San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Good aft good afternoon. Welcome to the 06/17/2025 regular meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, mister president. Supervisor Chan. Chan present. Supervisor Chen. Chen present. Supervisor Dorsey. Present. Dorsey present. Supervisor Engadio. Engadio present. Supervisor Fielder. Present. Fielder present. Supervisor Mahmood. Mahud present. Supervisor Mandleman?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Present.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandleman present. Supervisor Melgar? Present. Melgar present. Supervisor Sautter? Present. Sautter present. Supervisor Sheryl? Present. Cheryl present. And supervisor Walton? Present. Walton present. Mister president, all members are present.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, madam clerk. The San Francisco board of supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Colleagues, will you join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America

[Alan Murphy (Perkins Coie), Counsel for Project Sponsor (Heritage on the Marina)]: and to the republic for which

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all. On behalf of the board, I'd like to acknowledge the staff at SFgovTV and today, especially, Kalina Mendoza who record each of our Madam Clerk, let's go to approval of minutes.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes. We have approval Or,

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: actually, do we have any communications?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: We do. Thank you, mister president. The San Francisco board of supervisors welcomes you all to attend this meeting here in the board's legislative chamber. If you are unable to make it, you may watch the proceeding on SFGOV TV's channel 26 or view the live stream at www.sfgovtv.org. If you are unable to make it and you'd like to submit your public comment, you can do so in two ways by sending an email to bos@sfgov.org or use the postal service to the San Francisco board of supervisors, the number one, doctor Carlton b Goodlett Place, city hall room two forty four, San Francisco, California nine four one zero two. And I will just state for those of you holding signs, we've been reading those signs. We appreciate the messaging that you're providing the board. There is an approved board rule, which requires no signs in the chamber, But since you have them in your hand so that you're not blocking the individuals behind you, just try to lower them and keep them right here near your chin. That would be a a a request requested. If you would like to make a reasonable accommodation request under the Americans with Disability Act or if you need language assistance, please contact the clerk's office in, Room 244 just to the right, or you can call (415) 554-5184. Thank you, members. Thank you, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Let's go to approval of meeting minutes. Alright. Colleagues, we're gonna recess until 3PM.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFgovTV,

[SFGovTV Announcer]: San Francisco government television. SFgovTV, San Francisco government television.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. We are back. We are reconvening, and we are going to recess until 03:30.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFgovTV, San Francisco Government Television.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFGOVTV,

[SFGovTV Announcer]: San Francisco Government Television.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFGovTV,

[SFGovTV Announcer]: San Francisco Government Television.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Hello, colleagues. We are back for a second, and now we're gonna recess till 04:00.

[SFGovTV Announcer]: SFGovTV, San Francisco government television.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. We're back. Madam clerk, I believe that we were at approval of minutes.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, mister president. Yes. Approval of the 05/13/2025 board meeting minutes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Colleagues, I don't see anyone with changes. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented? Moved by Sautter, seconded by Walton. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On the minutes as presented, supervisor Sautter. Aye. Sautter, I. Supervisor Sheryl. Aye. Cheryl, I. Supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton, I. Supervisor Chan. Chan, I. Supervisor Chen, I. Supervisor, Dorsey. Dorsey, I. Supervisor, Angadio? Angadio, I. Supervisor, Fielder? Fielder, I. Supervisor, Mahmood? Mahmood, I. Supervisor, Mandelmann?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: I.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelmann, I. And supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. Madam clerk, let's go to our 02:30 special order.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes. It is now time, to celebrate meritorious commendations for, members of our community.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And, we have a number of them planned, but I think some of them may be coming back next week or may not be going today. But I'll just run through supervisor Chen from district eleven.

[Chayanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Thank you, president management. Good afternoon, everyone. Stan, do you wanna come to the podium? Today, I'm celebrating and honoring firefighter Stent Lee, who is concluding an extraordinary thirty year career dedicated to serving our community. Stan began his journey with the San Francisco Fire Department in 1995. Throughout his career, he served in a wide range of roles, including rescue squad member, fire investigator, acting lieutenant with the earthquake safety and emergency respond bond program, and training specialists. Over the years, Stan responded to more than 400 working fires, and even sustained injuries while on duty, always keeping our community safe. Beyond his work on the front lines, Stan has been a tirelessly leader in the community. He serves on the Lee's Family Association of San Francisco, organized Christmas toy giveaway in Chinatown, and helped the director of firefighter Local seven ninety eight. He was also the coach and co captain of the San Francisco Fire Department Local seven ninety eight Chinese Lion Dance Team, and served as a captain of San Francisco Fire Department hockey team for over twenty years. Stan was a longtime member of the executive board member of Asian Firefighter Association, where he built a strong foundation of volunteers and environment of collaboration, support, and community services. AFA members are inspired by Stan's legacy and grateful for the positive change that he has championed. What is more, Stan helped AFA launch a charitable foundation to facilitate giving back to the community. You may have seen stand at the street fairs, tour drives, or Chinese merchant celebration, bringing energy, culture, and compassion to every event. Most notably, many of us saw Stan in the news in 2023, where he organized a volunteer group of firefighters to travel to Maui to assist with wildfire relief, jumping into action even before official aid requested had been made. On the ground, Stan and his team handed out food and water to at a local relief center, and cook and serve more than 2,000 meals per day. Later, when a grass fire broke out nearby, they stepped in to extinguish it. And in December, Stan returned to Laihona, bringing holiday cheer by distributing toys, food, and clothing to families in need. Stan, your courage, your dedication, your sense of duty have not only made San Francisco safer and proud, but you have touched life far beyond our city. Your legacy, it's one of the services, leadership, and heart. We also extend our heartfelt thank you to you and your families who are here today. Thank you. And your friends, and who also have supported you throughout this remarkable journey. As you step in into retirement, may this next chapter bring you joy and fulfillment. In Chinese, we always go by this, Through your though you retire, your spirit of services continues, and may you find continue to find joy in all things that you do. Thank you, and congratulations. And I'm now gonna pass the mic to, supervisor Connie Chen.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, supervisor Chen, for taking this lead to honor Stan Lee today. And, Stan, you know, I I I don't have a lot to add other than the fact that you express my gratitude, not just as a elected leader of the city, but really as a community member, for the Chinese American community, for the Asian American community. You make us so proud. You are such a great representative of who we are as a community, not just for your public service, with the city and county of San Francisco as our firefighter protecting our families and our cities, assets and many, many other things, but also that you, as a member of our community, you serve our community in so many other way, but also extending my gratitude to your family. To your three kids, who I know that, you know, they because of your service, both with the city, but also with the community, must have taken you away from them, you know, from time to time. And the sacrifice that not only that you personally made, but your family actually made through throughout your career as a firefighter. And so for that, we're grateful to you and to your family, and thank you so much for being here today. I agree with supervisor Chen that I we don't I while you may be officially retiring, we don't think your spirits and your service, are retiring. We know that you're gonna continue to serve the community and be with us, so that for that, we're also grateful. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Sauter.

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Thank you. Stan, congratulations. And first and foremost, thank you for your decades of courageous service to the city and county of San Francisco. You know, Stan's the kind of person that you would see him one hour in uniform on the job, and then you'd see him the next hour, doing something that I think is equally, if not more important, serving the community. He's always out volunteering at block parties and at festivals and at the holidays. And I'm sad that we'll be losing you in this role, but I know you will put all your time and effort towards serving San Francisco in another capacity. And I would say it is not a night market in Chinatown without stopping by your booth and seeing how great of a DJ you are. So thank you for your music and your service to San Francisco.

[Stan Lee (SFFD), Honoree]: Thank you, supervisors. Believe me, it takes a village. I couldn't be the person I was without San Francisco. Right? I was I wasn't born here, but I was raised there, moved here when I was a half a year old. Grew up in Portola. Went to school in Visitor Valley. Graduated from Galloway High School. This is my city. I love this city, and as supervisor Chen mentioned, I did have some mishap at work, and, basically, that mishap gave me a second lease in life. And I put all that effort into helping community. My friend who's filming me turned me on to Linda Fong from Imagination. She she turned me on to giving toys away in Chinatown, and it was a bug. I just couldn't stop myself. Right? We start with 500 toys one year, and next year, we had 4,000. Last year, we we did 3,000. Right? We gave away 500 toys in Lahaina. But the thing is, like you like you you guys mentioned, I am retiring, but that doesn't mean I stopped being a San Franciscan. And believe me, I already planned on a bigger Christmas season, hoping to do event in Chinatown, maybe two, looking at Visitation Valley and Excelsior again. You know? I tried in the Tenderloin. It didn't work out that well, but, you know, I'm always trying to figure out how to benefit the city. And even in retirement, I'm I'm still a San Francisco kid. I love this city. And I appreciate the honor you this board had bestowed upon me. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: District five supervisor Mahmoud, you've your folks are gonna come back next week? Okay. Great. And district seven, supervisor Melgar, you were honoring Anna Velidzic, and you did it out in the rotunda. And, thank you

[Todd Polador, Marina resident]: for that.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: I don't know if

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: you wanna say anything, but okay. Thank you for honoring her on her retirement. And then district six supervisor Dorsey.

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. Colleagues, I have two in memorial today for cherished individuals whose losses deeply touched the lives of some of our city hall friends and family members, many of whom are here with us today. So I appreciate you indulging me to offer these in memoriam now. First, I ask that we adjourn today's meeting to honor the life and legacy of Rodney Jean Bowden, a beloved Muni operator, a devoted husband, and a proud son of San Francisco whose presence lit up every room and every route he touched. Born on 10/13/1959 alongside his twin brother Roderick, Rodney was affectionately known as Pee Wee, and those who knew him remember his bold spirit, his infectious laughter, and the unmistakable joy he brought to life. He began his career with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency in 2014, First as a 60 foot motor coach operator at Flynn Division, and later as a trolley coach operator at the Presidio Division. His colleagues described him as positive and upbeat, the kind of muni operator operator we all love to be greeted by as San Francisco riders. Someone who didn't just drive a bus, but built a community every day through his kindness, his humor, and his care. Rodney's life extended beyond his years of public service, however. He was endlessly curious and, his friends say, a true renaissance man, a skilled carpenter, entrepreneur, martial artist, and musician who played multiple instruments and could command a room with both his singing voice and his storytelling. He lived for adventure and new experiences, whether that meant swimming, scuba diving, hang gliding, or skydiving. He loved to fish, draw, challenge anyone to a game of backgammon, monopoly, or spades. At his core, Rodney was a man of deep Christian faith. His relationship with God anchored his life, which was inestimably blessed too by his forty plus year marriage to his soulmate, Rilda May. He lived his beliefs daily through quiet generosity, unwavering love, and a commitment to uplifting others. Even in death, Rodney continued his legacy of giving back by donating his body to the UCSF Willard willed body program to support future medical education and research. Rodney Bowden lived joyfully, gave freely, and loved without limits. His passing leaves a profound void in the hearts of his family, friends, and colleagues, many here today. And the countless rides whose commutes he made better by the warmth of his humanity and good humor. His legacy of faith, service, kindness, and adventure lives on, and all who knew him, we honor him today, not only for the years he gave to our city, but for the way he lived fully, boldly, and with a heart always open to others. On behalf of a grateful city, we extend our great deepest condolences to his wife, Rilda, his family, his fellow operators, and everyone whose lives Rodney Bowden made better. May his memory continue to inspire us, and may he rest in peace. Second, I ask that we also adjourn today's meeting to honor the life and legacy of another devoted public servant, retired deputy sheriff Rhonda Marie Gaines, A deeply respected and beloved member of the sheriff's office who passed away on 05/28/2025. Rhonda devoted her life to public safety, beginning her distinguished career with the sheriff's office on 11/30/1992, following her graduation from the Santa Rosa Police Academy. Over the years, she served at County Jail Number 2 and County Jail Number 1 before continuing her service in court services. In every assignment, Rhonda carried herself with grace, professionalism, and unwavering dedication to the people of San Francisco. Rhonda was known for her warm, friendly demeanor and the genuine connections she built throughout the department. She leaves a lasting impression not just of her work, but through the kindness, joy, and friendship she so freely offered to those around her. Rhonda exemplified what it means to be a public servant. Steady, compassionate, and committed to justice and care in equal measure. Her passing is a heartbreaking loss, and yet, even those loved ones and families who grieve also celebrate the profound impact she had on her colleagues, her community, and the institution she she served so faithfully for more than three decades. As we remember Rhonda, her family ask that we all draw as inspiration for our own public service careers. The example she so ably lived in hers, expressing values of kindness, integrity, and generosity of spirit. We offer our deepest condolences to Rhonda's family, friends, and former colleagues who had the honor of working alongside her. May she rest in peace, and may her legacy continue to inspire all who serve our city. Thanks.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, supervisor Dorsey. This the District 8 honoree, Rebecca Rolfe, is gonna come back next week. And with that, madam clerk, let's go to our 3PM special order. Orders.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, mister president. Items 25 through 28 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the certification of the FEIR, the final environmental impact report for the proposed 3400 Laguna Street project issued by the planning commission through its motion, dated 04/17/2025, which would allow for the demolition of two of the five existing buildings and construct two new buildings in the same locations as the demolished structures. The proposed project would renovate two of the existing buildings and make improvements to the Julia Morgan Building. The project would add approximately 58,000, square feet of institutional use and increase the number of residential care suites from 86 to 109. Item 26 is the motion to affirm the planning commission certification of the FEIR. Item 27 conditionally reverses the commission certification, subject to the adoption of written findings. Item 28 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings. For items 29 through 32, this is the public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a conditional use authorization for the proposed project at 3400 Laguna Street described above. Item 30 is the motion to approve the decision of the planning commission approving a conditional use authorization. Item 31 is the motion to disapprove the commission's decision, and this item is an has an eight vote threshold associated with it. Item 32 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings in the disapproval of the proposed conditional use authorization. And the third item associated is our items 33 through 36, the public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the 3400 Laguna Street project, described, above. Item 34 is the motion to approve the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to approve the certificate of appropriateness. Item 35 is the motion, to disapprove the commission's decision. And item 36 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Colleagues, we have before us three appeal hearings, with two appellants on the proposed project at 3400 Laguna Street. As our clerk went through them, items 25 through 28 comprise the appeal of the final environmental impact report certification with one appellant. Items 29 through 32 comprise the appeal of the conditional use authorization approvals with two appellants, and items 33 through 36 are the appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission's decision on a certificate of appropriateness. After the hearing, the board will, do three things. First, vote on whether to affirm or conditionally reverse the final EIR certification. Two, determine whether to approve or disapprove the conditional use authorization. And three, finally, whether to approve or disapprove the certificate of appropriateness. Without objection, since we have two appellants, one being the project sponsor, and after consultation with our clerk and our city attorney, I'm proposing that we proceed as follows. First, we give up to ten minutes for appellant, number one, on the final EIR and the CU, Tanya Albuquerque. Then we will have public comment, in support of, appellant number one and their appeals on the final EIR and the CU. Then we will have give up to ten minutes to the second appellant, also the project sponsor, on the CU and the certificate of appropriateness. Then we will get we will hear public comment in support of appellant number two and their appeals on the CU and the certificate of appropriateness. Then we will have up to ten minutes from the planning department. Then we will go back to the project sponsor for up to ten minutes, of to respond to the other party. And finally, we will give each of the appellant's three minute, three minutes of rebuttal. Colleagues, are there any objections to proceeding in that way? I don't see anyone. So seeing no objections, the public hearings will proceed as indicated and are now open. And I don't know if if supervisor Sherrill has any introductory comments. Nope. We'll just keep going. So, colleagues, I would like well, actually, I would like to invite the first appellant, Tanya Albuquerque, to come forward and present their case on the final EIR and the conditional use. And you have ten minutes.

[Tanya Albuquerque, Appellant (Save the Marina’s Heritage)]: I'm gonna split my time.

[Gloria Fontanello, Public commenter]: So

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Can you please speak directly into that microphone?

[Tanya Albuquerque, Appellant (Save the Marina’s Heritage)]: Yes. Is that better?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: You can move it. Yeah. It's You're

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: gonna split your time with another

[Tanya Albuquerque, Appellant (Save the Marina’s Heritage)]: With our appellate one time. Great. Steve Williams. Just let me know when I should start.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Start, I think.

[Tanya Albuquerque, Appellant (Save the Marina’s Heritage)]: Have a presentation. There. Okay. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Tanya Albuquerque. I'm here on behalf of the neighborhood organization, Save the Marina's Heritage. We are appealing the approvals by the planning commission of a massive construction project by Heritage on the Marina at 3400 Laguna and opposing the Heritage appeal of a decision by the Historic Preservation Commission at the April 17 joint hearing. 3400 Laguna is San Francisco's newest historic landmark. The centerpiece is a century old, beautiful, Julia Morgan designed mansion. The Heritage plans to tear down two small structures and replace them with four story plus modern buildings that will surround and tower over the mansion, hiding much of it and many of its protected and distinguished features from public view. These new buildings will add 60,000 square feet to the property, but create only 23 new units. I wanna respond to the heritage's appeal. When the Historic Preservation Commission issued the certificate of appropriateness for this project, they attached a condition. It is called condition of approval one. It is limited and reasonable. It says, before getting a building permit, the heritage must work with the HPC subcommittee, called the architectural review committee, on massing and architectural details. The heritage wants you to gut condition one by taking away the ARC's role and not allowing any changes to massing of the new buildings. The record is clear that the HPC would not have approved the certificate without condition one. Put simply, it was a compromise. The HPC wanted to support the overall project, but as experts in architecture and historic preservation, they had serious concerns about the impact on this landmark. Especially concerning to them was the size and height of the proposed building on Francisco Street, which will hide the mansion and tower over it. The HPC compared the current view of the mansion to the heritage's proposal and came up with a reasonable solution that enables the project to move forward, but with oversight and maybe changes as needed to preserve this landmark. Next slide. Granted, this situation is not typical. Normally, an owner would work with the ARC and then ask the full HPC to approve a certificate. The Heritage chose to skip this step and tried to jam all approvals together in one joint hearing. It thought it could get everything it wanted without pushback. Now it's complaining because the HPC didn't go along. But because this situation is unusual, the HPC was extremely cautious and deliberative. The HPC turned again and again during the hearing to the deputy city attorney and commission staff for legal assurance that it could make the certificate conditional. The advice they got was you have full authority to adopt this condition, and the more general it is, the more flexibility you have. Now the Heritage says this limited and common sense condition is illegal delegation, too vague, and violates the Permit Streamlining Act. These claims are false. Everyone at the hearing, the city attorney, commission staff, planning commission, and HPC members believed and relied on the fact that the HPC had the legal authority to adopt condition one. If you side with the Heritage on this point, you're telling every department and commission that they cannot rely on the legal advice given to them by the city attorney. The Heritage argues that condition one, next slide, is too vague, doesn't have a deadline, doesn't have a way to appeal, but its proposed revision to condition one addressed none of these things because they're not the Heritage's real concerns, which are just avoiding any oversight by the ARC and making sure no one tells them this project is just too big. Condition one is limp is clear, limited, and reasonable. The Heritage's position that it's impossible to build 23 units with anything less than 60,000 new square feet and disfiguring a landmark is the unreasonable one. The Heritage also says condition one violates the Permit Streamlining Act, but this act doesn't apply to post discretionary approval pre building permit reviews, such as condition one. At the hearing, no one, including no one from SF Planning, objected to condition one. Now Planning claims in its response that due to time and facilitation constraints, the regulatory framework and procedures were not readily available at the hearing. It's offensive for planning to say they were unprepared for the hearing they chose to schedule. What planning is really saying is that it wasn't prepared for the HPC to not go along with rubber stamping this project. If you disagree with the city attorney's interpretation of the law, the solution is not to undermine the HPC by making the condition toothless as heritage requests, but instead invalidate the certificate of appropriateness and have the heritage follow the typical process of working with the ARC and then having its project voted on by the full HPC. We strongly support this alternative. We believe that the HPC shouldn't have approved the certificate in the first place. We think this project doesn't comply with the legal standards for construction on and around a landmark, and we believe it violates the notice of special restrictions on the property. But if you uphold the certificate, then don't change condition one. The HPC only approved the certificate because it was assured that condition one was fully enforceable. The certificate of appropriateness and condition one must stand or fall together. Please stop my time. Thank you.

[Steve Williams, Attorney for Appellant]: Good afternoon, president Mandelmann, members of the board. My name is Steve Williams, and I'm here to help represent the neighbors and the appellants in this case. The board must act today to grant the appeal and set aside the new CU given to Heritage by Planning. As set forth in our briefing, Heritage is currently in violation of its existing CU and cannot under the planning code or state law be granted a new conditional use until the violations are addressed and corrected. Planning should not have started the process without first addressing the violations. Heritage is a residential care facility. All of its activities must fall under the CU. It may only operate as a conditional use in this residential neighborhood. It cannot operate any other way in this neighborhood. It's original CU as a care facility was grandfathered in when the city rezoned in the twenties and was revisited in 1953, '62 '86. Because it operates only as a conditional use, again, all activities it undertakes in the neighborhood must fall within the allowable parameters and specific language of the existing CU. Any significant enlargement, alteration, or intensification beyond what is specifically allowed in the existing CU requires a new CU under planning code section one seventy eight. The inclusion of other units is not separate. It's part of the heritage facility and must be addressed and included in any new CU and as part of the project description in the CU and the EIR. Heritage has violated its CU by acquiring new buildings and making those buildings part of its facility. It greatly enlarged, altered, and intensified its commercial operation in the neighborhood by adding over 11,000 square feet to it without any change in its CU. The threshold for a new CU is an addition of 500 square feet, and that's under section one seventy eight c. Appellants have pointed out in its written submission and mapped out in its briefings, Heritage acquired three buildings with 10 additional residential units, and has turned all of those units into an integrated part of its commercial facility. These units are 10 naturally affordable rent controlled family sized housing units. The kind of affordable housing that every member of this board has pledged to protect and preserve. Today is the day when you must honor and fulfill that promise that you made to every one of your constituents. The explanation provided by heritage that these units are merely being rented without heritage as a with heritage as a landlord. These statements are simply not true. These 10 units are specifically offered only and exclusively to the senior clientele as part of the institution. On its website, it specifically states that these units are offered exactly on the same terms as all the other units in the historic building. Same amenities, same security, same housekeeping, identical to the units in the historic building. Taking these units away from the city's supply of rent controlled housing stock and making them part of this institution is clearly outside of the parameters of the existing CU. Violates numerous provisions of the planning code. Heritage took over these rent control units without any changes to its CU. It transformed them from residential into institutional use without an application for that conversion and without an application for the merger of the units, both of which are required under section three one seven. Ignoring these violations, planning has addressed the the claims from appellant, response form page six. Planning department responses, there are no violations of the conditional use. Planning says, all these units, within the buildings remain as residential uses. This is not true. Heritage supplies no residential housing. It is an institutional project before you. If they were housing, they would have to supply 20% of affordable housing. There is no affordable housing in this. These are all luxury residential care units. Heritage has destroyed the affordable units, and those units are now part of the institution. The actions taken by Heritage are no different from that taken by the Academy of Art University, only on a smaller scale, Transforming residential units into institutional units. It's clear and undeniable violations of the planning code. Board must act today to correct these violations. For any questions you may have. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, mister Williams. I don't see any questions from colleagues. So we will now invite public comment in support of this appellant on their appeals of the final EIR and CU. If you, would like to address us in support of this appeal these appeals, line up to our left, your right, and we can hear from our first person.

[Mr. Wright, Public commenter]: It's another example of your discriminatory practices and tricking devices or your price fixing and your price gouging on housing. You always claim that you're gonna build affordable housing, then you claim that you're gonna build it for senior citizens. But yet, when you're approved and the process starts to accept applications out of the mayor's office on housing, you set the requirement to be a tenant based on the AMI scale, and you set the percentages always from sixty, seventy to 90% of the AMPI scale, which is a high end cum bracket scale, and you're in violation of your own charter rules, pursuit to rule four ten or the city and county of San Francisco charter that says each and every housing opportunity is supposed to be for very low and low income bracket people. But yet, when you get to the final step, you deliberately miscategorize the use and make the requirement to be attended in the building up to a 120,000, 80,000, 90,000 a year, whereas very low and low income bracket people are not included in the housing opportunity. And about you messing with this historical building, you did the thing same thing to the historical buildings in the Fillmore area. You claimed that the blacks who had those historical homes would be able to move back into their homes and pay the same price, and you eliminated those homes. And by the same response, you build skyscrapers and outpriced them where they ended up losing their property and ended up homeless out in the street. So you are not keeping your word. You got a pattern of doing this for the past well over several decades. And then about you talking about protecting a historical building in some areas like you did in the sunset, but you're not doing it in this area in Japantown, and I object to it.

[Mike Hebel, Marina resident]: Good afternoon, supervisor. My name is Mike Hebel. I'm a resident in the Marina. I'm anticipating that the heritage on the marina will once again raise the economic necessity argument to support its proposed 60,000 square feet of new construction. In our meetings with the supervisors and along with their staff, we as an a community organization were continually told and advised that economic necessity is not the standard used to determine if this proposal should receive regulatory approval. Importantly, heritage has never even supported that argument of economic necessity. The Heritage 2023 tax return, the last available, shows that it has assets that have over 121,000,000 against just $1,010,000,000 in liabilities, making it one of the richest liquid nonprofits in San Francisco. Any operating losses it may have sustained over the last several years were self inflicted. As the heritage has in recent years, systematically removed 16 units, reducing its unit count from 102 to 86. And at the same time, it left another 7,600 square feet, formerly a skilled nursing facility lay vacant. That vacant facility probably has the capacity for at least another eight units. Heritage has then over the last several years reduced its available senior housing by approximately 24 units. Yet the proposed new construction will allow and add only 23 units, nearly 2,000 square feet per unit. This is not affordable senior housing heritage proposes to upgrade from an expensive senior housing to ultra luxury units that will be amongst the most expensive in California. For the growing populations of seniors in San Francisco, only the wealthiest 1%.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Welcome to our next speaker.

[Terry Peckham, Resident]: I have audio and visual. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Terry Peckham. I'm a resident of the marina and been very interested in this project. I I wanna get to my video. I was at the March or at the April meeting with the, HRC. It is without a doubt that they would not have approved, the COA without the that condition. And I think some of the clips from that really, really point that fact out. So I'd like to get that started.

[HPC Commissioner (audio excerpt)]: Project, and we have members of this commission who have expressed some concern that we look into further detail. So I'm asking you as the commission, staff, and the city attorney's office to help us move, on a good, positive step forward considering what has been expressed today.

[Kristen Jensen, Deputy City Attorney (HPC meeting excerpt)]: Alright. Step in just for a second to respond. Thank you so much, commissioner, deputy city attorney Kristen Jensen again. So I think there are two paths that are being discussed, and I just want to make sure that everybody's very clear on what they are. One of them would be the certificate of appropriateness could be approved with the condition that staff go back and work with the ARC to finalize some of the specific details. And you could be very specific about which portions of the project details you wanted to be focused on, or you could be a little bit more general. The other path is the one that I think that the, commission was just discussing, which would be to sort of press pause here on the project approvals, go back for further work, either before the full HPC or just before the architecture committee, and then have it come back to the planning commission.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney (Board)]: So I

[Kristen Jensen, Deputy City Attorney (HPC meeting excerpt)]: just want to make sure that everybody understands those are the two different paths that we're talking about. Good. I mean, I think it's all in the wording of the, the conditions on which you send it back. I mean, I think you can set the scope of the review by the ARC, by your conditions of approval. So you can determine how much of the project that they are actually looking at. I thought that I understood from some of the commissioners that there were very specific aspects of the project roof line and things like that, that you wanted considered. So I think you could tailor the referral to the courtesy so that it's not sort of a global.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you. Can we hear from our next speaker?

[Mary Lindy, CEO, San Francisco Ladies’ Protection & Relief Society (Heritage on the Marina)]: Afternoon, supervisors. My name is Tina Matt. The heritage proposal to remove the ARC from the approval process cuts the heart out of condition one and is completely contrary to the HRC's intention. Let's continue with the excerpts.

[Gloria Fontanello, Public commenter]: Oh, I lost audio.

[HPC Commissioner (audio excerpt)]: Committee have in terms what do we mean by details? Does details mean that the ARC has the authority to say the last x number of feet of this proposed building must be shortened to two floors, or the last x number of feet of this building, we don't want at all. We just want the building to be shorter in terms of length. Do they have that authority?

[HPC Staff/Secretary (audio excerpt)]: The answer is yes, if you condition it in your motion today. The way I understand that the motion is to approve the certificate of appropriateness, but require that the project go back before the architecture review committee for final massing and details.

[HPC Commissioner (audio excerpt)]: And it and it should be that generic. I appreciate it.

[HPC Commissioner (audio excerpt)]: Well, I

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: think it gives it more I

[HPC Commissioner (audio excerpt)]: think it gives the agency more flexibility. Yeah. I don't want specificity. It has to be generic.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: If it's

[HPC Staff/Secretary (audio excerpt)]: that general suggesting the more general it is, the more flexibility you have.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: I accept that motion.

[Mary Lindy, CEO, San Francisco Ladies’ Protection & Relief Society (Heritage on the Marina)]: Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: I I

[HPC Commissioner (audio excerpt)]: think we have a motion and a second.

[HPC Staff/Secretary (audio excerpt)]: Very good, commissioners. If there's no further deliberation, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve the certificate of appropriateness, adding a condition that the project return to the ARC for final massing and details on that motion. Commissioner Veroni? Aye. Commissioner Baldauff? Aye. Commissioner Vergara? Yes. Commissioner Wright? Excuse me. Commissioner Foley? Aye. Commissioner Nagas Warren?

[Speaker 24.0]: Nay.

[HPC Staff/Secretary (audio excerpt)]: And commission president Matsuda?

[Mr. Wright, Public commenter]: Yes.

[HPC Staff/Secretary (audio excerpt)]: So moved, commissioners. That motion passes five to one with commissioner Nagas Warren voting against.

[Gloria Fontanello, Public commenter]: Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Can you turn that off?

[Bart Draper, Neighbor]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Bart Draper, and I live at 1563 Francisco Street, directly south of the heritage. I want to bring to your attention a lack of analysis related to the notice of special restrictions, or the NSR, associated with this property. As you're probably aware, all historic landmarks, including 3400 Laguna Street, have an NSR recorded to prevent harmful changes. On 03/18/2025, an NSR was filed for 3400 Laguna, incorporating ordinance number three zero two-twenty four, which designates it a landmark. The ordinance specifies that the facades, massing, roof lines, ornamentation, and landscaping of the 1925 Morgan Building and the nineteen twenty nine stone cottage must be preserved or restored in kind. The heritage's proposed project would violate these protections, obscuring facades and roof lines, overwhelming the Morgan Building, and damaging key architectural elements, effectively undermining the landmark designation. Despite this, the NSR was not mentioned in any of the four motions prepared for SF planning by SF planning staff for the April 17 hearing, even though it had been recorded a month earlier and planning was involved in the 2024 landmark designation process. Neither the heritage, the planning commission, nor the historic preservation committee evaluated the project against the NSR. This oversight is yet another reason to overturn the final EIR, the conditional use authorization, or at a minimum to deny the certificate of appropriateness. The NSR deserves serious consideration, and the architectural review committee is probably the best place to do that. Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Welcome to our next speaker.

[Mary Ann Au Yang, Neighbor]: Good afternoon. My name is Mary Ann Au Yang, and I've been in the neigh this neighborhood, for over forty years. The Heritage House is a neighborhood historical landmark. Why do we have historical building landmarks? Is it not for the benefit of the property owner? It's because San Francisco recognized it for its beauty and historically significance. This Julia Morgan building just had its hundredth anniversary. Julia was one of the few women architects during the nineteen hundreds. These buildings are her legacy and need to be accessible visually to everyone. It is a privilege to own a historical landmark, but one that comes with reasonable limitations on what we can do to the property. San Francisco planning calls this property necessary, desirable, compatible with the neighborhood. The neighborhood the neighborhood disagrees. The neighborhood values the landmark and wants the architectural review committee to do what is necessary to protect it. To even get this hearing, we needed to sup the support of at least 20% of the owners or residents within 300 feet of the heritage. We went beyond the minimum. We had 32% of the neighbors, and over 200 people signed the appeal position, still growing. In the days leading up to the hearing, over a hunched 125 concerned citizens have written every supervisor asking you to support and on our appeal to deny the heritage. Prior to the April 17 hearing, San Francisco planning got a 123 letters against this project in just ten days. The neighborhood is sending the board of supervisor a message. We are supportive of senior housing. We are not anti develop.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Let's hear from our next speaker.

[Ariela Albuquerque, Student and neighbor]: Hello. My name is Ariela Albuquerque. I'm a rising senior at the Urban School of San Francisco, and I've lived across the street from the heritage my entire life. I'm interested in public policy and law, and I volunteer with two legal nonprofits, including the San Francisco Housing Rights Coalition. I understand the urgent need for more housing in our city. I also believe strongly in the importance of the rule of law, especially when it comes to preserving affordable housing and protecting our city's historic landmarks. This brings me to my concerns and questions about the expansion of the heritage. Why was the heritage allowed to acquire and incorporate neighboring buildings into its business operations without completing the legally required steps to do such a change in use? Why is it considered sound public policy to permit the conversion of rent controlled affordable housing into luxury senior units that are unaffordable to most San Franciscans? Why would San Francisco allow one of its newest historic landmarks to be boxed in by larger modern buildings on three sides? We wouldn't let this happen to other historic landmarks like Palace Of Fine Arts or Quiet Tower. Finally, why is 60,000 square feet of new construction necessary to add just 23 units? That scale raises questions about how much of this project actually serves housing needs versus commercial expansion. I appreciate your time and consideration, and I respectfully ask that you uphold San Francisco's commitments to equitable housing, legal integrity, and historic preservation. Thank you for your time.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Let's hear from our next speaker, please.

[Todd Polador, Marina resident]: Good afternoon. My name is Todd Polador. I'm a resident of Francisco Street and a voice for the numerous, others that have emailed into your offices. I want to urge you to deny the Heritage on the Mariner's appeal to remove the condition requiring requiring collaboration within the Historic Preservation Commission's Architectural Review Committee on designing and massing revisions. This condition was essential to the HPC's approval of the certificate of appropriateness and cannot be removed without undermining the approval itself. HPC members voiced concerns as the project's impact of the landmark Julia Morgan mansion. Their approval of the COA was based on assurances from the city attorney's office that they had the authority to make a COA conditional. Without the ARC's condition, the COA would not have passed. Overturning this now would undercut the authority of the HPC and the city attorney's office. There is no legal basis to remove this condition. If you disagree with the city attorney's office's interpretation, the correct action is to invalidate the COA, not remove the condition, and require the project to go through the full HPC review process. Additionally, I urge you to overturn the Planning Commission's approval of the conditional use authorization and the environmental impact report. The Heritage violated city law by converting 10 rent controlled residential units into institutional use, mirroring the exact same conduct that led to a $60,000,000 settlement with the Academy of Art. This unlawful removal of affordable housing should be penalized, not rewarded with new entitlements. Please protect the historic character of our neighborhood. Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Let's hear from the next speaker.

[Maurice Fitzgerald, Neighbor (Bay Street)]: Hi. My name is Maurice Fitzgerald, and I live in the, middle of the 14 Hundreds Block on Bay Street. And one thing I'm not certain, if the Board of Supervisors is aware, that this plan contemplates moving the entrance of the Heritage House, from where it has been for a hundred years, over to Bay Street, and to include a circular driveway, underground parking, and a new entranceway there. And I'm here to tell you about that block very briefly. I've lived there twenty five years. I lived there with my wife and my two children. We have the pleasure of trying to get in and out of our driveway, in the middle of the block, every morning to take the kids to school, and for other uses. And I can tell you that it's an extremely dangerous patch of road. This is so because the cars coming from Marin in the morning go up Laguna, make a left turn onto Bay Street. These are two lanes that turn left. And the cars, because of the configuration of of Laguna, of Bay Street, it goes from 80 feet at Laguna down to 50 feet in the middle of the block. What this creates is a wide swoop of traffic that comes around that corner. So the chances of automobile collisions have tenfold increased with the new, introduction of a parking garage and a new circular driveway. Also, that patch of Bay Street is an extremely busy pedestrian walkway. That is so because people coming from the East Marina to go to Safeway, or children going to, Moscone Playground, or the vast numbers of people who use that to access the great, meadow at Fort Mason. Again, getting in and out of my garage, always somebody walking past, always some kid on a scooter, always a woman pushing her baby, or a dog, or cell phone, or all three, and I'm very concerned that the massive increase of ingress and egress on Bay Street at that one location, that very dangerous location, will lead to some disastrous consequences. I thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

[Gloria Fontanello, Public commenter]: Hello. Can someone help me with the, photos? I had

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: The overhead projector.

[Gloria Fontanello, Public commenter]: Posters. I had large posters, but they wouldn't allow me to bring them in. And I just have a lot to show

[Mr. Wright, Public commenter]: visually.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: And before you begin, can you just, when you're ready, pull the microphone close as close as you can there.

[Gloria Fontanello, Public commenter]: Is that okay? Yeah. My name is Gloria Fontanello. I have been living on Bay Street for the past fifth almost fifty years. I'm here. I'd like to show this one if you could. Oh, the one on yeah. That one shows the four trucks, Cisco 1234. I'm so sorry. I had all things prepared. I wanna show accidents real fast. Automobile on its side in automobile on its side in front of the 1400 block of Bay Street. Motorcycle crash all over Bay Street. I'm a former commissioner for the first San Francisco Commission on the Environment. I've worked on two Doyle Drive task force, thank goodness. We used people won't even remember what Doyle Drive was today. It's a Presidio Parkway. We used to call it a bloodbath. We would watch people make u turns out there, but thank God today, they're still speeding like crazy. They're speeding on Bay and doing the same thing, making illegal turns because they realize they're on their way to the wharf instead of the bridge. I sent a letter to commissioner Moore after the first meeting because she was right on. I said your observation at the planning commission on September 26 when she mentioned how dangerous that intersection is. She said, why are we discussing Bay and Laguna? The automobiles and illegal trucks is what I was trying to show you. We have four sets of laws. There are no trucks allowed. We're under the national standard, our lanes. So from Franklin down to Laguna, it's no trucks. I brought this photo, which they wouldn't let me bring in, let's see, of at least a 100 of at least a 100 side view mirrors, we have we have so much information. I I've been giving

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Let's hear from our next speaker.

[Speaker 24.0]: Hi. I'm Sheryl. I'm here to talk about the importance of preserving historic buildings. When we do that, we ensure that there is a greater investment in our community, and it also ensures that people after us are able to enjoy those historic landmarks. So preserving them is quite important.

[Sheryl (public commenter)]: When we want to extend or we wanna build additional housing or housing units, we need to look for other, places or spaces for those. If you need it to be more luxury, because I do understand that there are different people of different demographics that would like a certain type of lifestyle, You'll need to shift, and you'll need to figure out different ways in order to provide that type of housing units. For those who are a lower lower class of individuals who their demographic cannot afford the types of housing that they need so they can have sustainable housing. You need to create conditions that are healthy, livable, and that they are maintained in an efficient way, not to the detriment of their livelihood and the future of their livelihood. They shouldn't, just because they are older, have to live in conditions that are less than others. So hopefully that you understand that. Please make sure that you make the correct decision on this. I think it's quite clear on making sure we can preserve history. But the fact that we have to have this conversation in the first place is why I'm here. So please make sure that you're doing the correct things. Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Terry Field, Public commenter]: Hi. So I'm sorry. I'm not 100% familiar with this specific location, but no matter what. Since the future is is, the opposite of global, we go local. So first, you guys know better than anyone, or it's going to affect the neighborhood because you've been living there for long enough. So first thing, we try we have to trust you. You have to trust them. Obviously enough I mean, if it were that obvious, I wouldn't have to say that it's obvious. We don't touch historic buildings, except if we build something even more beautiful. Last, because I don't have much to comment on that. You never, first of all, ever defined affordable. You need to put a price. What's affordable? So this is a joke. We don't need more housing here for now in San Francisco. We don't. To put who in there. Okay. Sorry. I'll do my public comments when the time's come.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Any other members of the public who would like to provide public comment in support of the first appellant, Tanya Al Buerkirk or Stephen Williams? Alright, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Thank you, madam clerk. Public comment is now closed. We will now ask the second appellant, also the project sponsor, to come forward and present their case on the CU and the certificate of appropriateness. And you have ten minutes.

[Alan Murphy (Perkins Coie), Counsel for Project Sponsor (Heritage on the Marina)]: Thank you, and good afternoon. My name is Alan Murphy. I'm with the law firm of Perkins Coie. We represent the project sponsor, Heritage on the Marina. During the historic preservation commission hearing on the project, a mistake was made that forced the sponsor to appeal its approvals. The historic preservation commission included as a condition of project approval, an open ended requirement for further review of project massing and architectural details by an ad hoc committee without any apparent appeal process. In the planning department's response to our appeal, staff agrees with us that this condition of approval should be modified or removed. First, the planning department agrees that condition of approval one is unnecessary because the project as designed complies with all requirements for approval of a certificate of appropriateness. Second, the department agrees that the historic preservation commission's architectural review committee cannot conduct its review of a project after the commission itself has done so. The project sponsor agrees with the planning department's recommendation to modify condition of approval one consistent with the request in our appeal with further modifications as proposed by planning staff and its response. We also agree with the planning department's recommendation to modify the planning commission's finding six L consistent with the language in our appeal letter. Thank you very much for your consideration. I'm available should there be any questions. And also others on the project sponsor team will speak with you during the rebuttal period on the other appeals before you today. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: I apologize. So that that is it. Alright. So we will now take public comments from folks in support of the second appellant.

[Carolyn Kiernat, Preservation Architect (Page & Turnbull)]: Good evening. It's evening already, supervisors. My name is Carolyn Kiernat, and I'm a preservation architect and principal at Page and Turnbull in San Francisco. My colleagues and I have been working alongside Heritage on the Marina ownership and design team for the past couple of years to ensure the sensitive treatment of the historic Julia Morgan building, the proposed addition, and the associated landscape features. It has been very clear in my interaction with both leadership and residents that heritage on the marina takes their stewardship responsibility of the historic Julia Morgan building seriously. They and their residents celebrate and cherish the building's history and its connection to Julia Morgan. A little background about our work to date. Page and Turnbull began the project by preparing a thorough historic resource evaluation with findings about the history, significance, and character defining features of the property. We also completed a preliminary conditions assessment of the Julia Morgan Building, and we have provided treatment recommendations for the repair of brick, terracotta, mortar, slate, wood windows, and the surrounding iron fence. The building is in very good condition, and it has been well maintained over its one hundred year history, reflecting the great stewardship of heritage on the marina. Regarding the proposed addition, it should be noted that the property has very different urban conditions that respond that it responds to on its north, west, and south sides. On the south side of the property facing Francisco, the prop proposed addition has a more residential rhythm and character, responding to the existing height and character of the residential buildings on that street. On the west side of the property, the full expanse of the Julia Morgan building's primary facade, as well as the lawn and fencing that frame our view of this important building will be retained, repaired, and restored for the enjoyment of future generations. Our intention and our hope is to move forward with the approved certificate of appropriateness, coordinate additional design refinements through the planning department's

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Patrick Alexander, Resident (Heritage on the Marina)]: My name is Patrick Alexander, and I'm a resident of the heritage at the Marina. All the residents are aware of why there is a need for the heritage to start construction to increase the number of units available. Currently, this heritage has a surplus of very small studio units, which, when it was founded a hundred years ago, were what retirees wanted. This is not the case today. The demand is for one and two bedroom units, and that is why the Heritage needs to be able to expand to fulfill this demand. When I came to the heritage, I came there with the intention of spending the rest of my life at the heritage. Thereby relieving my family of the burden of taking care of me in my old age. The same applies to the rest of the residents. We gave up houses, we gave up condos, we gave up apartments to be able to live in this lovely old building with its amazing location. We want to be able to live and continue to live doing that for the rest of our lives. We all know construction is messy, but the eventual outcome will be a benefit, will be a benefit to the community and the city, as well as the city, and provide additional housing for retired San Francisco. So please vote in favor of the heritage, so we can all continue to live there for the rest of your life rest of our lives. Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. We'll hear from our next speaker.

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: Second.

[Theo Armour, Resident (Heritage on the Marina)]: Can we do the overhead?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: SFGOV TV, please.

[Theo Armour, Resident (Heritage on the Marina)]: So my name is greeting supervisors. My name is Theo Armour. I've been a resident at Heritage on Marina since 2020. I'm a one handed paraplegic. I moved there at the height of the virus in order to to find some safety, a safe haven. It turns out, five years later, I'm living in the as close to paradise as I'll ever get. I'm really enjoying living there. Why? For well, for some a bunch of reasons. But I think the main thing is that what I want of this place and why I like living in this Julia Morgan building is that it's an attractive for me, for my kind of person, an an affordable senior community. And this is essential in many ways for San Francisco's aging population. The idea of aging in your in in your house, one or two people living in a large property waste housing stock. So senior housing like the one we live in, like Heritage on the Marina, frees up larger properties for younger families who desperately need it. I'm I'm a past life. I'm an architect. I've I've looked at the drawings. I've looked at the plans. Yes. There are issues. But this fight is worth it. And believe me, I have one of the best views in San Francisco. I look out over Fort Mason and the Bay. But I'm willing to give up that view to see this project succeed. Yes. There will be noise and dust. Yes. There will be noise during the construction. But we and we live residents live at ground zero. We will be going through this. It'll be our concern more than anybody. And I know my board, and I know the contractors, and everybody will be behind us and making sure that the construction is as safe and as as as as good as it possibly can be. I please, we're not asking to solve the housing crisis. When your constituents want a solution like this, please say yes.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

[Tony Hanley, Resident (Heritage on the Marina)]: I have no overheads. Sorry. My name is Tony Hanley. My wife, Linda, and I have lived at The Heritage on the Marina for eight years. The Heritage on the Marina is a family, and that's what makes it so great. The caring staff that takes care of us. When I say family, you know everybody's name. All the staff, all the residents. Two comments. Some gentle I mean, one of the gentlemen up here was looking at our tax return, and we have all this value. The value is is that we have no debt. Our problem is our costs run $5,000 to $7,000 more a month than our income. Now we do have, and it's been reported, we do have a portfolio. And thank goodness for that portfolio that has allowed the absorption. The money off that portfolio has allowed an absorption of the costs. The last thing that bugged me was the great driveway dispute. If you ever been to the heritage and looked at a Cisco truck or the San Francisco now it's Recology. I call it the garbage. They have to turn out on Bay Street and back in. The project calls for a drive through. So they drive in, turn right, drive into the property, do their stuff, and there's a drive out. Thank you very much.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

[Patrick Murphy, Neighbor (Francisco Street)]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Patrick Murphy. I'm a native San Franciscan who has lived on Francisco Street since 1989, purchased my property abutting the Heritage in 1999. For the past twenty seven to thirty seven years, the management and occupants at the Heritage have been nothing but wonderful neighbors. I do feel like some of them have become part of my family and my building. I am age 65, considering where to live in retirement, and the Heritage provides a distinct and different relatively affordable CCR alternative for seniors such as myself looking to remain in San Francisco where we have lived all our lives. I've lived in an apartment all my life and I'm not looking for luxury, but what they have now is studio apartments. I I don't want to move down to a studio. They need to be able to build something that fits what people are looking for today, which is a larger size apartment. The extra square footage will help for a common living space for all the people that do live there. I urge you to support the heritage and approve, approve this process. Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Alright. Next speaker, if there are any in line down there. Can you turn that off? Alright, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Thank you, madam clerk. Seeing no other speakers, public comment is now closed. And now we will hear for ten minutes from representatives of the planning department.

[Megan Kalpin, Senior Environmental Planner (SF Planning)]: Good afternoon, president Mandelmann and members of the board. My name is Megan Kalpin. I'm a senior environmental planner at the planning department. Joining me today are Justin Grebing, Allison Vanderslice, Joy Navarrete, and Lisa Gibson. Could we please go to my slides? I'll be presenting the planning department's response to the appeal of the certification of the final EIR for the 3400 Laguna Street project. After I complete my presentation, I'll hand things over to my colleague, Richard Sucre, who will present on the two other appeals. Before I begin, I do wanna acknowledge the testimony that we heard today from members of the community who are concerned about the potential impacts of the project. These issues have been addressed in the department's appeal response and as well in the EIR itself. 30 next slide, please. 3400 Laguna Street is an approximately 1.6 acre project site with frontages along Laguna, Bay, And Francisco Street in the Marina District. Heritage on the Marina has continuously operated a residential care facility for the elderly at the site since 1925. Next slide. The proposed project would maintain the current operation at the site as a residential care facility while restoring the historic Julia Morgan building and constructing two new 40 foot tall buildings in the location of two nonhistoric buildings to be demolished. The project would also add a below grade parking garage and a new vehicle driveway. The project would result in the addition of 23 care units new care units. Next slide. CEQA, the CEQA guidelines, and chapter 31 of the administrative code established the legal standards for an EIR. At a high level, the EIR must be adequate, accurate, and objective, and the conclusions of the EIR must be supported by substantial evidence. On 04/17/2025, the planning commission found the EIR to meet the standards of adequacy. The letters of appeal claim the EIR is inadequate, but upon closer view, their arguments do not meet the legal burden of showing that the EIR analysis is not supported by substantial evidence. All concerns raised by the appellant are shown here on the slide, and they are addressed in the department's appeal response and in the EIR. I'll provide a summary of the planning department's response to some of these concerns now. Next slide, please. Planning code section three zero six point three, notice of hearings, pertains to approval actions by the planning commission and is not relevant to the environmental review, which is not an approval. Pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA guidelines, and chapter 31 of the administrative code, the planning department acted properly in our notifications. Next slide. We did hear from a number of speakers today about concerns about traffic. The regarding transportation, the proposed project was reviewed by the planning department street design advisory team as described in the draft EIR appendix e. That team concluded that the proposed project's new vehicle driveway and freight loading egress locate located further away from the Bay And Laguna Street intersection and the restricted right only turn would not increase hazards for drivers or roadway users. The draft EIR also contains a quantitative analysis of freight and passenger loading demand, which concluded that the proposed project would provide adequate off street freight and passenger loading, including during peak hours. As for other topics raised, the department's appeal response noted that the project site and the project description, including the plans, were adequate and accurate under CEQA. The project was exempt from aesthetics and parking analysis under CEQA. The department analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, and the draft EIR correctly analyzed the proposed project's shadow impacts, utilizing the height measurement under the planning code. Next slide, please. The grounds for an EIR certification appeal under chapter 31 is whether the EIR adequately complies with the requirements of CQM. The appellant has not met the burden of conclusions of the conclusions of the EIR, that they're not supported by substantial evidence, and is not in compliance with CEQA. For these reasons, the planning department respectfully requests that the board reject the CEQA appeal and uphold the planning commission's certification of the final EIR. This concludes my presentation. My colleagues and I are available for questions. Next, I'd like to introduce Rich Sucre, deputy director of current planning.

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: Good evening, supervisors. Rich Sucre. I'm joined here with Sylvia Jimenez and Charles Enchell from planning department staff. The decision the decision before you is whether to uphold or overturn the Historic Preservation Commission's certificate of appropriateness and the Planning Commission's conditional use authorization to amend an existing planned unit development for the expansion of an existing residential care facility called Heritage on the Marina. The certificate of appropriateness received one appeal from the project sponsor, the San Francisco Ladies Protection and Relief Society, and the conditional use authorization received two appeals from Save the Marina's Heritage Neighborhood Organization, or Appland One, and the project sponsor, which we'll refer to as Appland Two. The project sponsor raises two issues with the certificate of appropriateness in their written appeal of the project. One, that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the HPC condition of approval is unnecessary. And two, that HPC condition of approval, one, is vague, is an unlawful delegation of authority by the Historic Preservation Commission to its architectural review committee and risks violating the city violate and risks the city violating the Permit Streamlining Act. In addition, the project sponsor raises one issue in their written appeal of the project's of the project's condition to use authorization, and that's finding six l should be modified to be consistent with the requested modification to the condition of approval number one in the HPC motion. The HPC conducted a joint hearing in conduction with the planning commission. Due to time and, facilitation constraints of that joint hearing, the regulatory framework and procedures were not readily apparent at the time of the HBC's approval motion. Given that under those procedures, the ARC cannot conduct its review after HPC, the department recommends modifying condition of approval one, consistent with the appeal letter request and language. But modifying that language to be more specific, to more specifically refer to the issues discussed by the HPC during the joint public hearing. The department further recommends that the modified condition as the Permit Streamlining Act applies to the project, and require a ninety day review timeline following certification of the environmental impact report. Alternatively, the department recommends removing condition of approval one from the certificate of appropriateness. After the HPC hearing and in response, they added condition of approval number one, the planning commission added finding six L to their approval motion, in which the commission found that the overall size and intensity of the project are, as proposed, are critical to the programmatic viability of the project, and directed planning staff to bring the project back to the commission as an informational item following the ARC's review. The department recommends modifying finding six l of the conditional use authorization motion per the sponsor's letter for consistency with the certificate of appropriateness recommendation and for compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act. For these reasons, the planning department will request the board modify both the C of A and the CU. Appellant number one of the conditional use authorization raises six main issues in their written appeal of the project, which include, one, adequacy of the plans approved by the commission. Two, adequacy of the notice of public hearing. Three, the CU findings failure to adequately address detrimental impacts. Four, that the project description is inaccurate. Five, that the commission commission's attempt to restrict and control the architectural review committee is invalid. And six, that the commission's approval was motivated by economic needs of the project. Overall, the planning department finds that the issues raised by Applet number one are without merit and that the planning commission's approval of the project was proper. The plans submitted comply with the department's plan submittal guidelines and were professionally prepared. Public notice was issued in accordance with planning code sections three hundred and six point three and three thirty three. The commission made required conditional use findings, including a determination that the project would not be detrimental to the surrounding area and that it supports an identified policy goal of expanding residential care facilities for seniors. The project underwent appropriate interagency review to address traffic and loading, and no violations of the existing conditional use or planning code were identified. The commission's findings accurately reflect the actions taken and do not infringe upon the role of the HPC. Finally, the commission's decision was grounded in a balance of applicable policy objectives and findings required under planning code sections three zero three and three zero four. For these reasons, the planning department requests the board reject this appeal of the conditional use authorization. To close, the board has a number of actions before them. If the board chooses to uphold the EIR appeal, then no further action on the C of A and CU is needed. If the board denies the EIR appeal, the board may take separate action on the appeals of the C of A and CU. As a reminder, the department does recommend that the board uphold the C of A appeal, and strike or modify condition number one. In addition, the department recommends that the board deny the Save the Marina CU appeal and uphold the project sponsor CU appeal and modify finding six l to be consistent with its actions on the C of A and Permit Streamlining Act. And this concludes our presentation. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. And we have a question. Supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, president Mendelmann. And I just I I just need to understand a little bit, I about what we're looking at today. Help please help me understand, that it seems to me, though, the Historic Preservation Commission is requesting for a, certificate of appropriation, And that is actually what was resulted, part of the CEQA, or is it not?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: Supervisors through the chair, the Robert Shukray department staff. The EIR and the environmental review of the project was completed first. And in this case, our environmental review staff completed an environmental impact report. Subsequently, because the project is both a city landmark and involved the expansion of a residential care facility, a certificate of appropriateness for the exterior work that happened on the property or any new construction that was happening on the property was required because it's a city landmark. And then a conditional use from the planning commission was also required, to expand the residential care facility.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And so if I may continue, just help me understand then. So today, what we're looking at, because this is particularly not not really about the CEQA in itself, like, whether it's we should certify or not or or, you know, affirm the certification of the CEQA. It's more I have, question about the, reversing and with the conditional. And right now, as it currently stands, the conditional, is including a conditional use and certificate of appropriation or appropriateness. Is that correct?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: Correct.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And so what we're looking at is that if we were to, for item 26, to say that if we were to reverse that, it then that means we're also reversing the requirements for certificate of appropriateness and appropriation and conditional use?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: The requirement would still apply. So what the board can do is accept the appeal and then modify the motion or the certificate of appropriateness and the conditional use as they see fit.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: But if we were to conditionally reverse, the final EIR con like, like, is the conditional, are we I mean, I think that I my assumption is supervisor Sheryl may may help us understand where we're heading on this, but I I'm trying to understand. So currently, as it stands for the EIR, it does include the requirement for CU and requirement of COA?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: It's, two separate actions in this case. So for a project, to be approved by our commissions and our board, environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act is required. So that is one action. In this case, the EIR is the appropriate action. And the subsequent actions by our commissions rely on that environmental review, to meet our compliance with state law in these instances. So for example, if the board chose to uphold the EIR appeal, then action on the C of A and CU would not be required because those two documents would no longer be valid.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And but okay. My last question is that help me understand as it currently stands in the in the existing building that is to be demolished that is in question right now. Are there anyone particularly are there are is it tenants occupied?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: The there are rooms in there, but as I understand, the heritage on the marina will be shifting the location of those tenants to move them into other parts of the facility to accommodate for the construction in those two additions.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: So they would be me technically moved to the the so called main building.

[Mr. Wright, Public commenter]: Correct.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And then it's so the mill the building now clearly is not the landmark building.

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: The the landmark is only the original Julia Morgan property. The latter 60 additions are not part of the landmark.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And so the tenants will actually be moved from the non historic building into the, historic building, and then the goal well, the project is to propose demolish the non historic building, and then it will become additional 23 units?

[Terry Field, Public commenter]: Correct.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And currently, how many units in that non historic building?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: I would ask the project sponsor to address the question. I don't have the number of topology.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Okay. May I,

[Mary Lindy, CEO, San Francisco Ladies’ Protection & Relief Society (Heritage on the Marina)]: ask Sure.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Okay. Project sponsor?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Get that project sponsor.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: The question is for the the building that is currently, you know, in question, that to be demolished, there then you can actually rebuild. And for a additional 23 units on-site, how many units within this non historic building? And how many tenants are currently occupying that building?

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: For the two

[Mary Lindy, CEO, San Francisco Ladies’ Protection & Relief Society (Heritage on the Marina)]: The, Bay Street Building is a two story building that currently occupies our dining room on the first floor, and on the 2nd Floor, six residential units.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: I I guess my question is the Francisco side.

[Mary Lindy, CEO, San Francisco Ladies’ Protection & Relief Society (Heritage on the Marina)]: The Francisco side is currently our vacant skilled nursing facility. We closed that in 2023. We were losing 2 and a half million dollars a year on that.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And so it's completely empty?

[Mary Lindy, CEO, San Francisco Ladies’ Protection & Relief Society (Heritage on the Marina)]: It is vacant.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Vacant. Understood. And how many units right now in that vacant building for the residential care unit?

[Mary Lindy, CEO, San Francisco Ladies’ Protection & Relief Society (Heritage on the Marina)]: They're they're not units in the skilled nursing facility. There are rooms. There were 32 beds in that, but they're rooms.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And then so the 32 beds are going to be demolished, and then you're replacing it with 23 units.

[Mary Lindy, CEO, San Francisco Ladies’ Protection & Relief Society (Heritage on the Marina)]: That's correct. But people are are inflating the size of those units. You have to consider that there's also amenity space. There's also, you know, office space and lobby space and a kitchen, those kinds of things.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Sure. Is 32 beds, 32 rooms, versus 23 units of 800 square feet per room per unit. Correct?

[Alan Murphy (Perkins Coie), Counsel for Project Sponsor (Heritage on the Marina)]: I I should clarify that the 32 beds are not part of the 86 units that are before you as existing on the project site. There are 86 units that are existing in the application. A 109 units will be provided after the project is complete. So it is an increase of 23 units. The beds that are referred to were essentially folks, as I understand it, who who had, previously other accommodations within heritage on the marina, and then went to the skilled nursing facility when they needed that level of care. And today, the model is to actually provide that care within the units that the individuals occupy. So it's a different model. So it's it would not be, it it would not be right to think of it as removing beds because, actually, overall, the project is increasing the number of care suites.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: And so for the new design, it's technically 23 units with 800 square feet each unit.

[Alan Murphy (Perkins Coie), Counsel for Project Sponsor (Heritage on the Marina)]: It is a 23 unit increase, and, do you know the average

[Mary Lindy, CEO, San Francisco Ladies’ Protection & Relief Society (Heritage on the Marina)]: So on average, the units, if you take all of them in account, will be between seven and eight hundred square feet. But our average unit right now is two fifty square feet.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you. That's just trying to help me understand the scale. I mean, it makes sense. I think some of the public comments I made talked about, you know, then it would turn into a two to three bedrooms units instead of sort of this one person alone units or beds, rooms, situation. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to understand what we're looking at. Much appreciated. Thank you so much for our sponsor. Thank you so much for planning staff. I have no more question.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And thank you, supervisor Chan. Now I think we're inviting the project sponsor's up there, so I think we're inviting you back to talk to us for up to ten minutes.

[Mary Lindy, CEO, San Francisco Ladies’ Protection & Relief Society (Heritage on the Marina)]: Well, hi. I'm Mary Lindy, and I'm the CEO of the San Francisco Ladies Protection and Relief Society. We do business as heritage on the marina. I'm also a nurse with a bachelor's and a master's degree in nursing, and I have forty years of nursing experience, as well as twenty seven years as a progressive administrator in senior care. This is indeed my passion. I appreciate you taking the time to hear our vision, and to help us, help you understand why we need to sustain senior living in the San Francisco Marina. I want you to know who we really are, and why we're really here. For a hundred and seventy two years, the society, and now the heritage on the marina, has been a pillar of support for San Franciscans. We offered both community and compassionate care. Today, that support looks like independent and assisted living residents, seniors, approximately 80 of them, and we ensure that they have care, dignity, comfort of the highest quality. However, we are facing a financial crisis that challenges us and threatens our vision. Like many organizations, we're struggling with rising costs. Wages, benefits, care needs, and overhead expenses have increased beyond our resources. Over the past decade, our annual deficit has grown from $3,000,000 to $8,000,000 While our investments have helped sustain us so far, they are no longer enough. Without action, our ability to serve seniors is truly at risk. One of the main challenges we face is that we were originally built as a boarding home, and most of our care units are only about two fifty square feet. That's the size of most of your closets. They simply do not meet the evolving needs of today's seniors, and as a result, many of those remain vacant. Rather than raising fees on our current residents to more than they can manage, we believe the most responsible thing to do is to expand. In that way, we can care for more seniors, and also preserve the integrity of the Julia Morgan Building. This path allows us ongoing financial stability and sustainability, and also keeps us true to our nonprofit mission. Above all, heritage on the marina always has been and will continue to be a nonprofit. This project is not about profit. It's about survival. It's about honoring and sustaining our one hundred and seventy two year legacy of care right here in San Francisco. And with your support, we can protect the future of senior living in the marina, allowing generations to come to receive the care that they deserve, right in the very place our 80 residents currently and proudly call home. On behalf of those residents, and our staff and our board of directors, thank you for your consideration.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you.

[Frank Rockwood, Rockwood Pacific (Development Manager)]: Hi. My name is Frank Rockwood. I'm with Rockwood Pacific. We're the development manager. I just wanna jump in and just clarify just a few figures for the records. As Mary stated, most of the units are very small. The the mode, if you will, is less than 250 square feet. But on average, the current unit mix is slightly less than 400 square feet. And with the proposed project, that average would increase to a little over 700 square feet. So I just wanted to make sure that was crystal clear. And then I also wanted to clarify the six units that are in the existing Bay Connector Building. Those residents could move to the Morgan Building, or they may end up moving to the Perry Building. In fact, I suspect most of them would end up moving to the Perry Building, which is not a historic building. Again, just wanted to clarify that for a record.

[Alan Murphy (Perkins Coie), Counsel for Project Sponsor (Heritage on the Marina)]: Alan Murphy, again with the firm of Perkins Coie, just to conclude, we agree with the planning department's recommendations across the board. And that was for the first appeal, our appeal that I discussed earlier. We also agree with the planning department's recommendation to, deny the appeal filed by save the marinas heritage for the reasons that the planning department addressed. And that would be denying both the appeal of the, certification by the planning commission of the final EIR. Also its issuance of the conditional use authorization and certainly available if there are any questions, but we agree with the planning department's, analysis of those appeals. And so I'll stand on that. And we thank you very much for your consideration.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you. And so we will now go to our back to our first appellant, to present a rebuttal argument, on the final AR and CU for up to three minutes.

[Tanya Albuquerque, Appellant (Save the Marina’s Heritage)]: I think we're gonna split our time again. I'm Tanya Albuquerque again. Here's what I just heard. I heard the heritage is a great place to live. I heard the Marina is a great neighborhood to live in. I agree with that. But what I didn't hear is I didn't hear anyone on the other side, even though they had three times as much time as we just had, talk about the illegal conversion of the three properties that are adjacent to the heritage from residential to institutional use, the the taking away of affordable housing from our neighborhood. And I also didn't hear any acknowledgment of the reality that at the HPC hearing, they were not going to issue the certificate of appropriateness until they were counseled by the city attorney that they could make it conditional. It is clear as day that that was not going to happen until the city attorney assured them again and again and again that this was a path forward. And they wanted to find a path forward because they wanted to find a way to support the addition of senior living in San Francisco. And we are supportive of senior housing in San Francisco. Our message is just that this project right now is ill conceived. It's too big, and it's detrimental to this landmark. And it is it is our request that you either support the certificate of appropriateness and keep condition one as it is, or overturn the certificate of appropriateness and send it back to the HPC and to the ARC to follow normal protocol. I'm gonna stop there.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney (Board)]: Hello.

[Steve Williams, Attorney for Appellant]: Steve Williams again. You know, as Tanya said, what we heard was financial necessity. We're in a financial crisis. Save us. This giant project is the only way we can save ourself. That has nothing to do with following the planning code or following the law or following the rules. And heritage has not done that. And what planning is suggesting is so incredibly cynical that HPC clearly did not think this project fit within the Secretary of Interior Standards. They clearly thought that this new building would overwhelm and overpower the landmark, the landmark that this board approved about two months ago. And now they're saying, oh, it's it's unnecessary to have the condition of approval. Don't send it back. Just wipe out the condition. You saw with your own eyes the HPC asking, should we make it vague? And being told over and over again, yes. The more vague it is, the better. The flexibility. Also, can we can we make it conditional? You heard over and over again. Yes, absolutely. You can make it conditional. Now, in a Kafkaesque turn of events, those are the very arguments that are made against the certificate of appropriateness. The the various advice that they received from planning and the city attorney is now the basis of the appeal. Don't don't fall for it. Grant the appeal.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Thank you. And we will now hear from our second appellant, the project sponsor on the CU and certificate of appropriateness Rebuttal. In rebuttal. No public comment. We're done with public comment. Nope. Nope. It's the rules. Alright. Change that rule. It's not fair. Okay.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mister White, we took public comment on both appellants. What? We took public comment.

[Mr. Wright, Public commenter]: But you didn't take it on the rebuttal part. You took you took public comment on opening statement. Now they're doing rebuttal, and I wanna give a re public comment.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: You're not gonna win this argument.

[Mr. Wright, Public commenter]: How come I'm not?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Because because the clerk is gonna explain I've been our rules.

[Mr. Wright, Public commenter]: Alright. Being absurd. They put their foot in their mouth and they said that the place is gonna be 800 square feet.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: We we gotta go. We gotta keep moving.

[Ms. Brown, Public commenter]: But why

[Mr. Wright, Public commenter]: we say that when all the people was in here protesting earlier today? Tidy your bull.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay.

[HPC Staff/Secretary (audio excerpt)]: Yeah. About an

[Mr. Wright, Public commenter]: hour and a two later, talking to me like that. I'm tired of you insult my intelligence, man, with your racism.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Back to our project sponsor.

[Alan Murphy (Perkins Coie), Counsel for Project Sponsor (Heritage on the Marina)]: Thank you. Alan Murphy on behalf of the project sponsor. I think the only additional point I'll make is that the findings made by the Historic Preservation Commission do amply support issuance of the certificate of appropriateness. And that was one of the points we made in our appeal is that it was unnecessary to have condition of approval one, because in fact, the record and the findings made by the Historic Preservation Commission, did support issuance of the certificate of appropriateness without that condition, or alternatively, as that condition would be modified, by as recommended by the planning department. So just, you know, to conclude, we do support, the planning department's recommendations across the board, and we agree with the analysis as well. And so rather than repeating that analysis on the points raised by the other appellant, we will, you know, again, we agree with the department's analysis there. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you. Alright. Don't see any oh, shall I call on you, or shall I close the hearings? Surprise. Okay. Seeing no one on the roster, these public hearings, items 25, 29, and 33, have been held and are now filed. And I think, supervisor Cheryl, you might have wanted to say something.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Well, I did I make a mistake there? I wanted to ask a couple questions.

[Terry Field, Public commenter]: Oh, did I make

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: a mist oh, by all by all means, do we have a reopening hearing? Does it matter? No. Okay. Just go ahead and

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Okay. Great. Sorry. Okay. So, first of all, thank you all for being here from all sides. This is obviously complicated and not simple. So I want to ask quickly about traffic conditions on Bay And Laguna, something I'm personally familiar with. I've studied the high injury network. Can we talk a little bit about, what Heritage is planning to do to ensure traffic safety for this pretty highly trafficked intersection, there, and specifically the driveway loading and operations plan?

[Alan Murphy (Perkins Coie), Counsel for Project Sponsor (Heritage on the Marina)]: Sure. Alan Murphy on behalf of the project sponsor. There is a robust driveway loading as an operation plan that is required as a condition of approval on the project to ensure that loading conditions are actually better than they are in existing conditions, even with the proposed project. So that is one of the key, features of the project approval. In addition, the project incorporates other elements to improve safety on Bay Street. That includes, moving the driveway entrance further down along Bay, away from the intersection with Laguna, and also making a one direction, driveway. Both those improvements actually will further improve traffic safety on Bay. And then finally, there's a planning code requirement for new projects, which this project is subject to, to, install bulb or to have bulb outs installed on, I believe it's two corners of the project, and that will further increase pedestrian safety in that vicinity as well. So overall, the project, not only will not exacerbate any existing conditions along Bay, but actually will improve traffic safety.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: And that's, an MTA approval? Do I have that right?

[Alan Murphy (Perkins Coie), Counsel for Project Sponsor (Heritage on the Marina)]: There boltouts are required by Right.

[Patrick Murphy, Neighbor (Francisco Street)]: For as

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: for the driveway loading and operations plan, the full the full driveway loading and operations plan.

[Alan Murphy (Perkins Coie), Counsel for Project Sponsor (Heritage on the Marina)]: Ultimately, it will be approved by the city. I don't know which department.

[Tony Hanley, Resident (Heritage on the Marina)]: Who who approves that?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: Richard Cray through the chair. Yes. The planning department approves the driveway loading

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: on the roof.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Does. Correct. Great. And that is necessary for the the project to go forward?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: Yes. That is correct.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Okay. Thank you. Can we talk about, can we talk about the notification process here? It sounds like there's it got noticed correctly. It didn't get noticed correctly. Why did this project have to get re noticed?

[Megan Kalpin, Senior Environmental Planner (SF Planning)]: Thank you, supervisor, for the question through the chair. Megan Kalpin, planning department staff. We reissued the notice of preparation of the draft EIR Because when we initially, issued the notice of preparation, we made two procedural errors. We did not file it with the state clearing house, which is required under CEQA, And we didn't, post a newspaper ad, which is required per chapter 31 of the administrative code. So upon recognizing those errors, we went ahead and, reissued the notice of preparation, so that members of the public could have full opportunity to comment. And we honored comments from the first noticing period as well as the second noticing period.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Thank you. Can you just dress address the discrepancy between the appellant's view of the noticing and the department's view of the noticing?

[Megan Kalpin, Senior Environmental Planner (SF Planning)]: Oh, sure. So in the appellant's letter, they were they were discussing that the conditional use authorization was not properly noticed for the hearing that occurred on April 17. For the CEQA purposes, we only notify interested parties, which is anyone that commented on the notice of preparation or the draft EIR. And we noticed all of those individuals of the FEIR certification hearing, and oh, as well as the publication of the response to comments document. The appellant brought up planning code section three zero six point three, which only refers to planning approvals, which, relates to the conditional use authorization. So I'll pass to Rich Sucre.

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: So and in preparation for the HPC and planning commission joint hearing, we follow the procedures of planning code section three three three. In general, we're only required to notify, members of the public, owners and occupants within a 150 feet, but we tend to over notice to about 300 feet. And so all of that, notification occurred appropriately and per what is required in the planning code.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Okay. Thank you. Do do do the appellants wanna address that one if they'd like to?

[Tanya Albuquerque, Appellant (Save the Marina’s Heritage)]: Sure. Our concern with with the noticing had to do with as the city said, they generally do 300 feet. And when you do a radius of 300 feet, all the buildings in our appeal, the residents, didn't receive that notice. And so I understand that the regulation might say 150 feet, but if they say their general pattern and practice is 300 feet, then I don't understand why these residents of these buildings that are clearly within 300 feet would be randomly excluded, and that was why we raised it.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Okay. Thank you. So I wanna talk quickly about the plans. The project sponsor's plans. Do they satisfy section sequence section fifteen one twenty four with with sufficient information for, analysis and certification for environmental impact review?

[Megan Kalpin, Senior Environmental Planner (SF Planning)]: Thank you for the question. Megan Kaplan, department staff. So CEQA under the CEQA guidelines, article nine, we are requested to provide the relevance or it dictates the relevant scope of the EIR project description. And that includes the location and project boundaries of the proposed project shown on detailed and, regional maps, which were included in the draft EIR, and also a general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering proposals, of these facilities. And so we looked at the what would the environmental impacts be of the proposed demolition of the two structures, as well as the construction of the below grade parking garage, the excavation. All of those things were included in a robust project description chapter in the draft EIR. And so the department stands by our kind of following CEQA in order to provide an adequate project description that was robust.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Okay. Thank you. And it so it it sounds like interim plans are okay for this type of review. Is that more or less an accurate statement?

[Megan Kalpin, Senior Environmental Planner (SF Planning)]: Or That's right. So Okay. The the building department will review the final design level project plans, which then will come back to the planning department, which our current planner will look at and make sure that they the plans match what was approved at the seventeenth. If there's any changes, we would flag that and then need to either do additional analysis or have the project sponsor, you know, make sure that the plans line up.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: So final plans could get disapproved or basically

[Megan Kalpin, Senior Environmental Planner (SF Planning)]: We Yeah. The planning department will rereview the plans before the building permit is approved.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Thank you. And just generally, why wasn't the IR EIR needed for the project? And and I guess as a yeah. Why was an EIR needed for the project?

[Megan Kalpin, Senior Environmental Planner (SF Planning)]: So the planning department makes a determination of, first, whether a project is a project under CEQA. We determined that it would have environmental effects, so we needed to prepare an environmental document. And then we looked at whether there would be any potential significant effects because the Julia Morgan building was already being treated as a historic resource. It was identified as a historic resource. This is even prior to it being landmarked. Out of an abundance of caution, we prepared an environmental impact report, which is our highest level of environmental review, to, focus on two areas, cultural resources, specifically historic architectural resources at the Julia Morgan Building, making sure that that, there would not be any significant or to evaluate whether there would be significant effects. And we looked at air quality because the project, is located in the air pollutant exposure zone, and the and there's excavation involved with the project. And through that analysis, we found that there would not be any significant unavoidable effects, but we were already in the process of preparing the EIRs. So we identified six mitigation measures that would reduce any significant effects to less than significant with mitigation.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: K. Thank you. Could we turn to the certificate of appropriateness? So, this issue with HPC and the architectural review committee is is obviously quite, unusual. When does when does a project typically go to the architectural review committee in a process like this?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: Hi. Richard Gray through the chair. Typically, we schedule projects for the architectural review committee that are involving infill new construction within a historic district is our current standard or when the department feels that we need additional design advice. So in most cases, if we feel comfortable with either the design or the project and whether or not it meets the standards of article 10 and meets the secretary of interior standards, we will not schedule it for architectural review committee. The only time that we do schedule architectural review committee as a matter of policy, is when the project is new infill new construction within a historic district.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Okay. But does does the architectural review committee usually happen before the HPC Yes.

[Alan Murphy (Perkins Coie), Counsel for Project Sponsor (Heritage on the Marina)]: That's correct.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Or after? Before. Before. Okay. So is is there precedent for a project to have its certificate of appropriateness, I guess, approved and then then go to the architectural review committee for, I guess, reapproval or adjustments?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: Or It's not typical. In my experience, and I've been with the city for fifteen years, we've never had architectural review committee after a project approval.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Never in fifteen years? Oh, okay. So, I mean, I guess I guess I'm I don't understand what what happened there. And then I also in one of the documents you you you prepared, you wrote, ARC cannot conduct its review after HPC. If if that's an accurate statement, why did this ruling get made? What what happened?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: I think and I might defer to the city attorney for a little assistance on this one. As I understand that it was a bit of an unusual request, and typically, when we are responding to commissioner comments, we're trying best to try and figure out how all of this fits, and also factor in that there's a legal framework that might be there or might not be there. And so we will often try and work with the city attorney to figure out a compromise or craft conditions of approval that might meet the intent of what the commission would want in this instance. So I think in this particular instance, we needed additional information to give a firm, finding. And especially in hindsight, we recognized we needed kind of a little bit more time to see how this project fits within the larger framework of other laws that are applicable. So in this case, particularly, the Permit Streamlining Act.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Okay. Honestly, I don't understand what that means, and I don't understand what that means and and why it happened this way. I mean, if if the answer is it was a mistake and it shouldn't have happened this way and it was a mistake, I think that's a fair answer. People make mistakes. I just wanna clarify. I I honestly I I don't think we need to hold people to task for making mistakes. It's a very fair thing and a very complicated situation.

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: I'll defer to the

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: I just wanna make sure I I actually understand.

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: I'll defer to the deputy city attorney for some assistance.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney (Board)]: Good evening, supervisors. Deputy city attorney Brad Russsey. I was not at that hearing, obviously. And my understanding after reviewing the charter provision and the planning code provisions at issue here is that the HPC can't delegate authority to the architecture review committee to approve the project. And this delegation was very broad, and it, I think, can be read to require or authorize the committee to approve the final project. What you have before you, of course, what this appeal is about, the board has the authority. It's a de novo review. You have the the authority to review the entire record and make your decision. And, on that particular condition, I would agree with the planning's recommendation.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So then I guess for projects involving landmarks, this this obviously is an atypical or unprecedented situation. Can you tell me the standard process for planning to review and approve final architectural designs?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: So in a typical process, the commission will approve a project. If the commission has additional conditions or concerns, they typically identify what they are, and then we work with the sponsor to kinda ensure that the commission's intent is ultimately follow through within whatever final designs that occur and happen over time. So small tweaks, for example, towards interior features may occur over time, or small refinements in the exterior kind of materials. But, ultimately, we have to follow through with what the design was that was approved by our commissions and follow through accordingly. So as a project transitions from entitlement, or the public hearing phase onto the building permit phase, there is additionally more work that the architectural teams will do to ensure that, the project can actually be built according to building code and, you know, other city codes.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: So it would it would be standard for HPC to approve a certificate of appropriateness and ask the project sponsor to work with the department afterwards.

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: Yeah. That's fairly typical, especially if they've identified specific issues that they would like us to work with the sponsor on.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Conditional youth authorization. There there was some talk of violations of the existing conditional youth authorization related to I think it's properties adjacent to the project site on the project site, adjacent to the project site. Are these two are these two are the properties on the project site or not on the project site? The ones the the the

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: ones Richard Shoukritz, right now, those properties identified in the latter appeal are not project are not part of the project site.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: They're not part of the project site. Can you would would conditional use authorization for the project can you use adjacent properties when discussing conditional use authorization of

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: a If they're not part of the project site, we don't analyze them typically. So in this instance, the one of the appellants brought up adjacent properties that are related, it sounds like, to the approval. But if it's not part of what the sponsor is submitting, their discussion is is a bit irrelevant in the discussion of the actual land use entitlement and what we're allowing on a specific site.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Okay. Do do we know have has the planning department looked into these other buildings? Are We are there active violations?

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: We we have not. And so and we're happy to. Usually, when claims about violations occur, our staff will follow-up accordingly and follow through with them. As we understand, just by a search of the building permit record, they're still in residential use. So they would comply with the underlying zoning that's allowed there.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: So so you have looked. They do comply. Is that Correct. So they're

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: still residential use.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: So you looked at them and saw there are no violations. Is that an accurate statement? I thought I read that somewhere. I just wanna make sure I'm reading all this.

[Rich Sucre, Deputy Director of Current Planning]: As I understand that, we we have looked at Yeah.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: I don't mean you personally. That would make you Superman. Okay.

[Terry Field, Public commenter]: Okay.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: I have no further questions. I don't know if any of my colleagues would like to I

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: think you are yet

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney (Board)]: in

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: the queue for questions, supervisor Gerald. Alright.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: So, obviously, this is an incredibly complicated and maybe unprecedented, to use your words, Rich, situation. First of all, to the planning staff and the city attorney's team, thank you for your diligence on this matter. It's incredibly complicated, and I really appreciate you all being here to answer all these questions. Again, to to both the the appellants, the project sponsors, to the neighbors, thank you all for being here. You know, Heritage on the Marina is obviously a very long standing institution. You know, we heard how they're proposing to build two new facilities and add senior units. We heard a lot of things. Since this appeal was filed, you know, I met with the project sponsors, appellants, planning department, walked the blocks many times, including this weekend. You know, I also have examined the city's high entry network maps about traffic. Quite frankly, that concerns me deeply. You know, so hearing about moving the entrance further away from from what is a a I I believe I wrote down five injuries or five crashes at Bay And Laguna Intersection, not in the mid block, actually, in the last five years. So I like the idea that that the entrance being moved away. But, you know, despite that, I support the planning department's conclusion that the project doesn't create significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA. And that seems pretty clear to me based on our planning code. And frankly, it's a very you know, it's a it's a decently high legal threshold. And the issues on the EIR appeal, to me, don't reach that legal threshold necessary to overturn the planning commission's unanimous approval, of the EIR. That said, I will continue and I wanna mention the project sponsors. I will continue to monitor the project to to ensure full compliance, with with the mitigation measures that were mentioned and and to ensure that adverse environmental impacts don't occur during construction, I think, for for the residents, not only of the neighborhood, but the facility. So the conditional youth authorization certificate of appropriateness, you know, I think Save the Marina's heritage raised some some concerns. And and, you know, those are ones we need to look at seriously. You know, some about ownership of different buildings, merging of units. You know, based on what I just heard, they're not violations. And and because they are technically not part of the project site, they're it's not appropriate to consider them in either of these two. And, you know, the planning code seems to be pretty clear here about what is reviewable for these approvals. Now now that said, Heritage on the Marina has a responsibility to be a good neighbor. So I I really do expect them to maintain open communication, you know, with their neighbors and take that seriously. Despite all this and, you know, I don't I I don't think we quite meet the high legal threshold to reject this project that will add, you know, 23 new new units for seniors. So so finally, condition one. This is, you know, a really challenging one. You know, project massing was obviously a concern. But from what I heard, the way that that was put down was essentially inappropriate. So, you know, I think I I I plan to support modified language that that corresponds with the existing departmental practices that that ensures we we meet the permit streamlining act, and we don't kinda violate state law here. So with all that said, and sorry for the rambling, I'd like to make a motion on the CEQA appeal. I move to approve, item 26 and table items twenty seven and twenty eight.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Colleague supervisor Cheryl has made a motion, again, to affirm the CEQA determination by approving item 26, tabling items 27, 28. I believe is that a second? That's not a second. First, is there a second for that? Seconded by Dorsey. Now, supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. With all due respect to, supervisor Sherrill, I agree that, I, you know, I I concur with affirming the EIR, for this project. However, I do not, concur with, to conditionally reverse, the EIR, particularly about removing the condition of approval that was actually put in place by Historic Preservation Commission. Clearly, that they have some questions. And, therefore, while it may be questionable that they put into these, while they approve the certificate appropriateness on the condition that it would like to have further review, I think that I want to affirm and support the historic preservation commission action to impose the action, the condition for approval. So if I may, you know, to is to sever the motion one by one, if that's okay, and that I can actually vote in support of item 26 to affirm the EIR. However, I will not be in support of item 27 to remove the condition approval.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Let me let me let me try to let me let me situate myself. I'm gonna ask staff to correct and city attorney to correct me if I'm getting this wrong. I think we're voting based we got three votes coming at us or possibly two, depending on how the the next set of things is described. But the first vote, I believe, is just on the certification of the final environmental impact report and doesn't impact whether we think that the, condition imposed by the, Historic Preservation Commission should stay or go. So if we think that the environmental that the EIR adequately analyzed environmental impacts, am I getting this right or wrong? They are nodding. Is it mister city attorney?

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney (Board)]: Deputy city attorney, Brad Russ. Yes. The supervisor Cheryl has made a motion only with respect to the CEQA appeal. And, I think the other two appeals will be addressed later in his further motions in the form of the

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: There's two more motions. There well, there's one or two more motions right

[Kristen Jensen, Deputy City Attorney (HPC meeting excerpt)]: now.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney (Board)]: So the the historic preservation appeal will be on a motion related only to the certificate of appropriateness, if that's the condition that you're concerned about, supervisor.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: So for this, if we want to affirm the CEQA, regardless of our views on the CU and the certificate of appropriateness, we would vote yes. If we think that the EIR is inadequate or there's something they didn't they got wrong in the environmental analysis, we would vote no on the motion. Supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you. And so that means that we're addressing the EIR currently with through 26 to 28, and then that we will be addressing the CU from the items of 30 to 32. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: 26 to 28 are just CEQA. 30 to 32 are just conditional use. And

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: 34 through 36.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: 34 through 36 are certificate of appropriateness.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: It's a little confusing to me because I think the issue if there are issues with the CU, they stem from the certificate of appropriateness. We'll talk about that in a minute. Alright. So is everybody clear everybody clear on how they're voting on the motion made by supervisor Cheryl, seconded by supervisor Dorsey, to affirm the secret determination by approving item 26 and tabling items twenty seven and twenty eight. Last call. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes. On the motion to approve item 26 and table twenty seven and twenty eight, Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. Supervisor Sheryl? Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Chan?

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Aye.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Chan, aye. Supervisor Chen? Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Engadio? Aye. Angadio, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmood?

[Terry Field, Public commenter]: Aye.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelmann, aye. And supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Right. Thank you, madam clerk. Without objection, item 26 is approved. Items twenty seven and twenty eight are tabled. Alright. We got six more items to go. Supervisor Sherrill, looks like you have some thoughts.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Alright. So, on the conditional use appeal, I wanna move to and and and to be clear here, you know, supervisor Chan, I think you raised fair points. But at the end of the day, upholding a mistake seems like a mistake. On the conditional use appeal, so I wanna move to amend item 31, disapproving the planning commission's decision, and revise it to approve the conditional use authorization with a minor modification, specifically the finding in six l on page eight of the commission's decision to be should be revised to remove the reference to further review by the historic preservation commission's architectural review committee, which is unnecessary for this project to meet the requirements for conditional youth authorization under planning code section three zero three. I'll also make a motion to revise HPC's decision on this issue when we get to that item. But instead, final review for the project may be completed by planning department staff. So, that finding in six l will state, quote, planning department preservation staff review that the commission finds that the overall size and intensity of the project as proposed are critical to the programmatic viability of the project and directed planning staff to bring the project back to the commission as an informational item after planning preservation staff's final review, unquote. All aspects all other aspects of the planning commission's decision, would remain the same. So, that's a motion on item 31. Okay.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Before I ask for a second on that, I wanna get clear Yeah. On what is happening. Because I believe what I hear supervisor Cheryl saying is describing an amendment to the conditional use approval, that came out of the planning commission. And that is an amendment to 30 or to 31.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney (Board)]: Deputy city attorney Brad Russi, when the board is going to amend an approval Yeah. You actually have to adopt the motion that disapproves the approval and then approve it with different conditions. So it's correctly an amendment to item 31, as supervisor Cheryl stated.

[Terry Field, Public commenter]: Okay. And

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney (Board)]: so then you all will vote on the amendments, and then I'm assuming he'll make a motion to, approve the that motion with, as amended, and then to dispose of the other items

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: as well. So he has his motion has proposed an amendment to 31. Is that correct? Is that correct? Yes. And and can I get a second for that, and then we'll talk about it? Second. Second by Melgar. Thank you. Supervisor supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Sorry. I I I'm trying to understand. My apologies, colleagues. I'm So help me understand, though. My assumption is that you actually are should go ahead, if if I were supervisor Cheryl, that's trying to just move this forward, but with only but amending the conditions for removing the, condition approval one, but sustained with the, finding six L, then I would actually move the motion forward with item 31, and then amend item 30, because you're still approving the conditional use, or you're we're rejecting the conditional use altogether.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney (Board)]: Here here, the board, by changing the planning commission's decision, you're disapproving it. Because the supervisor, Cheryl, require desires to change one of the conditions. So that's the correct motion to adopt. And then 30 would be tabled because we're not the board would not be affirming this you. You're revising it, basically. And then the board would need to adopt that motion by a eight vote threshold because you're disapproving the CU and direct the clerk to prepare findings to support that decision.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And we're doing all that in one vote? Is that the motion that supervisor Cheryl made that was second by supervisor Melgar? Yes. Okay. We're clear? Just just to be clear then,

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney (Board)]: are the motion to the other two motions as well, vote on the amendments, approve the motion as amended, direct the clerk to to adopt the findings, and table item 30.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: I believe that that is what supervisor Cheryl moved and was seconded by supervisor Melgar. Good. I'm not screwing I'm not making things too hard for clerks or attorneys. Maybe I am. Alright. Anyway, madam clerk, please call the roll on that motion.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mister president, we'll take the motion first on item 31 to amend item 31 as supervisor Cheryl mentioned. Great. Yeah. On the motion to amend item 31 as stated by supervisor Cheryl, seconded by supervisor Melgar. Supervisor Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Cheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor, Chan? No. Chan, no. Supervisor, Chen? Chen, aye. Supervisor, Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor, En Gardeo? Aye. En Gardeo, aye. Supervisor, Fielder? Fielder, aye. Supervisor, Magmood? Magmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelmann? Aye. Mandelmann, aye. And supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 10 ayes and one no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. So, we have amended we have amended 30 and approved. We have amended 31 is what we have done. All right. I will gavel that, I guess. K. And and then supervisor Cheryl wants to move So I'd like Yeah.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: I'd like to move to to approve 31 as amended, and I also move to approve item 32, directing the clerk to prepare findings supporting this decision and then to table item 30. Item 30.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Is there a second for that? Second by Melgar. No discussion. Madam clerk, please call the roll on that motion.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On the motion to table item 30, approve item 31 as amended, and item 32, supervisor Sauter. Sauter, aye. Supervisor Sheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Chan?

[SFGovTV Announcer]: No.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Chan, no. Supervisor, Chen? Chen, aye. Supervisor, Dorsey? Dorsey, aye. Supervisor, Engadio? Aye. Engadio, aye. Supervisor, Fielder? Fielder, aye. Supervisor, Mahmoud? Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelmann?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Aye.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelmann, aye. And supervisor Melgar? Melgar, aye. There are 10 ayes and one no, with supervisor Chan voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. The motion passes. Alright. That leaves us three three items left. Supervisor Sherrill.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Alright. I'd like, on the certificate of appropriateness, I'd like to make a motion to amend item 35, disapproving the Historic Preservation Commission's decision and revise it to approve the certificate of appropriateness with some different conditions. Specifically, condition one on page 15 of HPC's decision should be revised to remove reference to the architectural review committee's further review of this project, which is unnecessary for the certificate of appropriateness, to meet all the requirements necessary from approval, including under article 10 of the planning code and, frankly, the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation. So, instead, that condition shall state, and I quote, final architectural details prior to submittal of any building permit application department preservation staff shall review and approve final project architectural details of fenestration size and orientation, materials, and exterior finishes, provided that no reduction in project square footage shall result from such review, end quote. All other aspects of the Historic Preservation Commission's decision, remain the same.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Is there a second for that? Seconded by Melgar. And there's no discussion. Madam clerk, can you call the roll on that motion?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 35 as amended by supervisor Sheryl, seconded by supervisor Melgar. Supervisor Sh Sauter. Sauter, aye. Supervisor Sheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor, Chan? No. Chan, no. Supervisor, Chen? Chen, aye. Supervisor, Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor, Engadio? Angadio, aye. Supervisor, Fielder? Fielder, aye. Supervisor, Mahmoud? Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelmann? Aye. Mandelmann, aye. And supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 10 ayes and one no, with supervisor Chan voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. The motion passes. And supervisor Cheryl, I think we got one more.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Alright. So, I'd like to move to approve item 35 as amended and move to approve item 36, directing the clerk to prepare findings supporting this decision and to table item 34. And colleagues, thank you for hearing this district two item today.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Is there a second? Seconded by Melgar. Madam clerk, please call the roll on that motion.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On the motion to table item 34, approve item 35 as amended, and approve item 36. Supervisor Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sheryl? Aye. Sheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Chan? No. Chan, no. Supervisor Chen? Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Engadio? Aye. Engadio, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmood? Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelmann?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Aye.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelmann, aye. And supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 10 ayes and one no, with supervisor Chan voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And the motion passes. And with that, gratitude to colleagues for your patience with me. We will go on we will go back to the beginning of our agenda. Madam Clerk, can you please call our consent agenda, items one through five?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Items one through five are on consent. These items are considered to be routine. If a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: I don't see anybody moving to sever. That's great. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On items one through five, supervisors, Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor, Cheryl. Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor, Walton. Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor, Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Aye.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Chan, aye. Supervisor, Chen. Chen, aye. Supervisor, Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor, Enguardio? Aye. Enguardio, aye. Supervisor, Fielder? Aye. Supervisor, Madamud? Aye. Madamud, aye. Supervisor, Mandelmann?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Aye.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelmann, aye. And supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, these ordinances are passed on first reading. Madam clerk, let's go to unfinished business. Item number six.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item six. This is an ordinance to authorize the clerk of the board to sell licenses to third parties to use the legislative management system software, and to amend the administrative code to establish a fund to receive revenue for licensing to third parties and from interdepartmental fund transfers.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Let's take this item, same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, members. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Please call item seven.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item seven, this is an ordinance to fix compensation for persons employed by the city whose compensation is subject to charter provision section a 8.409 and job codes not represented by an employee organization and to fix the working schedules and other terms and conditions of employment and methods of payment effective 07/01/2025.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance has finally passed. Madam clerk, please call item eight.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item eight. This is an ordinance to adopt and implement the second amendment to the 2024 through 2027 memorandum of understanding between the city and county and the Service Employees International Union, local ten twenty one staff and per diem nurses to address the order of selection for filling vacant nursing positions.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance has finally passed. Madam Clerk, please call item nine.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item nine. This is an ordinance to amend the planning code to eliminate retail use size limits on health service uses and reproductive health clinics in the MUO, the mixed use office district East Of 7th Street. To eliminate the retail ratio limits in the MUO District East Of 7th Street, and to affirm the CEQA determination and to make the appropriate findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed. Madam Clerk, please call item 10.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 10. This is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to increase the stipends the city provides to the assessment appeals boards due to the unprecedented demand in assessment appeals hearings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, please call items 11 through 13 together.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Items 11 through 13 comprise the proposed interim budgets for the budget and appropriation ordinance and the interim salary ordinance and the interim budget resolution for the office of community investment and infrastructure for the city and county.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call without objection. The ordinances are passed on first reading, and the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item 14.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 13, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: 14, I believe.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Oh, okay. 14. Thank you. Thank you. Item 14, this is an ordinance to authorize settlement of the lawsuit filed by the Ridgegate Apartments Inc against the city and county concerning the real property located at 524 Howard Street for a stipulated assessed value of the subject property for property tax purposes of approximately 65,000,000 as of 01/01/2021 for the fiscal year 2021 through 2022 or if the assessment appeals board does not accept that stipulated assessed value, agreement that the assessment appeals board hold a new assessment appeal hearing to determine the assessed value of the subject property as of 01/01/2021 for the fiscal year 2021 through 2022.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, please call item 15.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 15. This is a resolution to retroactively authorize the San Francisco Police Department to enter into a memorandum of understanding agreement with the United States Capitol Police to provide supplemental law enforcement services, 01/01/2025 through 12/31/2025.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item 16.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 16. This is a resolution to approve and authorize a permit between the recreation and park department and Phil Partners LLC for the Golden City Football Club to use Keyesars Stadium for their home games plus use of other fields for practices for fifteen years with three five year extension options for a permit fee equal to approximately 1,500 per game, plus 750 per hour, reimbursement of, RPD expenses, a share of revenues and a specified number of tickets, and the completion of certain stadium improvements to affirm the CEQA determination and to make the appropriate findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 17.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 17, this is an ordinance to amend the planning code to to allow two projecting signs for all corner businesses in all neighborhood commercial and residential commercial districts citywide and to abolish the 2301 Chestnut Street special sign district to amend the zoning map to reflect that district's abolition to affirm the CEQA determination and to make the appropriate findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, please call item 18.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 18. This is a resolution to approve the list of projects to be funded by fiscal year 2025 through '26, road maintenance and rehabilitation account funds for the local streets and road program as established by California Senate Bill one, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2037.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item 19.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 19. This is an ordinance to approve the amended airport surveillance technology policy governing the use of pre security cameras and to make the required findings in support of set approvals.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, please call item 20. Item 20. This is an Madam clerk, please call item

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: 20. Item 20. This is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to create the Valencia Street entertainment zone, the Pier 39 entertainment zone, the Folsom Street entertainment zone, the Yosemite Avenue entertainment zone, the Hayes Valley entertainment zone, and the Yerba Buena Lane downtown activation location, and to confirm the CEQA determination.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, please call item 21.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 21. This is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to revise eligibility criteria for the San Francisco homicide reward fund to include allowing the chief of police in the chief's discretion to approve payment of a reward when information leads to the filing of criminal charges, to prohibit denial of a reward based on anonymity, criminal history, and to require that a person seeking a reward that provides information that they provide it voluntarily and not a part of a plea bargain, and to ensure that a reward is not paid to a person for the provision of false information.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, please call item 22.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 22, ordinance to approve amendments to the rules and regulations for the neighborhood beautification and graffiti cleanup fund.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, please call item 23.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 23, this is a motion to approve the mayor's nomination of Gail Cern Strang for appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission term ending 12/31/2028.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the motion is approved. Madam clerk, please call item 24.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 24. This is a motion to appoint Luana McAlpine to the in home supportive services public authority term ending 03/01/2028.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the motion is approved. And madam clerk, I think that we have a committee report.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: That takes us to item I'm just scrolling to that. 37. Yes. 37.

[Terry Field, Public commenter]: Yeah.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: This item was considered by the Land Use and Transportation Committee at a regular meeting on Monday, June 16, and was recommended as amended bearing the same title. Item 37 is an ordinance to amend the planning code to allow certain tourist hotels and motels to be used for interim housing without thereby abandoning or discontinuing the hotel use class under that code, and to authorize the reestablishment of hotel use for certain shelter in place hotels, to amend the building code to allow interim housing without thereby changing the underlying occupancy classification of the property, and to allow reestablishment of hotel use for shelter in place hotels to affirm the CEQA determination and to make the appropriate findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, let's go to roll call.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes. The first member to introduce new businesses, supervisor Sauter.

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Thank you, madam Clerk. Colleagues, today, I am excited to introduce legislation that will make it easier for new small businesses to open and to grow in District 3. This legislation is a direct answer to the urgent calls of residents and small businesses for more flexibility, more support, and a planning code that meets the modern day realities of retail services and restaurants. For too long, San Francisco has made it too hard to open and run a small business. And District 3 has been the most egregious, layering rule after rule and putting roadblock after roadblock in the way. This results in only the well connected knowing how to navigate a complex system and others being left behind with only empty storefronts to show for it. So while the recent permit SF package is an approach to a citywide permitting concern, our legislation is more focused on neighborhood by neighborhood changes specific to District 3. Our changes are surgical. They do not touch programs that are working. And they make thoughtful changes that respect the unique character of each of our District 3 neighborhoods. Our changes are needed. They respond to high rates of empty storefronts on corridors like Polk Street and correct planning quirks and barriers that have prevented businesses from opening in our district. And our changes are informed. This package was put together in partnership with neighborhood organizations, merchants, and informed by my own decade as a District 3 resident and small business advocate and owner. In one example of the impact of this legislation, we'll expand the successful community benefit priority processing program to all of District 3. Because why would we intentionally choose to make the permit process slower as today's code does? Next, we'll finally allow flexible retail across District 3 just as the rest of the city allows. This planning co code category allows for a mix of businesses business types in the same space. If you want to open a coffee shop and bookstore under one roof, we should allow you to. We'll remove an outdated prohibition on arts activities which result in not being allowed to open a dance school, a ceramic studio, or a photography studio on Nob Hill. And we'll legalize walk up facilities, meaning that just as you can get a slice of pizza through a window at Golden Boy on Green Street, you will now be able to do the same throughout the entire neighborhood. San Francisco has been the birthplace of companies known around the world. Gap, Bank of America, Tehrani, Syrups, Ghirardelli, and those loved locally, Anchor Steam fills, It's It, to name just a few. But over the past decade, it seems that we've taken our creatives, our entrepreneurs, chefs, and artists for granted. Today's legislation is a step towards changing that in District 3. A special thanks to Michelle Andrews. Michelle, happy birthday. And Tita Bell from my office, and Brian Crossman from the city attorney's office for their heavy lifting on getting this legislation ready. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with our diverse set of communities in District 3 to shape and pass legislation to support small businesses and help our neighborhoods continue to thrive. And the rest, I submit.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, supervisor Sauter. Supervisor Sheryl. Thank you, supervisor Walton.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Colleagues today, I'm introducing a resolution with co sponsorship from supervisors Chen, Fielder, Engadio, Marigar, Chan, President Mandelmann, Makmoo, and Cheryl. On celebrating Juneteenth in the city and county of San Francisco, as it is an official holiday, and urging all San Franciscans to join in honoring this important day. Juneteenth is a day of reflection, resilience, and empowerment, deeply rooted in the history, heritage, and ongoing struggle for justice within black communities across this country. Juneteenth, also known as Emancipation Day, Jubilee Day, Freedom Day, and Black Independence Day, commemorates 06/19/1865, the day when union showed soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas and announced the end of the civil war and abolition of slavery. This announcement came more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued by president Abraham Lincoln on 01/01/1863. The arrival of union troops marked the long overdue enforcement of that promise of freedom for the last enslaved black Americans. Since 1865, Juneteenth has been celebrated annually as a time for communities to come together to reflect, rejoice, and recommit the work of racial justice. It is a day that honors strength and resilience of black Americans and recognizes the tremendous contributions of black communities to our nation's history and future. In San Francisco, Juneteenth celebrations have been a part of our city's cultural fabric for decades. Since the nineteen fifties, our city has proudly hosted Juneteenth festivals and parades, particularly along Filmore Street, a historic hub of black culture and community in San Francisco. Today's Juneteenth celebrations span many neighborhoods, reflecting our city's diverse and shared commitment to justice. On 06/17/2021, former president Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law, making Juneteenth an official federal holiday and acknowledging its profound significance in American history. Here in San Francisco, we have a responsibility not only to recognize this day, but to continue the hard work of addressing systemic racism, uplifting black communities, and building a city where freedom, justice, and opportunity can be a reality for everyone. The second item I'm introducing is a resolution in support of the 2025 Road to Repair priority bill package introduced by members of the California Legislative Black Caucus in the state legislature. This package includes 16 state bills that are part of a multiyear effort to repair the generational harms of slavery and systemic racism in California. These bills are modeled after recommendations from the California Reparations Task Force and include and I'm not gonna read all the bills for the sake of time, but it includes bills like Assembly Bill six, would prohibit slavery in all forms. AB seven, would authorize priority admissions for descendants of American chattel slavery to higher education institutions. AB seven forty two seeks to designate descendants of American chattel slavery for priority when issuing professional licenses. SB five ten seeks to require a complete and accurate k 12 curriculum regarding racial disparities, including impacts of segregation, slavery, and systemic discrimination. All of these bills in this package address the disparities and, of course, the negative impacts on the black community in this state. In San Francisco, we have long led efforts to address historical injustices. We recently unanimously passed an official apology to African Americans and their descendants, and we continue working on implementing the recommendations of the San Francisco reparations plan. Reparations are a crucial step toward repairing economic, social, and psychological damage caused by centuries of slavery, segregation, and discrimination. I hope that all of my colleagues would join me in unanimously cosponsoring this resolution in support of California's road to repair bills, especially in our current climate where our freedoms and constitutional rights are at risk of being taken away and our communities are under threats daily. I wanna thank early cosponsors, supervisor Mark Mood and supervisor Chan, and the rest, I submit.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, supervisor Walton. Supervisor Chan. Submit. Thank you. Supervisor Chan.

[Chayanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Hi. Thank you, madam clerk. Colleague, today, I want to introduce a resolution urging our state legislators, Senator Winter and Assembly Member Haney and Stephanie, to champion legislation that would allow counties to implement local wealth and progressive income tax if they choose to. We are facing a massive local deficit that will be made worse by state and federal cuts. This will impact our most vulnerable and will lead to reduced access to direct and essential services that keeps our city, our people safe, housed, fed, and cared. District 11, it's a home to one of the largest population of working, immigrants, and labor household in the city. These families work hard and pay their fair share to the city. They deserve to live in a city that is safe, clean, and affordable. But what we are seeing right now is that low and middle income San Franciscan are being disproportionately impacted by the budget decisions, especially at the federal level. And billionaires aren't paying their fair share. In fact, the wealthiest the wealthiest Americans stand to gain from even bigger tax break under the current proposal being negotiated by the Congress. I believe that the city should have and should able to explore whether or not additional tax should be alleviated on the wealthiest member of our communities. Given what is given what we are facing nationwide with this extremely hostile budget conditions, it's more important now more than ever important now that we need every tool at our disposal to ensure that our city is providing high quality, comprehensive, and compassionate care in the areas that we have excelled for the decades. And I appreciate, the early cosponsors, by supervisor Chen, supervisor Fielder, supervisor Melga, and supervisor Walton, and the rest I submit. Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, supervisor Chen. Supervisor Dorsey?

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Colleagues, I am today submitting a letter of inquiry that seeks from our Department of Emergency Management and Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, a comprehensive analysis of nine one one calls for service at all site based permanent supportive housing addresses in San Francisco. I am asking that this analysis evaluate data from 01/01/2020 to the present to get a longitudinal perspective on the public safety and medical emergency demands of permanent supportive housing or PSH and how they may be changing over time. I also ask that each PSH site, that's listed include information identifying its nonprofit contractor and property manager. Now, the topic of public safety issues in and around PSH facilities isn't new. It is a subject we took up at a hearing last year, in fact. And while we have seen improvements at some locations in District 6, we have also seen new problems emerge at some new PSH locations. This need for better data comes in the context of a letter I sent this morning to the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, which, disappointingly, opted to oppose Assembly Bill two fifty five legislation by Assemblymember Matt Haney to fund drug free supportive recovery housing, which this board unanimously endorsed endorsed twice, and which enjoys similarly strong support from Mayor Lohrey and our entire legislative delegation in Sacramento. Right now, we thankfully have comprehensive data on drug overdose deaths and permanent supportive housing, and those numbers are increasingly alarming. In a year's time, the proportion of drug OD fatalities in PSH has grown from about twenty one percent last year, accounting for about one in every five drug deaths citywide, to thirty percent so far this year, represent near representing nearly one in three drug overdose deaths citywide. This is a disturbing trend that I believe drug free and recovery oriented PSH options would help reverse. As it happens, TNDC ranks third worst among PSH providers this year with 10 o drug OED fatalities in just four months. We also know that TNDC managed properties, count for about five of the top 100 most responded to addresses for police calls for service this year. This these, five facilities generated, actually, last year, more than sixteen hundred nine one one calls just for police emergencies alone, not counting nine one one calls for medical emergencies or fire. That means that each of these buildings is averaging around nine one one nine one one call per day for just police emergencies. Now, I believe, anyone nobody should blame TNDC for the loss of life or predictable public safety challenges we see at these drug tolerant sites. Still, to my mind, these problems make all the more troubling this organization's decision to oppose needed progress and to defend the adequacy of a status quo that no one should find acceptable. We need better data to assess public nuisances and public safety challenges, to more fully inform our policy decisions, and to match the high quality data we now have on drug overdose fatalities. So I thank the clerk for facilitating this request, and I look forward to seeing the analysis and the rest I submit.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, supervisor Dorsey. Supervisor Regardio. Submit. Thank you. Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you so much, madam clerk. Colleagues, today, I am introducing a resolution in support of California senate bill 48, which prohibits schools to the extent possible from granting access to immigration authorities. Because every student, regardless of immigration status, deserves to feel safe in our schools. There have been deeply alarming incidents of ICE enforcement across our state that have nothing to do with protecting public safety, including ICE agents attempting to enter two elementary schools in Los Angeles County. Here in San Francisco, we have already seen firsthand the impact that ICE agents can have on families with the deceptive detentions at ICE check ins on June 4 of at least 15 people, including several children, one of whom was only three years old. Additionally, I've heard countless stories of families being afraid to send their kids to school, worried that ICE will show up and take them away. This is an environment that is not safe for students, that makes our cities much less safe, and is an infringement on due process and the rule of law. Additionally, earlier this year, the Trump administration rescinded the long standing policy to protect sensitive locations from ICE enforcement, including schools, churches, and hospitals. Trump's only intent in deploying ICE to school sites is to instill fear in our communities. No child nor family should ever fear going to school. All children have a fundamental right to public education. School sites are sacred institutions for learning and the fostering of a student's well-being. SFUSD has already strengthened their policies and protocols as of this year. However, this bill seeks to codify these school site protections across California. This resolution comes on the heels of the motion passed at the youth commission yesterday, urging the board of supervisors to support this bill. I wanna thank the youth commission, and especially to the district nine commissioner, Skyler Dang, who authored this motion. This is about reinforcing our status as a sanctuary city, honoring the trust our families place in our schools, and protecting our children and families in the face of increased ICE activity in our communities. I hope you all will stand with our students and communities to tell ICE to keep out of our schools. Thank you. The rest I submit.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, supervisor Fielder. Supervisor Mahmwood. Submit. Supervisor Mandelmann.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, madam clerk. I have an ordinance and a resolution. The ordinance, relates to chapter 16 article five of the administrative code, which gives employees of the city and county of San Francisco the option to donate a port portion of our paychecks to specified organizations. These include credit unions, employee associations, and local charitable funds that serve San Francisco firefighters, police officers, and city workers generally. Through this program, members can choose to contribute money, pay dues, or buy shares to support financial services, benefits, or community programs. Today, I'm introducing an ordinance to expand that list by adding the San Francisco Firefighter And EMS Behavioral Health Health Foundation. This foundation partners with San Francisco Firefighters Local seven ninety eight and other Bay Or Bay Area organizations to provide financial assistance to active and retired members experiencing a behavioral health crisis. According to former San Francisco fire chief Sandy Tong, who raised the issue with me earlier this year, more and more fire department members are facing behavioral health challenges, and more are seeking treatment and support. The foundation was created to help meet the financial needs of these members in moments of crisis. Its grants help bridge the gap between the immediate emergency and the long term support offered by city resources like the San Francisco Health Service System's employee assistance program, employee health benefits, and SFSFD's behavioral health unit. These grants created by SFFD members for first responders can cover costs like travel, fuel, food, lodging, time off work, childcare, elder care, pet care, clothing, and short term counseling support, among other emergency needs. This addition is a simple way to support the health of people who put their lives on the line for San Francisco every day. Again, I wanna thank former chief Tong for her continued advocacy on behalf of San Francisco's firefighters, as well as Melanie Mathewson in my office, and Brad Russi in the city attorney's office for their work on the legislation. I'm gonna speak more about this next week, but I also am introducing today a resolution condemning antisemitism and all forms of race and religion based violence in San Francisco in the wake of national, incidents involving shootings and other, violence, and then local, incidents of, of property damage, violence against individuals, harassment of prominent, Jewish individuals. It seems like time that for this board to weigh in. I want to, thank supervisor Melgar for, helping me think this through this resolution and for your feedback and edits and partnership and co sponsorship, and the rest I submit.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, mister president. Supervisor Melgar. Submit. Submit. Thank you. Mister president, seeing no names on the roster, that concludes the introduction of new business.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Well, then let's go to public comment.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: At this time, the board welcomes your public comment. Please line up on your right hand side of the chamber. You may speak to the May 13 board meeting minutes as presented. Items 40 through 44, the items adopted without reference to committee, and other general matters not on today's agenda. I will just state for the 3PM special orders, the FEIR, the CU, and the COA, the certificate of appropriateness. Those items had their public comment process concluded, and we are setting the timer for two minutes. Mister Wright, welcome.

[Mr. Wright, Public commenter]: Only way to handle this housing discrimination and your price fixing and your price calving is to take you in front of a ever so honorable United States Federal District Court judge. I'm just laying the foundation of facts so I deal with you in court. You can't say that you don't know nothing about the issue. And about your budget, where you each and every one of your board of supervisors is being paid $1,500 a month more than you should be being paid, which took place eight years ago when supervisor Cohen gave each and every one of you that said $1,500 a month salary increase because of the price cuts of Donald Trump and your high taxes of Gavin goddamn loosen. You ended up at the present time when I made my last demonstration, you had a 1,584,000,000 overpayment of funds, and none of you sit up there and care about it just long as money's being kept in your pocket. How about you, Chen? You wanna straighten out the budget. You wanna cut the budget of the police funds, and you being overpaid your damn self. That's disgusting. That's true.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: You dress the whole board.

[Mr. Wright, Public commenter]: I'm not interested. All of you. Don't try to tell me who are dressed. I'm it's my time. You shut up. Now at the present time, that was two months ago. So the amount of overpayment that each and every one of your board of supervisors has been getting, it stands right now $1,717,000,000 of a overpayment, but yet you wanna cut funds from the most vulnerable people that's getting services in the city because of your poor supervision and management of the taxpayers' money. Mayor, you should donate your money that you claim that you're not being paid for being the mayor to pay for the funds of that legal aid that helps the most vulnerable people that's homeless out on the street and eviction defense and help people that's on the verge of losing their housing. And about you, differential treatment, how come you're not getting back pay clawing back that overpayment of Barbara Garcia who is getting $7,000 a year? Is that clear? How come you and I call back in that money? You guys are biased. We need to talk about

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mister Wright, your speaker's time is concluded. Process of constitutional law. Let's hear from our next speaker.

[Mr. Wright, Public commenter]: If they'd argue for two goddamn hours straight, didn't do shit. Then when I raised a little bit of help or a couple of seconds or something, I'm

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: gonna Mister Sleeper.

[Shane Michael Sleeper, Public commenter]: Shane Michael Sleeper here. I have been free for two months of 2025. And in those two months, I've experienced three terminations without cause other than discrimination. Is that sustainable to you? I've yet to go an entire year without facing incarceration during the past decade of my life for double standards of law continuously and flicted under democratic rule that wants to bitch about Trump being a fascist as I be deemed a terroristic threat for telling others what their actions can cause while I have never once attempted to own a gun nor put my hands on any. Those that retain their employment without issue tell me you're not American, you're white, such as Diana Delgado from Peru working at Fog Harbor Fish House. Another female from Oakland, Crystal Meza, tells me she didn't like someone so she quit talking to them until they quit, while she also speaks of her coke habit on the clock and tells me I talk too much when I know the week of her menstruation cycle Another female, Chelsea Archer, hiring me at Equinox Sports Club, a job I was referred to work at and denied due wages despite being on film working behind the front desk Files in a restraining order that she is scared she might be raped by a gay man that has never had a desire to touch a bleeding vag Shouldn't these be the ones that we are scared of? The ones to be defined as psychopaths that have no problem affecting other citizens' ability to survive without bullshit? I had a rifle pointed at my face for the cunt that said she is scared I might rape her. Is that justice to you? It's not about the $30 I was owed. It's about a company worth 7 and a half billion dollars having no problem fucking off my life, as long as their truth does not become known, that has already welcomed the murder of others given what is still outside our windows. It costs nearly $4,000 a month to keep me incarcerated, which equals more than three times of what I've ever made annually over the past decade of forced poverty experience that welcomes physical and sexual assaults to take place without consequence as long as you've got a badge and are protected by a union that welcomes fucking us all. We've got an $840,000,000 police budget with more than three quarters quarters of our police force not even being residents of San Francisco. I think I understand San Francisco's exploitation quite well.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Let's hear from our next speaker.

[HPC Commissioner (audio excerpt)]: Hello. How are you? I was just wondering if you guys could, like, take a look at the legislation that the mayor is trying to enforce on the RVs. A lot of us are, you know, legal and law abiding citizens. And I live in an RV myself. And I don't wanna be, you know, have my RV towed away when I decided to go to work one day. There's a lot of people out there who have RVs that, you know, pay their registration per year plus their insurance and, you know, are not a nuisance. They're not defecating or urinating around their RV, and they're under threat of having it towed away. There's families out there in their RVs, and, you know, it'd be nice if we could get some real legislation and some real leadership. Because what mayor lawyer is doing is total theft, you know. I mean, if you buy something, which is an RV, and you own it, you should be able to possess it. You pay the registration to have it on the streets of San Francisco. And then plus, you know, he's gonna ask, you know, the people to move every two hours. That's gonna cause them mental anguish, you know. Who's gonna move their their RV at 03:00 in the morning when they gotta go to work, you know. And so it's gonna cause a real, you know, major, you know, problem, you know, for families, law abiding citizens, people who are trying to rehabilitate themselves, you know. And so yeah. Like yeah. And plus, like, I own an RV that is, like, worth, you know, somebody having. So it's like, you know, they would love to, like, steal it and then have it towed away and then sell it at the city auction. So, you know, if you could, you know, please help us with that situation, that'd be great. Because it wasn't a problem before Laurie got here, and now all of a sudden, there's a big problem with the RVs. I don't think so. So if you could, I'd really appreciate it.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Missus Brown, welcome.

[Ms. Brown, Public commenter]: I guess it's evening now. I'm not here to talk about any specific legislation today other than to express my appreciation for the passing of the homicide reward funds legislation. But I want to talk about why this kind of policy matters. I lost my son 08/14/2006. Shot with a semi automatic gun, 30 rounds of bullets, left that gun. I come to the police commission every Wednesday and the board of supervisors when I can make it. I took the opportunity to put up my son's picture while this protest was going on today even though I wasn't involved in it. But I want people to know. I just I bring these pictures with this picture of my son and other homicide victims. So I'm so appreciative that I am a mother with no of no nonsense that I can continue to fight for my son. I'm bringing these pictures other of of other homicide victims that cases aren't solved. The mother that was here with me last week is still fighting for her child. So if this policy passes, this not policy, but this we have policy passes. What do you think it's gonna do for us? It's gonna help me. It's gonna help other mothers. And I just wanna say that I will be back to bring awareness to all the unsolved homicides. Thank you so much.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Terry Field.

[Terry Field, Public commenter]: No matter how resilient indeed the overall unintelligence is. Now the skies appreciate, my architect, but beyond that, the way your unintelligence is, in fact, neutralizing neutralizing itself, such as, an example, today, using the seventeen, one of the favorite number of the global unintelligence, To organize, clearly organize a description of this meeting for two hours. Right? Under the control of the sheriff's department, including at the end, fetch arrest station, with a smile on, to be covered by the fetch media owned by the fetch same unintelligence that we all know of. Now, no matter what, sir, this is clear. It seems the mayor is not interested. No? He wasn't there. Right, mayor? You have two weeks, I said last week, to start taking down or removing all the five g towers that you've you've been putting all over the country, mainly during the COVID lockdowns. All this against the people's approval. This is clear. This is gonna help your unintelligence to keep neutralizing itself. You see? It's to help you here. You need a little help. So after that, we're gonna do it ourselves, and your globalist is bound to fail. Because with your technology turn as a weapon, it is game over. You understand? Sharon, I'm trying to raise the level here to uplift you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Are there any other members of the public who'd like to address the board during general public comment? I would like to. Okay, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Public comment is now closed. Madam clerk, let's go to our for adoption without committee reference agenda, items 40 through 44.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Oh, items 40 through 44 were introduced for adoption without committee reference. A unanimous vote is required for adoption of a resolution on first reading today. Alternatively, a member may require a resolution on first reading to go to committee.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thanks, president Manaman. Can I sever, can we sever item 43?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Yep. And it looks like that's it. So, madam clerk, on the remaining balance, can you please call the roll?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On items 40 through 44 minus 43, supervisor Sauter.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Aye.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Sauter, I. Supervisor Cheryl. Aye. Cheryl, I. Supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton, I. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor, Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor, En Gardio. Aye. En Gardio, aye. Supervisor, Fielder. Fielder, aye. Supervisor, Mahmood. Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelmann? Aye. Mandelmann, aye. And supervisor Melgar? Melgar, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the resolutions are adopted, and the motion is approved. Madam clerk, can you please call item 43?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 43, resolution to affirm the public's right to peacefully assemble and protest actions of the federal government, condemning the militarization of civil response to peaceful protests and reaffirming San Francisco's commitment to immigrant justice and the city's sanctuary ordinance.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you. Thank you, president Mandelmann. Thanks for excusing me last week. Glad to be back. I just wanted to make some remarks on this. I wanna begin by thanking supervisor Mahmoud for introducing this important legislation affirming the right to peaceful protests, and supervisors Chen, Walton, Melgar, Mandelmann, Sauter, and Engadio for cosponsoring. At a time when our fundamental freedoms are under threat, this measure sends a clear and necessary message. The reason I support this resolution is that I think we are quickly sinking into authoritarianism by the day, and I don't want San Francisco to pave the way for Trump to do so. I understand the desire to avoid giving this administration any pretext to escalate to deploy the National Guard, but that cannot come at the cost of our values. That cannot mean targeting peaceful protesters or detaining members of the press. That is not precaution. That is complicity. This isn't just a matter of legal due diligence. It's a matter of public trust. We cannot and should not do Trump's job for him. San Francisco must stand firm in defending the rights of its residents and against Trump's increasingly fascist regime. These demonstrations are happening because people are rightfully outraged, outraged that their neighbors are being targeted by ICE, harassed by federal agents, and treated as threats rather than members of our community. The people of San Francisco deserve to know that when they exercise their First Amendment rights, they will not be met with intimidation or disproportionate force. They deserve to know that this city has their back. This board must ensure transparency, accountability, and a steadfast commitment to civil liberties. That is how we protect not just protest, but democracy itself. And so I am proud to support this resolution. Thank you again, supervisor Mahmoud.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, supervisor Fielder. I think we can take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution passes, is approved. And, madam clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: I have none to report, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Then I think that brings us to the end of our agenda. Do we have any further business before us today?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: In memoriams.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Oh, yes. We do have in memoriams. Madam clerk, can you please read the in memoriams?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals. On behalf of supervisor Dorsey, for the late Rodney Bowden, and for retired deputy sheriff Rhonda Graves.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Thank you, madam clerk. And I think that does bring us to the end of our agenda, and we are adjourned.