San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Good afternoon, everyone. This meeting will come to order. Welcome to the 12/08/2025 regular meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I'm supervisor Mirna Melgaard, chair of this committee, joined by vice chair supervisor Cheyenne Chen, and supervisor Bilal Mahmood. The committee clerk today is John Carroll. And I would also like to acknowledge, James Kawana from SFGovTV for helping us, broadcast this meeting. Mister Clerk, do you have this, any announcements?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Thank you, madam chair. Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phone or other electronic devices you've brought with you into the chamber today. 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 johnperiodcarroll@sfgov.org, or you may send your written comments via US Postal Service to our office in City Hall. The address is 1 Doctor Carlton B Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102. If you submit public comment in writing, I will forward your comment to the members of this committee and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are speaking. Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of 12/16/2025 unless otherwise stated.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you, very much, mister Clerk. Please call item number one.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number one is a resolution adding the commemorative street name Brian Craig Kelly Way to Hollister Avenue between Jennings Street and Ingalls Street in recognition of Brian Craig Kelly and to enshrine his legacy in the Bayview Hunters Point community.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you. We are joined by supervisor Shamone Walton from district ten, the sponsor of this legislation. Welcome, supervisor.

[Shamann Walton (Supervisor, District 10)]: Thank you so much, chair Melgaard. And just wanna say to the public that this is a long time coming. We have been working with the family on this commemorative street name designation for quite some time to honor the name of Brian Craig Kelly, who was gunned down years ago. And Hollister is the street that he grew up on. He's a member He was a member of the Bayview Hunters Point community, outstanding member of the community. He has comes from an amazing family, and he has family here with us this afternoon. And so just excited to to bring this forward so that we can honor his memory and do right by his memory. Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you so much, for your efforts, supervisor Walton. Let's go to, public comment on this item.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation. We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number one, Brian Craig Kelly Way. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern at this time. I'm pointing it out with my left hand. I think that we have some speakers who are ready to speak on this item. Madam chair, it appears we have no speakers.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. Thank you so much. I would like to be added as a cosponsor of this legislation, please, supervisor. And thank you on behalf of mothers and children in San Francisco for acknowledging this. With that, Mr. Clerk, I will make a motion that we send this out to the full board, with a positive recommendation. And I failed to close public comment, so I'm gonna do that now. Public comment is closed.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Madam chair, I forgot to mention that this item was sorry. No. That's correct. Madam chair, I'm recording a motion from you that this item be recommended to the board of supervisors on that motion, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar?

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you. That motion passes. Thank you, supervisor Walton. With that, mister Clerk, let's go to items two through four together, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number two is a resolution declaring the intention of the board of supervisors to vacate portions of Hawes Street, Griffith Street, and Bancroft Avenue for the development of the fire department training facility at 1236 Carroll Avenue and setting a hearing date for all persons interested in the proposed vacation of street areas within. That that item is on our agenda as a potential committee report and may be sent for consideration by the board tomorrow, 12/09/2025. Agenda item number three is an ordinance amending the zoning map of the planning code to change the zoning use district designation of various parcels along the full width of Bancroft Avenue between Griffith Street and Hawes Street and the full width of Griffiths Griffith Street and Hawes Street between Carroll Avenue and Armstrong Avenue, collectively known as the 1236 Carroll Avenue project. From production, distribution, and repair District 2 to public, changing the height and bulk district designation of the aforementioned parcels and the and assessor's parcel block number 4852, lot Number 001, from 40 x to 90 x. The ordinance affirms applying department's secret determination and makes other findings. Agenda item number four is an ordinance ordering the vacation of portions of Hawes Street, Griffith Street, and Bancroft Avenue for the development of the San Francisco Fire Department training facility at 1236 Carroll Avenue, reserving public utility and access rights in favor of the city, and easement rights for existing PG and E overhead electrical facilities. It approves the interdepartmental transfer of the street vacation area from public works to the fire department, authorizes official acts in connection with the ordinance, affirms the planning department's secret determination, and makes other findings. Madam chair.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you, very much. We have a few, presentations from the fire, public works, and planning department. But before that, I will turn it over to supervisor Walton in whose district this project is in.

[Shamann Walton (Supervisor, District 10)]: Thank you, chair Melgar. It looks like we got a few items on the agenda this afternoon. One, just wanna say that this is very important for the city and county of San Francisco for the fire department, but also exciting for the Baby Hunters Point community to have the fire training center as someone who has participated in fire ops and had the opportunity, of course, to learn from our fire department and to see the amazing work that they do every day in community. To have a facility like this in your own backyard is something that I think will be benefit to all of our community. There are benefits, that are coming along with this facility in terms of street improvements, opportunities for jobs, and resources. So just wanted to say that I'm happy to be here to support all of these items and look forward to moving these forward so this state of the art training center can be in our community. Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you so much, supervisor Walton. The first presenter that we have is Gareth Miller, assistant deputy chief for the San Francisco Fire Department. Excuse me. So, yes, let's have planning go first.

[Rebecca Salgado (Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. I'll be brief. Rebecca Salgado, planning department staff. On 10/16/2025, the planning commission passed a resolution by a vote of six to zero, recommending approval of the zoning map amendment ordinance to the board of supervisors. The commission did not request any modifications to the ordinance as proposed. This concludes the commission report, and I am available for any questions. Thank you. Okay.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: So we will now have, Gareth Miller. Welcome, deputy chief.

[Gareth Miller (Assistant Deputy Chief, SFFD)]: Good afternoon, super chair Malaga, supervisors. It's pleasure to be here and thank you for the opportunity to address this legislation and the project that it impacts. As you know, since 1866, the San Francisco fire department has been protecting lives and property. For the day, we are truly an all hazards agency. In addition to extinguishing fires, we're mitigating medical emergencies, behavioral crises, and affecting technical rescues. The current fire department training facility was built in 1954, and most of our training occurs at the formal naval facility on Treasure Island that's scheduled for demolition. At a new division of training, all of our SFFD firefighters, EMTs, and paramedics will begin their service. They'll take up the mission and the values of the fire department and return throughout their career for skills maintenance, updates, and professional development. The legislation you're considering is a foundational component of this project, which is truly essential for our department and our city. So thank you.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you so much. And we have also Scott Moran, from the San Francisco Department of Public Works.

[Scott Moran (San Francisco Public Works)]: Thank you, Madam Chair, supervisors. Apologies for the miscommunication earlier. So I'll give you a quick overview of the project and the legislation. The project is a consolidation of the two existing training facilities for the San Francisco Fire Department, one on Treasure Island and one in the Mission at 19th And Folsom. These two facilities are gonna be consolidated and moved to a new facility at 1236 Carroll Avenue in, the Bayview District. This shows a rendering of, where the project is or the site is relative to the surrounding area. It is across the slough, Yosemite Slough, from Hunters Point on the South Side, and just west of the old Candlestick Park location. It is directly across from the original Alice Griffith housing, which has since been demolished, and the new housing is just to the east or the right of that. This area has, the surrounding uses. Directly to the north is light industrial, PDR 2. And then directly to the west is a site owned by a company, Prologis, and it currently does organic material recycling. Directly to the east is California State Parks land. That land, they are eventually planning to build a state park visitor center. And then the Prologis site to the left has a potential option of building a four story distribution center at that site. Directly south is part of the Candlestick Point redevelopment area, mixed use of housing and, high density, and then more light industrial to the left. The planned build out of this site puts all of the occupied buildings, which are the main classroom, the apparatus building, and all the support buildings, up against Carol. And then at the back of the property are the unoccupied training structures. They're simulated buildings that are not occupied and they're only used for training purposes that simulate a variety of different conditions in San Francisco. There are all the access to the site will be from Carroll Avenue, the primary access being on the East Side. This is a rendering of what the build out will look like. Again, the training buildings, which are a mix of different kinds of buildings in San Francisco, in the back on the left. And then the occupied buildings more in the red color along the front of Carroll. The improvements also include all new street improvements and trees along Carroll Avenue. The, this is another rendering showing it from a different perspective looking towards Hunters Point. This is the main primary entrance for all vehicles coming and going from the site, as well as the, public entrance. This is the pedestrian entrance from Carroll Avenue. And then just looking down some of the improvements along Carroll Avenue. The legislative overview. This site is actually made up of 26 individual parcels on two city blocks and three paper streets. Streets that have never been built. The, total legislation includes the vacation of the three streets and the planning code map amendments to change the zoning from PDR two to P and the bulk height from 40X to 90X. The street vacations, this shows more clearly where those streets are, the paper streets that have never been built, three of them. And then this shows in perspective those three streets. And they, basically, because of the landscape and the slopes, it'd be very difficult to actually build streets and they would go nowhere because the bay, the bay is right there. It shows another view, also showing that it drops off 15 feet on the north side. In those paper streets, there are some existing utilities. There is a large box sewer, 18 by 18, that's San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. And, then there's also a, three foot six by two foot nine sewer main that runs under Griffith Street. On the far west side of Hawes Street, on the left side of the page, you can see the green lines. Those are the overhead power lines that feed the two buildings directly to the north of the site, the industrial buildings. For the existing utilities, we have, met with PG and E, and we have easement language that's incorporated into the ordinance. Also for PUC I'm sorry, PG and E, we have the easement language. For PUC, we have a memorandum of understanding that was signed, for this property regarding, the use of the space and, going forward. The adjacent land owners who would be affected by the closure of these two, the vacation of these two streets, the state parks to the East and Prologis to the left, have both written letters of support for the vacation. The planning code map amendments. This shows the, the site relative to the existing use, the mix of PDR2 and P, and the plan is to change it all to P. The bulk height change is primarily due to the fact that we have two taller training structures. One that, is a training tower that's seven stories tall to simulate an apartment building or an office building. And then, also a simulated communications tower, 80 foot tall, to do rescues of people who might have been electrocuted from a tower. This shows the build out of the site relative to the potential future build out of Candlestick Park, or not Candlestick Point development, and the, building to the, south or the east of the site. The west of the site, I'm sorry. And then the next page shows sections. This is looking down Carroll to the east, showing the heights, relative heights compared to the future development across the street for the Candlestick Point development. The two taller buildings are purposely pushed as far away from Carroll, so it's not an imposing element, in the design. Then looking from Carroll at the bottom of the page and looking north towards, the slough, it shows it relative to the potential future building that would be built to the left. This again shows that rendering of the site with the, simulated communications tower in the center, and then the tall tower for office building simulation. Community outreach. These are all the different meetings that we've had with the community. The one in particular I wanted to point out was Janu or the number six, which was on August 20. It was a meeting of the Bayview Hunters Point citizen advisory committee, where they voted unanimously to recommend to the planning commission commission the approval of the planning code map amendments. So in summary, the street vacation, we have legislation of the street vacations, the three paper streets, and then the planning code map amendments to change the zoning and the bulk height. That is the summary of it. But in addition to that, we submitted this morning, Madam Chair, some amendments to the ordinance. And those were in response to some comments that we received from PG and E about some specific requests. That was the primary area was focused. I've also been told by the city attorney to, point out that based on the street vacation laws, the January 6 meeting that is proposed for the hearing of the street vacation will require, the board to sit as a committee of the whole while considering the ordinance. And that is it. And I have opened it up for any questions you might have.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. Are there no more presentations? No. Okay. Great. Thank you so much. I don't see anyone on the roster with questions or concerns among my colleagues. So with that, let's go to public comment on this item, please, mister Clerk.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers two, three, and four, which all relate to the proposed project at 1236 Carroll Avenue and a potential street vacation order. If you have public comment for these three items, please come forward to the lectern at this time. Madam chair, it appears we have no speakers.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. Supervisor Walton, did you want to make any further remarks before I make a motion?

[Shamann Walton (Supervisor, District 10)]: No. Thank you, chair. No. Thank you, chair Melgar. I just want to make sure that, obviously, these three items go forward to the full board with a positive recommendation.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. Thank you, very much, supervisor. But I because it's a little bit complicated and there's amendments, I'm gonna take them one by one. So, first, I would like to make a motion to send item two, file number two hundred and fifty thousand eight two one, the resolution of intent, street vacation for 1236 Carroll Avenue to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation as a committee report, as amended.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: We haven't amended it yet.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. I'm sorry. Let's do the amendment first. Sorry. Let's do the amendment as was circulated.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Madam chair, agenda item number two is the resolution that schedules the committee of the whole, among other things. And the amendment that would be necessary for agenda item number two is just to slot in the date and time for that Committee of the Whole hearing dates that we can conduct all of our noticing. It fills in a blank that is on the final Noted.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: So let's take a vote on that first, on the amendment. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: And the date and time that's proposed is

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: January 6. It is the first meeting of the year for the

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: board meeting. 3PM. On a motion offered by chair Melgar to amend agenda item number two to include the Committee of the Whole hearing date. Vice Chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: I.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Malgar, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on the amendments.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you. So that motion passes. So now, let's go to item number two. File number 250821, as amended. I'd like to make a motion that we send it out as a committee report to tomorrow's meeting.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion by the chair that the resolution in agenda item number two be recommended as a committee report as amended for consideration tomorrow, vice chair Chen. Chen, I, member Makmund. Makmund, I. Chair Malaga.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Malaga, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that motion.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: That motion passes. Thank you. Now I would like to make a motion to send item number three, file number 250823, the planning code zoning map at 41236 Carroll Avenue to the full board of supervisors, meeting on Tuesday, 01/06/2026 with a positive recommendation.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair that agenda item number three be sent with the recommendation of land use and transportation for consideration at the board meeting on 01/06/2026. Vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood I. Chair Melgar.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes on that motion.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: That motion passes. So now item number four, file number 250824, the street vacation order and inter part mental property transfer for 1236 Carroll Avenue. I'd like, to make a motion to adopt the amendment as read into the record for, item number four.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair that agenda item number four be amended as presented by the department, vice chair Chen. Chen, I, member Mahmood Aye. Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar. Aye. Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you. And finally, I'd like to make a motion to send item number four, file number 250,824, as amended, to the full board meeting on Tuesday, January 6, without recommendation, as amended.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by the chair that agenda item number four be sent as amended for consideration by the board on 01/06/2025 without the recommendation of land use and transportation, vice chair Chen Chen, I. Member Mahmoud. Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: I.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes on that motion.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor Walton. The next one's yours too. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Let's go to item number five, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number five is an ordinance delegating authority to the public works director to vacate certain streets and public service easements in the Potrero Hope SF project site, generally bounded by 26th Wisconsin, 23rd Missouri, 22nd Texas, 25th and Connecticut south of 25th Streets, including portions of 22nd, 23rd, 25th, 26th, Arkansas, Connecticut, Dakota, Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin Streets, Turner Terrace, and Watchman Way to expedite implementation of the HOPE SF project. It authorizes the city to transfer its interest in the vacation area to the San Francisco housing authority or the project sponsor, delegating to the director of property authority to grant, accept, and terminate easements to facilitate the street vacations. It adopts a public works order recommending the street and easement vacation processes, waives the application of administrative code chapter 23 regarding real estate transactions to the extent inconsistent with the ordinance, finds that the street vacation areas are exempt surplus property under the California Surplus Land Act, authorizes other official acts as defined within the ordinance in connection, and adopts findings under CEQA as well as findings of consistency with the general plan and eight priority policies of planning code section one zero one point one. This item is also on our agenda as a potential committee report, and it may be sent for consideration by the board during their meeting tomorrow, 12/09/2025.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you so much, mister Clerk. We have, Shauna Gates here, from, Public Works. Welcome.

[Shauna Gates (Public Works Project Manager)]: Great. Good afternoon, supervisors Melgar, Chin, and Mahmood. My name is Shauna Gates. I'm a project manager with Public Works. I'm joined today with colleagues from the mayor's office of housing and community development, public works subdivision and mapping, and the Patero Hope SF development partner who are available to after this presentation to answer any questions you may have today, I'll be presenting on a proposed ordinance that would delegate authority to the director of public works and the director of real estate to approve vacation of certain street and public service easements in the Potrero Hope development area to facilitate implementation of the development agreement. Potrero Hope SF received approval of a development agreement in 2017 and is proceeding in phases to complete the redevelopment and reconstruction of new public streets, utilities, and open spaces within the 38 acre site. The infrastructure phase one is complete and phase two is nearing completion. Demolition of existing unoccupied buildings in the phase three area will be completed next year. The graphic on the right shows in bold dash line, the Pertraro Hopas F development boundary and the existing streets that would be vacated in the future, subject to this ordinance are shown in gray. The anticipated phase lines are also shown in, for reference. This ordinance proposes to delegate authority to the public works director to vacate streets and public service easements within the Potrero Hope SF development boundary and delegate authority to the director of property to

[Cynthia Gomez (UNITE HERE Local 2)]: execute and record deeds for transferring interest in the

[Shauna Gates (Public Works Project Manager)]: vacated area to the housing authority, record deeds for transferring interest in the vacated area to the housing authority or project sponsor to facilitate the development agreement and grant, accept and terminate easements needed for street vacations. This ordinance would also perform other related actions listed on the slide, including waiving any conflicts of the administrative code chapter 23, declaring the vacated areas exempt from surplus property, authorizing necessary official acts to implement the ordinance, adopt CEQA findings and confirm consistency with the city's general plan and planning code. The proposed delegate delegation has been recommended for approval by both the planning department and director of real estate, and is supported by MOCD housing authority of San Francisco and the development partner as evidenced by support letters found in the items board file under the current process. And without this legislation, each application for street vacation requires full board approval by ordinance, which takes at least six months from date of application because the development is proceeding in phases. Multiple phases of street vacations would be required under the proposed delegation of authority. Public works would be able to evaluate applications, coordinate with the affected city departments and make determinations for street and easement vacations without requiring further board authorization. This would greatly reduce the amount of time and effort involved for approvals required to support the development. This ordinance rec ordinance recognizes the necessity of street and easement vacations within the development area to fulfill the intent of the development agreement and deliver new public streets and utilities that will support new housing and public spaces. Public works would continue to review applications and perform the same steps to evaluate for approval, including conducting a public hearing, confirming the street or easement vacation facilitates delivery of the project and is appropriate based on phasing incorporates any necessary conditions, including provision of easements or access requirements, and also confirming all the conditions that would have been required for board approval, including making findings on under the California streets and highways code, approving an SUR map and legal descriptions for the areas to be vacated, assigning APMs for the affected parcels, obtaining planning department's general plan consistency and CEQA findings, and that the developer has demonstrated a good faith effort effort to obtain consent from the adjacent property owners. Once this process have completed public works would then issue and record an order approving the vacation with any required conditions. I hope today's presentation has demonstrated the benefits of the proposed legislation to facilitate and expedite the redevelopment of the Potrero Hope SF project and request that the committee move this ordinance forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. Thank you. Take any questions you have.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you so much, miss Gates. That was a very thorough presentation. I appreciate it. Let's I don't see anyone on the roster with questions, so let's go to public comment on this item, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number five, street vacation for various streets related to the Patura Hope SF project. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern at this time. Madam chair, it appears we have no speakers.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: K. Public comment on this item is now closed. So, I would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be recommended as a committee report to vice chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member, Mahmood. Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar?

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, aye. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you. That motion passes. Let's go to item number six, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number six is an ordinance amended the planning code to allow additional uses as principally or conditionally permitted in historic buildings citywide. Exempt historic buildings in certain Eastern neighborhood plan areas from conditional use authorization, otherwise required to remove production, distribution, and repair institutional community and arts activities uses, and from providing replacement space for such uses, make conforming amendments to provisions affected by the foregoing, including zoning control tables. It also affirms the planning department's secret determination and makes findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of planning code section one zero one point one, as well as findings of public necessity convenience and general welfare under planning code section three zero two. Like the previous item, this item is on our agenda as a potential committee report and may be sent for consideration by the board at their meeting tomorrow, 12/06/2025.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: It is on our agenda as a committee report, but, it's the the the we have gotten a request from the mayor's office to, continue this item to the call of the chair so that we can work out some details, particularly as it pertains to buildings in Districts 9 And 11, as I understand it. Is there anything that you want to add, miss Gleickstein?

[Ms. Gluckstein (Mayor's Office)]: No, that's correct. We are requesting a continuance. And thank you for your work with us on that, Supervisor Malgar. I just wanted to mention, for the public who might be tuning in, that we do plan to incorporate amendments coming out of the recommendations from the public at the last hearing, to specify that formula retail hotel uses and cannabis uses, in Chinatown, but working with District 11 Supervisor Chen, citywide to ensure that cannabis uses, those controls would not change, as would be the case for hotel uses and formula retail uses. So we're working on those amendments and appreciate your patience with this ordinance. Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you, Ms. Gluckstein. So let's go ahead and take public comment. We're continue this item, and I will make a motion after public comment.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Land use and transportation. We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number six, adaptive reuse for historic buildings. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern at this time. We may have a speaker approaching.

[Cynthia Gomez (UNITE HERE Local 2)]: Afternoon, supervisors. Cynthia Gomez. You know, here local too. So if I understand the announcement right, this what I'm about to say is moot, and will mostly apply whenever this is re heard. But wanted to just, flag that I think our issues, as the last time, the last time as regards to hotel use, were amended. And so assuming that, that we are, that we'll get a chance to read them, we will have read them before the next hearing. And it sounds like there'll be more to discuss as well. So, I think that that's all we need to say now, and we will be back whenever this is reheard.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you, miss Gomez.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Do we have any further speakers for agenda item number six? Madam chair?

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. Public comment on the item is now closed, and I would like to make a motion that we continue this item to the call of the chair.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion offered by chair Melgar that this ordinance be continued to the chair, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood, I. Chair Malgar. I. Malgar, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you. That motion passes. Let's go to item number seven, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number seven is an ordinance amending the planning code to, first, require property owners seeking to demolish residential units to replace all units that are being demolished. Second, require relocation assistance to affected occupants of those units and to former occupants who vacated due to harassment, improper buyout agreements, owner move in owner move ins pursuant to the Ellis Act or other serious and imminent hazards with additional assistance and protections for lower income tenants. Third, modify the planning code definition of demolition. Fourth, modify the conditional use criteria that apply to projects to demolish residential units, amending the administrative code to, fifth, require landlords to provide additional relocation assistance to lower income tenants who are being required to vacate temporarily due to capital improvements or rehabilitation work. Sixth, update the standards and procedures for hearings related to tenant harassment. Seventh, require additional disclosures and buyout agreements. Eighth, require an additional disclosure in notice of intent to withdraw units under the Ellis Act. Ninth, making various non substantive changes and clarifications, affirming the planning department's secret determination, making other findings throughout the ordinance, madam chair.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you so much, mister clerk. Supervisor Chen, the floor is yours.

[Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you, supervisor thank you, chair Malgar. Colleague, I really appreciate, all your collaborations as we move this legislation closer to the final form. I I understand that, supervisor Malgar's, amendments are also ready today, to present and for the committee to be considered. But before we move those amendments, my office would like to work on additional standard to achieve deeper affordability in priority equity geographies. Since we, my office, don't have these amendments ready, so I would like to require referral back to the planning commissions. So I would like to make a request to duplicate the file today. And with that, I'll pass back the floor to you, supervisor Malaga, to present your amendments. Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. Thank you so much, supervisor Chen. It has been a complicated set of circumstances and complicated legislation. I'm so grateful to you and your staff for tackling it and including so many people in the discussion. Really particularly grateful also to Milena and the planning department for all her work and our city attorneys who have worked overtime on this one. So I'm grateful for that. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation didn't receive as much press as the family zoning plan. And it's too bad, because I think this will be by far more impactful. And it covers the entire city, as it should have, you know, years ago. I appreciate everybody's work, and very much appreciate the patience of the advocates who have put in also long hours into getting this right. There are provisions here, such as assistance for tenants temporarily moving out for capital improvements, for fire damage, that are long overdue. I think in all of our districts, we've experienced this. I'm happy that we had this vehicle to improve things for tenants on those longstanding situations. I have some friendly amendments, as you alluded, Supervisor Chen, which were drafted in partnership with the advocates. And thank you again to the city attorney for all their work. They are substantive, so they are going to have to sit for a week before we vote on them. The first amendment starts on page 13. It is to rejigger the conditional use criteria that the planning commission uses when granting demolition permissions. So that three of them are now requirements in order to be granted permits rather than options. The three criteria have to do with first complying with the relocation assistance for tenant, not harassing tenants. And third, properly filing a buyout agreement with the rent board. Then on page sixteen, seventeen, the criteria that the planning commission uses to determine whether a project has reached a threshold of 70% that are also reordered as F, G, and H. Then on page 21, section 317.2 would be amended so that the landlord who conducted a good faith buyout but failed to do so perfectly, can petition the rent board to rule that they substantively complied with a spirit of 37.9 E's buyout requirements. And on page 55, the process for a landlord to petition the rent board is described, and also sets a timeline to make this decision. And that completes my amendments. I don't know if you have any further comments on that, supervisor Chen. Okay. So if that is the case, and I don't see anyone else on the roster, and there's no other questions, let's go to public comment on this item, please. Mister Clark.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, madam chair. Land use and transportation. We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number seven, tenant protection ordinance. If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lectern that I'm pointing out with my left hand. And if you're waiting for your chance to speak, you can line up to speak along that wall. Oh, please come forward. You're the first speaker. You may begin.

[Zach Weisenberger (Young Community Developers)]: Good afternoon, supervisor. Zach Weisenberger with Young Community Developers. We wanna thank supervisors Chen and Melgar for their diligent work on this critical legislation. We also wanna thank supervisor Chen and the committee for moving to duplicate the file, which we hope happens, which will enable us to continue developing PEG specific demolition protections, a critical component of this legislation. Strengthening peg specific safeguards would fulfill the core purpose of these designations, protecting communities that have shouldered much of the city's growth while experiencing the greatest inequities. We also wanna voice our strong support for rep's request to continue tightening the demolition definition. Fully closing loopholes related to renovictions is vital to ensure tenants are not displaced through construction practices that circumvent, the intent of the ordinance. Thank you again, and, we hope to, move this work forward with the duplicated file, and we look forward to continuing our collaboration to ensure strong equitable protections for tenants and pegs. Thank you.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

[Ken Fujioka (Chinatown CDC / SF Anti-Displacement Coalition)]: Madam chair, members of the committee, Ken Fujioka. I'm with Chinatown Community Development Center and also with the San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition. I wanna express our appreciation for both supervisor Malaga and supervisor Chen for working on this complex piece of legislation, and recognize the staff that have put in extraordinary hours. I know we just got amendments about, well, at 01:00 today, and we're looking through them. And, you know, I have to say, it it it looks, looks good to us on on on first review. I think, you know, I think the whole project, the whole challenge of of trying to one of the one of the key challenges is is the threat of evictions displacement in the city is so high, it's increasing today, and we're we we in the comp it it is enormously challenging to protect tenants against all the pressures that the new incentives for development create. So but I I wanna, again, appreciate the efforts to address those issues and anticipate those challenges in advance. So we understand this will be coming back next week. But again, thank you all for your work.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number seven?

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. Public comment on this item is now closed. So mister Clerk, as I heard it, vice chair Chen wants to duplicate the file before we make the amendments. And refer it back to planning to talk further about priority equity geography. Can we do that?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: That would mean that the version of the ordinance that we have right now with no other amendments gets referred back to the planning commission for consideration?

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: That way, it would be different from the amended file that we vote on.

[Brad Russi (Deputy City Attorney)]: Deputy deputy city attorney Brad Russi. I think the committee could amend the duplicate file next year and have that amended version go back to planning for consideration. Or I or it could be, I guess, referred back now and have those amendments discussed there, before coming back to the board, when they're made, unless the clerk disagrees with that procedure. I think, normally, the amendments would be made here and then sent to planning

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: if it required referral back.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Correct. But the amendments that we're making today are do not need to go back to planning. The amendments that need to go back to planning have not yet been written, but it is about the, you know, having further protections in geography. Priority equity geography areas, which is a different concept.

[Brad Russi (Deputy City Attorney)]: Right. I I understand that. I'm just saying, normally, I think the amendments would be made to the duplicate here and then referred back to, the commission for consideration. But I think this procedure will work.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: I think this will work. Yeah. Okay.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: So I'm recording a duplicate of the item that is on our agenda presently, unamended. That's where we're at so far. That was at the request of supervisor Chen.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: And then, for the, original file, I would like to make a motion that we adopt the amendments as I read into the record, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion that the original file be amended as Chair Melgar, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood. Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that amendment.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you. And since my amendments are substantive, I would like to continue this item to the meeting of Monday, December 15, as amended.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion by the chair that the original file be continued as amended for consideration at next week's Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting, 12/15/2025. Vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmoud. Mahmoud, I. Chair Melgar?

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes on that motion.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you. Let's go to item number eight, please. Oh, sorry.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: We still have the matter of the duplicate file, which I recommend that you continue to the call of the chair.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: I I'm sorry. Yes. Let's, continue the duplicated file to the call of the chair.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: On the motion that the duplicated file be continued to the call of the chair, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood. Mahmood, I. Chair Melgar.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, I. Madam chair, there are three ayes.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now let's go to item number eight, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number eight is a hearing on the status of San Francisco's electric vehicle curbside charging feasibility study, status of the electric vehicle curbside charging pilot, next steps for implementation of a scalable public electric vehicle curbside charging program, and requesting the MTA Department of the Environment, Public Works, and Public Utilities Commission to report.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you. This is very exciting, and we are now joined by, board president Rafael Mandelmann. The floor is yours.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: Thank you, chair Melgar, and thank you, colleagues, for making time on your agenda today to, hear from our city departments about the city's efforts to roll out, EV curbside charging. This is an a topic I've been interested in for some time, mainly because I hear from my constituents on a regular basis wondering why we don't have it when they see other cities in The United States and internationally moving forward with curbside EV charging. It's a conversation that I started having more earnestly with MTA and Department of Environment and other departments back in 2023. And we work we're work began working with them on asking them to look more systematically at opportunities for implementing a scalable EV curbside charging program in San Francisco. In March, we we passed a resolution supporting the efforts of the department at that time to implement a curbside EV charging feasibility study that they actually had already begun and urging the office of the mayor and departments to leverage all available funding sources to implement a curbside EV charging pilot program this year. The study was completed earlier this year, and I believe today we're gonna be hearing about what that study found. And the mayor, the prior mayor, last year, got a jump on the pilot and rolled it working with departments. The mayor's office, Joe Swise at the time, rolled out a pilot inviting EV companies to make proposals to put their chargers on our on our sidewalks. In April, we saw a cup we saw a couple of those chargers roll out. We're gonna hear more today about that pilot, about what they've learned, about where we're going from here and how we get more of these on our sidewalks. So with that, I believe we have Nicole Appenzeller, senior clean transportation specialist at SF environment, who will kick us off.

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: Great. Good afternoon, supervisors. Before I begin, I just want to confirm that our presentation is working. And,

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: SFGovTV, will you please display the slides? There we go.

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: Great. Thank you. Again, my name is Nicole Appenzeller, and I serve as the city's electric vehicle ombudsperson at the environment department. I'm here today on behalf of our interagency city team working on curbside EV charging in San Francisco. And, I'll be presenting alongside Broderick Paolo from SFMTA and am joined by colleagues from SFE, MTA, DPW, and SFPUC to help us field questions. We're also joined by Shannon Dulaney from It's Electric, who will also be presenting on their experience on the curbside pilot as a current Office of Emerging Technology Permittee. This joint presentation is in response to Supervisor Mandelmann's resolution calling for a curbside charging feasibility study. Our goals today are to provide context for why curbside charging is important, share findings from the feasibility study and demonstration pilot, and outline our next steps for building a long term program. Our role at the San Francisco Environment Department is to act as San Francisco's climate accountability, coordination, and equity engine. This work is guided by the city's clean transportation commitments and the 2021 Climate Action Plan. As a transit for city, we prioritize walking, biking, rolling, and transit. But, at the same time, we recognize that many residents, commuters, and visitors still rely on vehicles. Where vehicles are necessary, we want them to be zero emissions. Our targets are ambitious. 25% of registered private vehicles are electric vehicles by 2030 and one hundred percent by 2040. To reach these goals, we must ensure the right charging infrastructure is in place. A 2020 International Council on Clean Transportation study found that San Francisco will need 1,760 public chargers by 2030. We currently have 1,067 level two chargers and 237 DC fast chargers installed. That leaves the need for about two, excuse me, for about four fifty additional chargers within the next five years. The MTA recently secured funding to install two fifty level two chargers in city owned parking garages, which will make a significant contribution toward meeting our 2,030 goals. Curbside charging is just one small piece of the puzzle. A robust network must also include home, workplace, fleet, and public charging. Much of the expansion will happen off street at city owned garages, retail parking lots, and fast charging hubs. These sites generally have fewer traffic or jurisdictional conflicts, but are often far away from where residents live and park, and may require drivers to charge during costly peak hours. That's where curbside charging fills a gap. It offers the closest option to at home charging for the 60% of San Franciscans who rent or live in multi family housing without dedicated parking. Our rough target is 100 curbside charters by 2030 to help meet this near home need. To date, the city has taken several steps. We've completed the charging, the curbside charging feasibility study to explore business models and identify priority sites. We've launched the Mayor's Demonstration Pilot, which created a new permitting pathway and brought in vendor funded pilot sites. We've secured 150,000 of Prop L funding through SFCTA to support a portion of long term planning and implementation. And right now, we are finalizing the demonstration pilot installations and shifting towards citywide planning. This next phase will focus on establishing a permitting pathway, site selection process, and partnership model for long term deployment. Based on lessons learned from the study and pilot, our goals for a citywide curbside program include prioritizing overnight charging for renters and multifamily residents without on-site charging by focusing on lower power level two chargers in locations with a high density of renters and multi unit dwellings and avoiding commercial corridors, planning for demand while also ensuring equitable deployment. That means prioritizing areas with high charging needs, but also encouraging deployment in underserved neighborhoods, both where charging is limited today and in vehicle reliant areas where vendors may be hesitant to invest their own dollars. Part of evaluating any new sites will involve community engagement to better understand what the community wants. We also want to establish clear expectations for private providers using the curb, such as siting criteria and community outreach requirements, so they can bring forward well prepared projects that they will own and operate. And creating a permitting framework, including a long term permitting solution and operating terms that address driver access, pricing, maintenance, licensing, and potential revenue sharing. With that, I'll turn it over to Broderick Paolo from SFMTA to dive deeper into the findings of the feasibility study and the demonstration pilot.

[Broderick Paolo (SFMTA, Parking & Curb Management)]: Thanks, Nicole. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Broderick Paolo, and I'm a planner at SFMTA on the parking and curb management team. And I've had the pleasure of serving as the project manager for the pilot program. Today, I'm thrilled to be providing you with a high level overview of the feasibility study and providing a brief overview of the pilot. The study, sponsored by President Mandelmann, explored whether it was feasible from an operational, financial, and regulatory perspective to install, maintain, and operate a public facing charging network at the curb. The study identifies the risks and opportunities of operating a curbside network and identified practical solutions and recommendations to help advance the network beyond the pilot phase. Of course, lessons learned from the pilot were incorporated into the study. Overall, we found that the biggest challenges is navigating the complex permitting and regulatory process. Additionally, we can expect hurdles with the electrical grid, both in terms of readiness and overall capacity. These factors reinforce the need to site intentionally. Building not just individual chargers, but a connected network. The good news is is that our thank you. The good news is that our analysis shows revenue generation is feasible for both the city and the vendors, provided implementation is thoughtful and strategic. As you are well aware, there are a suite of agencies that have the authority and jurisdiction over the public right of way, adjacent private parcels, and the energy grid. The cast of characters includes Public Works, SFMTA, DBI, SFPUC, and PG and E. Despite these complex conditions, the city has experience and a track record of working with private vendors in these complex spaces. Examples of these partnerships include the bike share program, the car share program, and the city's contractual relationship with vendors such as JCDecaux. One of the recommendations from the study is to develop a long term curbside EV permitting pathway. This effort must identify clear roles, including a lead agency responsible for coordinating and implementing the legislative changes to support a permitting process with key approvals and a partnership model. The study conducted a citywide suitability analysis that found every district has a viable curb for EV charging. The consultant, Arup, used several data layers, including existing parking regulations, EV registrations, grid capacity, multifamily unit density and equity indicators to help identify suitable locations. The map and analysis assumes that areas with metered parking, bikeways, daylighting zones and color curbs are incompatible with charging infrastructure. It will also be important to consider local block level conditions and community readiness as we look to site charging stations in the future. In June 2024, we launched a pilot with the spirit of learn by doing to begin testing a variety of curbside charging models. We designed the program to be technology agnostic, which gave the vendors the flexibility to bring in a variety of curbside charging products. That includes chargers mounted to existing utility poles, pedestal chargers, and even a bring your own cord model like the one shown here, which is San Francisco's first station operated by It's Electric. Now, vendors who meet our program guidelines propose sites that work best for their technology. Their proposals must account for accessibility, avoid transit or bike conflicts, and consider a range of parking configurations from parallel, angled, and perpendicular. Once a site is approved, the vendor takes on full responsibility to own, install, operate, and maintain these chargers. To energize these chargers, vendors have one of two options. They can either establish a new service directly with PG and E or PUC, or they can tap into excess panel capacity from a nearby property. For the demonstration pilot, Public Works issued an emerging technology permit. The initial permit lasts for two years with the option of it being extended to ten. The emerging technology permit is available as a short term permitting mechanism to test out new innovations with the goal of informing the development of new permits that may be needed. We are now at the stage we need to establish a long term permitting solution for curbside charging to scale programming. And finally, a few other permits are needed to make this work. Excavation permits from public works if the project requires trenching. Electrical permits from DBI, SFMTA legislation to designate the curb for the exclusive use of EV charging, and verification from the utility if new electrical service is needed. The pilot is currently working to complete one demonstration site with each of our approved vendors. It's electric, urban EV, and volt post. To date, we've reviewed about 65 sites from these vendors and have two sites in progress and one is operational. Site selection is challenging, as providers need to consider existing street furniture, vertical clearances, and power connection. One of the biggest takeaways from the pilot is that vendors need clear, upfront requirements from the city to inform site selection. Even with these guidelines, site selection often requires close collaboration as each site is unique. Now as we plan for the future of curbside charging, we can build on the following siting principles from the pilot. First, focus on demand, placing chargers will they actually be used. Second, avoid conflicts with existing or planned street uses like transit lanes or bikeways. Third, prioritize locations with a high density of renters and multiunit buildings And avoid commercial corridors. Finally, consider underserved areas with limited charging and high vehicle reliance. Right now, we are working with UrbanEV and Volt Post to finalize site selection. And we expect those last two pilot sites to be operational within the next six to nine months. Next month, UrbanEV will be seeking MTA board approval for a potential site in the dog patch and Volt Post is currently working with SFPUC and PG and E to assess two different potential sites. Once those sites are established, the CTTI team will wrap up the pilot by ensuring vendors are maintaining their infrastructure, monitoring pattern usages, conducting a community survey, and making adjustments to improve performance as needed. Of course, these data driven insights will directly inform the design of the future citywide program. To date, we've been able to utilize three eleven reporting data, driver feedback, and support from our parking control officers to begin implementing changes at our first site to foster higher utilization. And now, I'll hand it over to Shannon from It's Electric to share their perspectives and lessons learned on the first site. I would like to note that It's Electric will be speaking at its capacity as a current Office of Emerging Technology Permittee, reporting on its experience so far.

[Shannon Dulaney (It's Electric)]: Thank you, Broderick. And hello, supervisors. My name is Shannon, and I am the director of public affairs for It's Electric. It's Electric's first of a kind approach to curbside EV charging has enabled us to provide the first curbside chargers in the city of San Francisco. In 2025, as you've heard, the city identified grid access and readiness as a challenge in the deployment of public charging. This is a problem not isolated to just San Francisco. It is a leading issue cities across the country are facing in scaling EV charging infrastructure. This boils down to the complexity of coordination, time, and cost around connecting to the grid. It's Electric identified this, and in response, created the first charging system that avoids this issue and allows public chargers to be powered instead by the extra capacity in buildings. The second issue we identified to solve was charger downtime caused by failure or vandalism of attached cables. And so we imported the European solution of the detachable cables. We send drivers a free, lightweight cable to charge with that they keep and carry in their car. This also makes us fully interoperable. No adapters needed from drivers, as with other public charging solutions. But back to building power. An incredible side effect is that this allows us to be the only community requested charging solution. When we scale in a city, we crowdsource site locations, which we then share with our city partners for approval. Building power also allows us to have chargers in the ground fast, and only two days after permits and approvals are granted. This is critical as low cost and high speed are the key key drivers to scale. Next on finance, our model is one that is at no cost to the city, taxpayers, utility, or the property owner. We pay our electricity used from that charger directly to the utility, and with the revenue we earn, we share 20% of it back to the building owner. This pilot was designed to have the selected vendors share data to iterate with speed and agility with the city. We were able to do just that in the first four weeks, making two key changes to ensure the success of these stations. The first challenge is the spots were often blocked by gas powered vehicles or by EVs that were parked but not plugged into charge. The solution surfaced was enforcement by SFMTA from driver reporting to 311. And next, the spots were painted to visually underscore that these are reserved spots for EV charging only. The second issue is that the original pricing structure had drivers paying based on the time they were plugged in rather than by kilowatt hour. Based on driver feedback and in coordination with the city, we made the switch in twenty four hours. Utilization has moved from 10% to almost 56% in just six months. To underscore how remarkable this is, it took New York City's curbside pilot on a much larger scale of deployment over two years to reach the same level of utilization as San Francisco did in just four months. The city, SFMTA, Department of Environment, and Supervisor Mandelmann and his office deserve to be commended for this work. It's Electric is here to support San Francisco's curbside charging goals and growth. In the six months we've been in the ground, over 125 buildings have signed up to power a charger and receive revenue share. 100 drivers have signed up to use the active chargers, with another a 140 drivers waiting for us to expand, both active EV drivers and, more importantly, aspiring EV drivers who are waiting for infrastructure in order to make the switch. Thank you so much for your time. And I'll pass it back to you, Broderick.

[Broderick Paolo (SFMTA, Parking & Curb Management)]: Thank you, Shannon. As we work with the remaining providers to complete two more pilot sites, the city team is transitioning to focusing on developing a long term permitting process to support citywide curbside expansion. In the last two months, we've worked across departments to identify agency roles for a citywide curbside planning. MTA will be leading project development, management, and operations for a new citywide program Led by MTA's Taxi Access and Mobility Services Team, also known as TAMs, MTA will lead on developing a long term permitting pathway, a revenue model, and operational terms. Public works will support all processes and permits for operation within the public right of way and provide input on-site selection requirements. SFE will provide EV charging subject matter expertise to advise on policy development, research, outreach, and monitoring and evaluation practices. SFPUC will provide utility expertise to help shape site screening and eligibility. By combining operational expertise, permitting authority, utility planning, and EV technical knowledge, we are working together to create a program stronger than any single department could have done alone. Now, as we move to the next phase of the program, we'll use available Prop L funding to support essential planning and establish a strong foundation for citywide expansion. A key priority is creating a long term permit and streamlining interagency processes to the extent possible so providers have a predictable, coordinated path for deploying curbside charging. We're also developing a consistent site selection framework to ensure locations are feasible, equitable, and responsive to community needs. We're developing a mapping tool providers can use to inform this site selection. In parallel, we're exploring mechanisms to identify vendors capable of operating a reliable, well maintained network that also supports a sustainable revenue approach. Throughout this work, we remain committed to ongoing engagement with communities and stakeholders to guide deployment and build public trust. Underpinning all of these priorities is a strong cross agency collaboration bringing together MTA, Public Works, SFE, and SFPEC to create a scalable and resilient curbside charging program aligned with the city's long term mobility and climate goals. And lastly, if any EV charging company would like more information on the city's long term permitting program, which is currently under development, they should visit SFMTA's curbside website to sign up for our distribution list. And MTA will reach out to those companies once there's more information about the long term program. That concludes our presentation. And thank you very much.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you. President Mandelmann.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: Thank you, Chair Milgar, and thank you for thanks to everyone who's been involved in the feasibility study and the pilot. I do have some questions. So one relates to the scale and timing of the goal. So the feasibility study determined that we need a 100 curbside chargers, and I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about that because it seems like a low number to me. But it you're also in, setting the goal of having that done by 2030, which seems like a rather long time out to me. And so could you talk a little bit more about the 100 and a little bit more about the 2030?

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: Yeah. I can speak to that. So as we were developing our 2030 goals, we wanted to just take into account what other charging projects are underway or what we think might be realistic in the off street space. As mentioned, we were successful in working with MTA to access, funding of 2,300,000.0 to help install 250 new level two chargers in off street, city owned garages. And since we needed to develop a long term permitting strategy in order to scale curbside, we wanted to make sure that our goal was reasonable, and determined 100 to be a reasonable goal over this five year period so that in the next five years we could also collect data. And if we're able to, you know, go past that goal, that will be excellent. That will continue to help support our goals, for charging expansion as we move to 2040. But we wanted to make sure that our goal was realistic with what we could do based off of our current status transitioning from a pilot to a citywide program, which requires significant up front work as we establish that long term permitting pathway.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: And and I appreciate that. I do I mean, I just think there's and and I'd be curious. I mean, I assume that these two chargers in DeBose Triangle are showing there's demand. You're nodding.

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: Yes. Yeah. Well, it's showing extreme extremely good demand of its 60% utilization thus far. Yeah. But we have also recognized that, you know, curbside charging projects can be a little bit more complex based off of, you know, the the model and where the utility interconnection is. So we're still gathering data as we deploy the remaining two stations, with our approved vendors, Urban EV and Bolt Post. So we're still evaluating, you know, how we can scale this model further, and that's why we focused on that goal of 100 chargers to help meet that near home demand, knowing that, we will need to expand that goal as we set our eyes on 2040 with, 100% electrification.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: You know, and and I I recognize that there's many ways to meet our need for chargers to support people moving to electric vehicles. And it may be, you know, that curbside charging is not gonna be a huge chunk of that effort. However, it I'm all it it is it seems like potentially an elegant solution for people who live in multifamily buildings that don't have chargers. And and it has been sort of identified in city documents going back at least to 2019, if not prior to that, as something that we wanted to explore. So I guess I just want to well, you know, expressing gratitude for the work you've done, sort of also expressed urgency around moving more quickly to deploy more, and trying to make that more of a priority. And I'm hoping that the administration, you know, I've had some conversations with Alicia Jean Baptiste. I'm hoping that the administration if if they believe and you believe that these the curbside charges are part of the EV solution, that we should move more quickly than a 100 by 2,030. And maybe that's a 100 by 2028. I don't know. But it seems like we should move more quickly than we are moving. But then I wanna get into a little bit about why things seem to be going rather slowly. So we have two that went out in April. None have been deployed since then. Right? Although, we do apparently have a lot of interest coming well, I don't know if we have a lot of interest. Can you talk more about why this is hard and what's taking so long?

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: Yes. So as Broderick noted, we've received over 65 applications, to date, across our three approved curbside charging vendors. And something that is difficult is site selection. So we've been able to work closely with each approved vendor to provide them with key requirements. But it does get tricky as we're navigating this for the first time through the demonstration pilot, and each site is different. So what might work for one block doesn't necessarily work for the other. Additionally, another added layer that can complicate it is there's different technology types that we're currently experimenting with. So, for example, one of our approved vendors is called Volt Post, and they're lamp post mounted chargers. So they're looking at lampposts and where those are located. So each site selection process requires determining, you know, if there's the curb use is viable for curbside, but we also need to take into account things like existing street furniture, where, utility interconnection point is, and things like vertical clearance, which complicate it and lead to, a lengthier site selection process and assessment process. So we have some lessons learned over the last year, but that's also some of that information that informed that 2030 goal of 100. You know, we want to be realistic with how fast we've been able to move to date.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: Do you think you're close to having more moving out? Or

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: Yes. We estimate that the next two sites will be available in within nine months. We have a big target to hopefully open the next two sites by climate action, month and week. So we're excited to move those forward, but that is, you know, after a long process with both of the remaining vendors that have gone back to, assess multiple sites for each of those vendors. So, it hasn't been cut and dry for the the site selection process.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: Do you have thoughts about how to speed this up? Because two a year feels inadequate or, like, this is, like, not a if this is a project we should take on, we should be doing it more quickly. If it's a project we shouldn't take on, we should cut bait and have folks working on other things. So do do you have a sense of whether we're gonna be able to move things along more quickly than two a year, or what really is inhibiting that?

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: Yes. I agree. We are moving too slowly. As the electric vehicle ombudsperson, I want all of the charging infrastructure in the ground now. But we do know that this is a gap that we need to fill. Close to home charging solutions are going to be critical for our residents, especially when public charging can oftentimes be less convenient and more expensive.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: I I don't doubt that you share the urgency around it. What I'm not getting is the is this a gap we can close, and what's the problem? I mean, if I think this is a problem, you think it's a problem, how do we how do we get it done more ex expeditional? Like, what's gonna be the thing that makes that happen?

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: Establishing a long term permitting pathway so that site, vendors can, apply, to specific site criteria set by the city, and can apply for more than one permit moving forward. So as we transition to citywide planning, we want to open up that permitting pathway, so each vendor can apply for more than one site at once. And we've received input from each of the curbside vendors that they wanna scale and do something like, you know, 20 sites each. So, by opening that pathway that permitting pathway, we're going to be allowing that permit pathway to move faster. And, as we determine the final technology needs for the remaining two vendors, we'll have a good blueprint that we can follow and we can establish which technologies we can pursue as we open the citywide.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: Maybe you can explain how that's gonna help to me because I had understood that this emerging technologies permit was, you know, a great way of speeding things up and and that that was responsible for the relatively quick approval of the the two chargers we have, but it seems like it's kind of somehow gotten bogged bogged down. And city permitting is not necessarily expeditious. So how do we think the pathway the permitting pathway that is going to be created, I guess, under MTA? Maybe this should be an MTA problem or a question. So so one of the I mean, one of the recommendations in the feasibility study is expedite permitting and improve oversight and talks about the need to identify a lead agency. And I guess part of the work leading up to this hearing has been MTA sort of perhaps grudgingly or perhaps happily, but being willing to, like, take on the responsibility for this project because it has felt like nobody has wanted to be the lead on on EV curbside permitting. But maybe can you talk, like, what how do we make this an expeditious process that results in more than two EV curbside charges chargers a year.

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Hi. Thank you. I'm Kate Torn. I'm the director of the taxis, access, and mobility services program at the SFMTA.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: How did you get stuck with us?

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: And we are excited. We are stepping in and stepping up and excited.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: Thank you.

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: And, you know, are strongly committed to the goal, to the project. And we're thankful that this is one part of the solution. And Nicole talked about that, Because we do have a lot of factors that are complicated. And having a long term permitting process doesn't necessarily mean it is going to be faster than the OET permitting process. Thankfully, we're building on the great work and the lessons learned of the team and the collaboration. So we're not starting from zero. But we do need to level set on expectations and say we are committed to the work. We're committed to going faster. And we will look for all those opportunities to create a more efficient process. But permitting in the city is complicated. And the slide that Brody laid out with the cast of characters, with the agencies that need to issue permits, that will remain. And I don't know if

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: But that's a choice for us. Right?

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Well, there it is how our city is structured. So there's charter authority for various city agencies to issue permits within their purview. Right? So that is established. MTA is not going to issue a PUC permit or a DBI permit. But what we are going to do is we're going to be the front door for the permitting process. And we will work to create streamlined process on our side and, create a process where we approve eligible vendors. And then they will need to go get the, the permits as applicable as may be needed, right? So it might be there's trenching involved. And they're going to have to go to public works for that excavation permit. So what we're hoping to do is make it clear, have a clear front door for interested vendors and be clear with upfront requirements, create a mapping tool, which, again, we've talked about as part of the presentation. But it is a complicated process when you're putting something in the public right of way that requires, you know, power and attachment to the grid, it's it is just a complicated endeavor.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: I get it. And yet somehow, cities are managing to do this.

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Yeah. So we will And

[Zach Weisenberger (Young Community Developers)]: and and if it is

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: a problem with

[Shannon Dulaney (It's Electric)]: All over the world.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: All over the world. If it is a problem with our charter, I mean, we have all sorts of conversations about charter reform happening over this year, and we can go to the ballot. You know, if we're if we need to go to the ballot with the EV curbside ballot measure, I can't imagine who's gonna vote no on it. So if we need to carve out charter authority,

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Well, we you know, and I think that's a conversation. I don't wanna imply it's a problem, but I wanna imply there's expert permit programs, with curbside managing the curb. Public works has expertise with excavation permits, encroachment permits. DBI has that expertise with the power and making sure that piece of this is, working as needed. So, you know, again, I don't want to imply that there's a problem. But I want to state that there's different expertise involved with the various elements of this. So we want to, you know, identify and work as a team. And there's a great structure set up whereby MTA public works. There's an existing interagency collaboration happening, which is really great. So we're hoping to build off of the relationships and understand where there is room for streamlining the permitting, where there's room to potentially delegate authority for various aspects of the permitting. And if it's delegated to the MTA, of course, we need to make sure we have the in house expertise so that we don't say, hey, we can do it all, and not have that expertise needed. So it's it is a team effort across city agencies.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: Do do you have a time frame within that which that conversation about permitting is gonna be how

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Well, it's already started, which is nice. We're not waiting for the pilot to end. We are, you know, kind of parallel play here. And we're hoping to get something in place for 2026, the structure in place in the coming months. I don't have a specific date at this point, but, you know, we're certainly happy to come back and provide an update. But we do expect to have that within 2026.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: What would it mean for the pilot to end? Because it sounds like we have something like 65 applications and we're anticipating two more going out in the next year.

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Yeah. That's So the

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: pilot seems like it could go on for a very long time.

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Well, I think that's wrapping up. So as those two additional sites are put in the ground, then, and the team can correct me if I'm wrong, that there we have selected that maximum number of participants, three. And once we, finalize those sites and get those into the ground, that is it for the pilot. Which is so that's For new participants.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: So the pilot is anticipating a total of how many chargers on the on the street?

[Broderick Paolo (SFMTA, Parking & Curb Management)]: It's electric. We'll have has their two installed currently. Urban EV is proposing five sites in the dog patch, and Volt Post is proposing two sites or two chargers, either in the Sunset or Treasure Island.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: So the the pilot would be a total maximum of nine. And then it sort of at some point between now and then, sort of a a different permitting process takes over on Kate.

[Broderick Paolo (SFMTA, Parking & Curb Management)]: That's when Kate's team will take over.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: Okay. Looks like some of my colleagues have questions and comments.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Hey. Thank you, president and supervisor Mahmoud.

[Bilal Mahmood (Supervisor)]: I was actually gonna ask some more questions to president Mandelmann about the charter reform process. So is it your understanding then that to create, maybe say, a one stop shop for this permit, we do need charter reform? And do you have a sense of which parts of

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: the charter we need to change,

[Bilal Mahmood (Supervisor)]: to make that possible?

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: I'd have to take a look at that. That is, I'm not sure. But so I guess more to come on that. I don't have a specific, you know, ready ready to go answer there.

[Bilal Mahmood (Supervisor)]: Got it. Is there one concrete non charter related administrative change that you can make today that if you could do that today, which would you be to actually move this further along?

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Well, there is something that is under discussion. And that is a delegation of authority from public works to the MTA on the encroachment permitting. So we are exploring that. And that is an active conversation. And so we, you know, we can report back on that. But we're not ready. We don't have an outcome from that yet. Of course, we have to work through the city attorney and make sure that, when it's allowable, by what mechanism. And then, again, making sure if it's delegated to MTA that we have the in house skills to do that, to issue those permits.

[Bilal Mahmood (Supervisor)]: Thank you.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you, supervisor. Supervisor Chen.

[Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you, chair. You know, I haven't seen a lot of public EV charges in District 11. So I think this is the equity questions. District 11, we use all modes of transportations. And I know that in my district, we do have some public parking space. For example, Mission And Norton Street sites. So I just want to ask, what is the city doing, in selecting new sites to expand public facilities?

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: Well, do you wanna jump

[Cynthia Gomez (UNITE HERE Local 2)]: in? Yeah.

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: Yes. So the city is assessing all of our city owned public parking garages and lots to determine power capacity and applying for funding to bring EV chargers into those lots that are managed by MTA. In addition, through my role as EV ombudsperson, I am in a support role for any EV service provider that's trying to bring charging to San Francisco to help them, assess sites, troubleshoot permitting, and, talk to supervisors like you to see what demand is like in your district. So, I'm excited to share. You know, there has been some interest in bringing chargers to District 11 through Iona, who's contemplating a large, fast charging hub, but we want to also consider things like curbside or bringing charging to districts that don't have any through, outside funding, through state and federal funds. So our department's been successful in doing that in Bayview Hunters Point most recently this year and continued to apply for funds so that if we're not seeing the market bringing funding to underserved areas, the city can subsidize those chargers.

[Chyanne Chen (Vice Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you for that. And, yes, district eleven can use more. Another question. Personally, I also have experiences in especially using, chargers that is, broke down. So I want to also hear from you, like, what are the protocol and procedures to ensure that existing stations, which, in my district, is also very limited, and, you know, that the station, the existing ones, are reliable and operational.

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: Yes, the state has strong reliability standards for chargers, and we followed suit. So for any chargers that are supported by funding through the city or kind of sponsored by the city, we're instituting those same requirements. So for the curbside program, as part of the current emerging technology permit, we have reliability requirements, and during the first initial two year term, we'll evaluate each site, provide feedback so they can make any adjustments as needed. And at the end of that term, we can evaluate and provide feedback, on their status. So if they are not meeting our core requirements, we will cancel their permit and have them pull out that charging infrastructure themselves. But, of course, we want to get ahead of it, so we keep an open line of communication with any vendors that we work with. And then, also, for charging projects that we're not a part of as a city, you know, if folks come to me and have complaints about chargers being down or inoperable, I'm reaching out to those EV charging providers to find solutions, as I think what's worse than not having charging in the ground is charging that's not working. So we're also working with, EV providers to get their equipment online and find out what's going on with those chargers that are always down.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Thank you. So I have lots of questions. Sorry, supervisor. I'm confused a little bit by the presentation that Miss Delaney made. So as to the pilot program, what is exactly the relationship with the building owner? I didn't understand that.

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

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: But why the building? I don't understand. If this is a public curb Mhmm. Why it it the building has anything to do with it.

[Shannon Dulaney (It's Electric)]: Well, because they have, power at the correct voltage, and they have spare capacity in that building. So essentially, we're just mimicking what happens if you live in the suburbs and you have a driveway or garage, and you install your own at home charger, your own level two charger. It's the same amount of power that a dishwasher requires.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Right. But you assume that's too

[Cynthia Gomez (UNITE HERE Local 2)]: that power.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Yeah. But that's assuming the curb belongs to the building, and it does not. The curb belongs to the public.

[Shannon Dulaney (It's Electric)]: So, yeah. There's actually there's two different, processes that we're going into. There's the contract with the building to pull their power, And then we're going through all of the processes with the environment department and SFMTA to pull the appropriate permits. So the building doesn't own that curb. It's privately powered, but it's a publicly accessible spot.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: And who's paying for occupying that spot while that car is charging?

[Shannon Dulaney (It's Electric)]: So all of these parking spots are public parking spots.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: So you're saying it's free?

[Shannon Dulaney (It's Electric)]: Well, you pay for the charging service, but you're not paying for the parking

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: itself. Okay. That clears it up. Thank you. Okay. So after all that presentation and thank you so much I am still at a loss of who's in charge for propelling this thing forward. So in Swedish, that word ombudsperson means go between. I still am not sure who you're going between and who is leading the charge on this.

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Okay. The SFMTA is leading

[Cynthia Gomez (UNITE HERE Local 2)]: the charge. We are the lead agency. We will be

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: the front door of the

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: permitting process and we will we are creating what that process will look like. But it is intended to be a welcoming, open front door for vendors. We will assess eligibility to participate in that permitting program. And once and maybe we will issue the encroachment permit, depending on how our conversations go. But so MTA is the front door. And the other permits will still be required depending on how the charger will be set up. And so if you're company A and you make it through the welcoming front door with the clear expectations and the site mapping tool and we determine you are eligible, then you are eligible to go get the next permit on the list to complete the project. And then once you've done that and you've gotten your permits, you come back to the MTA for that final check. Right? So we're, again, as the lead agency, we're going to check that vendor A has successfully, received all of the permits needed. And then we'll issue the final permit to operate.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. I understand about the operationalizing of the permit processing. Okay. So my question, though, is if it's the MTA that's going to be in charge, what is your goal for this program? What are the goals?

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Our goal will be to establish those 100, charging locations at the curbside by 2030. So that's my understanding of that is our goal. And we are our goal is to then streamline the process and have a clear, understandable, legible process for interested vendors.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: See, in that, I do feel some kind of way about that, president. Because to me, the goal should be much broader than that. So it shouldn't be just issue 100 permits. So I was here during the pandemic when we rolled out the parklets, you know, the shared spaces program. And it was a very similar thing, you know, to I mean, we had to do it very quickly, because we were in a pandemic. But there were multiple goals. It wasn't just about issuing the permits. Right? I think that's fair. Forgive me. It just seems to me that there's multiple goals here, too. And perhaps some goals that you are not even taking into account, because you're the MTA and not necessarily the PUC or the Department of the Environment. Aside from our climate action goals and getting people to move towards this, there's equity goals about who has access to these things that may or may not line up with the infrastructure that's already there. There are goals, around, you know, the use of these things in commercial spaces versus residential, for example. There's the goal also of generating revenue. We do have vendors that right now use private land for charging, and they're making money off of that. And we are giving away the curb for free. So, you know, it seems to me that, you know, the PUC also, has a goal of providing public power. They do so for our public buildings. I'm not sure why we wouldn't have them do it here for this public, although privatized for a tiny thing, activity. It just seems to me that there are multiple goals. And that we are looking at it in a very small way when we should be looking at it bigger. But that is just a comment, not a question. I do have one more question. And that is, Hugh is making the decisions for site selection process. So aside from the map that you talked about, I know, again, with the experience of the, shared spaces, we talked about ADA. We talked about fire accessibility. Like, all of those things, in addition to equity, and, you know, what was needed. So who's making the site selection for the next 100?

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Yeah. I will just say, fair point. And if I zoomed in too closely on the goal, I appreciate your point and to reorient us to the larger picture. And there are those larger, broader goals. So I agree. And, yes. And if there's a possessory interest about the use of the curb, then that's a conversation with TTX, and we're happy to have that conversation. So TTX.

[Nicole Appenzeller (SF Environment, EV Ombudsperson)]: Oh, sorry.

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Treasurer tax collector's office. The treasurer's office.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Why is that? You guys park you pay for like, you charge for parking on commercial corridors. Why would you give this away for free?

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: If there's not a meter on the spot, I think you're talking about is the spot metered.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Right. We're assuming that everything that's not metered is free. Right. That's an assumption that you're making.

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: Right. But So we're talking about

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: but you have to maintain it. The MTA still has a responsibility to keep up that curb, to maintain it, to pave it, to paint it.

[Kate Toran (SFMTA, Director of Taxis, Access & Mobility Services)]: That's right. Agreed. Okay. So all of the all of that needs to be considered. And and I guess I was just trying to address the point. If there is a private company using the public right of way to make money, then that is there is a mechanism under the possessory interest, under the treasurer's office, to charge for that. So I just wanted to say we are aware of that and we'll make sure that that's considered. And the site selection is we are working to build out an interactive mapping tool, but it will include those aspects that you mentioned. And we have a very robust accessibility requirement that's built in. And, you know, there's, community readiness, which is part of that conversation. So that is something that is under development.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: Let's go to public comment.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you. Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number eight. If you have public comment for this hearing, please come forward to the lectern at this time. Madam chair, it appears we have no speakers for agenda item number eight.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. Public comment is now closed. Mister president, what would you like us to do with this?

[Rafael Mandelman (Board President, Supervisor)]: Well, again, thank thank you committee members for taking a little bit of time this afternoon for this conversation. I I I feel frustrated. I'm happy that we have two more chargers on the ground now than we did two years ago. I also feel like this is a con this is one of those conversations that seemingly goes on forever in San Francisco, and I think we were hoping that the feasibility study would sort of, like, set us up to really address kind of the things that we are now talking about addressing and move, you know, quickly, to dramatically expand out the, the network of curbside chargers. And it feels like we're setting ourselves up for yet another rather long conversation where we spent where we have a lot of people in government talking to each other about how to make something happen without showing the results for it that I think we all believe we wanna see. So I've had some conversations with, as I said, Alicia John Baptiste about it. I think I'll have some more. I'm hoping that the resources and, and, urgency around this will come not just from the board of supervisors, but from the administration as well. I do think we can do more than two curbside charges a year, and I do think that the goal should be to get this, you know, rolled out sooner than 2030. And thanks again to the MTA for taking this on. Some of the supervisors on this committee, I believe, are gonna be part of the charter conversation. Actually, probably all the supervisors on the board are gonna be part of the charter charter conversation. And so, you know, to the extent that this requires charter changes, we wanna know. We wanna know if this requires admin code changes. We wanna be partners in helping move things along. But we, also wanna, deliver quickly and not be using our, you know, our staff time and resources on projects that don't, end with good results. So, I would like to have this hearing continued to the call of the chair, and I'd like to bring us back in, say, three months. And I hope some of the thinking at MTA around permitting will have moved forward, and maybe we'll be able to hear a little bit more about progress on the pilot. But I think this is sort of a check-in, and hoping we'll have more good news in the spring.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. I don't think I closed public comment. Did I? Public comment is now closed. I would first want to say thank you, President Middleman, for the stick to itiveness. Because you've been talking about this for as long as I've known you. So I'm really glad. And yeah, I hope that we can make some progress on things that it makes sense. I mean, especially for my district, which is a little more suburban, where we could really use this, for sure. That would be really great. Okay. So I would like to make a motion that we continue this item to the call of the chair.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Motion offered by the chair. This hearing be continued to the call of the chair, vice chair Chen. Chen, I. Member Mahmood Mahmood I. Chair Malgar.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Malgar, I. Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Let's go to item number nine, please.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Agenda item number nine is a motion approving final map number ten eight five seven for a 20 commercial unit condominium project located at 1301 To 1341 Evan Evans Avenue, being a subdivision of assessor's parcel block Number 5237, Lot Number 037, and adopting findings pursuant to the general plan and the added priority eight priority policies of planning code section one zero one point one. This motion is on today's agenda as a potential committee report. It may be sent for consideration by the board at their meeting tomorrow, 12/09/2025.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. Thank you. We have a presenter here from the surveyor's office, mister Elias French. Hi. Welcome.

[Elias French (City and County Surveyor)]: Thank you. Nice to meet you all. I'm here on behalf of Public Works Department of the City and Subdivisions and Mapping, Office of the City and County Surveyor. I'm the city and county surveyor, having started fairly recently. So thank you for inviting me. This, map here before us is a 20 unit commercial condominium subdivision map. It was received by our office, in 2021. It duly circulated to city agencies. They responded with their feedback and comments, which are very minimal. The applicant completed the required conditions. I believe the only condition required of this commercial condominium subdivision is a conversion of existing commercial space, to be clear, was to get a building inspection, which they did and perform any required building code update work. And then they proceeded to final mapping. So we issued tentative approval. They completed the required conditions and then submitted the final map to our office. So we reviewed all of that, approved the final map, and I signed it. And then we forwarded along to the board of supervisors, as is customary for all subdivisions of five lots or units or more. That's a summary of the project. It is 1301 Evans Street. It's an existing, two story, 20 unit commercial building on Evans Street, and they're converting the existing units into commercial condominiums.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: K. Sounds good. Thank you so much.

[Elias French (City and County Surveyor)]: You're welcome.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Mister French. Mister Clerk, I don't see anyone on the roster with comments. Why don't we go to public comment on this item?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number nine. Does anyone have public comment for agenda item nine? Madam chair, it appears with no speakers.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Okay. Public comment is now closed. Mister Clerk, I would like to make a motion to send this item out of committee with a positive recommendation as a committee report.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Motion by the chair that this motion be recommended as a committee report. Vice chair Chen. Chen, aye. Member, Mahmood. Mahmood, aye. Chair Melgar?

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: Aye.

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: Melgar, aye. Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: K. That motion passes. Thank you. Mister Clerk, do we have any other items on our agenda?

[John Carroll (Committee Clerk)]: There is no further business.

[Myrna Melgar (Chair, Supervisor)]: We are adjourned. Thank you.