Good afternoon, everyone.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the April 20th, 2026 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I am Supervisor Mirna Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair Supervisor Cheyenne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmud.

The committee clerk today is Mr.

John Carroll.

I would also like to acknowledge Haime Echiebery at SFGup TV for staffing this meeting.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

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 acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of April 28th, 2026, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you so much.

Please call items one through 15 together.

Agenda item numbers one through 15 are 15 resolutions initiating landmark designation under Article 10 of the Planning Code for the following properties.

First, the California Masonic Memorial Temple, located at 1111 to 1171 California, the Chinese Telephone Exchange Building located at 743 Washington, Finocchios, located at 500 to 508 Broadway, the Fugazi Building, located at 678 Green, the George Perin House, located at 535 Powell, the Great China Theater, located at 626 to 638 Jackson, Italian American Athletic Club, located at 1630 Stockton, the Maybeck Building, located at 1736 Stockton, Mona's Candlelight, located at 643 to 63 to 473 Broadway.

Nam Kwe School, located at 755 Broadway.

Excuse me, I'm just tripping all over it.

Located at 755 Sacramento.

The Trans America Pyramid, located at 600 Montgomery, the University Club located at 800 Powell, and finally Vesuvios Cafe Building, located at 253 Columbus.

All right.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, colleagues, for welcoming me to your committee today for these items and then one more piece of business.

Before you, you have more than a dozen resolutions to create new historic landmarks in District 3 across Chinatown, North Beach, Knob Hill, and Union Square.

They make up the first round of our family zoning plan landmarking effort, which I know you've seen uh go forward in other districts when we are excited for our moment as well.

These new Article 10 landmarks will bring well-deserved recognition and protection to iconic buildings, including the California Masonic Memorial Temple, Vesubio Cafe, Great China Theater, and Trans America Pyramid.

Through these landmarks, we will celebrate LGBTQ plus entertainment spaces, important Italian American heritage spaces, and iconic Chinatown buildings.

They uh tell a story of integrity of the building and architecture, of course, but also the stories inside those walls that have sh helped shape San Francisco's history.

Um and this is part of our efforts in District 3 to show that we can both celebrate and protect history and embrace the pressing needs today of housing infrastructure and economic development.

Um as you look through this list, I do want to um note that I'll be asking uh that we continue items number two and number 12 to the call the chair.

I'll ask your support in that.

Um we need a little bit more time for those particular items to engage with the building owners.

That's again items two and twelve.

But I'm excited to uh to take this opportunity for everyone to learn more about these historic buildings in our district through this process.

We also have Shannon Ferguson from the planning department here today to speak a bit more about this round of nominations, but I hope to have your support on these resolutions.

Thank you, colleagues.

Of course.

Thank you.

Supervisor Sauter, welcome, Ms.

Ferguson.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Hello, my name is Shannon Ferguson, Senior Preservation Planner and Project Manager of the District 3 Family Zoning Plan landmarking.

Currently, the city has 320 individual landmarks and 14 Article 10 landmark districts, with many more individual landmarks and several new districts in process.

District 3 has 77 existing individual landmarks.

A few examples are indicated on this slide, and they range from the San Francisco Art Institute's beautiful Mediterranean Revival Architecture and the Crown Zellerbach Buildings International Style Architecture to important neighborhood spaces like churches and libraries.

Phase one of the family zoning plan landmarking focuses on existing category A properties that are non-residential or are single family residences outside of public and RH zoning districts.

Properties identified as potential landmarks within our cultural historic contact statements have also been included.

For phase two, we'll review category A properties within the RH zoning districts with the highest significance and integrity.

Phase three will consist of properties proposed for landmark designation through SF survey, as well as future recommendations from cultural historic contact statements as they're completed.

Let's see.

And finally, phase four, uh, we'll look at the remaining survey findings of properties recommended for a landmark designation.

All the proposed landmarks will go through a series of public hearings with opportunities for community participation held in both the historic preservation commission and the board of supervisors.

Final approval of a landmark requires a majority vote by the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor.

This effort is unprecedented approach to expedite landmarking for properties, which we already know have cultural, historical, and architectural significance.

These properties merit the highest level of city protection.

And we've worked with the city attorney's office to develop abbreviated nomination forms with the necessary content.

These are the landmarks in District 3 that are being proposed as part of this phase one of the family zoning plan landmarking.

The committee uh the city is committed to ensuring that growth associated with ambitious ambitious housing production goals is aligned with San Francisco's long-standing dedication to preserving historic places.

All the proposed landmarks in district three are existing category A buildings, meaning they've already been identified as historic through past surveys.

All of these properties are located outside of RH districts.

We initially identified 19 properties as having the highest historical significance and integrity.

Four of those properties requested that they be removed from the proposed list.

Um this leaves us with 14 landmarks before you today.

15 before you today.

In summary, this effort is a concerted approach to ensure the protection of San Francisco's most precious historical resources, underscoring the city's commitment to historic preservation.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much, Ms.

Ferguson.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers one through 15 called together, initiating landmark designations.

If you have public comment for these items, please come forward selector now.

And Madam Chair, DePrice, we have no speakers.

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

I would like to make a motion that we continue items two and twelve to the call of the chair.

On the motion offered by the chair that agenda item numbers two and twelve be continued to the call of the chair, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Mockwood.

Machmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I.

Madam Chair, those two items may be continued to the call the chair.

Great.

So now I'd like to make a motion that we continue items one, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen uh to the full board with a positive recommendation.

To recommend the balance of the items.

On the on the motion offered by the chair to recommend the balance of the items to the board of supervisors.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I.

Member Machwood.

Mahmoud I.

Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Great.

That motion passes.

Let's go to item number 16, please.

Agenda item number 16 is a resolution supporting California State Assembly Bill 2276 introduced by Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria, which will establish a statewide pilot program requiring the installation of active intelligence speed assistance drive devices for drivers convicted of severe speeding related offenses.

Thank you.

Again, Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

Colleagues, next I'm asking for your support on this resolution in support of AB 2276, also known as the Stop Super Speeders Act.

This is a bill from Assemblymember Soria, which would establish a pilot program requiring certain reckless speeders to install active intelligence speed assistance devices in their cars before returning to the road.

These are devices that actively prevent a vehicle speed from exceeding the legal speed limit.

A recent pilot of a similar program in New York City is showing us the promise of this with a 64% reduction in total time spent speeding.

Now, under this bill, individuals who have offenses, including reckless driving, engaging in speed contests, or driving more than 100 miles per hour, could be required to install such devices in their vehicle for a set period of time if they wish to drive again after being convicted.

This bill also includes provisions to protect low-income drivers by establishing an income-based fee structure for the costs associated with installing an ISA device.

This year we have already seen eight pedestrian fatalities on our streets in the first four months of the year.

And it underscores the urgency in which we must act for safer streets.

Local organizations like WAC SF and Family for Straits, Family for Safe Streets have been advocating hard for this bill because they know it will make a real difference.

But we have learned from the bill's author that they intend to add San Francisco to the list in the next phase of the Assembly Committee process.

And I think this resolution would uh speak to the importance and the desire for San Francisco to be on the list.

So in anticipation of that and to reflect the changes that have already been made, I would uh like to amend the resolution to ensure that the language is not outdated by the time it reaches the legislature and copies of those amendments have been circulated with your offices.

Um I want to thank this committee for your time to hear this and also to the supervisors Motmood, Dorsey, and Mendelman for their co-sponsorship.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Supervisor uh add my name as a co-sponsor as well, please.

Uh, and good job lobbying uh to have San Francisco included.

You may remember, colleagues, that uh while we were meeting as a transportation authority, we discussed this bill and uh agreed to recommend it if amended to include San Francisco.

So thank you so much for all that.

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

Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Chair, land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number sixteen, a statement to position uh in support of Assembly Bill 2276.

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

And Madam Chair, to please you have no speakers for this item.

Okay, public comment on this is now closed.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Uh file to make a motion to vote uh yes on the amendments as read into the record by uh Supervisor Sauter and then to vote to send uh the item as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Thank you, Supervisor, Mr.

Clerk.

Two motions, both offered by member Mahmoud, the first to amend the resolution as presented by Supervisor Sauter, and the second to recommend as amended on those motions, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmud.

Mahmoud I, Chair Melgar, I.

Melgar I, Madam Chair, there are three ayes on those two motions.

Great.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Let's go to item 17, please.

Agenda item number 17 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.

Also amending the public works code to reflect the authority of the SFMTA to issue permits for the curbside electric vehicle charging station program and also amending the transportation code to authorize the SFMTA to impose administrative penalties for violations of electric vehicle charging station permits.

The ordinance also affirms the planning department's secret determination.

Thank you so much.

Colleagues, we heard this uh last week and we continued it because there was substantive amendments.

Uh we don't have a presentation today.

We do have Mr.

Joel Ramos here from the MTA to answer any questions should they arise, but I don't see anyone with questions.

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

Green.

Thank you, Madam Chair, land use and transportation now here public comment related to agenda item number 17, electric vehicle curbside charging.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward now.

And Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Okay.

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

Oh, public comment is now closed.

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

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmud.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

I.

Melgar I, Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

All right.

Let's go to item number 18, please.

Agenda item number 18 is an ordinance first temporarily excluding certain sites from the provisions of California Senate Bill 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, WMUO, and P and sites with a walking path of more 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 alternative 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 this ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development and affirming the planning department's secretetermination as well as making findings of consistency with the general plan.

And the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and public necessity convenience and welfare findings under planning code section 302.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

We uh continue this item uh from last week because it had substantive amendments.

We are joined today um by uh District 6 supervisor uh Matt Dorsey.

Before I go to you, Supervisor, or any other uh comments from my colleagues, um, I do want to uh invite up uh somebody, I guess Josh Zowiski from the planning department, because there are minor non-substantive amendments that we need to incorporate today.

Welcome, Mr.

Soitsky.

Uh good afternoon, supervisors.

Um there is one uh minor amendment that the uh city attorney's office has recommended um to add uh a small provision in the alternative plan section of the uh I believe in the alternative plan section of the ordinance that basically says that the authorizes the department to update the tables as necessary uh after adoption uh to make any refinements based on uh you know ongoing uh uh refinements through discussions with HCD, provided that the uh ultimate outcome of the alternative plan is not uh is not changed.

It would remain a citywide alternative plan.

Um there are some minor data refinements that will be needed uh over the next couple months.

Uh the MTC has just published uh their preliminary draft map of the station locations.

So station locations will slide a few feet here and there and and some minor changes.

No new stations will be added.

Actually, stations will probably be coming off the map as a result of MTC's determination that some of the stations we did include are not actually eligible.

So our map was overly conservative.

Um so we will have to make those refinements as we send the final uh table to HCD for their final review.

So just in practical terms, Mr.

Sowitzki, that means that, for example, God forbid, but if, say, the parcel tax or the regional sales tax does not pass and we have to cut back service and eliminate stops, then like it would change the map.

Uh that's a circumstance I yeah, we haven't.

You don't want to pine about it.

But uh this is more about uh stations, existing stations that we there are some interpretive questions about which stations qualify, particularly bus stations based on the location of the transit lanes and those sorts of things.

And we conservatively assumed more stations actually qualified than MTC has determined actually qualified.

I see.

Uh and so some of those stations will come off.

Also, if you recall on our map that we had showed, um we had included some plan stations, particularly in the Bayview uh for services that are in uh preliminary planning processes, including uh potential BRT on Geneva Avenue, as well as a potential Caltrain station in the Bayview at Oakdale.

Um TC has actually determined those are not actually eligible.

They do not they do not meet the standard to be considered planned transit stations under S B 79.

So those will be coming off the map off the map.

They were included on our map conservatively, they will not be on the final map.

Um so it does reduce some of the areas subject to SB 79 and some of our calculations.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Sowitzki.

Uh Supervisor Dorsey, welcome.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

I uh want to thank you for having me today to just share my perspective on this item.

I want to start by saying that I am uh generally satisfied with this plan.

I know that uh Mayor Lurie's office worked closely and thoughtfully with Senator Wiener's office to craft legislation that accomplishes our shared goals of producing more housing, and this alternative plan has been put forward to put us in control of how we accomplish that.

I do think, however, uh that there are some reasonable ways to improve the plan.

Um does allow cities to exclude industrial employment hubs.

However, I am uncomfortable with the position that these areas should never have transit oriented development.

Uh we are a transit first city, um, and we should be all be proud of that.

Um I really do believe in transit-oriented development.

I live in one of them, in fact, and uh I do want to see San Francisco move the needle on producing more housing near transit.

Decades ago, uh more parts of my district could have been considered industrial employment hubs, but are now thriving high density neighborhoods.

Uh mission Bay, I think is uh is a good example of that.

PDR space is important to our economy, of course, but I don't think we need to make the one or the other trade-offs that we might have been in a mindset to make in years past.

Um I appreciate the thoughtfulness and detail that went into this plan, and I do think it has raised legitimate questions about the best and highest use of our land near transit stops.

This is a worthwhile policy discussion, even if uh SB 79 were were not the law of our state.

In my conversations with the planning department and the city attorney's office, I understand that because we are pursuing an alternative plan, uh, we can't allow SB 79 to apply to some areas and not others.

Uh we would have to present a parcel level plan to accomplish similar heights and densities.

We are, as I understand it, now on a type timeline to pass and get uh this to HCD for review, so our options for this plan are limited.

I do have an amendment that I circulated to this committee for your consideration.

Uh this amendment would change the permanent industrial employment hub exemption to temporary and sunset that in 2032, which would align with the beginning of the seventh cycle housing element.

Um I heard from some advocates over the weekend that there is interest in moving that up to 2028, and that would align with the sixth cycle housing element mid-cycle check-in.

Um I think the benefit of that would be to hold us uh more aggressively accountable to housing capacity in those areas, and I would certainly be amenable to that in my district.

Um regardless of when this section would sunset, however, an amendment like this, I think would give us maximum flexibility for the future.

We could decide that the best policy is to permanently exempt them.

Uh we could make changes to our underlying zoning that would give us even more housing capacity than SB 79 allows.

We could decide SB 79 is the right vehicle to increase housing capacity, or we could pursue a more uh fine-grained option that would uh enable us to have other exemptions.

Even if the committee doesn't accept this amendment, um we still have other options.

Um we have plenty of times and ways that we can work on this.

There are multiple ways to accomplish the objectives of SB 79.

So I do want to commit uh that I will be working to identify policy changes that could increase housing capacity in my district, um, particularly in the West Soma neighborhood independent of our SB 79 plans.

Um I would gladly sign up uh to be held accountable to a 2028 or 2020 2032 check-in.

Um I look forward to hearing what the committee has to say about this amendment, and I would thank the uh the planning department for for their work, uh, the mayor's office, Senator Wiener's office, and obviously everybody at the San Francisco City Attorney's Office for all of their hard work on this.

So thank you for allowing me to be a guest star uh today.

Chair Melgar, thanks.

Thank you so much, Supervisor Dorsey.

Um let's go to public comment if that's okay, and then we can uh discuss uh the amendments and the uh legislation after.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair Landy Son Transportation will not hear public comment related to agenda item number 18, transit-oriented residential development.

Hold on, Mr.

Hold on.

Before you start, I see uh uh staff person for District 9 office, Anna Contreras, if I could have her come up first.

I'd appreciate it.

Thank you, Chairman Algar, for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

Uh good afternoon, committee and supervisor Dorsey.

I am Anna Herrera, legislative aide for Supervisor Fielder in District 9.

Uh our office is in support of the legislation as is before you today, and we're grateful to the planning department for all the community engagement on this plan.

I was able to attend more than one of their presentations, including those attended by a broad coalition of District 9 community groups.

A large part of their presentation and discussion for this alternative plan highlighted the permanent exemptions of the industrial employment hubs, which for District 9 means the exclusion and preservation of PDR spaces.

For over a decade, the mission district community and planning department have worked to implement the mission action plan, a community-led planning effort to address the retention of low and moderate income residents, organizations, and businesses in the face of rising displacement and gentrification.

The planning commission has unanimously endorsed uh the MAP 2020 and MAP 2030 plans, a cornerstone of which is preserving PDR spaces as they are some of the last remaining locations for high-paying working class jobs for low-income communities here.

Uh we just learned our our office just learned about the proposed amendments uh to the language around the permanent exclusions of the industrial employment hubs, and we urge the committee to instead recommend approval of the legislation as is today.

Um, as this would undo decades long of community planning, and we haven't had any community engagement on these these changes.

Our office would be happy to participate in future discussions with District 6, District 10, and other uh impacted communities around zoning changes uh around the zoning as part of a regular legislative process.

Um, and we welcome that dialogue.

We just don't think this is the appropriate way to do it.

So uh please support the item as is today, um, as this was the only one that was proposed to the District 9 community and was engaged with.

So um, and I'm here to answer any other questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Herrera.

Okay.

We're ready to begin public comment for agenda item number 18.

If you have public comment for this item, please let up to speak.

And we have a speaker who is coming up to lecture now.

I'll start your time.

Good afternoon, land use committee and transportation committee.

Uh Griffin Lee here, uh representing District 2 and more importantly, uh connected S staff and membership.

We support uh Supervisor Dorsey's proposed amendment to uh change their provision on, I think it's uh line item number two of the legislation to uh change from permanent to uh permanent exemption to temporary exemption uh of the different employment hubs uh in the Bayview Bay Shore West Soma mission.

And secondly, we do support um adopting the alternative plan, which I think is um line item number four or five in the legislation.

Um thanks, Supervisor Dorsey for making this amendment, our proposed amendment.

And uh we appreciate uh the potential to move forward uh supporting the alternative plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

The next speaker, please.

Hello.

Um I have lived in the Soma West neighborhood for 17 years.

I'm here today to speak to the urgent need for pro-housing development in our community, which the SB 79 alternative plan blocks.

Over the years I have watched Soma West fall behind the rest of the city due to poorly considered policies and exemptions made by the city.

While other neighborhoods have seen growth and revitalization, we've experienced economic stagnation and visible decline.

This is the basis of the complaint SOMA West Neighborhood Association filed to the state that the city of San Francisco is intentionally and consistently violating the AFFH legal mandate.

I urge this committee to walk the Sally zoned areas you are protecting, as I just did this this morning.

What you will see are dead zones with no with little to no pedestrian activity dotted with vacant and neglected buildings that have sat unused for years.

Killing the SB alternative plan would allow more housing, which brings much needed foot traffic that supports small businesses, improves safety, and strengthens the local economy and sense of community.

Right now, the alternative plan denies SOMA this opportunity so that the wealthier high resource neighborhoods can be illegally protected through zoning and gerrymandering.

Supervisor Dorsey and the land use committee's continued determination to treat SOMA as a containment zone unworthy of economic opportunities as other neighborhoods, not only reinforces the HCD complaint, it makes you complicit.

I urge this committee to comply with state housing laws and remove SOMA exemptions that block progress.

Any delay or prolonged sunsetting politics is unacceptable as this equates to six plus more years of no housing development.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, I'm Teresa Delala SwitzomCAN, and on behalf of Soma Filipinas also.

We ask that you continue to support the permanent exemption of industrial hubs in the SB 79 alternative plan and oppose any attempts to remove them.

PDR plays an important role in providing higher wage jobs to people with less educational opportunities, especially when compared to service sector jobs.

Protecting PDR uses is a matter of racial and social equity, ensuring that the city is investing in a variety of job opportunities, not just tech and retail.

This is emphasized in the city's general plan under industry policy 4.5, which reads control encroachment of incompatible land uses on viable industrial activity.

Production, distribution, and repair areas offer economic opportunity for adjacent neighborhoods, especially for low-income communities and communities of color.

PDR businesses can provide stable job opportunities, good wages, and diversity in types of activities and jobs.

Restrict incompatible land uses such as housing and office and the conversion of industrial buildings to other building types in PDR districts and in areas of concentrated PDR, construction or utility activities.

Current PDR zone sites in SOMA are home to a variety of businesses that provide economic diversity in the South of the Market.

The South of the market needs a diversity of uses.

We should not just become a blanket of luxury market rate housing and tech office towers.

Protective zoning exists for a reason, and we should not give in to full-scale deregulation deregulation, because this is clearly gentrification.

And this is our community's perspective.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Leah Edwards.

I've been a resident of District 6 for more than a decade.

And I just want to express my confusion and disappointment specifically over Supervisor Dorsey's support for the SB 79 alternative plan.

You built your tenure on ending exclusionary zoning.

You sponsored the housing constraints legislation, supported proposition D with Senator Wiener, voted for family zoning, and champion SB 10 implementation.

SB 79 for your district is the next step.

Ministerial approval for mixed income housing in your transit.

It is everything you have said you stand for, which is why it feels like such a betrayal that you are supporting the alternative plan.

While I understand you have shifted away from a permanent ban in favor of 2032 sunset, SOMA cannot be forced to wait six years for economic revitalization simply to serve as a mathematical denominator for an alternate plan that protects other mandate other um districts from state mandates.

The claim that there is no legislative path to carve SOMA out is a political choice that sacrifices our neighborhood.

It is not a legal reality.

Supervisor Dorsey, you will be termed out well before 2032.

This isn't a commitment to SOMA.

It's kicking the can down the road to your successor so that you don't have to stand up for this residents of SOMA that live here today.

I'm asking you to vocally oppose the SP 79 alternative plan and work to implement the default provisions of SP 79.

Our transit-rich neighborhood deserves buyright housing production that you've been spent your career advocating for, not a carve out that preserves the status quo.

400 constituents have signed a petition supporting SOMA West Neighborhoods Association HTD complaint in two weeks, entirely through word of mouth.

We have not promoted it in any way.

And we are having more people sign on every day.

That should tell you something.

You campaigned as the pro housing supervisor for D6, not the supervisor who protects exclusionary zoning everywhere while sacrificing SOMA.

If you op uh support this plan, you are owning the fact that your pro housing record ends at SOMA Sparter.

Just a gentle reminder to public commenters.

Please refrain from uh sp uh targeting your comments with specific supervisor and address the committee as a whole.

Thank you.

My name is David Singer.

I'm a resident of West and Soma.

This legislation concerns housing, including zoning code Sally and W U O.

West and Soma mixed use.

The city and state have urgent need of housing, and Western Soma has been at the forefront of providing it and is willing to continue to do so.

Yet quarter century old zoning and this legislation exclude large tracts of Western Soma from housing.

Tracks well served by transit and freeways, underused by the outdated zoned use.

West and SOMA supports the citizen state's strategic goals.

Western SOMA supports diverse mixed population and mixed uses, including all the existing ones.

This cynical exclusion is explored in the HCD complaint.

The complaint would be greatly strengthened by passing this.

Do not pass it.

Leaving these areas underdeveloped is in the interests only of those parts of the city that resist housing, resist services, and the interests of treating SOMA and its citizens not as equals, deserving respect and support, but as a containment zone.

Passing this legislation is not in the fiscal interest of the city.

SOMA contributes greatly to both sales and property tax revenue.

This zoning depresses both.

Passing this legislation would penalize a neighborhood that has supported the city's goals and reward neighborhoods that resist those goals.

Actions speak louder than words.

Western Soma is willing to work with the city.

Passing this would make it clear this is not reciprocated.

We urge you, listen to the state, listen to your own strategic needs, listen to your Western Soma neighbors who want what you say you want.

Build housing, not opposition.

Vote no.

Thank you for comments, next speaker, please.

Hello, supervisors.

David Owu with Soma Pilipinus, the Filipino Cultural Heritage District located in the South of the Market.

We ask that you keep the permanent exemption of industrial hubs and PDR space in the city's SB 79 alternative plan.

The remaining serve its arts and light industrial PDR zoning in the South of the Market is essential for economic diversity and job opportunities for working class people.

The city the city is still reeling from the economic effects of the bottoming out of the office sector due to over concentration in office and tech.

PDR provides economic diversity that helps to weather our economy against the inevitable ups and downs of the office sector.

The failure of the central Soma plan is a clear indication of this.

A plan which took a hatchet to PDR zoning in SOMA.

Opening up PDR to market rate housing development and upzoning means the removal of PDR.

Protecting PDR space is smart planning and is all it also promotes job equity.

I will quote the planning department on the importance of PDR quote.

PDR is essential for the city's economic and social diversity.

It provides middle wage jobs with good pay relative to education and opportunities for people with a diversity of skills and interests.

It also provides space for arts and creative activities that culturally enrich our city.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Zach Weisenberger with Young Community Developers in Bayview.

We are here again in support of the original SP 79 implementation ordinance and in strong opposition to any amendments that would sunset exemptions for industrial zones.

Permanent protections for all industrial land are non negotiable.

These areas are located in priority equity geographies and low-income communities of color.

The same communities that have already absorbed over 80% of new housing production in the past two decades.

We cannot allow spaces that serve working class residents to be speculated on and redeveloped for the benefit of the affluent.

Allowing the conversion of industrial land to housing will over time lead to its full replacement.

Once industrial land is converted, it does not come back.

These jobs are among the last stable middle income pathways accessible accessible without college degrees.

In neighborhoods like Bayview, PDR is central to community stability and economic opportunity, and these spaces are deeply valued by residents.

This amendment is a drastic shift in our zoning that would accelerate both job loss and displacement in communities that have already borne the brunt of the city's growth.

If these protections sunset, it will intensify displacement pressures on black and brown communities while further narrowing our economic base at a time when the city is still recovering from over reliance on boom and bust industries like tech.

SP 79 is not the appropriate vehicle to debate rezoning all of our industrial land.

There has been no outreach to stakeholders or impacted communities and no analysis of the impacts on working class jobs or neighborhoods.

Making a decision of this magnitude without a thorough process is deeply irresponsible.

As SP 79 moved through the state legislature, we worked closely with the sponsor to ensure cities retained the ability to exempt industrial areas.

This amendment undermines that work and disregards the intent of those changes.

We are on a time crunch to implement SP 79, and the planning department has put forward a thoughtful proposal with clear, durable guardrails.

For these reasons, we strongly urge you to reject this amendment and support the original ordinance created by the planning department.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Supervisor J.R.

Epler, President of the Patro Boosters Neighborhood Association here in favor of the original legislation and against the amendment as proposed.

I think all the speakers here show that we are dealing with the tension between two competing land use needs.

One is the need for additional housing, one is the need for economic diversity for the city and for blue-collar jobs that help support our dwindling middle class.

And when you have this sort of tension, uh blunt force tool is not the right way to work through these land use issues.

And that's unfortunately what this amendment would be.

I've advocated to the planning department to supervisors that we need to take a look at our light industrial portfolio.

And we need to perhaps consider how it works in today's time period.

But that's more of a community-based process.

It's a process that looks specifically at zoning areas because not all of these zoning areas are the same.

They each have different uses, they each have different struggles, they each have different needs, and they each need to be dressed uniquely if addressed at all.

This isn't to say that uh our neighbors in West Soma uh are incorrect in what they identified that their needs are.

What's incorrect right now is the mechanism of using SB 79 to put a date on when those needs aren't even addressed specifically, but addressed in a sort of broad way that may allow housing in areas incompatible for it and create additional issues.

We did that once in the city.

It was when live work started to move into the industrial areas.

And in order to fix it, we had to go through a community-driven process that resulted in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, a plan that has been extraordinarily successful in developing parts of this city and preserving blue-collar jobs.

I think that community engagement around right-sizing our industrial portfolio is important, and I hope that you will consider that instead of going through the process of sunsetting the protections on our industrial areas.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, supervisors, Peter Papadopoulos today speaking on behalf of United to Save the Mission.

First off, I want to thank the planning staff for their diligence in this implementation plan and for being responsive to community throughout the process and trying to ensure that they are achieving the most constructive outcome possible under the law.

As someone who did participate again with the sponsor and amendments on the state level, we think these changes are really important given the negotiations that took place as well.

We think it's critical to leave the original version at this time.

It appears to do two things we think to the best of its ability.

It ensures we're minimizing the impacts of this uh SB 79 based upzoning, particularly in our priority equity geographies, which, as uh YCD stated, uh have already built 80 percent of the housing in the city, that roughly large handful of communities.

And recent granular studies do show that new market rate housing among low-income workers increases their risk of displacement by 11 to 14 percent.

Um second, it's the protection of these vital PDR jobs, particularly for our immigrant community, our black and brown community of the East Side.

These are the best paying jobs.

We don't want uh a gold rush to come on with the anticipation that every low-cost warehouse can now eventually be upscale housing.

It's gonna lead to a clearing of thousands and thousands of good paying jobs, and those folks will have to fall back to lower paying retail, et cetera.

So I don't think any of us want to see that, so I think there's a good conversation to have there.

And that's why, you know, we think this is supported, particularly if you look at the mission.

It's uh it's even part of the mission statement of Mission Action Plan 2020 and 2030.

And uh the Eastern neighborhoods, as you just heard from Mr.

Epler calls it out as an important part of this framework.

So we hope you'll support the original version.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Sean Aklan.

I serve on the board of SOMA West Neighborhood Association.

Our supervisor proudly claimed that there is no daylight between him and Senator Scott Wiener on housing.

Yet this proposed sorry, I'm gonna stop you again because this has happened during this public comment.

Please refrain from uh targeting your comments to a specific supervisor and speak to the committee as a whole.

So we're discussing policy for my district.

There's no way to address policy.

No, there is without singling out a specific person.

Just be respectful and follow the rules.

Thank you.

Okay.

We will leave off campaign commitments from today's comment, then thank you.

Um the proposed amendment does the exact opposite of that commitment on his signature legislation.

If you allow any housing ban today, regardless of the sunset date, you will have failed SOMA again.

Let us be honest about the alternative plan.

Slide 11 from last week said the quiet part out loud.

By officially exempting SOMA, the city artificially lowers its total housing capacity requirement.

This whole group here is perfectly willing to sacrifice our district as geographic filler to protect the West side.

I want to be clear.

We are highly sensitive to displacement and care deeply about our three cultural districts.

I have personal relationships with folks that feel differently about this, and I care about them.

But the parcels we are talking about today are not existing homes, nor are they existing filled businesses.

They are hundreds of thousands of commercial and office spaces that have been vacant for years, nearly bordering on ineligible because of the SB 79 text.

To save this map, your office is now proposing to shift to a 2032 sunset.

That is completely unacceptable.

We that is, as Leah said, kicking the can down the road to your successor and pushing SOMA's recovery into the next decade.

As other neighborhoods have recently shown, putting political convenience over the interests of your own residents has consequences.

SOMA desperately needs economic revitalization and buy right housing today.

2028 sunset is the absolute maximum compromise that the coalition could possibly accept.

And let me reiterate the neighborhood never asked for this ban, does not consent to it, wants and needs housing.

We demand that you strike it from it.

We expect you all to lead.

Thank you.

Thank you for your list.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 18?

Okay.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Mahmoud Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Supervisor Dorsey, for coming in to uh share your perspective amendments as well.

And I want to thank everyone who came out uh today in public comment uh on both sides um of the choice before us today.

Um I want to speak uh quickly in support of amending the legislation as Supervisor Dorsey has illustrated, and specifically on exempting until 2028 uh as opposed to the permanent exemption that is in the current legislation.

Um we have a hard deadline where the housing element requires us to have about 29,000 units and build of building permits approving those number of units by around 2028.

If we don't have that approved, we have a circuit breaker that will effectively go off, and we will have to take a hard look at other options to fully complement the options of creating more homes.

The 2028 deadline as proposed by Supervisor Dorsey as a temporary exemption can serve as a forcing function for the city to find other solutions that we won't be able to justify extending this SB 79 exemption and housing will be allowed in the industrial hubs.

I have talked to Senator Wiener's team, and they have informed me that uh when they authored SB 79, it was not their intention to offer a permanent exemption for PDR.

Um I believe is this compromise that Supervisor Dorsey has proposed is not permanently exempting, obviously, these zones, but it gives a couple years to the respective supervisors of district uh six, nine, and ten to do that community engagement to come up with a permanent plan going forward.

Um so today is not the day that we're going to change the underlying zoning in the industrial areas.

That's not what this amendment does.

Uh, but it makes clear that uh we we desire to potentially have a future where we have housing near transit access and pre-existing mixed-use environment like SOMA.

And I believe that this legislation combined with the amendments can allow us to add realism to the trade-offs that we have to make in a very short period of time.

And so I will move that the amendments is written to the record by Supervisor Dorsey with the effectuate at 2028 sunset date for the exemption be moved after when we start to vote.

Thank you.

Starting with SB 330, SB 35, SB 423, SP 2011.

I mean, there's a lot of legislation that has happened.

At the same time, we have a new housing element that is more robust than I've ever seen it.

And we have just rezone uh two-thirds of the land in San Francisco, which is something we should have done decades ago.

Um, unlike some public commenters stated, we are not protecting the West Side.

In fact, we have just upzoned uh the West Side and the North of San Francisco.

Now uh SOMA mission and Bayview uh went through a robust planning process that resulted in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan um, you know, 25 years ago.

Um, 25 years is a long time, and things change.

Um things have changed in terms of industrial uses uh uh from the first dot com boom till today.

Um I do generally think that having permanent prohibitions on things is not a great planning thing uh because the world changes.

Um so I am open to engaging in a conversation uh with all supervisors as to whether the definitions and the prohibitions are appropriate today and going forward.

I'm open to that, but I don't think this is the vehicle to do it.

We need to pass this uh in order to uh be exempted from SB 79.

That's something we consistently told everyone uh for the past year as we were negotiating the family zoning plan.

We told community this, we told all communities this.

Um I want to thank uh in particular uh Madison at Supervisor Dorsey's district and also you, Supervisor Dorsey, because you um fought for your district, made sure the hub was included in the family zoning plan um and have been consistent uh in supporting the need for housing.

Do I think we have it right?

You know, probably not.

Uh I you know would like to see housing above the Costco, for instance.

But is it appropriate to have it above all industrial uses?

I don't think so.

I just think that this is nuance and it requires a thoughtful process that above all involves all the communities that are involved.

And this um idea just hasn't been vetted by all communities.

Uh we can see just from the public comment today that there's dissent uh among folks about how we should proceed, and that's precisely why we have a robust planning process, is to incorporate um all of the conversations, the history, but also the hopes and dreams for the future among a very diverse uh group of um communities.

So uh this is why I think you know we should take our time.

Um I look forward to Supervisor Fielder being back and engaging in this conversation since uh her district is very much affected.

Um I do also look forward to reviewing uh what this um definitions and prohibitions are in Sally and PDR and all of these districts to see if they are appropriate today and they will be appropriate tomorrow.

So with that, um I will be supporting the legislation as written today.

Oh, okay, Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Malga.

I echo a lot of what you share.

And Colleen, I also want to repeat myself that uh my goal is that we should continue to incentivizing development in areas that can absore it without causing harms, such as area with less displacement risks.

The industrial employment hubs are area of the city where we have historically instituted controls to protect production, distribution, and repair uses.

share and colleague I also want to repeat myself that uh my goal is that we should continue to incentivizing development in areas that can absorb it without causing harms such as area with less displacement risk that industrial employment hubs are area of the city where we have historically instituted controls to protect production distribution and repair uses and I believe it's continue to be critical as of today to retain protection that don't further incentivize the displacement of PDI use that sustain our blue collar workforce that's why because there's an intense competition for LEN and without protection we'll lose out on critical contribution of our PDR sector to help stabilize working class families and also help to sustain the economy the economy and the cultural diversity in our city as mentioned it this amendment would impact many areas not only in District 6 but also in District 9 and 10 where we have this goal to protect the PDA industry sector that provide accessible good paying job opportunities for our local bull collar workforce in crafting this ordinance I believe that we should continue to utilize the full exclusion and exemption allowable under the law SB 79 allows for the industrial employment hubs to be permanently excluded for good reason as this is why today I also won't able to support the amendment and as I will continue to support the legislation as written thank you thank you supervisor so I think that we need to vote on the amendment first and then I will proceed with more motions.

There's a motion that's been offered by member Mahmoud that the land use and transportation committee amend the ordinance as presented with amendments from Supervisor Dorsey on that motion to amend Vice Chair Chen.

Chen no member Mahmoud Mahmoud I Chair Melgar no Melgar no Madam Chair there is one eye and two no's with supervisors Chen and Melgar in the dissent thank you sorry about that supervisor Dorsey and supervisor Mahmoud um I will now make a motion that we amend the legislation as presented to incorporate the amendments as presented by Mr Sowitsky to the table and that we recommend the legislation as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation two motions both offered by the chair the first to accept amendments presented by the planning department and the second to recommend as amended on those motions vice chair chen.

Chen I member Mahmoud Mahmoud I Chair Melgar aye Melgar I madam chair there are three ayes okay that motion passes thank you.

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

There's no further business.

Thank you we're adjourned