms, including by conducting community planning processes with due diligence.

Without this ordinance, all of the parcels that you see here in blue would increase in height limit under the default SB 79 height limit.

Though I should note that while SB 79 allows taller buildings in these areas, it does not necessarily allow more units than our zoning allows in these areas.

Still, with this ordinance in the near term, the only parcels that may increase in density, generally not height, will be those in orange on this map.

On the right.

Amends the planning code to allow for additional density up to 50% of the density allowed under SB 79, and adopts an alternative plan, including demonstrating residential capacity to qualify.

The planning commission recommended approval with modifications.

The modification is to fix the typographical error in the ordinance and long title that states that one of the zoning districts in the industrial employment hub area is West Soma Mixed Use General, or when it should be West Soma mixed use office.

Additionally, the other proposed amendments include updating the parcel tables to add parcels that are both in excluded industrial districts and the low resource census tracts to the list of temporary exclusions for low resource parcels.

Currently, those parcels are only listed in the industrial exclusion list, even though both circumstances apply.

Here's a link to the planning department's web page about the legislation.

In the past week or so, the department has received additional feedback, including from new organizations, and we will be following up with them before the board hearing.

That concludes our presentation, and we're happy to answer questions.

Thank you, Ms.

Richardson.

So if you could come back, Ms.

Richardson, or I don't know who's gonna answer questions.

Um in the last week I've heard a lot from folks about this, um, but people seem to have forgotten that we had this conversation when we were having the um discussions around the at family zoning plan um pretty extensively and the framework of the exclusion of the priority equity geographies um and uh how we were thinking about uh density and where to add density and we talked extensively about SB 79.

Uh the map of the parcels that SB 79 applied to.

I made Mr.

Soitsky submit that during the family zoning plan discussions, um, much to his chagrin because I was you know pushing him to do it before, uh but we had it, and it definitely weighed our discussions around the uh family zoning plan.

So I just want to remind us all that you know we've all been here before.

But my question uh specifically to you was about CEQA.

So uh right now CEQA doesn't apply to the current implementation of the rezoning um that we that we're looking at today.

But if we were gonna do something else, um if we were gonna change this, would we have to do CEQA?

Joshua Switzki with planning staff.

Uh the short answer is no.

Um SB 79 itself provides a uh uh CEQA exemption for any local ordinance that changes zoning within the bounds of what SB 79 provides for.

So any of the heights, densities, or land use provisions in SB 79, a local ordinance would not be subject to CEQA if it was doing those things.

So whether we're doing it now or in the future to change any of this or any other zoning in SB 79 areas, yeah, anything within the prescriptions of the heights and densities and land use uh provisions of SB79 would not be subject to CEQA.

Okay, I have another technical question that perhaps only you can answer.

Um, and that is I noticed um, you know, concentration of parcels uh along Guerrero Avenue in District 8, and I know that my colleague, I mean I don't want to put words in his mouth because he's not here obviously, but he's gone to great lengths, and we've had lots of discussions about him.

Um and he's put forward lots of legislation against what he perceived as um, you know, this trend towards uh McMansions, you know, uh in his district, not necessarily on Guerrero, a little bit farther up the hill, but he's done a lot of work uh on special use districts, it just prevent people from going higher and taking up more bulk uh without adding units.

Um can you tell me what the height would be along uh Guerrero Avenue if if we didn't do this?

If we didn't pass this ordinance, correct.

Um let's flip back to the map.

I need to get my glasses out.

It's the first time I've worn these in public.

Um as I see it, it would be five or six.

Well, it varies, but generally speaking, it would probably be 65 feet.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I should just note that the as Sarah mentioned, all of the zoning prescriptions, whether it be the you know large home limits and all those things continue to apply.

Yeah.

But I don't think there's a large home.

No, SB79 itself does not have any such limitations.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you all for the presentation.

And I have a series of questions about just the context of the intention of SB 79 and how this relates to this ordinance that we're passing to get some exemptions.

I think just to clarify again, um if we this ordinance is not required, correct?

No.

Cities don't necessarily have to pass an ordinance if they don't so choose.

Understood.

And I know uh Chair Melgar mentioned about how some of the intention I think of this ordinance was kind of exempted some priority equity geographies that we talked about during the family zoning plan is I think what we just heard.

But it looks like this exemption would have lower heights pretty much all across the city than what SB 79 authorizes and should go into effect.

So why are we trying to do that all across the city?

Heights would not are not would not be lower across the city.

Um as you can see on the map, there's different shading.

Uh our zoning is higher in many areas, and SB 79 is higher in many areas.

Again, that is just height.

That is not necessarily density or housing capacity.

So it's height.

So basically saying that, yeah, the yellow, but 25 uh yellow is is yeah, one foot to two, yeah, basically one to two stories generally.

So why why do that?

Uh the city has been a long time, whether it was the family zoning plan or other plans that preceded it, deliberating on what the city supervisors uh felt were the appropriate heights and densities in these areas.

Um and a lot of legislative and public time has been spent over the past couple decades sorting this all out.

Uh and certainly the mayor's office in putting forward this ordinance uh in the planning department feel that you know, honoring the work that's been done by the hard work by the our legislature and the public to craft the zoning across the city that more than meets the obligations of SB 79, as you heard by several hundred thousand units that uh we ought to let our existing zoning continue to be the law of the land, and if the board so chooses to change it, the board can can change our zoning moving forward.

We're currently under litigation for multiple lawsuits that's saying we don't do enough to uh meet the requirements of the housing element.

Um my understanding is this would put us basically at the minimum allowed by state law, so why shouldn't we be going a little bit above?

Uh no, this is not the minimum.

Um as we stated, our our local zoning exceeds SB 79 requirements by hundreds of thousands of units.

Okay.

Um talking about the why are we precluding housing from being built in the industrial employment hubs?

It sounds like that's the exemption that the state provides, correct?

That is one of the exemptions, yes.

Um it's noted, I think some of the community advocates had noted to us that in the Western Zoma Western Soma uh industrial hub, um the mixed office use zone actually allows for ADUs pursuant to the city's local ADU ordinance, and the service arts and light industrial district also allows ADUs under the local ordinance plus 100% affordable housing projects.

Um that seems to maybe, but those also are within the industrial employment hub regions as well.

Um has the city sought the opinion of HCD as to whether these parcels in these districts are eligible for withdrawal or not.

ADUs are not principally permitted where housing is not principally permitted.

ADUs are only allowed to the extent that there is existing housing on those parcels, so you could not build an ADU on a property in those districts that didn't already have housing on it.

Uh, even though it's zoned to allow for it.

Yes, you can't have an accessory dwelling unit if you don't have a primary dwelling unit.

There's also an allowance for plus 100 percent affordable housing projects.

In the Sally district, it uh affordable housing is not principally permitted.

None of these districts principally permit housing of any kind, um, which is a requirement of the bill.

Um it is true that 100 percent affordable housing is can be discretionarily conditionally permitted in the Sally, but um we believe uh uh in our close reading of the law is that the law is talking about principally permitted uses.

Okay.

There are multiple confusing references in the in the in the lobby.

You have to dig down and we believe it is talking about principal permitted uses.

Understood.

I think I'll just raise again the closing components.

I know you're saying this is over 100,000 beyond capacity, but I think there's still concerns that the family zoning plan may not meet the necessary components of our housing element.

Um so I think this it there's a potential, I think I've heard from activists that we may need to consider to re-review whether these limits are going to be holding us back from being flexible in meeting our goals.

And so my hope would be that we can at least duplicate the file uh to ensure that we can continue to have those conversations and uh iron out some of the what those discrepancies might be.

No, we we would agree with that.

There's nothing preventing the board from taking up other zoning changes in the future.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, we can always do better.

I'll just point out that we're being sued by both sides.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Malga.

Just want to share when SB 79 was introduced, it this board engaged it in the substantive discussions about the impact of the legislation and the need to adopt safeguards.

I believe all of us on the board want to support transit-oriented development down the right way.

I believed in and I continue to believe that the transit-oriented development can be beneficial.

It reduces commutes, lower carbon emissions, and reduces reliance on cars.

I also believe that we should be incentivizing development in areas that can absorb it without causing harm, such as area with robust existing infrastructures, and less displacement risks.

For neighborhoods facing displacement, we must prioritize anti-displacement strategies, robust tenant protections, protection for our stock of rent controlled at housing, and significant investment in truly affordable housing.

I recognize that crafting this legislation has to be in a complex text and appreciate the work of the department.

Thank you.

In crafting this ordinance, the department has utilized it all the lawful provisions available in SB 79 to achieve this goal, including the permanent and temporary exclusions and exemption that at least until 2032.

And I will be voting in support of this legislation today.

And thank you for the warning.

Thank you so much.

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

Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now take public comment related to agenda item number three, transit-oriented residential development.

If you have public comment for this item, please line up to speak along that western wall and come forward to the lectron.

You're the first speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Zach Weisenberger with Young Community Developers.

I am speaking in support of the SP 79 implementation ordinance before you today.

When SB 79 was introduced in the state legislature, we opposed the bill due to its concentrated impacts in low-income communities of color, disproportionately affecting residents who rely on public transit and are already vulnerable to displacement.

As San Francisco's housing element documents, between 2005 and 2020, approximately 85 percent of new housing production occurred in just a handful of low-income neighborhoods on the city's east side.

And without intervention, SP 79 will continue and accelerate this pattern.

That outcome would directly contradict our housing element's core AFFH obligation to ensure an equitable distribution of growth across all neighborhoods.

However, the legislation before you today is SF's implementation ordinance, and that distinction is critical.

If we don't pass this legislation, SB 79 will override local zoning across much of the city.

This ordinance allows San Francisco to take back some control by applying clear guardrails that limit the limit the continuation of past inequities.

In particular, the ordinances exemptions for PDR zones are essential.

These areas provide critical blue-collar job opportunities for working class communities, immigrants, and communities of color in our spaces the city has been steadily losing for decades.

Earlier versions of SP 79 would have allowed these industrial employment hubs to be converted to housing.

As the legislation moved through the state legislature, we engaged with the bill's sponsor and secured amendments allowing cities to exempt these job centers.

Strong local protections for PDR remain essential to maintaining economic diversity and preventing displacement of working class jobs.

Without this implementation ordinance, SF would be exposed to the full force of SB 79, including increased pressure to convert remaining PDR space to housing and further concentration of market rate development in vulnerable communities.

At a time when the city is already grappling with the long-term loss of industrial land and middle income job pathways, it is critical that we preserve what we have.

For these reasons, we urge your support today.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Our association represents the neighborhood running from Fifth Street all the way to Van Ness, Market to Townsend, yet we receive zero of the community outreach that was described here today.

Section three permanently exempts transit-rich corridors in our neighborhood from SB 79, making mixed income housing effectively illegal.

And we stand with YMB SF and GROSF that have both taken the same position.

For some of us, this legislation is a tool for economic suppression.

We need more residents to create street safety, support local retail, and prevent the conditions that lead to open drug use and encampments.

As highlighted in recent SF chronicle coverage, uh they called this uh provision the preservation of blight.

Our neighborhood is actively asking for more market rate housing.

Instead, the city's methodology blocks mixed income housing by claiming a site as an industrial employment hub.

Uh by the way, many of those parcels are vacant and boarded up while simultaneously allowing shelters and 100% affordable housing on that exact same parcel.

This isn't this zoning does not preserve a thriving industrial base, it preserves blight from the 1990s.

Because of these ongoing exclusionary practices, we currently have an active fair housing complaint pending with HCD.

Furthermore, I would just point out that designating WMUO, Western SOMA mixed use office parcels as permanently exempt because they are industrial I think is silly because of the name itself.

Claire, um classifying those uh is also a regulatory bad bad faith.

We need mixed unincome housing near Civic Center Station.

We ask you to remove Section 3 and work with Supervisor Dorsey to implement SB 79 early in SOMA.

Our tax receipt data just showed uh negative 50 percent for SOMA and plus 25 percent taxes, tax revenues in Mission Bay.

Uh, we are struggling to grow and we need housing to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

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

Okay, looks like public comment is now closed.

Um colleagues, uh thank you uh for engaging in this conversation.

Thank you for blaming staff and members of the community who weighed in.

Um I think that um some of the uh feedback that we heard today, and we certainly I have gotten um is more about um our existing zoning than about how SB 79 will affect us.

And um I think that is something as uh Mr.

Soitsky um you know commented uh if uh folks in the community, if if this you know residents of San Francisco working with uh this body want it change.

Um Sally or um you know the PDR designation or any of the underlying zoning, I think we could tackle that, but I think that that's not exactly what we're doing today.

Um with that, I would like to uh make uh first a motion that we uh make the amendment to fix the clerical error in the ordinance and long title, replacing uh WMU G to W M U O, and to make the additional amendments to the parcel tables and the amendments uh presented by staff.

Um let's let's do that first.

Mr.

Clark, let's call the role on that.

On the motion offered by the chair to make an amendment to correct the clerical error and also to uh make the change regarding the parcel table, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmood Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

I Melgar, I Madam Chair, there are three eyes on that motion to amend.

Okay, thank you.

And so I am you know cognizant um uh Supervisor Mahmood uh uh expressed uh you know desire to to keep working on this and certainly uh when we passed the uh family zoning plan uh we were in constant communication with the staff at HCD to make sure that we uh stayed in compliance and that things were uh being done in a way that would preserve uh our collective goals.

So with that in mind, I would like to uh duplicate the file as was requested.

Um make a motion to make an additional amendment to the duplicated file, um which will include in the findings uh a reference to uh the state H C D continue working consulting with them.

Um let's call the role on that amendment.

A motion offered by the chair that a duplicate of the file made incorporating the court with the previous amendments be then amended to incorporate the change about the HCD for the review.

Vice Chair Chen on that motion.

Aye.

Member Mockwood.

Aye.

Melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three eyes on that motion to amend the duplicated file.

Okay.

So now I would like to make a motion that we continue that duplicated file as amendment, as amended to the call of the chair.

On the motion offered by the chair that the duplicated file be continued as amended to the call of the chair, Vice Chair Chen.

Aye.

Chen I, Member Machmud.

Makhmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I, Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that motion to continue to the call of the chair as amended.

Okay, thank you.

Uh now the last motion uh would be to continue the original file as amended to the next meeting uh on Monday, April 20th, 2026.

On the motion offered by the Chair that the original file be continued as amended to April 20th, 2026.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I.

Member Machwood.

Mahmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that motion to continue the original file as amended to April 20th, 2026.

Okay, great.

Um, Mr.

Clerk, uh, do we have any other business on our agenda?

There's no further business.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.