San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the 02/03/2026 regular meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisor. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Mr. President. Supervisor Chan. Chan present. Supervisor Chen. Chan present. Supervisor Dorsey? Dorsey present. Supervisor Fielder? Fielder present. Supervisor Mahmood? Mahmood present. Supervisor Mandelman?

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelman present. Supervisor Melgar? Present. Melgar present. Supervisor Sauter? Present. Sauter present. Supervisor Cheryl? Present. Cheryl present. Supervisor Walton? Present. Walton present. And, Supervisor Wong? Wong present. Mr. 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 Ramatush 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 Ramatush 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 Rama Tush Ohlone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Colleagues, will you join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance? On behalf of the board, I want to acknowledge the staff at SF Gov TV. Today, is especially Kalina Mendoza. They record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. Madam Clerk, do you have any communications?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes, Mr. President. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors would like to welcome you all to be here in attendance in the Board's legislative chamber, which is Room 250 on the 2nd Floor Of City Hall. When you cannot be here, the proceeding is airing live on SFGOV TV's channel 26, or you can view the livestream at www.sfgovtv.org. If you would like to submit your public comment in writing, you can do so by sending an email to BOSSFGov dot org, or you can use the US Postal Service. Address your envelope to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the number one Doctor. Carlton B. Goodlet Place, City Hall, room two forty four, San Francisco, California, ninety four thousand one hundred two. If you would like to make a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disability Act, or to request language assistance, please contact the clerk's office at least two business days in advance by calling (415) 554-5184. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Let's go to approval of our consent agenda. Please call items one through eight together.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Items one through eight 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)]: Please call the roll.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On the consent agenda, Supervisor Walton. Walton, I. Supervisor Wong. Wong, I. Supervisor Chan. I. Chan, I. Supervisor Chen. Chen, I. Supervisor Dorsey, Supervisor Fielder, I. Supervisor Mahmood, Mahmood, I. Supervisor Mandelman,

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

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, these ordinances are finally passed. Madam clerk let's go to unfinished business please call items nine and ten together.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Items nine and ten comprised two ordinances that pertain to the capital expenditure plan and the general obligation bond. Item nine amends the administrative code to change the reporting requirement for the capital expenditure plans from odd years to even years with the next report due 03/01/2028 and item 10 this ordinance pursuant to the California government code this matter shall require a vote of two thirds or eight votes of all members to approve for final passage of this ordinance today. This ordinance calls for and provides for a special election to be held on Tuesday 06/02/2026, to submit to the San Francisco voters a proposition to incur up to $535,000,000 in bond debt to finance the Esser facilities and additionally to consolidate the special election with the general election to establish the election precincts, voting places, and officers for the election.

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

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: Speaking to item 10, preparing for earthquakes is one of the most basic responsibilities we have as a city, especially when it comes to protecting lives and ensuring our public safety system remains operational. According to the U. S. Geological Survey, there is a seventy two percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in a region within the next thirty years. This is not a hypothetical risk. It is something San Francisco must be ready for. The Terreville police station will be one of the two stations in the city that the city prioritized for funding for this bond. The station serves much of the West Side and District 4. It is over a 110 years old and was built long before modern seismic standards. In a major earthquake, the station is expected to be severely damaged or potentially unusable. If the Terreville station were taken offline, District 4 and surrounding neighborhoods would face slower emergency response times and delayed service at the exact moment residents would need help the most. Retrofitting the station is about protecting the officers and staff who work there and ensuring the San Francisco Police Department can fully support public safety needs and assist residents immediately following a major earthquake. The Izur Gobond allows us to make responsible, preventative investments so critical public safety infrastructure remains functional when it matters most. For District 4, this is about readiness, resilience and equity for the West Side. Earthquakes don't give warnings. Strengthening Terreville Station ensures our officers can report for duty and our residents can get help when they need it most. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Supervisor Wong. Madam Clerk, let's take these items. Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinances are finally passed. Madam Clerk, please call item 11.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 11, this is an ordinance to amend the building code to create a permit and permitting process for hydrogen fueling station equipment installation and to affirm the CEQA determination.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Please call the roll.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 11, Supervisor Walton Walton, I, Supervisor Wong Wong I, Supervisor Chan Chan, no, Supervisor Chan Chan I, Supervisor Dorsey Dorsey I Supervisor Fielder Fielder no Supervisor Mahmood Mahmood I Supervisor Mandelman

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: I

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Supervisor Melgar I Supervisor Sauter I Supervisor Cheryl Aye. Cheryl aye. There are nine ayes and two nos with supervisors Chan and Fielder voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The ordinance is finally passed. Madam clerk please call item 12.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 12 this is a charter amendment first draft to amend the charter of the city and county of San Francisco to change the current two year limits to term limits for the office of mayor and the office of members of the board of supervisors from consecutive term limits to lifetime term limits at an election to be held on 06/02/2026.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Walton. Thank you so much

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: president Madelman. I just wanted to ask a question to the city attorney. I know there's a state law in place right now that states that if you want to change the term limits for bodies like the board of supervisors or for mayor, you can it should only apply prospectively and not apply for members who have currently or served in the past. And that statute is California government code section 36,502, and it has been in effect since 1996. And it says, any proposal to limit the number of terms an elected may serve shall apply prospectively only. And I just wanted to check-in with the city attorney about that state law and how that applies to San Francisco.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: Mr. City Attorney. Good afternoon, Supervisors. Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi. Under current case law, the statute that Supervisor Walton mentioned does not apply to San Francisco. The city's home rule authority under the state constitution, as a charter city, authorizes the city to determine how term limits are applied. And this would include applying the proposed measure lifetime term limits both to current office holders and past office holders.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Madam clerk please call the roll.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 12 supervisor Walton. No. Walton no supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong I supervisor Chan Chan no supervisor Chan Chan no supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey I supervisor Fielder Fielder, I. Supervisor Mahmood? Mahmood, I. Supervisor Mandelman? No. Mandelman, no. Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, I. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, I. And Supervisor Cheryl? Aye. Cheryl aye. There are seven ayes and four no's with supervisors Walton Chan Chan and Mandelman voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The charter amendment is ordered submitted. Madam clerk please call item 13.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 13 this is an ordinance to amend the business and tax regulations code to revise how the alt or the access line tax applies to the VoIP the voice over internet protocol services to require collection and remittance of the alt on VOIP services using the lower of the number of telephone numbers provided to a subscriber and the number of calls that the subscriber can make and or receive at the same time using those telephone numbers.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Please call the roll.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 13, supervisor Walton.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Aye.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmood? Aye. Mandelman aye, supervisor Melgar, Melgar aye, supervisor Sauter aye, and supervisor Cheryl Cheryl aye, there are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, please call Items fourteen and fifteen together.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Items fourteen and fifteen are two items that authorize the office of the mayor to accept and expend grants. For Item 14, this is 7,000,000, a $7,000,000 grant from bloomberg philanthropies to fund the mayor's office of innovation, 01/01/2026, through 12/31/2028, to approve the associated grant agreement under charter section 9.118 and to amend the annual salary ordinance file number 250,590 for fiscal years twenty twenty five-twenty six and twenty twenty six-twenty seven to provide for the creation of four grant funded full time positions in the office of the city administrator with one position in each of the following classes nine thirty one, ten fifty three, ten fifty four, and ten forty three And for item 15, this resolution retroactively authorizes the mayor's office to accept and expend a $700,000 grant from Tipping Point Community for the establishment of a director of strategic partnerships to advance public private partnership initiatives aligned with mayoral priorities for the term 01/20/2026, through 07/01/2028.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. Colleagues, my apologies. There was an oversight at the budget committee for item 14 for the Bloomberg grant that it should be listed or amended to be retroactive. And therefore, I would like to move to amend item 14 to include the retroactivity for this accept and expand grant.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Is there a second? Second by Dorsey. I think we can take that motion without objection. And then I think we can take these items, same house, same call, without objection. The ordinance is passed on first reading, and the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, call items 16 through 18 together.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 16 through 18 are three resolutions that authorize the recreation and parks department to accept and expend grants for India Basin shoreline park project. Item 16 is for approximately a $1,100,000 grant from the san francisco bay restoration authority measure a a grant for to enter into the associated grant agreement that requires the continued operation of the property for public recreation for a twenty year term upon project completion. Item 17 is for a $2,000,000 grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the Brownfield Cleanup Program to support environmental remediation and park redevelopment through to an estimated end date 10/01/2025, to 10/31/2029. And, for item 18, this is for an approximate $3,000,000 grant increase from the California State Coastal Conservancy for a new total grant amount of approximately $8,600,000 for the parks redevelopment project.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Let's take these items, same house, same call. Without objection, the resolutions are adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 19.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 19, this is a resolution to approve the tenth amendment to the contract between the municipal transportation agency and TEGscow, LLC, for services related to the towing storage and disposal of abandoned and illegally parked vehicles to increase the contract amount by 22,100,000.0 for a total contract amount of 158,800,000.0 and to extend the contract term by nine months, with up to six additional one month extensions, for a potential new term, 04/01/2016, through 06/30/2027.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 20.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 20, this is a resolution to establish the San Francisco Downtown Revitalization and Economic Recovery Financing District to approve the downtown revitalization financing plan to include the division of taxes set forth therein and documents and actions related thereto and to authorize the filing of a judicial validation action.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thanks, President Mandelman. Colleagues, unlike most other tax increment financing districts, which normally fund programs like affordable housing, utilities, or public infrastructure for the public good, this plan instead diverts $610,000,000 in taxpayer revenue into private hands to use for market rate developments. Furthermore, this plan also exempts the first 1,500,000 square feet of the conversions from the city's affordability requirements, and according to the BLA, would create an incentive for these properties to be developed as luxury apartments that will be unaffordable to most of the city's working class residents. Given the city's budget and housing and affordability crises, it is high time we stop privatizing profits and socializing costs, subsidizing private developers at the expense of San Francisco taxpayers. Because of this, I'll be voting against this resolution.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, president Mandelman. I voted in support of this at the budget committee with the expectation that I will have a list of the 48 properties that can be benefited from this tax increment And as of now, at 02:20 p. M. At the board meeting, I have yet to receive the specific lots and addresses of the properties of the 48 properties that, should they participate it, they will then receive this benefit. It is not clear to me which 48 properties will then receive this tax increment is not transparent. Look, we already in the sake of revitalizing downtown, we first waived the impact fee for any property converting from commercial to residential. And then, we also have waived inclusionary requirements, but thanks to Supervisor Chyanne Chen, that we were able to cap it at, I believe, what was a 77,000 square footage that was supposed to yield 14,000 housing units. Now, we are going to give away our tax increment to these specifically 48 properties, which, as indicated by the budget and legislative analyst, quite a bit of chunk of money that projecting at potentially $610,000,000 over forty five years' time. Clearly, we can't be sure how that is would really, by definite like, in a definite term to impact our general fund. We see that there could be a variance between negative to positive, significantly positive tax revenue impact. And without the transparency of that 48 properties, it is difficult for me to tell what is happening with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development here. The relationship and the conversations are not clear to me how we came to the conclusions of 48 properties without knowing specifically which 48, and to simply give away tax dollars and benefits without knowing which 48 properties will be benefiting, meaning by conclusion, the potentially 48 or more or less property owners that could be benefiting from this tax increment. And with that, regrettably, I will be voting against this measure today. Thank you.

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Supervisor Sauter.

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. You know, this item, I know, was discussed at the budget committee and did move out with recommendation. And I would certainly welcome more information on those specific properties. But I was always under the impression that those properties were an exercise. There's nothing in here where we're assigning incentives to specific properties. But those were always an exercise in looking at the spaces and buildings downtown that would fit the criteria put forth in this package. And that has always been my expectation in how it's been presented. But I do want to note that this goes back. The groundwork for this was laid at the state level by the former assembly member, Phil Ting. And so much of what we're looking at here was set out in state legislation. I would certainly welcome more affordable housing, but I do think we have a choice here. And when we're looking at this bill, and when we're looking at downtown and these spaces, it is a choice between empty offices and space for new homes, and welcoming residents downtown. I think that's the choice before us today. It's why I'm supporting this. And I just want emphasize that we have taken some initiatives here when it comes to the downtown efforts to convert offices to housing, but clearly not enough. Clearly, what we've done so far is not working. I mean, you look at every other city around the country, and we are just so far behind. I mean, you look at you can just pull all these names out. Charlotte, Atlanta, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Omaha, Denver. I mean, almost every single city of any significance is ahead of us when you look at these conversions. And I think we have to do more, and that's why I'm supporting this.

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

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. I'm a member of the Downtown Revitalization Financing Board. And by now, I've spoken several times on this. I'll try to be briefer than usual. I'm an enthusiastic supporter of this plan. Like most public policy innovations, I know that reasonable minds may disagree. And my respect and affection for my colleagues who disagree is undiminished by our debate here. In my view, the imperative reflected in the downtown district financing plan isn't solely economic revitalization. As an adaptive reuse plan, this is also a once in a lifetime opportunity for us to correct twentieth century land use decisions that contemplated nine to five neighborhoods and bring them into the twenty first century as more vibrant and diverse 20 fourseven neighborhoods. I'm lucky to represent some of those twenty first century neighborhoods and I think they're driving a lot of our economic activity now. I think we should do more of that. As an adaptive reuse plan, it will enable us to preserve and repurpose buildings that are part of our city's rich cultural heritage. Done right, I think this plan will help fulfill a version of twenty first century urbanism that reimagines our downtown as a reinvigorated thriving neighborhood that's mixed use and mixed income with more residents, more commuters, more shoppers, more visitors, and more amenities to serve them. I also think this plan balances the need for an effective financing tool with critical guardrails. The program itself is time limited it will sunset in 2032. All projects seeking this benefit will come before the district board for approval and the board is required to publish an annual report. So we'll be able to closely follow the fiscal impact of the program, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the district board to ensure that we're supporting these much needed conversion projects, while exercising our fiscal oversight authority. And with that, I hope that we can have majority support of our colleagues.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, Board President. Colleague, again, early last year, one of my very first foe as a new supervisor was to authorize the waiving of inclusionary requirements and impact fees for downtown office to residential conversions. At the time, I was also very concerned that our desire to stimulate new development in the downtown area, we were sacrificing the economic recovery of our lower income residents and our workers. When that legislation was passed, I was told by the mayor's office that they would meet with our community leaders to discuss strategies to advance affordable housing and community stabilization goals in the vibrant yet vulnerable communities in the downtown area. Today, I'm not aware that this conversation have happened. I'm not comfortable authorizing additional legislation that further sacrifices our affordable housing and community stabilization goals, especially when they involve additional public funds. The 5% requirement for below market rate units is irresponsible, and it goes against our stated goals of working towards a more affordable city. Other EIFDs that we have adopted in the city have higher inclusionary rates, and downtown should not be an exception. I am supportive of a downtown recovery strategy that is more balanced by delivering new housing while ensuring that a fair return for affordable homes units. Otherwise, we have a downtown recovery without a fair recovery for our working class families. For these reasons, I'm unable to support the legislation as it's currently formed today. Thank you.

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

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Thank you, President. I will be supporting this legislation today, and I wanted to follow-up a little bit on the comments of my colleague, Supervisor Dorsey. I think our downtown has been ailing for quite a while. During the pandemic, the dystopian picture of what was happening downtown was fodder for Fox News and a bunch of right wing media around the country sort of showing how we had failed. But the truth is that our downtown is suffering from a bunch of land use decisions that previous leadership of the city made over decades. And we zoned almost exclusively for retail. And retail dramatically changed, not during the pandemic, but when somebody brings you a little box with whatever your heart desires to your door, the motivation to go to the 8th Floor of Nordstrom is not so pressing. So we failed to adapt a lot of our land use uses to reflect what retail is today. And our downtown, which made up almost 60% of our tax base, started failing. I want to remind everyone that the Macy's men's store disappeared eight years ago, way before the pandemic. And people stopped going to the 2nd Floor, the 3rd Floor. First, it was Macy's, or first, it was iMagna, then Macy's, Nordstrom. It just really changed. And now we have a Westfield Mall that's completely empty. So I have no doubt that we have to do something to make sure that our downtown succeeds and thrives. A lot of it has to do with thinking what the uses should be, not just retail, but what should be happening. Because our entire transportation infrastructure runs through downtown. It's adjacent to the Financial District, to a bunch of the other uses that we have. So I like it that this ends in 1932. It gives us some time to reassess. And I will also point out that the math of this legislation only works if there is an increase in the assessment value of these properties. If there isn't, there's nothing that we can do here. So I think that it is predicated on hoping to reinvent something, that it will be successful, that we are revitalizing through these little redevelopment efforts. And I am hoping that we can all work together to make sure that it succeeds, because the rest of the city does depend on the success of this small area. Thank you.

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

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. Definitely believe in conversion. I think that's going to be important for us to address housing needs as we move forward. But I am struggling with, and this is through the chair, unless the chair can answer the question, why can't we specifically identify the properties that were used for the exercise of determining how many properties this may affect? If we know a specific number, why can't we identify what those were?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Is that a question for staff?

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: It's a question for whoever can

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: For anybody who wants to answer it. Mr. Bintlef. Ms. Lubczynski. Because

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: it was stated that there are 48 that might qualify so I'm just wondering why we can't know specifically what those 48 are.

[Jacob Bintliff, Office of Economic and Workforce Development]: Thank you supervisor and through the chair of Jacob Bentleft with the office of economic and workforce development. As we discussed in budget committee and as supervisor Sauter alluded to the exercise we had our consultants do was to do a high level analysis of how many properties within the district boundaries might be likely candidates to convert. They did not do a site specific inventory that identified specific properties that would convert. The program applies to the entire area. Any property within the district area is eligible to come forward, as Supervisor Dorsey said, through the district board process, and they have to each one enroll individually before 2032. We'll know which projects they are as they come forward, but there is no list of specific projects that would qualify or not qualify.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: So where did the number 48 come from?

[Jacob Bintliff, Office of Economic and Workforce Development]: It came from that exercise that our consultants did where they estimated how many properties would be likely based on building age, vacancy rates that were available at the time, the class of the building, the size of the floor plates, characteristics like that. Some of the variables like the rents, the office rents, and the vacancy rate change, and that was data that was available at the time. So, it was never intended to be an exercise that would generate a definitive list of projects, but something more akin to polling where you do a sample, you get a basic sense of where people are, but you don't know what each individual respondent would do on that question.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: But you know what those 48 properties are?

[Jacob Bintliff, Office of Economic and Workforce Development]: I do not.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: And where they're located? I don't. Somebody does. Well, you gave a specific number. The people who did the study gave a specific number, which means they know 48 properties somewhere in the universe. And they actually do have addresses, I'm going to assume. So why is it hard to just say, these are the 48 that were looked at during the exercise? I mean, this is not something that it's problematic that we can't say what 48 addresses may be possibly qualify because that would help with decision making moving forward.

[Jacob Bintliff, Office of Economic and Workforce Development]: Yes so it was not a deliverable from our consultants to provide a site specific list they looked at a list of all the parcels in the city and then within this area and they provided the data that we have.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Right but they gave a number they gave you 48 they didn't say it could be 10,000 they didn't say they said 48 that means they have 48 addresses somewhere I'm going to assume.

[Jacob Bintliff, Office of Economic and Workforce Development]: Yes and so the deliverable that we received is that there's an estimate of approximately 48 properties within the district that would qualify we took that projection that was estimated to be a certain amount of revenue the $600,000,000 over thirty years that was projected and that's what the program is accommodating for. So if there were more properties or a different set of properties,

[Don Lucchese, Appellant (3333 Mission/190 Coleridge Tentative Map Appeal)]: that cap would still apply.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: I'm not asking for more or less. You made projections on a specific number of properties that are possibly something that might be a part of how we move forward. But we don't know what those 48 addresses are. That's that's that's that's what's problematic for me. I I understand what the charge was, but I I just I agree with my colleague that you should be able to give us a list of what these approximate 48 properties are that might qualify for something that would benefit the city in the future. I I agree with what you're trying to do here. I'm just it's just troubling that we can't look at the properties that are possible, because somebody has to prioritize at some point which ones are more feasible, which ones are not. You gave us a number estimated number about what the benefit would be from these 48 properties so that leads me to believe that we know what these 48 properties are.

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Madam clerk please call the roll.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 20 supervisor Walton. No. Walton no supervisor Wong. Wong I supervisor Chan Chan no. Supervisor Chen? Chen no. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey I. Supervisor Fielder? Fielder? No. Supervisor Mahmood? Mahmood I. Supervisor Mandelman?

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelman I. Supervisor Meltzer? Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. And Supervisor Cheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. There are seven ayes and four nos, with Supervisors Walton, Chan, Chan, and Fielder voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, let's go to our two thirty special order.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Our two thirty special order is the recognition of commendations for meritorious service to the city and county of San Francisco.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And we will start with district ten supervisor Walton.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you so much president mandelman. Colleagues in honor of black history month this year we want to take the time to honor community leaders that make positive change every day for our young people and communities as a whole, and who are not usually recognized because they would rather stay in community and do the work versus focusing on highlighting the wonderful things that they do. So today we will start with Paul Belizane junior. Paul is a lifelong resident of San Francisco's Hunters Point Holly Rock community a historically rooted area encompassing the Hollister and Double Rock neighborhoods. First incarcerated at the age of 12, Paul spent much of his youth and early adulthood cycling through the justice system until age 28. Rather than allowing those experiences to define him, he made a deliberate decision to change course. He chose discipline, accountability, and purpose. His journey reflects the reality faced by many young people raised in under resourced communities and demonstrates the power of transformation when opportunity meets determination. Today, Paul is a skilled trades professional, community leader, and CEO committed to rebuilding both infrastructure and community. Through formal construction training, he became a union ironworker and expanded his expertise into utility and welding work, contributing to projects essential to public safety and long term stability. Beyond his professional career, Paul remains deeply invested in strengthening families and neighborhoods through mentorship, housing support, and community engagement. His work reflects a belief that second chances, when met with responsibility and service, can produce leaders who uplift entire communities. As CEO of Broadway Place, Paul provides transitional housing and recovery support. He also helps lead impactful community initiatives including participation in Batters Up, Guns Down, an anti violence program using softball to mentor youth, and Holly Rock All Stars, a softball league fostering positive engagement. Additionally, he organizes family centered events such as the annual father daughter dance and community, and more recently, the mother son dance and annual holiday toy drives. All of these events were featured in local news outlets as it is important for these messages of positivity from a native son to be highlighted. Paul's journey is a testament to resilience, transformation, and the power of giving back. Paul, today, we celebrate you along with community and wanna thank you for continuing to inspire others to rewrite their stories and uplift their communities. Thank you.

[Paul Belizane Jr., Honoree (District 10 Commendation)]: Thank you, mister Walton, for the acknowledgment and for your recognition. First and foremost, I'd like to give honor and glory to god. Without his guidance, his protection, and his grace, none of this will be possible. I'd also like to thank my family, your patience, your sacrifice, and your belief, and the work allowing me to keep showing up even when the load is heavy. Thank you to the d ten I mean, district ten office, the dream team. We appreciate all the support you guys do behind the scenes. This moment means a lot. The very first of this honor, and I receive it with humility. But I wanna be very clear. This recognition does not belong to me alone. It belongs to the Hollywood Rock All Stars. Up top softball, batters up guns down. Let me keep going. This team allowed us to operate they have allowed us to operate in peace. They made sure resources were available, communicated clearly, went above and beyond financially, physically, and emotionally so the work could contribute without disruption. Leadership is never a solo act, so it's important to me that those who stood in it with me, I wanna thank. Starting from left to right, it's a lot of names, so missus Banks, missus Jones, mister Durden, JB, Germ, Eugene Ledbetter, Kahari Swift, Moses Johnson, Gregory Tucker, Lavelle Shaw, Ronnie Ronnie Woods, Samuel Markel, Will Vargas, Armani Brooks, Joe Jacobs, Matthew Donaldson, Damone Grayson, Ronald Black, Javon Marshall, Dominique Jackson, George Kent, Terrell Rogers, Philip Buford, Michael Barber, Beau Corbin, David Reynolds, Dennis Tucker, Orlando Hodges, Geno Carpenter, Roland Black, and Deandre Quan Nun. Each of you played a role, Charles Garner and I forgot. My apologies, y'all. Jimmy e Wilson. Each each of you played a role, some visible, some behind the scenes, but every contribution matter. I also wanna acknowledge the programs and individuals who supported me through this journey, those who believed in the mission and helped me carry it forward. Jimmy e Wilson and Charles Prezzi, thank you for your leadership and counsel. YCD Rafiki, wellness camp wisdom, wealth and disparities, us for us, healing and gross opportunity, senseless tragedies oppressing our people,

[Speaker 17.0]: and the girl dad club.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: I don't know where he at.

[Paul Belizane Jr., Honoree (District 10 Commendation)]: But and and to the SF packers as well. Thank you for standing in alignment and showing what collaboration truly looks like. This award carries my name, but it represents many hands, many shoulders, and many hearts. We move as one even when recognized individually, but unity isn't about who stands at the podium. It's about who stood in and worked together. As Frederick Douglass remind us, if there is no struggle, there is no progress. We struggle together. We're built together. We will continue to rise together. Thank you all for everything you have done. Again, thank you, Shamann, for all your support from the beginning. You told us to get out there and do it. You know what I'm saying? And you will support us. It hasn't been anything we came across that you haven't supported us with from the smallest things. Thank you to the d ten dream ten. You guys really do care and have shown us. And thank you to my mentor and counselor. He know you know, sleep tight reductions, man.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: District five, supervisor Mahmood.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Colleagues, today I am honored to recognize Victoria Lee. Victoria, wanna come up to the stand? Victoria is a quiet force whose nearly five decades of service helped shape the heart and culture of Glide Memorial Church. Victoria Lee was born and raised in Oakland to immigrant parents, the second of four children in a lively household that taught her early lessons about what providing service truly means. After graduating from college, Victoria worked in a childhood education and church administration. During this time, she became deeply inspired by Glide through Reverend Cecil Williams Sunday celebrations, which centered the values of inclusivity and community service. Those values resonated deeply. And in 1978, Victoria joined Glide, beginning what would become a forty seven year commitment to the organization and its mission. Victoria's official role was managing Glide's building and business office. But her true contribution extended far beyond any job title. Over the decades, she became an organizer, curator, historian, event planner, graphic designer, and keeper of Glide's culture. It's a lot of jobs. Working closely alongside Reverend Cecil Williams and Glide co founder Janice Mirikitani, Victoria helped Victoria helped build not just an organization, but a community rooted in true service. Her impact is perhaps best captured by the words of a Glide community member who shared her grace, radiant spirit, and tireless dedication kept us going, and her presence continues to shape who we are. Glide was also where Victoria found love. She met her late husband, David Richmond, another foundational figure in Glide's history. Together, married to one another and to the mission of Glide, they dedicated their lives to service, witnessing the organization's growth and deepening its impact across San Francisco over the decades. Beyond Glide, Victoria is a devoted artist and calligrapher. She's a longtime member of Friends of Calligraphy, an international calligraphy society, where she has volunteered at workshops and exhibitions and continued to expand her craft. Her work has been exhibited at the San Francisco Main Library, and she is known for her bookbinding, handmade papers, and intricately collaged and sewn cards. Her artistic practice reflects the same care and patience she has brought to her work in the community. Today, as Victoria Lee retires after nearly five decades of service, we honor her not only for her extraordinary work, but the spirit with which she carried it out. Victoria, thank you for your devotion and your unwavering commitment to the community. Your legacy lives on in the countless lives you have touched. Thank you. My

[Speaker 18.0]: personal poet and preacher, Marvin k White.

[Marvin K. White, Minister of Celebration, Glide Memorial Church]: I don't speak for Vicky. She has her hand in my back and speaks through me. Members of the board of supervisors, honored colleagues, and members of the public, my name is Marvin k White, and I am the minister of celebration at Glide Memorial Church. And on behalf of the Glide Memorial Church congregation, clients, and community, the Glide Memorial Church board of directors, reverend doctor Gina Frommer, our CEO and president of the Glide Foundation, we know that there are moments in the life of an institution, really in the life of a city, when we pause not because the work has ended, but because someone has carried it so faithfully that we must stop long enough to say thank you. Today, we join in honoring Victoria Vicky Lee whose forty seven years of extraordinary service span nearly the entire modern life of Glide Memorial Church and its evolving relationship with the Glide Foundation. As you've heard today that Vicky came to Glide as a young woman seeking work that mattered. She was drawn by the radical invitation of Cecil Williams and shaped under the visionary leadership of Janice Mircitani. She entered the community ready to serve, ready to build, and ready to take her place in a movement rooted in unconditional love, justice, and liberation. From the beginning, Vicky became the quiet constant across nearly five decades of social transformation. Her tenure spans the defining eras of our city and our congregation from the post civil rights and women's liberation movements of the nineteen seventies through the AIDS pandemic and sanctuary movement of the nineteen eighties, from the racial justice reckonings and welfare reform battles of the nineteen nineties into the two thousands marked by LGBTQ marriage struggles, post nine eleven solidarity, and a rapidly changing San Francisco. But across every decade and through every political shift, cultural upheaval, and institutional evolution, Vicky remained the steady heart of the church office. She held our archives in her memory, our schedules in our hands, in our community, in her care. Her work was rarely on the stage, but it was always the reason the stage could be set. Vicky began her service when Glide was one organization, church and foundation held together by shared mission and shared breath. When Glide evolved, when the church and the Glide Foundation became distinct expressions of the same calling, Vicky transitioned with grace, integrity, and deep institutional wisdom. Very few people hold that kind of history. Fear still hold it with generosity. In more recent years, she continued her faithful service through Glide's transitions of our co founders and our organization offering steadiness, continuity, and institutional memory during seasons of growth and change. Her ability to bridge errors, leaders, and structures has been a quiet, but essential gift to Glide's ongoing life. Her title never fully captured her contribution. Vicky was not simply an office manager. She was a board organizer, a curator, an historian, an event planner, a designer, assistant sustenance provider, and keeper of culture. She made it possible for ministries to function, for celebrations to unfold, and for Glide to remain rooted even as the city around it changed. She welcomed thousands, I would even say hundreds of thousands, congregants, neighbors, volunteers, and seekers with patience, clarity, and a spirit that embodied Glide's values long before those values were written down. Vicky also found her love at Glide. She and her late husband, David Richmond, himself a formative leader in Glide's early years, married not only to one another, but to the mission they serve together. Their shared devotion reminds us that institutions are ultimately sustained by relationships and not structure alone. Vicky is often called the glue, but that word is too small. Glue suggests something silent and burdened. Vicky has been the heartbeat, steady, compassionate, and strong. She reminds us that care is infrastructure, memory is civic labor, and love. Practice daily is a good public good. Again, it is with profound gratitude that we know that Vicky receives this commendation not only as not only as rec recognition of a remarkable life, but as an affirmation of the quiet, faithful labor that helps hold a city's conscience in place. Vicky Lee, we thank you so much for your service and wish you the best in your retirement.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Alright.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Wong, you have your folks here?

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: Yes, I do.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. Let's go with District 4. Supervisor Wong.

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: Thank you, President and colleagues. As the supervisor for the Sunset District 4, I'm truly proud to recognize Saint Ignatius, a school that has been part of the Sunset and part of San Francisco since 1855. Saint Ignatius is known not only for academic excellence, but for helping students learn how to balance hard work in the classroom with commitment on the field and how to grow as whole people. This past season, the Wildcats made history by winning the school's first state championship. To the student athletes here today, what makes this achievement especially meaningful is not just the title itself. You showed that it is possible to compete at the highest level while still showing up for your studies, your teammates, and your community. Your discipline, teamwork, and perseverance reflect values that will stay with you long after football. I also want to recognize head coach Lawson, principal Voellert, and all of the support staff who are here with us today. Thank you for everything you do for these students. This kind of success comes from leadership that cares deeply about who these students are becoming, not just what shows up on the school board. You have built a program that emphasizes character, integrity, and balance, and that impact will last beyond this season. And to the entire Saint Ignatius community, including students, families, alumni, faculty, and staff, this season brought real joy to the sunset and to District 4. Neighbors followed the team, celebrated together, and felt proud seeing a local school represent San Francisco so well. That shared pride and sense of joy is something that our community truly values. On behalf of the city and county of San Francisco, I'm honored to commend the St. Ignatius College Preparatory Wildcats on this historic achievement. Congratulations on a remarkable season, and thank you for the inspiration you brought to our community. With that, I'd like to turn it over to mister Dilucchi, the captain of the team. Go, Wildcats.

[David DiLucchi, Team Captain, St. Ignatius Football]: Thank you, supervisor Wong. My name is David Dilucchi, and I'm a team captain for the twenty twenty five SI varsity football team. I'm grateful to be up here speaking on behalf of my team and community in accepting this recognition. As a community, we wanna thank the board of supervisors, Alan Wong specifically, for this recognition. Thank you for the send off and your support as we went to play in the state championship game. Growing up in San Francisco and attending SI has shown me that SI is at the heart of our city. More personally, five generations of my family has attended SI, so being up here today makes me feel even more connected to them. Being a part of SI football since freshman year means everything. Growing a brotherhood that will last a lifetime. I've made plenty of friends throughout my four years that I know I can rely on if anything ever gets hard. And just being a part of that and getting to grow in that is what makes SI special. We continue to build that every day and it goes past just one class or just one year, which is something I'm gonna be eternally grateful for from SI. SI is San Francisco and football is our way to give back. Some special thanks we wanna give is to the board of supervisors for allowing us to have lights and embrace the Friday night lights spirit that is high school football. We appreciate that. Additionally, I wanna thank all the people at SI that helped us get to this moment, including trainers, staff, coaches, and teachers. Thank you all again, and speaking on behalf of all of SI, thank you for this recognition. Go cats.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright madam clerk let's get through a couple more items. Please call item 21.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 21, this is a resolution to approve the first amendment to the agreement between the city acting through the department of public health and health right three sixty to provide withdrawal management and residential treatment services to extend the term by two years for a new term of 07/01/2024 through 06/30/2028 and to increase the amount by approximately 28,600,000.0 for a new total amount of 38,600,000.0.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Please call the roll.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 21 supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton I supervisor Wong Wong absence supervisor Chan Chan I supervisor Chan I supervisor Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder, Supervisor Mahmood, I, Supervisor Mandelman, I, Supervisor Melgar, I, Supervisor Soder, Sauter, I. And Supervisor Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, I. There are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the resolution is adopted. And with that, let's go to our first 3PM special order.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: The first 3PM special order, items 33 through 36, comprise a public hearing of persons interested in the decision of public works dated 11/07/2025, to approve a tentative parcel map for a three lot vertical subdivision five residential and 10 commercial mixed use condominium project at 3333 Mission Street and 190 Call Ridge Street item 34 that' the motion to approve the public works decision to approve the tentative parcel map item 35 that' the motion to conditionally disapprove the public works decision based upon or subject to the adoption of written findings in support of the disapproval. And item 36, that's the motion to direct the preparation of findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, the clerk has described the appeal before us. We'll have our hearing. After the hearing, the board will vote on whether to approve or conditionally disapprove the decision of public works. Unless there are objections, I propose we proceed as follows. We will give up to ten minutes for a presentation by the appellant. Then we'll take public comment with up to two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. Then we will give the city departments up to ten minutes to make their presentation. And then we will give the project sponsor up to ten minutes. And then, again, we will take public comment two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal. And then finally, we will give the appellant three minutes for a rebuttal. I don't see any objections. Seeing none, the hearing will, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. And I don't see any names on the roster, so I'm going to invite the appellant to come forward and present their case. And I think that's Don Lucchese and Martha Hwetty.

[Don Lucchese, Appellant (3333 Mission/190 Coleridge Tentative Map Appeal)]: Yes, thank you. Good afternoon. Actually, I'm going be speaking on behalf of the presentation. Martha will follow as being one of the public commenters after this. It's a beautiful room. Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing us this opportunity to meet with you. First, a few words to clear up any misconceptions about this appeal. It was filed not to stop the development from being built, not to intentionally delay the project from moving forward, and not to show disapproval of new housing in our neighborhood. As BHNC, the developer, has been framing this as a quote, a frivolous appeal by a few homeowners who want to stop affordable senior housing, unquote, that is simply not true. In fact, it is a gross misrepresentation of the truth calculated to manipulate public opinion and get people to sign a petition to drop this appeal. BHNC will be adding 105 new units of housing. And there is a proposed three seventy unit development on the site of the Safeway at 30th admission. Together, that is four seventy five new units of housing, all just one block away from the current Coleridge Street Park. As our immediate neighborhood will become denser, BHNC is proposing a smaller park by a significant amount, over 42% smaller. We cannot afford to lose open space that has been part of the community for almost forty years, while many more people will be moving in. Affordable housing is one of the biggest issues facing San Francisco today, but it must be done with the intention of improving the neighborhood it impacts, and not by taking away what it badly needs open park space for children and families, for neighbors young and old, and for future generations. While BHNC first presented these plans to us when they presented these plans to us, it was a six story, 70 unit project. After much outrage at how six stories was imposed upon our two story homes, BHNC did make the concession to lower it to four stories. But they wouldn't budge on making the park larger. A petition signed a petition was started on change.org by the Coleridge Street neighbors to save our park and still add senior housing. It specifically says that the signees of this petition welcome affordable senior housing in our community. A grassroots effort led to three sixty signatures from a two block radius coming from renters, homeowners, day care centers, seniors, families that have been in the area for decades, and families who have just moved in. It became very apparent that we wouldn't be able to save the park to its original size, since BHNC would be developing on much of it. But the intent of the petition remains the same, save our park. It is with this support from three sixty signatures and the over 40 members of the Coleridge Street neighbors that this appeal was filed. This appeal is specifically about rezoning the park parcel to make it larger. The intention is to get an audience with city officials who have not listened to our concerns because they say their hands are tied by SB 35. SB 35 allows any project for affordable housing to move forward past any to move past any community review. While the intention is to expedite development, it also overlooks how it could impact the community, and it silences the rights of residents to speak out. Filing this appeal was the only way to get our concerns about the park reduction heard with any member of city government. We are hopeful that BHNC can make minor modifications to their plans to return some of the park and still retain 70 units of housing. By looking at the plans, we feel strongly that that can be done and that a large part of the park can be saved. We have left copies of the building plans with each supervisor so that they can see how small changes and some shuffling of units can save a large part of the park. We are resigned to not ever having the park restored to its original size, but we feel saving any part of it is worth negotiating for. We are hoping for a solution that both parties can walk away from and feel enthusiastic about supporting this development. But that hasn't happened because there's no road to negotiate under SB 35. BHNC has gathered a number of signatures to tell the supervisors to end this frivolous appeal. This is not a frivolous appeal. This park has been a vital part of our community for decades. We are not a few homeowners. We are three sixty five Brno Heights residents. And we are not trying to stop affordable housing. Frankly, we are disappointed that a nonprofit in Brno Heights would stoop to a dishonest campaign like this and use their lies to propagate and influence local political groups and citizens. I don't mind that they say I'm against affordable housing. It's a lie, and I know it. I'm a member of the Green Party, so my politics lean quite far to the left. Affordable housing is one of the issues I support, along with keeping the voices of the community alive and heard. But to drag down my neighbors, neighbors who are housing activists, neighbors who are social workers, conservationists, nonprofit workers, teachers, and to insist that they are anti affordable housing is downright shameful. A neighbor who was part of the Coleridge Street Neighbors Group was confronted by another Brno resident who called her selfish and asked, how could she support how could she be against affordable housing? My neighbor is in her 70s. She just came back from a nice demonstration. She had to deal with the blowback from BHNC's rhetoric. To that, I say, shame on BHNC. Shame on Gina Dakus, and shame on Solomon Hyatt for propagating lies. Lies that vilify our neighbors, lies that divide our neighbors, and lies that incite confrontation. I brought this appeal forward in the name of our greater community. This appeal is not intended to halt the project, hinder its progress, or impose any delay, and we are sorry if it does. It is simply a common sense ask for saving our open space. We didn't want to file this appeal, but it was the only way to get the city involved in our stalemate with BHNC. We want the city to recognize the need for open space at a time when the density of the city is increasing immensely. This should not be overlooked. And it's something that has implications in all neighborhoods, in all districts throughout the city, not just Bernal Heights. Developers of all housing developments and the city should be working hand in hand with their neighbors to ensure that we are not living in a of concrete and not suffocating from lack of space. If resolutions are unsolved between developers and the community without city involvement, the developers will always win. It is my hope that the city can find a way to fast track affordable housing projects in the future, but still allow the concerns of the community to be addressed. I also hope that each supervisor here consider this appeal happening in their district as well, and not just District 9. Because this is something that can happen in any district and affect constituents throughout the city. The appeal is a citywide this appeal is a citywide plea to save existing green space from being lost to development. I'm old enough to remember the fight for green space in the '70s. It was important then, and it's important now. Please consider our appeal to rezone this park. Thank you for your time.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you. I don't see any comments or questions from colleagues.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: So Mr. President, may I just ask the audience to hold their applause? There's a board rule that there is no audible sounds of support or against. If you would like to express yourself, just wave your hands as such. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

[Don Lucchese, Appellant (3333 Mission/190 Coleridge Tentative Map Appeal)]: I'm sorry. We're entering into the public comments phase here. Should I introduce the next speakers, or should the speakers just come up?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: We'll take care of it. The speakers will be invited to line up on the right side, or your right, my left, and then be given two minutes each. And so, let's go into public comment in support of the appeal. Madam Clerk, you want to call the first speaker.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Mr. President. You may line up on your right hand side of the chamber. Yes, come to the podium. If you are in support of the appellant or the representative, you'll have two minutes to speak. This is for the appeal for 3333 Mission Street and 190 Coleridge Street. Sure, if you use the podium, we there's a timer on the podium which will help you know where you are at in the two minutes.

[Speaker 21.0]: That's scary. When do you tell me when to start?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: And before you start, I'll just let you know that each of you may have your own two minutes, or you may present as a group and only one of you speak, and then you'll have a seat. All right. I'm starting. Your timer now.

[Speaker 21.0]: Hi. My name is Martha Huddle, and I've lived at 181 Colvard Street, directly across from the park, for twenty three years. I raised my foster son here, and we use the park regularly for play, picnics, and many birthday parties. I have personally consulted two with two different architects and a real estate attorney about the plans, and it is possible to retain most of the current park size and still build 70 units of affordable senior housing, which is what this appeal is about. We've been asking for the proposed park size to be increased for the past two years. However, due to SB 35, no community collaboration is required, and without it, history and local area knowledge are lost and misguided plans get approved. There's a traffic and public safety concern with the planned loading zone on Coleridge Street. Coleridge Street becomes one way going northbound at Esmerella Street. Therefore, any passenger drop off, pickup, or delivery vehicle needs a place to turn around to be facing the lawful direction on the street and to use that loading zone. Currently, there is a driveway for 190 Coors Park homes. But with that taken out, where will these vehicles turn around? Private driveways? It seems that both the city planners and the developers miss this traffic safety issue when plan when planning the loading zone. This issue could be mitigated and avoid potential lawsuits and further delays of the project if the developers would change the plans to add back some of the park parcel and add a driveway to the loading zone area for a turnaround space and for park maintenance vehicle access. Just because the plans have been approved by the city does not mean that the agency can't make changes including enlarging the park parcel and submitting a new rezoning request. It is not our fault that this may delay the project a little longer. If the agency had been willing to collaborate with us, we would not be here today. A small delay in the project is worth the larger gain of park space and the safety for the community and the city. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 22.0]: I'm reading this on behalf of a

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: May I ask you to speak directly into that microphone?

[Speaker 23.0]: Sure,

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: sure. There you go. Thank you.

[Speaker 24.0]: Is this better?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes.

[Speaker 22.0]: Okay. Reading on behalf of an anonymous resident. I am a neighbor on Coleridge directly across the planned development. I was born in San Francisco to a working class family, and except for a few years away from school and work, have been a lifelong resident of Bernal Heights, all in all thirty years. I want to start this message to state that I am a homeowner and then I'm also 100% pro affordable housing. So BHNC's message that homeowners are trying to stop the building of a new senior affordable housing is an untrue blanket statement. I support this appeal for increasing the park square footage than is currently planned for because it is the people who currently live here who will be the ones most impacted by the development. With ongoing and planned development projects in the immediate surrounding area, it is only sensible that we preserve a fair balance of density and open space. This is in accordance with good urban planning good urban planning. Green spaces are essential for environmental, social, and psychological well-being ensuring the long term and long term enjoyability of a neighborhood. More affordable housing is needed but it should be done in close consultation with existing neighbors from the outset of the project because again it is they who are most impacted. Otherwise, it drives a rift between current San Francisco neighbors on the one side and the city and new neighbors on the other. And for folks who are otherwise sympathetic to the cause of affordable housing, they will be swayed away from this position. To wrap it up, I am for the expansion of affordable housing across the street. I just want the city and supervisors and developers to understand that our input matters too. Community center development is the only sustainable solution that wouldn't result in division and policy whiplash. Thank you for listening. Coleridge Naber.

[Speaker 25.0]: Thank you for your comments.

[Speaker 26.0]: Hello. My name is Linda Kittlitz, and I have been residing as well as being a homeowner for the past thirty six and a half years at 193 Coleridge Street. I'm also a business owner. I have always enjoyed seeing children use the playground, which is almost directly across the street from my home. There have been even birthday parties and other public events held there. And as far as I know, I've always enjoyed meeting friends and family over there, even having a cup of coffee with a friend, and just enjoying the outside air. My friends who visited me from out of town would bring their children and go and enjoy the playground. And it made that more inviting for them to come and visit me. Then COVID happened in 2020, and the park had to be shut down. Once again, when COVID was lifted, I was surprised that it wasn't reopened, back open to the public. It was just sitting there, open space wasted, land wasted. It was really very sad indeed. I realized that the BHNC is planning to add another 105 units in that area, and there is a proposal to add those units above the Safeway, all just a block away. We can't afford to lose precious open space where there is air. And I'm not against affordable housing. I'm in favor of it, like anybody else that's got a mind of their own. But this is a big concern. I'm in favor of all this happening. But I don't want to lose the precious space of mother nature. Please listen to us. Thank you.

[Speaker 25.0]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 27.0]: Hi. I'm Mary Kearney. I'll be 87 this April, and I've been residing at Coleridge Park since 2010, almost seventeen years. You could say I arrived during the golden age of our community park, a time when nannies brought their chargers to the playground, when new moms sat on the benches and chatted while rocking their babies in their prams, when preschools brought their entire classes to enjoy playing kickball in the grass or swing on the swings or climb the jungle gym. A time when each of my grandchildren, I have three, visited me, and I helped each in turn learn to swing from the overhead bars, a time when families had picnics on the park tables and fathers taught their children how to play catch on the grass. I entertained my in laws with snacks on a park table while the children played. It was a fun place where children, parents, grandparents, teachers, and caregivers mingled. When COVID came, the park closed down and was allowed to

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: go

[Speaker 27.0]: into disrepair. Most people who arrived at 190, that's Coal Ridge senior housing, after COVID had no experience of the joy that park brought to so many residents and neighbors alike. It is my understanding that when the senior resident was built in the nineteen eighties, it was specified that it must be included in the plans. The park must be included in the plans. The new proposal to cut the concrete sitting area and reduce the grassing area of the newly conceived park would ruin that original purpose. Where would the grown ups sit, watch their children, and make friends? How would prams, walkers, and wheelchairs navigate without solid footing? Where is

[Speaker 25.0]: Thank you for your comments.

[Speaker 28.0]: Apologies for cutting you off, but we are providing everyone the same two minutes. Next speaker.

[Speaker 29.0]: Hello. My name is Heather Kaufman. I live on Virginia Avenue in Bernal Heights. I'm reading this for another resident, and they are anonymous. We are writing as residents of Coleridge Park Homes. That's 190 Coleridge. Before the pandemic closed our much used and much beloved Burnell Coleridge Park in Burnell, was a place where neighbors would meet each other in a typical San Francisco way. One day I would sit next to a neighbor who relies on a local food bank. The next day I might sit next to a neighbor who had just paid off her house and was looking forward to retirement. Friendships and neighborly support flourished in our park in ways not possible in indoor spaces under LED lights. When our neighbors saw an online petition which read Save Our Park, help open reopen Coleridge Park and still add senior housing, many neighbors, old and new renters and homeowners, signed the petition, especially after understanding that 105 new senior apartments would be added to the square block radius of 3,300 and the proposed 3333 Mission Street developments, it seemed common sense that we recognize the need to preserve as much of the park as possible. Nearly 400 neighbors, including ourselves, not a small number, made up of families with small children, fixed income seniors, renters working service jobs, students, and people with tech jobs all agreed that more people means more need of green natural outdoor park space and fresh air. The appeal is for to rezone the request that BNC submitted is not frivolous. It continues the neighbor's desire for further dialogue about a bigger park. To call it frivolous is insulting and dismissive. People in this neighborhood support each other and have been disappointed, to say the least, that BHNC has chosen to frame this issue in a with us or against us way of implying that anyone signing the petition or supporting the appeal is against affordable senior housing. This is absolutely

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank not a you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

[Speaker 30.0]: Hello. I'm reading this on behalf of a resident of the same place, of the Coleridge Park, who remains anonymous. I am a resident of Coleridge Park Homes and vociferously in favor of senior housing. Indeed, I live in senior housing, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to have a bulwark against spiraling housing costs rising in San Francisco. I hope many more seniors can be similarly sheltered. I'm also grateful for the vivid community at Coleridge Park Homes, which has become an integral part of my life. I want to call attention to the very name of this residence, Park. It's right in there, Coleridge Park Homes. The park is important to us here at Coleridge in our later years. The open space outside, literally the front yard, is a focal point for the immediate neighborhood, and certainly a hit with children. The park has laid fallow, closed for many years since the pandemic. The neighborhood will be thrilled by its return. As I understand it, the proposal by the agency with the worthy aim of bringing an additional 70 units of senior housing would result in the existing park exiting their plan, missing quite a large chunk, at a time when the need for Park can only increase with the 35 new units across the street at 3300 Mission, and the 70 new units proposed for the 3333 Mission site. Yet, alterations to the plan could preserve both the 70 new senior units and most of the park to imply or to state that anyone opposing the trimming down of their neighborhood park is exhibiting evidence of inherent opposition to senior housing, seems disingenuous and not at all the case here. Yes, building plans would need to be reworked, as was done at BHNC's new senior housing project at 3300 Mission, And a more homogenous building has risen when there was a late major change, which resulted in plans being reworked. So plan changes might be viewed as what happens in construction

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Just a reminder, we're setting the timer for two minutes, and on the podium there is a clock, so you can see where you're at in your two minute presentation. Welcome.

[Speaker 31.0]: Thank you. My name is Maria Aldas. I've been living on Culver Street since 1963, since I was very small, and have enjoyed the park when it was built in the '80s. Enjoyed that open area, open space for us, because it was just a big bowling alley parking lot before. Probably the only supervisor here who's familiar with our park is our supervisor, But it is it was a park that was very visited as has been explained before by the seniors in that housing, the daycare providers around our neighborhood, nannies would always be there every day. I myself would enjoy it when I was younger, and I would take my daughter there when she was small. There was always birthday parties. There were meetings. It was a place to join and meet other people. It was to throw a ball around, play soccer. It was just very used every single day by everybody in the neighborhood. It's not a famous park like Presidio Tunnel Tops, like Sunset Dunes, like all these new spaces that the supervisors have supported, but it is a very important, a hugely important park to our neighborhood. It's very important to us. So I hope that you hearing all of this information and people speaking about the need for this park, especially with more density, which we are not against, that you will support making sure that this park remains an open, viable space for everyone in the community and surrounding area as a large area, not the reduced space that BHNC wants to make and the developers want. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 32.0]: Good afternoon. My name's Barbara Handler. I live directly across the street from the park, and I don't have prepared remarks, so I'm going to keep this very brief. I've lived in my apartment there for some twenty four years and it's a very nice neighborhood of generally two story homes, quite neighborly, pleasant, relatively quiet considering its proximity to Mission Street. I find the portrayal of the people protesting this development as heartless NIMBYs is very disheartening because that's not the case. I'm very concerned about housing in San Francisco both for the homeless and for senior citizens especially as I myself am a senior citizen and am newly conscious of the need for both affordable housing and community. Part of my concern is the additional density and the destruction of the look of the neighborhood, which is a classic San Francisco neighborhood with beautiful homes. Most of the people who live in the neighborhood selves, not opposed to senior housing, only to the shape this development is taking. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 33.0]: Members of the Board, my name is Buddy Tate Chy. I have lived on Corvidge Street for forty nine years. This year will be fifty. My wife will tell you the history of our involvement in the community and the building of the Corvidge Park homes and the play space. I only have two comments. One, we are 100% for affordable housing. Two, we are 100% for open space for our community. And finally, I just want to point out I'm a very old man. But when I was young, I was a social worker. And I spent my days in Chinatown working. And one of the privileges I had then was being on the board of the Chinatown development center, as you all know, one of the premier housing affordable organizations in the city. I happened to be the president for a couple years too. One of the brews that we had as board members was we respected everyone, even those who didn't agree with us. There was no name calling. We didn't do anything to vilify them. We did not put up posters or call meetings. So, I would ask if we may negotiate this with respect. I think we can make it work. Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Before the next speaker is there any other member of the public in the public gallery who'd like to support the appellant for the 3,333 and the 190 Collard Street project for the appeal specifically? All right, welcome.

[Speaker 34.0]: I'm Jean Chytait. You just heard my husband. When we moved into our home in Colridge Street in 1977, Across the street was an abandoned lot that was fenced off with a chain link fence and was filled with broken glass and trash. So, we were particularly glad when BH and C proposed Coleridge Park Homes. And, since my husband and I had been working for affordable housing in Chinatown, we were delighted to collaborate as Coleridge Street neighbors. And, in 1987, the park we designated since then has been an important asset to the neighborhood, and we had a major part in designing the park, and are grateful for that opportunity. Unfortunately, the play structure was not maintained properly, and the park closed in 2020. When BH and C proposed an additional 70 units of senior housing, we were supportive, and we assumed that we would have a similar collaborative relationship. But, then we learned that the park would be reduced by 42%. We were stunned that unlike our previous collaboration, now BH and C refused to work with Coleridge Street neighbors or communicate with them. Our questions were never answered. For instance, why, with two other lobbies, is having an exceptionally large lobby on Coleridge preferable to having additional open space. We want all 70 units of housing. We believe it can happen and still increase the size of our park by reducing the lobby. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 35.0]: Thank you,

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Madam Clerk. Public comment in support of the appeal is now closed. And now we will give the representatives of city departments up to ten minutes. And I think we're who's starting? Planning or public works? Okay.

[Elias French, City and County Surveyor (Public Works)]: Thank you, supervisors. My name is Elias French. I'm here for Public Works as city and county surveyor, the lead agency that processes subdivisions in San Francisco. I'll give a brief summary of the project from our perspective through our agency. On May 1924, we received a final map application for the above reference property or the subject property. In June 2024, we submitted it to city agencies for circulation for their comments. Then in June 2025, we received a revised tentative map changing the project entitlements proposed slightly. After a referral to city agencies their approval, we issued approval of the subdivision tentative map on October 2025, followed by this appeal. A summary of the project is the existing site consists of three airspace subdivision parcels, which correspond to the existing senior housing building, the park, and the commercial space and garage, respectively. It also entitles a certain number of condominium units, five residential and 10 commercial, within Lot 1, which is the parcel proposed for new construction. We found the map satisfied the technical requirements, and City Planning found that it conformed with the general plan and all applicable codes. The appellant's letter raises concerns about the reduction in size of the park. The map concerns itself entirely with the delineation of parcel boundaries, which do not pertain to the approval of the building size and shape, which were already approved ministerially by planning. Accordingly, and in as much as the map conformed to the Subdivision Map Act required findings to approve tentative maps. We had approved the map. And as much as the appeal addresses concerns which are not relevant to the map and weren't before our office for review, we believe the map approval should stand as issued. Thank you.

[Audra Morlone, Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department]: Good afternoon supervisors. Audra Morlone, acting manager of legislative affairs for the planning department. On 10/28/2025, the planning department approved the proposed subdivision referral from the Department of Public Works. The approval was based on our determination that the subdivision is consistent with the project that was previously approved by the planning department on 04/16/2025, and that it aligns with both the planning code and the general plan. We'd like to address a key concern raised by the appellants regarding Coleridge Park. Their claim is that the subdivision will reduce the size of the park. In fact, the subdivision does not reduce the size of Coleridge Park. Rather, it reflects the reconfiguration and reduction in size that was already approved under the SB 35 development application. The tentative map application simply updates the lot boundaries of existing Lot 101 to match that previously approved reconfiguration. For these reasons, and as detailed in our written response and the planning department case file, we recommend that the board uphold the Department of Public Works decision to approve the tentative map application for this project. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Ms. Maloney. I don't see any, but I do. Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thanks, President Mandelman. I have some questions for a few departments. So Mr. French, Republic Works, just to make it clear, did you consider any of the design concerns brought up by the appellants in approving the map here? And why or why not?

[Elias French, City and County Surveyor (Public Works)]: Thank you, Supervisor Fielder. The design concerns raised by the appellant and the design of the shape, size, massing of the buildings and park are not part of the scope of review for subdivision approval. And in this instance, the building and development form was already approved by planning, and we've reviewed the proposed boundary line delineations with respect to the approved buildings, not the shape, size, form of the buildings themselves.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you. And Ms. Maloney for planning, was there any opportunity for neighborhood feedback in reviewing the affordable housing application for 3333 Mission Street? Why or why not?

[Audra Morlone, Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department]: Thank you, supervisor Fielder. Audrey Morelone for the planning department. Because this is an SB 35 project or now more commonly understood to be SB four twenty three, state law restricts the city's ability to modify or even give feedback to code compliant projects, especially if those modifications would inhibit or chill the approval or if the modifications would increase project costs.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: And where should neighbors bring feedback regarding the affordable housing project?

[Audra Morlone, Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs, Planning Department]: Again, supervisor, unfortunately, law restricts this is a state law project. It is truly out of the bounds of our jurisdiction. The only thing that the local jurisdiction has control over is determining whether the project is code compliant, which we did determine in this case.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you. For our city attorney, I just want to be clear about what we should consider when reviewing this map appeal.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi, the question before the board is whether the map complies with the subdivision or the state law, and it limits what the board can consider. I think the Public Works Department has laid out sort of the factors that are at issue before the Board, and that's the scope of what you have to consider here.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. So if I'm understanding correctly, the Board should not consider questions around the product design?

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: The board can consider compliance with state law. And that those design of the project questions are not part of what state law requires for your consideration under this appeal.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you. That's all my questions for the departments.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. Then we will go to the project sponsor for up to ten minutes. And I think that's Lauren Chang and Gina Dacus.

[Gina Dacus, CEO, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center]: Good afternoon, president Mandelman and supervisors. My name is Gina Dacus, and I am the CEO of Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center and Bernal Heights Housing Corp. We are also a nonprofit service provider and community based housing developer that has served the Bernal Heights community for close to fifty years. This appeal is being held as a result of neighbors concerns about our proposal for Coal Ridge Neighborhood Park. It's a privately operated park that has been closed since 2020 and requires significant repairs. It is our intention to reopen the park for the enjoyment of the public with the reduced square footage to allow for 70 new units at a 100% affordable senior housing, as well as a new 1,000 square foot community room space that allows senior residents and neighbors alike that they will all be able to use. I am disappointed that despite our many intentions to reopen the park as soon as physically possible, as well as extensive community outreach and concessions to make 3333 a more welcome addition to the neighborhood, including including lowering the initial unit count as been has been shared from 108 units to 70 units and and adjusting the design at a significant expense to the ownership to reduce impact on neighbors' backyards, we still find ourselves here today. This project has already received ministerial approval twice, and yet we have been asked to waste precious time, money, and resources preparing for this appeal, which has no bearing on the park design because neighbors are upset about what is losing what is currently unusable concrete and bushes. In fact, this appeal only serves to delay the entire process and prolong both the park closure and the timeline for deliver delivering affordable housing. Over the past two years, we have worked closely with the thirty three three mission neighbors that extend beyond the appellants represented in this room, including them to hear their concerns and share timely information regarding the project. This included two community open houses, small group meetings in person and on Zoom, and one on one meetings with the neighbors at their homes to see exactly how the development might impact them. Our community organizer even went to individual homes in their backyards, including the appellants. And we have made our entire development team, including the architects and the landscape architects available to answer questions at all of these meetings. In addition, we did a survey and sent it out to over 2,000 Bernal Heights neighbors to determine what elements the community would like to see included in the new design. And none of this required s v 35. We voluntarily initiated a proactive community engagement effort with a dedicated email to receive neighbors' inquiries and a project website. Despite these efforts and our continued reassurance that we would share relevant information with the community when we were able to do so, neighbors continue to allege that we were not doing enough and that we were intentionally keeping the park closed. Coleridge Neighborhood Park did close in 2020 due to COVID nineteen mandates and remains closed now because of the significant maintenance and safety concerns. Safety concerns such as the tree roots that the city owns growing into our park lifting up cement that have not been addressed. And by utilizing this funding tied to this project, we have proposed a more officially designed park that removes the, 2,000 or so, 28 let me be specific. Two two thousand eight hundred and thirty five square feet of concrete and bushes, and it maintains 3,885 square feet of park space, which will include grass in a play structure area. And we're also adding, again, a 1,000 square foot community room intended for multigenerational use. And this solution offers benefits for the entire community, not just one group of neighbors allowing us to reopen the park while creating more affordable housing. And the impellants insisting that we maintain the entirety of the park space, Although it's already been approved and despite our explanations, that means that we would be removing 36 units of affordable senior housing, no space for private office space in in for services and property management and the designated lobby area. And while we hope that this project will bring benefits for all, we cannot in good conscience reduce the unit count in order to save a small amount of concrete and dirt. In in recent discussion, even with the appellant's representative, when I asked what their plans were, they had no plans. They didn't even consider visioning and and and dreaming with the rest of the neighbors of how we can take a 35 year old park and bring it to today's standards in terms of park and programming. And furthermore, they have again not delivered a plan to retaining the park space. And our proposal creates an opportunity to redesign the park that is community based and community driven with the most efficient use of the space ensuring that there is public space for community and critical needed low income housing that is definitely needed in Vernal Heights, where our seniors are being priced out of San Francisco. And this appeal also alleges that there is no open space in the neighborhood. On the contrary, there are 24 parks within 1.1 miles of the project site. Eight of them are a half a mile away walking distance or less and provide substantially and readily accessible open space to our residents while we figure this out. And it is my hope that the board of supervisors will take into consideration not only the agency's demonstrated commitment to the community for the past fifty years through our outreach process for now, but also this is a frivolous appeal which does not have the power to advance the appellant's goal of reopening the park at its current size. And thank you again for your consideration.

[Lauren Chang, Land Use Counsel (Project Sponsor, 3333 Mission)]: I I I'm will I

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: me to the speaker just one moment. I'll just remind those of you who were potentially not here earlier, no support noises. If you do support someone, just sort of wave your hands in the air as such. Thank you kindly. Welcome to our speaker. Thank

[Lauren Chang, Land Use Counsel (Project Sponsor, 3333 Mission)]: you. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Lauren Chang. I am land use counsel for the project sponsor. This appeal involves an already approved 100% affordable 70 unit SB 35 project. The city approved the SB35 entitlements on 10/30/2024, and then again on 04/16/2025. The matter before you today is only on the tentative map approval, which was also processed under SB 35 and not the scope of the project or proposed uses like the park. The entitlements are final and cannot now be subject to an appeal process under state law. The timeline for the city to determine whether the project is in conflict with objective standards or meets the eligibility criteria under SB 35 have also long elapsed. The tentative map at this point is deemed approved. An appeal of the tentative map and any other future permits covered under the project's SB 35 application is incompatible with the streamlined ministerial approval process and is unlawful. On behalf of the applicant, we respectfully request that the board deny the appellant's appeal for the following reason. Next slide, please. First, this appeal shouldn't be heard at all. The state imposed strict timelines for the city to review the map, which have already expired. The ninety day timeline includes appeals because our lawmakers expressly state that public oversight cannot inhibit, chill, or preclude the ministerial process. That time period expired on 10/12/2025, one hundred and fourteen days ago. The applicant submitted its map application last summer in July 2025. Public Works approved the map on 11/07/2025, which was already beyond the ninety day review window. Today's appeal is two zero four days after the applicant submitted its application, which is far beyond the ninety day period under SB 35. Second, even if this appeal were not time barred, the city has failed to make any findings that the map is not consistent with objective standards or any findings under government code section sixty six thousand four seventy four that would mandate denial of the map. Third, as you heard from Gina, the applicant, while not required by state law, also completed extensive community outreach efforts, including to the appellant directly. The applicant has a deep desire to work with the community and the city to bring this project into reality. And they've worked incredibly hard to do so up to this point. The redesign that resulted in the April 2025 approval was due to incorporating feedback from the community. And it's important to highlight that Coleridge Park is privately owned. And I highlight that because, as you've heard, the main issue of the appeal is the park. However, the applicant is committed to redesign the park in a more efficient, safe, and be more engaging for the community. The reduction in the overall park size was necessary to accommodate additional affordable housing units and make the park more usable. Retaining the park size directly affects the number of affordable units. And this project is exactly the type of project that we need to see more of in this state. It's 100% affordable. It provides housing for seniors. It used streamlining tools created by our lawmakers that exempts it from CEQA and requires shortened review time. It's near transit. And it's taking advantage of the density and height incentives to increase the number of affordable units. And the development team is made up of members of the community who care deeply about the neighborhood. So I implore you to uphold state law and deny the appeal. Thank you.

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. I have just a couple questions for the project sponsor. I can attest that there were community workshops that were widely publicized, and my legislative team went out there as well. I'm just wondering, was the decision around park size and affordable units and that trade off communicated in the in the workshops? And I wanna reiterate that this is not a requirement under SB 35. And so this is going beyond the requirement of the law.

[Gina Dacus, CEO, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center]: Absolutely. So we commute we throughout several meetings we communicated and actually I think believe the July meeting when we agreed based on the appellant's feedback on the Virginia neighbors to give them about 10,000 square feet of a setback on the property line so that the site didn't impose on their backyards, we communicated what all the changes meant including the park size. We were also told when we gave all the concessions that it really didn't even matter because they didn't want it there and they should just we just we should just look down town. So that's how that discussion ended, and there wasn't any other time to we couldn't move on from that.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: And you touched on it in your presentation, but I wanted to have it clarified. Any further design changes would require you to resubmit and basically go through a lot of more process? And also, what is the relationship to the funding for this project?

[Gina Dacus, CEO, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center]: Okay. So, when we are when we initially looked well, so let me just explain to you. The park is a podium park. It's not a regular park. And I've I've now known podium parks are probably should be banned from San Francisco based on this experience. But in either case, it's a Podium Park. So, it's it's connected to the all the properties. And so, in order for us to address the park and the podium and and the development, we were combining it to creatively address the funding that would come with it. And so because the podium would have to be replaced, we could replace the park at the same time as we built the housing. So that's how that came into play. The other piece is is that when the architect said that they would need a portion of the park, they originally had it extended even smaller. And I challenged them to move it back and it if the park and the units were close to the park, we would explain that those units people that moved to those units would understand that they live by a park. So we only took what we absolutely needed. So any changes that are starting to make that we start to make to adjust this very complicated space that's shaped like an l would cause a lot of different challenges. And it would impact downstairs, and it would impact every floor, and it would remove about 36 units, and it would not allow us to have the community room, and it would not allow us to have the space that is now called the lobby because it was a shell. But that's also going to consider private services offices, which we don't have the other site, at the other site next door, and other amenities for the residents that will live here. These residents at our coverage site are from 70 to 100 years old. So disability forward thinking is critical for senior housing in San Francisco, but we already have an example next door. So the amenities that we designed in the space are to benefit the people that live there.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: And is there more opportunity in the near future for neighbors to contribute to the existing design and preservation and just general ongoing upkeep of the park itself?

[Gina Dacus, CEO, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center]: Absolutely. We invited the community to vision with us about what could be in the space. And then we brought our landscape architects out with pictures of what those things would look like, and people put dots next to the things that they wanted to see, like multigenerational interactivities and exercise equipment for the seniors and space for the toddlers. And we told the community that once we get through all the entitlement and we start moving down the funding path line and when it's time for the requirements of the design for the park, we would invite the community back in. We don't have a vested interest on telling the community what this park should look like. It's been said that we're b h and c, but we are Bernal. We've been here for forty nine years. Our board members are residents of this community, so we are part of the process with community.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: And then just lastly, the park was closed during COVID and has not been reopened since due to safety concerns. Is that because it is a platform park?

[Gina Dacus, CEO, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center]: That's because the trees have also grown into the platform park and have lifted up the cement. I invited Park and Rec out to the site. I had a dream that they would take this park from me and help solve this problem. But as we know, and Rec in the city does have not have any money for But they were good because they brought the entire team out and pointed things that I needed to consider around safety, around when we touch one item, how it would trigger ADA, and all the other items. And so that's when this park discussion and the dollars associated started moving into the millions. But we are inviting the community to come back come out with us. We've asked park and rec, could they come and sit at the table just to give us input and advice? And we they haven't committed to it, but they said they would think about it. But we are a little ways away from that. We started this discussion a month after we closed on the property. That is so early to plan all these very details out, and we've tried to be as transparent as we could based on where we are in the process. But, yes, the community is invited back to the table, and we want to design an another amazing park in Vernal Heights.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: And just lastly, I I would say the size of the park is about half the size of this room. And it would it would take millions to to get it to where where folks want it.

[Gina Dacus, CEO, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center]: If we're if we are just considering the park by itself, this means that we would need be replacing the podium. That is where the expense it's not the expense of replacing the play equipment that still starts about a 100 k. Right? It's the actual podium itself and everything that came with that, which is why the conversation became complicated. And this is something that we have shared repeatedly.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you. Those are all my questions.

[Gina Dacus, CEO, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center]: Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. Seeing no one else on the roster, we will open up public comment in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project. And so if folks would so Madam Clerk, could you please welcome Thank

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: you, Mr. President. All right, thank you. You're already lining up on the right hand side of the chamber. Thank you, Bill Barnes, for guiding people in that direction. If you'll use the taller podium, it does have a clock on it which will tell you where you are at in your two minute presentation. At first you'll hear a soft bell that lets you know you've got about twenty nine seconds left to finish. We always hate interrupting people. So, welcome.

[Speaker 40.0]: Thank you. My name's Emily Hagan. I live in the neighborhood about a two minute walk away from this site on Winfield Street, and I am against this appeal. I have two kids who are nine and six. So, when my oldest was three, I think when was was when this park closed, we never got to try it out. But we're really excited to see the park renovated, to see the whole senior housing built, and I don't see any reason to delay this further. I want it to get done so that we can enjoy it. And I think the thousand square foot public space, amenity space is also going to be a great feature that we're excited to use. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 41.0]: Hi everyone. My name is Alania Green. I have been living in Bernal for ten years. My husband and I own a home and are raising our toddler in Bernal. I live just off of Coleridge Street, and I am here to strongly support this project and urge you to reject the appeal. My family is deeply committed to this neighborhood. We're moving in my 78 year old mother to live in a multi generational home, and that's why I feel so strongly about this project. Most families don't have the space or the resources to do something like this and that's why this matters so much to me this project is a 100 affordable senior housing for vulnerable seniors these are seniors who help build this neighborhood help build this city and are now being priced out of it many can't afford to live with their adult children and could be forced out of our community this appeal before you claims to raise concerns but in reality it blocks a fully approved and thoughtfully redesigned project. The building height was already lowered units were reduced and extensive community outreach was done. This appeal isn't about improving the project it's about blocking it. My son and his friends need playgrounds, there's no arguing about that. But blocking this project doesn't protect the park. The only mechanism to restore and reopen the park is tied to this project. Bernal's built very littable little affordable in recent decades, and the consequences are clear. Blocking housing for seniors is not progressive, and our seniors are worth more than property values and parking spots and views. Denying housing leaves vulnerable seniors without secure housing and puts them at risk of homelessness. As a homeowner, a parent, and a neighbor, I urge you to reject this appeal. This is the right decision for Bernal in San Francisco. Thank you for your time.

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

[Speaker 42.0]: Hi, good afternoon. My name is Oscar Benitez. I live about four blocks away from the park. My day to day work, I'm an advisor to state and county governments on housing and homelessness. It's suffice to say that the example that BHNC is setting should be held as a standard. Not only has is this project late and the park should be opened, but they also provided the concessions on taking away housing that should be available for senior citizens that require it. Number two, there's been a lot said about outreach and community engagement. Just because folks don't agree with the results of community engagement does not mean that community engagement did not occur. I think it's an important fact that just continues to be restated over and over again. Number two, there are a number of parks. In fact, there's a park that's about half a block away. My three year old and his grandmother walk up there, currently use it in anticipation for this park to open. I want to end maybe with just one other point, which is I spent about almost fifteen years as a broadcaster for the NFL. This is what a Hail Mary looks like. This decision has already been approved. We are spending a lot of time, effort, and resources to litigate something that doesn't that isn't required. So please we are looking forward for b h n c to continue set a standard for other nonprofit affordable developers and we encourage you all to ensure that loopholes that could be approved like this one does not continue with the legislation that was introduced at the state. Thank you for your support.

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

[Speaker 43.0]: Good afternoon boards of supervisors. My name is Sam Moss. I'm the executive director of mission housing development corporation. We're a 55 year old nonprofit affordable housing developer and a longtime ally and supporter of Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center. I cannot stress how awesome they are at what they do. I'm here to speak in as much opposition as humanly possible to this appeal and as much support as humanly possible for low income senior housing. I have this whole speech, and I just I can't how are we not more outraged that we lost 38 units for seniors? You know? Vernal's already made concessions, and here we are, again, the second time in six months that a 100% affordable housing buildings map issuance is being appealed. Not the building, not the design, the issuance of a new map. You have the power, the Board of Supervisory you have the power to plug this loophole. You can do it. You are duly elected. You can do it. And, any time you want to, the affordable housing community is here to work with you, and I just hope that you reject this appeal because having it in the first place sends a message that when 100% affordable housing is approved, it's still not really approved. And, that's not good for anyone, especially the seniors who may not have a home now because of it. And, I just, again, I want to applaud Vernal Heights Neighborhood Center and thank them for their patience and their perseverance, and to everyone who supports them, because housing is actually a human right. So, you.

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

[Speaker 44.0]: Hi, my name is Brian Braunlich. I'm a member of District Nine Neighbors for Housing, and I'm speaking today, oh, and I live in Vernal Heights. I'm speaking today both in support of 3333 Mission, and vehemently against this appeal. While housing in the city does draw strong reactions with many perspectives, the desire to build more subsidized affordable housing has, in my experience, united virtually all San Franciscans, as you've heard today. But, many who claim to support affordable housing seem only to offer surface level theoretical support, and they don't acknowledge or consider the way that bottlenecks like these prevent that housing construction. Appeals like this one are one of the most substantial bottlenecks preventing affordable housing construction. This appeal, of course, has delayed 3,333 Missions Construction, but it has also driven up the cost of each new home there, funneling money toward subsidizing lawyers fighting appeals rather than construction workers building subsidized homes. It's no wonder it takes two years longer and costs more than twice as much per square foot to build affordable housing here compared to states like Colorado. Appeals like this also have a chilling effect on future affordable housing throughout the city, highlighting yet another loophole, a new obstacle affordable housing developers must consider, plan, and budget for when deciding whether to move forward with a project. It does not just make it harder to build affordable housing in Bernal Heights, it provides a roadmap for driving up costs and preventing affordable housing across the city. In the meantime, it's caused nearly four months of delays to this project. That's four months with 70 fewer homes for low income seniors It's in my also a four month delay to our neighbors getting their park back on Coleridge. Too often in the city we let perfect be the enemy of good and we end up with something bad. This appeal is bad, and I implore the board to reject it. Thank you for your time.

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

[Speaker 45.0]: Good afternoon. Bill Barnes on behalf of NPH, the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. Since 1979, we've been the proud voice of affordable housing in the Bay Area. This appeal sets a very dangerous precedent. Public works took more than ninety days to even approve the maps submitted by the applicant. After that, it was appealed. Now it's been here at the board continued and being heard. There are funding rounds in the state that groups like Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center are not as competitive for because they're a small nonprofit organization here in San Francisco. They're missing those funding rounds. As these delays continue and people say they're for affordable housing, it really disadvantages building the project and getting the funding because we're not actually working on the spirit of SB 35, which is let's make sure 100% affordable gets approved at this timeline. So there are lots of issues that were raised, but I did want to associate NPH with the project sponsor in terms of the question of whether the matter should even be before the board or whether it's tie barred. I think that's an important precedent. I would note that Bernal Heights does a really good job of community outreach. Not every developer who's a member of ours has community meetings. Not every member agrees to concessions, and they're not required to. But in this instance, they did, and we're still continuing to be here for an appeal. Last thing I would note is the RINA goals are real. We need to build 100% affordable, very low income housing at San Francisco. We're not meeting those goals. We certainly don't meet them when we have a project starting at 108 units that then arrives at 70 units. And as we try to meet our arena goals across all of the income levels, it becomes crucial that we approve projects like this that are so needed in San Francisco. Thank you for your time.

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

[Speaker 46.0]: Hello, my name is Myrna I live in Bernal Heights down the street from this project. And, I speak only for myself when I say how shameful it is to have an appeal and to treat us all like we're stupid, like we can't see what's happening here, when the appeal has already taken away 38 units from the project in a neighborhood that has built seven units of affordable housing in the last twenty years. It's unbelievable. Furthermore, how selfish it is to come up here in front of all of us and say that the people who are most affected by this housing project are the homeowners that live nearby and not the people that intend to move into the project. That's all I have to say. You should be ashamed of yourself. Please reject this appeal.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Okay. So, let's have our next speaker. Welcome.

[Speaker 24.0]: Hello. My name is Ruth Ferguson. I'm a trustee for the City College of San Francisco. Today, I'm here speaking in a personal capacity. Every day I take the bus or hit up my favorite restaurants on Mission Street, I pass by this vacant lot. It is just a few blocks away from my house. Right now, we have an opportunity to fill it with a 100% affordable, low income senior housing. My heart swells every time I see it for what it can become and what it represents for our community. Right next door to this vacant site, 56 low income seniors currently call our neighborhood home in a building operated by the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center. The same nonprofit developer who's ready to build this project. 56 seniors who have contributed to the fabric of our city, our community. The people who live here are my neighbors, some of whom are living at the poverty line. This housing gives them the opportunity to build a stable future. We should be celebrating this special opportunity to welcome 80 more low income seniors to our community in Bernal Heights. In neighborhoods like ours, newcomers and young families who wanna purchase a home are required to spend an average of $1,700,000. This is because of scarcity of resources, because Bernal Heights consistently ranks dead last across the entire city for new housing built. Bernal Heights also ranks dead last in affordable housing construction. This isn't a coincidence. It's a policy choice. Building affordable housing changes people's lives. The ability to age in place changes people's lives. It is not something we should take for granted. This is our community, and these are our people. Let's show up for each other, especially right now when the world is so dark. Let's come together and build a better world in this vacant lot in Bernal Heights. Let's build a better future for our elders and a community that stands up for each other when we need it most. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 47.0]: Good afternoon, board. My name is Honest Charlie Bodkin, and I'm on the leadership of the District five Democratic Club. I' also the cofounder of San Franciscans for social housing. Seniors make up a disproportionate share of homelessness in San Francisco and across our state. That' why projects like 3,333 mission and the work of bh and c are critical. About 1,000 san franciscans for social housing have recently signed a petition calling on this board to fund social housing including housing built and maintained by nonprofits. It' reasonable to say that these san franciscans stand in solidarity with affordable housing developments like thirty three mission particularly for seniors. In my neighborhood hate Ashbury we added a 100% affordable housing development at seven thirty stand in and it' enhanced my neighborhood in both measurable and immeasurable ways. And I know that when this project is brought to completion and neighbors meet their new neighbors there will be smiles joy and a sense of a stronger more united sense of community just as we we have felt in the heat. When I spoke to this board during the upzoning hearings in the fall, supervisor Melgar reminded us that the city lacks a dedicated fund for affordable housing. This is why we need this project. I'm urging you to reject the appeal and support this project. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 48.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. Chynag Bhakta with Mission Housing Development Corporation urging you to deny the appeal and support the affordable housing at 3333 Mission Street. We really have to stop calling into question the issue of affordable housing along with Sam who was up here earlier and a few other folks. We were here just six months ago defending affordable housing and we're back in the same district on Mission Street about 20 blocks up. San Francisco needs thousands of affordable housing units, Not hundreds, but thousands. Not just to meet our goals but most importantly to meet the needs of the people who are desperately seeking housing solutions in this city. Struggling families, seniors, people on the street, those living in SROs, families in overcrowded conditions, all need thousands of units of affordable housing in San Francisco. We already understand the benefits of supporting projects like 3333 Mission and we also understand the consequences when we don't support these projects and when we don't have strong city policy that doesn't allow for delays like this to occur over and over again. So just please deny this appeal and support the affordable housing. Thank you very much.

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Hello supervisors, Peter Stevens, Build Affordable Faster California. Just to hear here to say, please reject the appeal and support the housing. Thank you very much.

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

[Speaker 49.0]: Hello, supervisors. I'm Sarah Rogers with District nine Neighbors for Housing. We urge you to reject this appeal. The subdivision appeal is not isn't a valid mechanism to rehash arguments against the project. Bernal Heights has a long progressive history and a well deserved reputation for neighborliness, but over the past twenty years, according to the city's housing inventory data, it has built just 230 units of housing total and only seven units of affordable housing. During that time, it has moved from majority renter to majority homeowner. We now regularly see homes sell for 3 to 4,000,000, and even quaint little Bernal cottages are the object of bidding wars and go for eye popping prices. People who bought their homes decades ago and have seen the values multiply many times over may not fully appreciate how hard it is to afford to live here. Over my eighteen years in Bernal, I've heard my otherwise really amazing and wonderful neighbors object to housing over and over because of traffic, parking, shadows, the hills being too steep, the sidewalks too narrow. Perhaps most memorably, I heard that building two new homes would cause cause a PG and E pipeline to explode and incinerate the neighborhood. It was appropriate for state law to intervene and streamline approvals for a part for developments like this. When we get so focused on what we think we will lose in terms of views or parking, we fail to see all that we will gain by having new neighbors and by welcoming our elders, from preserving the remaining diversity of our community and bolstering its vibrancy. This particular development is in a great location on one of the one of the best transit corridors in the city. Housing like this is long overdue and should really maximize the number of neighbors who can live in the community. There should be no further delays. We urge the board to reject this appeal and the project sponsor in the future to maximize the affordable housing allowed under state law on similar sites. Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

[Speaker 50.0]: Good afternoon, President Mandelman and Board of Supervisors. My name is Laurel Muniz, and I moved into Bernal Heights in 1975. Before that, I learned to bowl on that very property that we're discussing tonight. So I go way back. Raised two sons in Bernal Heights and watched 190 being built. I want to encourage you to vote against this appeal. We need this affordable housing. Unfortunately, it's already been reduced to 70 units when we could have built, when they could have built 108 units on the property. And the way it got reduced was listening to the community, listening to the appellant who didn't want a certain height of a wall built near his home. We lost 10 the project lost 10,000 square feet by pulling back the property line. I also want to speak to the people that were talking about the park. I want to encourage them to come to the nice meetings that Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center has and give their input. We can make this a top notch park for our community with your input. What's happening is we're going to take the project won't have the broken up concrete or the little postage stamp grass area that nobody could play soccer on, trust me. There's also going to be a community space, an indoor community space, which our neighborhood really, really needs. There's very little place where we can come together and have meetings, have birthday parties, that kind of thing. So again, please deny this appeal. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 35.0]: Good afternoon, President Mandelman and members of the board. I hadn't planned to be here today. I was at an executive board meeting of the United Educators of San Francisco retired division. And, when I but I listened to it on the radio, so I figured I have to get up here. I have to. Some of my friends and neighbors are part of the appeal, and I sympathize with some of their concerns, but I am asking you to reject it. I could do no other. When I first moved into the Mission Bernal area in 1980, there was a movement against gentrification because in the Mission, before Bernal, think, there was a steep rise in the cost of housing, and many people were being driven out of the city because of that round of gentrification. I said I just left the UESF retired division me executive board meeting. Well, you know what? It's darn hard for teachers in the classroom now to afford to live in San Francisco, even on their salaries, and maybe that's one of the reasons we have a little crisis in this city. But number two, consider a teacher or paraeducator trying to stay in San Francisco on their retirement. Not gonna happen. It is not gonna happen. So I just think on the moral weight, you have to push the project forward, and I thank you.

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

[Speaker 51.0]: Hi, good afternoon. My name is Vincent Diaz. I'm a longtime San Francisco resident. Been living here for seventy three years. I'm a native. And years ago, about twelve years ago, my wife were all evicted to the Ellis Act. So basically, we had nowhere to live. Over a year, we struggled looking for housing. Fortunately, we came upon 190 Coleridge, which I felt was truly blessed and very happy there. And I like the saying for other people in my same position to be able to afford and stay here in the city because this is the city we love, San Francisco. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 17.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Quentin Mecky with the Council of Community Housing Organizations, of which Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center is a longstanding member. We should be really clear about this. No part of this process should make any of us happy. Our member agencies are on the thinnest of threads right now economically. Construction costs, labor costs, land acquisitions, to even put together a successful capital stack. To put together this type of development takes time, effort, and money. And the concessions that Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center made in good faith, 35% of the units that were originally proposed. And where did it get them? An appeal that sits before you. Now, for the second time, you all sat for an appeal of the DPW map in the mission. We're doing it again here. This needs to be the absolute last type of this appeal that is allowed in the city and county of San Francisco for affordable housing. They followed every part of the process that we have been asked to follow. They, well, dealt with the neighbors. They collaborated, and yet still were here trying to satisfy some last minute requests, and it's cost money, it's delayed housing, and 38 units are now no longer going to be built for seniors in Bernal Heights. They're not going to be made up someplace else. This was the opportunity to have them. We're not going to have them. But moving forward, it is incumbent on this board of supervisors to close this loophole. There should be no more DPW MAP appeals.

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

[Speaker 52.0]: Good evening, Supervisors. Whit Turner, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in strong support of the project and strong opposition of this appeal. This is a critical moment for D9 to support affordable housing for our seniors being led by the great berno heights neighborhood center this has been a trusted local partner for almost fifty years the appeal before you today is is meritless and intended only to obstruct while a small group of neighbors have raised concerns about the park. The reality is that this project will provide the necessary funding to redevelop and reopen a park that has been shuttered since 2020. It's received ministerial approval twice. The appeal does not challenge the project's entitlements. This is just a tactical delay targeting a tentative map that simply adjusts parcel lines to reflect city approved uses. What are we doing? Why are we not supporting our seniors? We urge you to oppose this appeal. Thank you.

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

[Audrey Park, Environmental Affairs Manager, SFO]: Good afternoon. My name is Novia Marshall, and I worked with Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center for twelve years. And the CEO of miss Gina Davis has super headed the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center for thirteen years and she's worked hard to get the organization where it is today. And she has a great team of staff and board members who support her and keep the keep the organization running smoothly. As we know, homelessness continues be a big problem. People continue to be pushed out out of the city with no solution. Well, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center combats that problem, homelessness, which is to provide affordable housing in San Francisco. This is 2026 and times are rough for everybody. Any of us can be on the other side of homelessness at any time. I'm honored to work with the organization who advocates for people in need and keep affordable housing in the forefront. This project of 3,333 Mission by Bernal Heights neighborhood center should be a win win situation for affordable housing and the community to all work together. Thank you.

[Speaker 25.0]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Speaker 54.0]: What are we doing here? Denying an appeal is like shooting fish in the Dobongai market. The great our own Brandi Shaw in his book, Generation Priced Out, notes that the two prime reasons we don't have enough housing are number one, baby boomers sitting on vast appreciation and profits. And number two, neighborhood activists. What do the appellants look like to you? I think some of them are even older than baby boomers. This is twentieth century thinking. I want you to think about something. Since I came into the world, 14,000,000,000 people have followed me, including everyone on this board. And, you know, perhaps the problem is that only 7,000,000,000 have died. God bless the billion who have died in childbirth or childhood, two billion there. We got to build housing. We got to build affordable housing. Why don't we just let our successors, the people who come after us, decide with whether or not what we did was

[Speaker 28.0]: Thank you for your comments. Are there any other individuals who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project? Seeing none, Mr. President.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you. Public comment in opposition to the appeal in support of the project is now closed. Lastly, the appellant will have up to three minutes to present a rebuttal argument.

[Don Lucchese, Appellant (3333 Mission/190 Coleridge Tentative Map Appeal)]: You know, it's ironic because I believe in everything you guys are saying. Everything. We do need more housing. We shouldn't get in the way of more affordable housing. And we shouldn't have DELL: things like appeals that can delay that.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: I am not looking forward to I did not look forward to

[Speaker 41.0]: Sir, filing this I'm pressing

[Speaker 28.0]: your time. If you could address the Board Supervisors.

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: I know, but

[Don Lucchese, Appellant (3333 Mission/190 Coleridge Tentative Map Appeal)]: I kind of want to address them, too. Can I do that?

[Speaker 25.0]: Thank

[Speaker 28.0]: you. This is addressing the Board of Supervisors.

[Speaker 56.0]: So,

[Don Lucchese, Appellant (3333 Mission/190 Coleridge Tentative Map Appeal)]: yes, I agree with everything you're saying. And there's a lot of sense to what you're saying. But these comments came out stating that almost everything that we're suggesting is that we're trying to block affordable senior housing. And that was not the case. And I made a comment in my initial statement saying, we did not want to file this because we knew it was going to delay this process. And we don't want to delay this process. What we do want and what we did want for two years was an opportunity to speak about a myriad of things about these issues that we never got a chance to talk about. And maybe that's not the appeals part. Maybe that's SB 35. But there is something here where just because you're presenting a case for affordable senior housing, which I think is very strong, I would do that myself. But they are doing something to a community. They are impacting a community. And they can impact it in a negative way. They're going to do much better things for the community. But the things that they do impact, the things that only we feel need to be addressed somehow. And we never ever got that opportunity. With this park, I've heard countless stories from neighbors that said how much this park means to them. And yes, Gina, you are going to fix the park. You are going to make it better. And we do believe that. We do I know, I know. And we do want that. But we wanted to not have to sacrifice such a large part of it. And she says 36 units were going to be lost by that. And that's not true. If you look at the actual plans, it's about three units. And those three units can be reincorporated into the plan very easily by making small changes to what they have in those plans. So I disagree with 36 units. I also disagree with the fact that they said it was 108 units, and they got it down to 70. They never came to us and said it was 138 or 108, whatever it was. That was never what we heard. We only heard 70. And when they did build 70, they were building six stories just 10 feet away from our bedrooms. Now, I know that sounds like, Okay, a selfish thing. Affordable housing is more important than that.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. This public hearing has been held. And oh. You were that was your that was the three minutes of rebuttal. Nope, the hearing, this hearing has, unless super, so, Supervisor Fielder, is your comment for after the public hearing, or yes? All right, so the public hearing has been held and is now filed. And we are now going to consider whether to approve or conditionally disapprove the decision of public works, and the tentative parcel map, Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. Colleagues, I have met with both the appellants and the representatives from Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center or BHNC, the project sponsor. I've met with both parties several times. I met with mister, the lead the lead appellant, and some of his neighbors at the site itself last month where I listened to their proposed changes to the new College Park design and their remaining concerns with the design of this affordable housing project, specifically the size of the park, as they shared in their presentation today. However, today's appeal is not and legally cannot be an appeal of the project's design or the park's design, as we've heard from the city attorney and our city departments, including the number of units or the size of the playground. This appeal and hearing are not the proper venue for any of these design concerns. Those concerns should have been discussed with the project sponsor themselves, including during the several outreach meetings that BHNC organized as they shared today. The appeal directly before us is challenging the ministerial subdivision of the parcel map, a procedural step managed by the Department of Public Works and required for the affordable housing project to proceed. The appellant's concerns would best be heard by our planning department when reviewing the project. And as planning explained, they ministerially approved this affordable housing application under state law, reviewing solely objective criteria that the product sponsor has met. I understand and I do hear the appellants' frustrations that College Park has been inactive for over five years now, And I share these concerns and echo the need to activate and utilize the green public spaces in the neighborhood. The fact is that advancing the affordable housing project here is the most viable path to finally reactivating the park, not further stalling the project. I won't reiterate all the reasons that our park department has declined any interest in acquiring the park, but suffice it to say that despite my efforts and despite those of my predecessors, the only realistic park operator remains BHNC who has found a path to do so through this project, which will include financing needed for the necessary fixes to make it sound and safe for the community's public access. All of that said, I believe in the importance of community outreach and engagement when undertaking any major projects in our communities. I took the appellants' concerns seriously and in good faith when they affirmed their support for providing dozens of affordable homes to low income seniors at 3333 Mission and solely want to ensure activation of College Park at its current size that can be enjoyed by the entire community. And that is why I met with mister and his neighbors at College Park and why I brought them together with the project sponsor in the hopes of reaching a resolution that would not necessitate today's hearing. I was actually pleased to see for myself, according to BHNC's design plans, and we saw earlier in their presentation, that the majority of the square footage of usable existing park would be preserved. In other words, the appellant's estimates include square footage that is unusable, for example, shrubs. As well, BHNC shared today, they have made several concessions to some of the concerned neighbors, including the 70 units of proposed affordable housing from a maximum allowance of 108 units, bringing the building down to four stories from six stories on Mission Street, along with other modifications with the project's setbacks. Lastly, I do believe that BHNC made good faith efforts to consider design alternatives despite having no no legal opposite obligation to do so. And the reality is that affordable housing financing is extremely challenging, and further design alterations and approvals make the project delivery here less and less likely, meaning delivering affordable homes to seniors at risk of homelessness less and less likely as well. As we all know, we are in an affordable housing crisis with high cost of living for those on fixed incomes, lack of health care access, and the continuing dismantling of our social safety net, it's no surprise that homelessness among older adults is on the rise. Today, nearly half of all single homeless adults here are 50 years or older, and many of them are experiencing homelessness for the first time. I am proud that District 9 and specifically Bernal Heights is working towards solutions for addressing this crisis, including the senior affordable housing project at 3333 Mission that is at the heart of this appeal. I would also like to note that I am looking into whether the city can reform the types of maps that can be appealed. Finally, I want to acknowledge the large numbers of Bernal neighbors who wrote and came in in support of this project and note that the appellants have also expressed their support for this critical affordable housing development. I want to take everyone up on their good faith. We all want to provide affordable homes for our neighboring seniors to age in place with dignity. And I hope these shared values continue to guide productive dialogue around this project. And with that, colleagues, I'm moving to approve item 34 and table items thirty five and thirty six.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Is there a second from Supervisor Melgar? I don't see anyone else in the queue. I do want to thank Supervisor Fielder for your efforts to try to bring the parties to a resolution. That's always something we hope for when there are appeals to the Board of Supervisors. I don't fault the appellants for taking advantage of a pathway that is there to address something that they see as wrong and a problem. It is peculiar, though, that we have this pathway that's kind of a pathway to nowhere. And this is the second time we've seen this at the Board of Supervisors. The legislature has basically taken away, I think, the ability of this board to do much in situations like this, whether or not we would want to. And so I'm also grateful that you're taking a look at whether there may be some way of not providing this sort of false hope and opportunities for neighborhood conflict when by the time it gets to this board, it's pretty impossible for us to do anything other than what we're doing here today. So, with that, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On the motion to approve item 34 and table items thirty five and thirty six, Supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong.

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: Aye.

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

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. And Supervisor Cheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, item 34 is approved, and items thirty five and thirty six are tabled. Madam Clerk, that concludes our first 3PM special order. Let's go to our next special order please call items 37 through 40 together.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Items 37 through 40 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the certification of a final environmental impact report for the proposed sfo r a d p recommended airport development plan issued by the planning commission dated eleventwentytwenty twenty five. The proposed project would implement the r a d p which involves a long range plan to guide the San Francisco international airports development the r a d p serves as a framework for future development and identifies various projects. Item 38 this motion affirms the planning commission certification of the final environmental impact report Item 39 is the motion to conditionally reverse the commission's final environmental impact report and that would be subject to the adoption of written findings by the board and item 40 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Supervisor Sherrill, your staff is trying to get you out of here to other obligations. So, I understand that District two Supervisor Sherrill is going to have to leave us, I will make a motion after you go to have you excused from the remainder of the meeting. Get out of here. Can I have a motion to excuse Supervisor Sherrill from the remainder of the meeting made by Supervisor Mahmood, seconded by Supervisor Chen? I think we can take that without objection. Supervisor Sherrill is excused for the remainder of the meeting. Colleagues, as our clerk indicated, we have before us a hearing on the appeal of a final EIR certification for the SFO recommended airport development plan. After our hearing, the board will vote on whether to affirm or conditionally reverse the planning commission's certification of the final environmental impact report. Unless there are objections, we will proceed as we proceeded before with up to ten minutes for presentation by the appellant or their representative, followed by public comment, two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. Then, we'll give the planning department up to ten minutes for the project sponsor. Well, guess planning department and airport get ten minutes. And then, two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal. And then, finally, we'll have rebuttal from the you know, I misstated that. We're going to have ten minutes for a presentation from the planning department. Then, we go to the airport, the project sponsor, for an additional ten minutes. Then, we do public comment of up to two minutes per speaker in support of the, in opposition to the appeal. And then, we go back for three minutes of rebuttal by the appellant or their representative. Any objections? I don't see objections from colleagues. So, seeing no objections, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. I will invite the appellant to come forward and present their case. Oh my gosh, it's my old boss, Rick Jarvis, twenty years ago. Good to see you.

[R. W. (Rick) Jarvis, CEQA Counsel for City of Palo Alto]: You too, Mr. President.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Take it away.

[R. W. (Rick) Jarvis, CEQA Counsel for City of Palo Alto]: Okay. So, I'm here for the city of Palo Alto I'm their CEQA nerd council and I'm here to challenge the adequacy of the environmental impact report that the San Francisco staff is prepared to evaluate the long term development plan for SFO that plans for future expansion and improvements at the airport over the next twenty years to increase the capacity which will include a new terminal with I don't know how many passenger gates of the scene numbers between eight and thirteen Palo Alto's primary concern is that the EIR does not analyze the impacts to the city of Palo Alto of the increase in noise from the greater number of flights that will be accommodated by the ADP. There's also concerns about noise, but I'm going to focus I mean, on about air quality, but I'm going to focus on noise here. And I say that it doesn't analyze it at all. I didn't say it was not adequate. There's no analysis of noise impacts on Palo Alto or anybody in the year 2045. And I'm going to sort of do jump cut to the chase here and do the spoiler alert. The there's a fundamental legal flaw in the EIR. The as we're going to talk about the EIR takes the position that it can use the year 2045 as the baseline even though normally you're supposed to use existing conditions as a baseline for its environmental analysis. And it does that for the topics of traffic, air quality, and noise or at least it purports to do that because if you're going to do a 2045 baseline analysis the starting point of that analysis is you're supposed to actually describe noise conditions in the year 2045 without the project and you compare that to the impacts that the project will cause. That threshold presentation of baseline 2045 noise impacts is completely missing from the document. The document the chapter on noise impacts has a discussion of summary of noise conditions that existed in the year 2019 through 2023 there's a chart that talks about decibel levels not over Palo Alto but in in areas in the vicinity of the airport. But there's zero discussion anywhere of future noise impacts from airport flights in 2045. And if you're really going to do a baseline analysis of 2045 conditions, have to include start with a summary of what those actual impacts are, and that's completely missing from the document. That's a fundamental fatal flaw. Even if you disagree with my our other points, you it would be a violation of CEQA to approve certification of that document without that missing piece. And I'm going to talk about this a little bit more in in system, but I wanted to sort of cut to the chase first. Now, as we explained in our materials, the City Of Palo Alto, as compared to surrounding communities, is uniquely impacted by noise from flights due to the confluence of three major arrival routes that converge at a low altitude right over the city of Palo Alto before veering out out across the bay and then into the airport. That's why Palo Alto's here, but Redwood City or San Mateo or other cities are not here. There's a unique impact on Palo Alto. Our evidence that we submitted, pictures worth a thousand words, you can, you can look at the map that, that we've attached and included in our materials. It shows how these, these Palo Alto is uniquely impacted because these flights go right over the city of Palo Alto in in an impactor community. And all we're asking for is for analysis and disclosure of noise impacts, including the noise impacts from the future growth in flights that will occur as accommodated by the ADP. Now, the the EIR seeks to rationalize its refusal to provide any information to the public on future noise increases based upon a fiction. And it is stating that the ADP will not cause the development of these approve of these future expansion projects will not cause an increase in flights, but they're really only going to accommodate the flights when they occur and that these flights will this flight increase will happen regardless of whether the ADP is developed. And the the approach it takes it looks at a 2014 estimate the FAA and SFO prepared as to the maximum potential capacity of the airport and then it assumes that well that capacity is going to be reached regardless of whether these projects are are are approved and nothing in the ADP is going to expedite or change the timing of what's going to happen regardless. It's a very passive and reactive position that it's taking. And therefore, it's seeks to argue that it doesn't need to analyze or disclose noise impacts from future flights because the ADP is not causing those noise impacts. That's the rationale it uses. So the major question for the board is whether you find that position to be factually persuasive. The the the staff rep's response to what we've said focuses on the legal question of substantial evidence. It argues, well, there's substantial evidence supporting the conclusion, and therefore, the board should uphold our conclusion. If we were in court challenging this, that would be the standard of review. That would be the question for the judge. The judge would defer to the board's factual determination and look, well, is there enough evidence to support it? That's not the question before you. The question before you is, do you actually agree that these improvements will not have any contributing effect to future noise increases? And I would urge you to apply logic and common sense and and and conclude that, no, despite the the attempted rationale that they're trying to provide in the EIR that there will not be any future flights resulting from the project, as a matter of common sense and logic, you can can see that it will. So think about this. The purpose of the SFO management is to make the airport as successful as possible. Of course, they're doing whatever they can to increase business use of the and and passenger use of the airport. They're doing that's their mission. That's their goal. That's why they're suing the Port of Oakland over its attempt to use SFO as its name. I mean, every step that they take, their it their their their mission is to make sure that they are doing whatever they can to maximize passenger use of the the terminal, and the ADP is a part of that. In fact, if if if the SFO management was serious that they weren't trying to do that and I were in your position, I'd wanna replace them with somebody who would be trying to actually make the the airport as economically successful as possible. And they admits that point in the EIR and the CEQA findings all throughout their analysis. And I'm gonna quote something here. The the findings and the EIR state that the ADP's central purpose is, quote, to guide the airport's development as the premier long haul and international gateway of choice facilitating economic growth of the Bay Area. They admit in the document that the purpose of the ADP is to encourage people to choose to fly there. They're thus admitting that they're trying to increase flights. That's not shouldn't be a surprising or shocking conclusion, but but that that's right there. They have some rationale in their appendix c. I'm running out of time, I'm not gonna go too much into it. But they cite Federal cases involving NEPA that say, well, if you build it, it's not necessarily true. It will they you know, they will come in the context of airline airport facilities. But even those cases, as I as I quoted in our our supplemental materials, acknowledge that, well, yeah, the these improvements will have some tendency to increase passenger use of the airport. And they sort of and even that language refutes the argument being made in the EIR. So, CEQA, it's not enough for them to let's say we agree. Let's say you agree with them and that this tend will not have a tendency to increase airport flights. That's not enough to meet the standard for using 2045 as the baseline. CEQA generally mandates that analyzing a project's impacts, the analysis must start from the existing conditions except in very rare circumstances. And the and the guidelines say that in order to justify using a future baseline, here they're trying to justify 2045, They have to demonstrate, I'm mostly quoting from the guidelines here, with substantial evidence that use of existing conditions would be either misleading or without informative value to decision makers and the public. And they further state the guidelines state, use of protected future conditions as the only baseline must be supported by reliable projections based on substantial evidence in the record. So there's the requirement right there. You have to have projections as to the future which are completely missing. You look in the EIR that they're not there as to future noise. If you if you compare it to the traffic chapter, the traffic chapter does have a section on that, but this EIR does not. We don't want to be here. We would the city of Palo Alto would have loved to have a meeting with SFO. We tried to have that meeting to try to resolve our concerns without having to support to decide our appeal. We're continuing to be open to that, and I'm out of time.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: All right.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you. Colleagues, any comments or questions for the appellant? I don't see any. So then, we will open up public comments specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. If there's anyone here to speak in support of the appeal, line up. Looks like we don't have anyone. So then we

[Speaker 44.0]: will close

[Don Lucchese, Appellant (3333 Mission/190 Coleridge Tentative Map Appeal)]: by

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: one One person, Mr. President. Yep.

[Speaker 58.0]: Hi, my name is Jennifer Landesman, and I'm a resident of the city of Palo Alto. And I've accompanied the situation with the impacts on Palo Alto from when several changes happened in 2014, starting in 2014. I noticed that San Francisco provided a PowerPoint saying listing things that they have done to address noise. Well, all of them are inaccurate and as misleading as the current EIR is about impacts or what the airport is doing. They mentioned the SFO roundtable. Palo Alto has been rejected seven times from that body. They mentioned noise monitoring. They don't do noise monitoring in Palo Alto except on a temporary basis. So I've because one of our I am part of a grassroots group, I see a lot of the people that are impacted elderly, youth, it's pretty serious, especially regarding nighttime. So the worst part of this is that there is no conversation about actually doing better the solutions that exist and that the FAA has even proposed. So there's no conversation. I am among the people who were saddened that SFO management did not meet with our city, And I hope you will ask your planning department to take a look at this report again, and to do the adequate analysis per the appeal. Thank you so much.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Do we have any other speakers in support of the appeal? All right. Seeing none, public comment in support of the appeal is now closed. And then, I think we will have up to ten minutes for representatives of the planning department.

[Kei Zushi, Senior Planner, Planning Department]: Good afternoon, President Mandelman, members of the board. My name is Kei Zushi. I'm a senior planner with the planning department. Joining me today are Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer, and Tanya Chan, principal planner, also with the planning department. The project site is the San Francisco International Airport, or SFO, located primarily in unincorporated San Mateo County, approximately 13 miles south of Downtown San Francisco. SFO, one of the city and county San Francisco agencies, proposes to implement the recommended airport development plan, or the project. The project is a major long term capital facilities plan with an anticipated construction and implementation period of twenty years, extending through two thousand and forty five. The project includes three main components. First, it includes improvements in development of terminal facilities, allowing SFO to modernize and better serve future passenger needs. Second, the project involves modifications to certain non movement areas of the airfield. These are areas not used for aircraft takeoff and landing, but used for supporting overall airport operations. Finally, the project includes improvements to land side facilities such as roadways and support infrastructure to accommodate long term aircraft operations and anticipated passenger activity levels at SFO. The planning department prepared a programmatic environmental impact report, or EIR, analyzing all components of the project. The planning commission certified the EIR on 11/20/2025. Subsequently, the airport commission approved the project on 12/16/2025. The department's key responses to the appeal are summarized on this slide and discussed in our January 26 and February 2 appeal responses. First, while the city acknowledges that lived experiences of residents affected by aircraft on communities such as Palo Alto, these broader airport related challenges that are not attributable to the project are not issues required to be addressed in the EIR under CEQA. Respectfully, this CEQA appeal constitutes an improper use of CEQA and conflicts with the state legislature' explicit directive provided in senate bill 131 passed in 02/2025 excuse me that cqa not be used to gain competitive edge or delay a project for reasons unrelated to environmental protection. Here, I'd stated in the appellant letter, the appellant filed a CEQA appeal to gain leverage in their ongoing request to SFO regarding the Federal Aviation Administration's actions known as Metroplex taken in 2015 that modified certain flight paths over the city of Palo Alto. Because the project would not result in any changes to aircraft operations, paths, or noise or air quality emissions, the appellant's reliance on CEQA to raise concerns regarding the FAA flight path modifications in 2015 is inconsistent with the legislature's explicit directive that CEQA not be used to delay or challenge projects for reasons unrelated to environmental protections. The appellant disregards substantial evidence in the record that the project would not induce aircraft passenger demand and operations at SFO. As discussed throughout the EIR, as well as the department's January 26 and February 2 appeal responses, implementation of the project would not induce additional passenger demand or aircraft operations at SFO. Airports are unique transportation facilities whose operations are highly regulated by federal agencies, including the FAA. As detailed in appendix c to draft EIR, which contains an expert technical memorandum prepared by Lee Condo, a nationally recognized airport consulting firm, runway capacity is the primary factor that limits the number of aircraft that can take off and land at SFO. Because this project would not alter the runway capacity, it would not induce additional passenger demand or aircraft operations at SFO. The appellant has not provided any substantial evidence demonstrating otherwise. Rather, this appeal reflects a disagreement with the department's responses to the appellant's previous comments, which does not constitute a basis for recirculation under CEQA. The appellant misstates the law regarding the use of future baselines in EIRs. CEQA guidelines section 151.25 allows lead agencies to evaluate project impacts using both existing and future baselines, when doing so, provides the most meaningful framework for evaluating a project's environmental impacts. As explained in the draft EIR, in the department's February 2 appeal response, the appellant's recommended approach comparing certain environmental impacts of the project against existing or 2,019 conditions would be misleading to the public and decision makers. The EIR uses appropriate baselines considering the nature and scope of the project's environmental impacts as required by CEQA. The RADP is a major long term capital facilities plan with an anticipated construction and implementation period of twenty years, extending through 2045. For this reason, comparing the RADP's air quality noise and transportation operational impacts against a future 2045 baseline provides a realistic and informative assessment of the project's incremental effect. In summary, the ER fully complies with CEQA. The appellant has not provided any substantial evidence demonstrating otherwise. Thus, the planning department is not required to recirculate the EIR for public review. Finally, the appellant misstates the law regarding procedural requirements applicable to the airport commission's project approval on 12/16/2025. Contrary to the appellant's assertion, the air Airports Commission's 12/16/2025 project approval complied with all applicable applicable requirements under CEQA guidelines section 150,090 b. The section does not limit the authority to certify a final EIR to a local agency elected decision making body, such as the board of supervisors. It allows the city agencies, such as the planning commission, to certify an EIR. In addition, the airport's commission's 12/16/2025 project approval complied with San Francisco administrative code section 31.16 b three. The section does not prohibit a city agency such as the airport commission from approving a project before the clerk of the board of supervisors schedules an appeal hearing related to the project. Here, the airport commission approved the project on 12/16/2025 before the appellant filed its sequel appeal on 12/19/2025. Thus, the airport's commission's project approval complied with section 31.16 b three. The planning department, therefore, respectfully recommends that the board of supervisor uphold the planning commission's certification of the final EIR and deny the appeal. Thank you. Staff are available here to answer any questions you may have. In addition, we have a representative here from Recondo, the consulting firm that prepared Appendix C to the draft EIR.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you. Colleagues, questions? I will maybe just make sure I understand the issue and what I think our response is. So it sounds like the issue that Palo Alto is raising is that this plan would allow for San Francisco to accommodate additional flights over Palo Alto, and that that would potentially create a significant noise impact for Palo Alto residents. And, the city's response to and that has not been analyzed in the EIR. And, the city's response to that is, is what?

[Steve Culberson, Senior Vice President, Ricondo & Associates]: Good afternoon, Mr. President. My name is Steve Culberson. I'm with Reconta and Associates. We are an aviation planning firm. Work at U. S. Airports throughout the country. So we, so that is correct. So the project itself, because it's not changing the runway capacity, it's not changing the configuration, it's not allowing more aircraft to land at SFO, it is not going to induce any additional flights. San Francisco already operates, it has historically operated about 470,000 annual operations. The ADP did a very extensive modeling analysis of the runway system and determined that its capacity is about 505,000 annual operations. So, they've already historically operated at about 93% of what the runway system can sustainably accommodate on an annual basis. So, the delta we're talking about is pretty small, and the demand for flights, for passengers, for air service here is based on demographic factors. It's not based on if you build a terminal, more people are going come to your airport. It's based on the economic factors. That's going to occur whether you implement this project or not. If you don't implement the project, what will happen is you'll have more congested conditions at the airport. So today, during peak periods, have congested conditions. If you don't build additional gates or terminal facilities, you'll see those conditions on a much more regular basis.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And so the plan, you were saying the plan to address that potential congestion of operating essentially where we are, or adding a little bit to it within what's currently allowed is not going to result in any kind of intensification of flights over Palo Alto that might create noise?

[Steve Culberson, Senior Vice President, Ricondo & Associates]: So the flights are going to happen regardless. So those flights are going to come whether this project is implemented or not. That is the

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And this project does not allow for is not a piece of allowing Correct. For more All right. I don't see any other comments or questions, so we will go to the project sponsor, the airport, for up to ten minutes.

[Audrey Park, Environmental Affairs Manager, SFO]: Afternoon, President Mandelman and members of the board. My name is Audrey Park, SFO Environmental Affairs Ms.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Park, can you speak directly as much as you can into the mic? Thank you.

[Audrey Park, Environmental Affairs Manager, SFO]: SFO Environmental Affairs Manager. I'm joined today with Steve Culberson, Senior Vice President of Recondo, who prepared the technical memo titled Airport Facilities to Accommodate Aviation Demand. This memo is contained in Appendix C of the SFO is located about 13 miles south of City Hall and contained entirely on land owned by the city and county of San Francisco and unincorporated San Mateo County. SFO is the thirteenth busiest airport in The U. S. Serving over 50,000,000 passengers this is reflective of a strong return of demand for air travel by people to and from the Bay Area after the COVID-nineteen pandemic. The airport is a major employer and contributes billions to the region and direct business revenue. As a self funded enterprise department of the city and county the airport contributed 58,000,000 in fiscal year twenty five to the city' general fund. Today I' go over the airport' long range plan called the recommended airport development plan. So what is the r e d p? The r e d p contains the vision for how the airport would provide orderly development of facilities sized to accommodate 71,000,000 passengers at an elevated guest experience. The RADP is a comprehensive update to the 1989 master plan that provided for facilities sized to accommodate 51,000,000 annual passengers. The master plan is sunsetting with implementation of long contemplated projects, such as the airport hotel opened in 2018 and the Harvey Milk Terminal 1 opened fully in 2024. What' in the re dp? As kay mentioned it' primarily land side facilities including terminal and boarding areas in an airport world we call everything outside of the airfield land side different from an urban context, parking garages, and other landside facilities colored in teal. As passenger demand for air travel grows over decades, it would trigger certain REDP projects for development over those decades. The re d p is about as this growth in passenger demand grows how can the airport accommodate that demand in a way that elevates passenger amenities and services that is reflective of San Francisco. Under the rdp there would be no changes to the existing runways which determines an airport capacity. In fact these projects are sized to match the capacity of the existing runway system in their existing configuration and there would be no changes to the existing aircraft flight paths and procedures established and managed by the FAA. The new boarding area H is envisioned to provide contact gates capable of accommodating both international and domestic flights, and the number of aircraft that we can accommodate depends on the size of it, where our airport guests can conveniently and safely board an aircraft by passenger boarding bridge. This is a contact gate. If we did nothing as study then in the eir the airport would instead have to accommodate future demand through what we call remote gates where we have passengers bused from the terminals to an aircraft parked on the airfield to then board by an exterior ramp or stairway. Remote gates are common in other countries, but this is not the guest experience we want for our passengers. Busing to remote gates can be time consuming and difficult for some passengers, during inclement weather. And while contact gates in The U. S. Are the norm, they are not required for airlines to schedule flights and operate. If an aircraft can land on the runways and the tower clears them to land then airports must by federal regulations accommodate them if to reject them is discrimination. It' important to note contact gates do not increase airport capacity. So the question has been raised, does adding airport gates create demand or induce growth? The answer is no. Passengers drive demand. And absolutely, if people in the Bay Area choose to fly, we want you to pick us. And sometimes you may not have a choice because airlines have select routes depending on the airport. But if there are choices we want you to pick us. Socioeconomic factors are the primary indicators for people's propensity for air travel. Bay Area residents have a strong propensity for flying to fly and travel. The Bay Area also has many destination locations and events such as the Super Bowl that increases demand. Airlines add flights in response to that realized demand similarly airports develop facilities to accommodate that demand. The old adage of build it and they will come is not true for airports it' in fact it' don' build it and they still come. I want you to consider your own travel experience particularly in the East Coast where we have more population and there are many U. S. Airports that are congested and people still fly. The terminal space does not have sufficient passenger lounge areas, insufficient bathrooms, all of those things that don't make traveling pleasant. So that's what the r e d p is about. It's important to note that if an air aircraft lands, U. S. Airports must accommodate them. We can accommodate passengers with a substandard guest experience or we can provide exceptional guest experience. And through the r e d p, the airport can provide exceptional guest experience. And that's what we mean by guest experience with. We don't want crowd at terminals. We want you to have comfortable lounge areas, sufficient seats so you're not sitting on the ground we want you to have charging ports all of those things sufficient bathrooms to up available for all of our passengers that's what we mean by guest experience those are things that we have direct control over. Lastly what does the airport do about existing aircraft noise concerns and to be clear this is separate from the re d p noise concerns have been raised much further away from the airport and outside the federal and state recognized noise impact areas. The airport will continue to actively engage our noise impacted areas and also inform the community on what the airport can and cannot do under the current legal framework. For example local governments government agencies like the airport cannot change FAA prescribed flight paths or the frequency of aircraft operations that airlines schedule. But we can continue to facilitate dialogue. SFO has been at the forefront since enabling federal legislation in the early 1980s to proactively engage the FAA and local cities near the airport and noise impact areas to abate and mitigate aircraft noise and some of the airports longstanding activities are listed on this slide. I also wanted to clarify that all items on this slide is absolutely true with regard to the roundtable membership that was something elected officials of San Mateo County voted on and decided not to include the city of Palatal to in the roundtable. SFO is also a nonvoting member on the roundtable. We just provide

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: I'm pausing the speaker's time, Mr. President.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. Great. Thank you. Please continue.

[Audrey Park, Environmental Affairs Manager, SFO]: Last slide. The RADP is a long range plan to accommodate future demand with facilities sized to accommodate 71,000,000 passengers as they occur over decades with an elevated guest experience. Thank you.

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

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Thank you. I just wanted clarification on that last point you made about Palo Alto not being included in the community roundtable, because it seems like that was a point of contention during the presentation of the appeal. So Palo Alto is actually in Santa Clara County, right?

[Speaker 34.0]: Correct.

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: So why would San Mateo vote on the inclusion of Palo Alto

[Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer, Planning Department]: or not?

[Audrey Park, Environmental Affairs Manager, SFO]: The city of Palo Alto requested membership in the SFO Airport Community Roundtable. And it' chaired by all of the it contains members of the elected local cities of the county and it is subject to vote according to their rules and the members decided to not accept.

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: All of the San Mateo County members decided to vote not to include the Santa Clara County member.

[Speaker 62.0]: Correct.

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: I see. Okay. And SFO is a nonvoting member of Correct. That Okay. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Supervisor Melgar. I guess I want to just that presentation felt a lit I thought that the answer, or at least the presentation, was slightly different from what I'd understood from my prior question to planning. So when I'd asked how is this plan not going to be part of adding to the intensification of flights and noise over Palo Alto, if that is what's happening? It sounded like the response from planning was, well, or from the consultant was, well, we're pretty much at capacity. We're not going to see much increase in use. This is sort of better accommodating and planning for basically the airport we got now, but into the future without significant changes to how much how many flights are coming in and out, or how many passengers are But coming in and the response from the airport was that this is a plan for growth, or that we needed to be able to accommodate more passengers, and that if we didn't have this implement this plan, we would only we would be having to, like, wheel out. Not that we wouldn't be having the growth necessarily, but the growth would be, I don't know, more unpleasant for passengers. Am I is there a difference between those two statements or those two perspectives?

[Steve Culberson, Senior Vice President, Ricondo & Associates]: So, the forecast so, a constrained forecast was done based on the capacity of the runway system. And, that constrained forecast looked at how many operations the runway system could accommodate, and it's about 505,000 annual operations in a sustainable manner. We also looked at the fleet mix. How, you know, what are the trends with the airlines? How are the aircraft changing? How many seats are in each aircraft? What are the load factors in terms of how many people are actually on those planes? And when you look out in the future, when you look at trends on what the airlines are flying, starting to fly here, going to be flying in the future based on their airline orders, you come up with a passenger number that is associated with that 505,000 annual operations. And that's the 77,100,000 that Audrey referred to. So the passenger growth will happen and that is what was evaluated in terms of you know some of the employee changes and stuff within the EIR. But the 77,000,000 passengers and the 505,000 annual aircraft operations are the constrained forecast. So that is what is going to come regardless of what happens with this project, whether you build this project or not. That is what the airport can accommodate. Does that

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And this plan just makes that a more pleasant experience?

[Steve Culberson, Senior Vice President, Ricondo & Associates]: Yes. Without this plan, you'll have crowded terminals, you'll have crowded roadways, you won't have enough restrooms, enough concessions, etcetera.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: But you are saying this plan is irrelevant to whether that growth, which you're describing as fairly modest,

[Steve Culberson, Senior Vice President, Ricondo & Associates]: happens. The growth is going to come. If you look at the long term projections for the region, they're way higher. I mean, the unconstrained forecast for passenger and aircraft operations is way higher for the region. San Francisco's capacity is this, and this is what they're going to be able to accommodate.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. If there are no further questions or comments, we will now hear from members of the public who want to speak in opposition of the appeal. So if you are here for that, please line up over on your right or left.

[Speaker 63.0]: All

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: right. Seeing none, public comment in opposition to the appeal is now closed. And then we will give the appellant three minutes for a rebuttal argument.

[R. W. (Rick) Jarvis, CEQA Counsel for City of Palo Alto]: Thank you. So what I didn't hear during the presentation from the other side is any meaningful response to our point that the EIR does not identify any provide any information about noise levels in the year 2045. And CEQA mandates that if you're going to use 2045 as the baseline, you've got to provide that basic information as to what that, what is that noise going to be. And if they provided this information, I did hear from, from them that well, you know, flights are at 93% of capacity, so not a big deal when they get to a 100%. But the EIR is supposed to say, what does that mean? What is the decibel difference going to be result from that growth? And the EIR fundamentally does not include that basic information as to and again, it's required to if you're going to use 2045 as the baseline, you've got to set forth what those impacts, what those noise levels are. And if they did have that information, then they would have some evidence that they could use to explain why they can or cannot justify 2045 versus existing conditions as the baseline. But until you have that basic information there, they they don't have the substantial evidence to even support the approach that they've taken and they've clearly not complied with the mandate in CEQA to present that information. The one other point I heard was that Palo Alto's filing this for non CEQA reasons. I I'm flabbergasted by that. I think that's that's a point that's just a misfire on their part. Obviously, we're concerned about increased noise from increase in future flights over Palo Alto. That's a quintessential CEQA question. That's why we're here. Obviously, there's some existing noise issues we want solved, but this plan exacerbates those existing noise issues and we are legitimately under CEQA asking for those to be addressed. And I don't think I have anything else to add.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: I'll ask a I mean, I'll I'll ask. So I think you're saying there's no noise in that. There's no analysis of the noise impacts.

[R. W. (Rick) Jarvis, CEQA Counsel for City of Palo Alto]: A future noise baseline condition A future from air Right. Air traffic. It's completely But

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: if there were, they would be based on this 2045 baseline, which and you're also challenging whether that's the right baseline.

[R. W. (Rick) Jarvis, CEQA Counsel for City of Palo Alto]: Yes. There's two aspects to our challenge. One is they shouldn't be used there's not enough evidence to justify using 2,045 as the baseline. The the challenges are related to to and the second challenge is even assuming that they properly could do that to in order to do that type of analysis, you've got to provide the information as to what the noise impacts are gonna be in the year 2045, or at least as and I read to you the secret guidelines that mandate, you have to have a reasonable projection of what that baseline is. And then they would have the that information as the baseline to present their analysis. So, they these two kind of dovetail together, but there are two conceptually distinct CEQA violations here. One is factual. Yeah. I disagree. We disagree with them. And the other is legal. They need to have the twenty forty five noise information. And it's completely I mean, this is an emperor has no closed type situation here. There's completely they say they're doing this twenty four five twenty forty five analysis, and it's not there.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: But even if the position is that there isn't any, any noise impacts at all, there could not be because this project is not adding to noise? You would still need to do that 2045?

[R. W. (Rick) Jarvis, CEQA Counsel for City of Palo Alto]: Yes. To justify using the year 2045 as the baseline, you have to present what is that base what are those baseline conditions? You have to describe noise level. If it's their choice to use 2045 as the baseline, what are the noise conditions in the year 2045? There are no projections whatsoever. That's a fundamental CEQA violation.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, maybe I I I guess I do have one more question than for planning. Can you try to address that issue of whether there should be a justification of the 2045 base? And I'm not quite following maybe, I guess I'm asking you, you're not the right person to explain this. But there seems to be an argument that there

[Speaker 64.0]: should be

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: a noise analysis of the differential between what would otherwise be the 2,045 baseline and the noise we're going to get under this plan. And I think the city's position is there's no difference.

[Kei Zushi, Senior Planner, Planning Department]: President Maluman, planning department staff. I'll try to answer your questions. It's a little complex question. But from the department's point of view, the EIR fully addresses future conditions for the purpose of impact analysis. So we don't agree with the apparent statement that EIR completely lacks 2,045 future baselines, to the extent they were used in the analysis. Also, 2,045 aircraft emissions were certainly considered in the EIR, And also, the department had difficulty in coming up with exact, you know, amount of aircraft emissions in 2025 excuse me, 2045 because it becomes a little speculative to figure out how many aircraft operations would occur in 2045. So that may be the reason why appellant's pointing out that the future baseline's missing, but that's not entirely accurate statement, if that answers your question.

[Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer, Planning Department]: I would add to Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer. I would add to my colleague's summary there that it's important to note that we did characterize twenty nineteen conditions. And the project, as we had explained, would not result in any increase in aircraft flights. And so the project's impact in that regard no impact. So the increase from existing conditions is no impact. The increase from 2,045 conditions is no impact. So, the delta is very evident. So, the appellant is focusing on a nuance here about a baseline, And it's evident that a reader can easily discern the important goal of CEQA environmental impact analysis, which is to understand the impact. So regardless of which baseline you choose, we've clearly explained what the project's effect would be with regard to aircraft. And that effect, the emissions that would result, is zero. So I think, you know, they're kind of focused like focusing, kind of grasping at something here, and over complicating something. And I think that's, you know, making it, again, more complicated than is necessary.

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

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Thank you so much, President. So while we were listening to the presentations, I got the roster from Madam Clerk. We do have a representative seat on this SFO roundtable community roundtable. And it is unfilled. So perhaps given that we have a political problem with the you know, city of Palo Alto, we one of us could do that. And, you know, I see the city of East Palo Alto is represented, which is, of course, in San Mateo County. But Palo Alto is not being in Santa Clara County. So we could perhaps work this out through that avenue. But given the presentations that have been made by the planning department and the appellant, I actually don't see a reason to reverse the final environmental impact report certification. I am not convinced that this is an argument that would cause me to vote for it. So I would like to make a motion Before

[Speaker 35.0]: you do,

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: can I close the hearing?

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Oh, yeah. Sorry, sorry.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: So I would like to have this hearing well, say that this hearing has been held and is now filed. Okay. Supervisor Melgar.

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I jumped the gun there. I would like to make a motion to approve item 38 to affirm the final environmental impact report and to table items 39 and number 40.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right, is there a second by Mahmood. And unless there's discussion, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On the motion to approve excuse me item 38 and table items thirty nine and forty, Supervisor Walton. Walton, I. Supervisor Wong Wong, I. Supervisor Chan Chan, I. Supervisor Dorsey, I. Supervisor Fielder, Fielder, I. Supervisor Mahmood, I, Supervisor Mandelman, I, Supervisor Melgar, Melgar, I, and Supervisor Sauter, I, there are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, item 38 is approved, and items thirty nine and forty are tabled. All right, that gets us through our second of three. Madam Clerk, could you please call our final 3PM special order, items 41 through 44 together.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Items 41 through 44 comprise a public hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the approval of a conditional use authorization for a proposed project at 825 Sansum Street issued by the planning commission dated eleventwirteentwenty twenty five which involves a change of use from the existing public parking garage. Item 42 is the motion that approves the commission' decision to approve the conditional use authorization. Item 43 disapproves the commission's decision. And item 44 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings. I should also state, Mr. President, that item 43 requires an eight vote threshold.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Thank you for describing this appeal of the conditional use authorization for the proposed project, understand we've received notice from the project sponsor that they're not going to be moving forward with this project. We will still need to act affirmatively on the appeal. So, I'm anticipating that we'll be considering a motion to disapprove the conditional use authorization after discussion and public comment. I don't know if, Supervisor Sauter, if you want say anything. You don't definitely don't have to. And if if the appellant or project sponsor want to say anything.

[Speaker 65.0]: Good evening, or good late afternoon evening. Peter Ziblatt, I'm Land Use Counsel for the appellant. Just want to make a few statements. I know you've been here quite some time. As you indicated, the applicant has abandoned their appeal I mean, I'm sorry, their application. And that alone justifies an approval of the appeal and a denial of the CUP for fleet charging at location. But irrespective of that, I think it would be appropriate for me to reiterate why a conditional use permit should have never been granted at this location by the Planning Commission. It was never warranted. This board made a conscious decision when it amended the planning code and required that fleet charging across the city, in particular, face conditional use approval because of the externalities created by fleet charging and autonomous vehicle taxis, in particular. And so because of that, conditional use approval is required, which means scrutiny of these types of land uses is required, particularly when you site or locate these uses in certain neighborhoods. With that being said, I just wanted to reiterate that at this location, right on the border of Jackson Square, in the heart of Barbary Coast, where Pacific Street runs one way east west or actually west, Pascotonia restaurant and Quince and around the corner from Bick's restaurant. I'm obviously alluding to food at 05:30 in the afternoon here. But the reality is that was never a good location for fleet charging of autonomous vehicle taxis. It did not meet the threshold requirements of section three zero three of the planning code. I've been in front of this board on numerous occasions on behalf of conditional use permit applicants as well as appellants seeking to overturn conditional use approval. And I can say that I'm pretty well versed in section three zero three of the planning code and what's required to establish a conditional use approval at a certain location. And in this case, I mean, you don't have to go any further than Section three zero three where it speaks about uses that are necessary or desirable for a particular neighborhood, or uses that are inconsistent or consistent with a neighborhood. This location was a block away from another autonomous vehicle fleet charging location that was grandfathered in because it happened or was established prior to fleet charging becoming conditionally required conditional use permit requirement citywide. And that was never even taken into consideration, that there was this consolidation or concentration of fleet charging right on the border of a historic neighborhood. It's just not the appropriate location. And so those types of uses need the scrutiny that they're afforded under section three zero three, and these should not be perfunctory approvals. And so I'm happy to hear that the applicant withdrew or abandoned their application at this location, but I did feel it was important for me to get up here and reiterate that conditional use approvals are conditional use approvals. They have there's a need for analysis and scrutiny, not something that should just be simply approved because they're conclusory. Oh, it's this is a great location for fleet charging. It needs a little more analysis than that. And with that, will yield the rest of my time to Mark Gleason, who's also here on behalf of the appellant.

[Speaker 23.0]: Good evening, supervisors. I'll try to be as succinct as possible as well, recognizing what the outcome we have here in front of us. And, I would say that in development, of course, one of the first things is for the parties to get together. We would suggest that the reason this development has happened here in the last day or so is because we did have sincere dialogue with the applicant, and then other forces took place on their side not from us and they made their decision. I''ll just say because the members are you want to have a little voice here in any event I''ll just be again, as concise as I can. The appeal was filed in order to allow for the review of the proposed autonomous vehicle fleet charging in a mixed use commercial residential neighborhood. During the previous term of the san francisco board of supervisors it was determined that autonomous vehicle fleet charging requires special review so that the impact of these proposals have our community and workers the impact on our community and workers can be fully weighed. The specific proposal appealed by teamsters today reflects on the pattern that we are witnessing of fleet charging proposals that impact our communities and which affect the conditions of working people. The Teamsters interest remains the same as it has for over one hundred years in this industry well before electric vehicles came on the scene. For fairness and continuation of working conditions performed by our members in an environment compatible with the community at large. We again thank you for your time today and rest for the moment thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. I think that is it for the appellant. Does the project sponsors representative want to say anything? Hello, Mr. Genius. Thank you, President Mandelman and supervisors. Just to confirm, Tesla is, on behalf of Tesla, withdrawing their application and not proceeding. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And so we do need to take public comment on this matter, with the understanding that it is unlikely the project will be moving forward. Madam Clerk, will you please call the first speaker, if there are any? Only on this item. Looks like we don't have any public comment. Public comment on this item is now closed. And so, no one else, well, I'm going to close the hearing, Supervisor Sauter, and then call on you if that's all right. Hearing has been held and is now filed. And now, I would like to call on Supervisor Sauter.

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. I will try to quickly add a touch more context and summarize and get us on our way here. This property is currently used as a private parking garage. It's exactly at the nexus of a lot of District 3 neighborhoods like Jackson Square, Telegraph Hill, Financial District, and the Embarcadero. The proposed project was for 30 private EV chargers to be used for fleet charging on the upper level, 18 public EV chargers to be used on the ground level, and then 31 private parking spaces on the basement level. The proposed project was sponsored by Tesla, but they have since pulled out of the project as of last week. Now, given that this conditional use was granted based on the prior project, which is now defunct, I don't believe a CU is necessary at the moment. We are left here with no identifiable active project proposed for this site. So given all of this, I would like to move item 43 to grant this appeal and disapprove the conditional use authorization with amendments to the motion as drafted. We prepared these amendments in advance for the Board to consider because the project sponsor had indicated that they are withdrawing from the project and no longer contesting this appeal. Therefore, I find this project to be inconsistent with Section three zero three on the basis that it is no longer necessary or desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood due to the project not moving forward. Also, move to table items forty two and forty four. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. And that has been seconded by Supervisor Melgar. And I don't see any discussion. So, Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 43 as amended, specifically, or on item 43 as amended and tabling forty two and forty four?

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Okay. On item 43, as amended, and tabling, items forty two and forty four, Supervisor Walton. Walton, I. Supervisor Wong. I. Wong, I. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chan I. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Chen I. Supervisor Dorsey I. Supervisor Fielder Fielder I. Supervisor Mahmood. Mahmood I. Supervisor Mandelman

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Supervisor Melgar Aye. Melgar, aye. And Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. There are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. Without objection, item 43, as amended, is approved, and items forty two and forty four are tabled. And with that, madam clerk, let's go back to item 22.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 22. This is a resolution to approve the award of professional services agreement for program advisory services related to the waterfront resilience program between Jacobs in turn engineering group inc and the city and county in an amount of 40,000,000 for a five year term 03/02/2026, through March 2031, with a single option to extend for five additional years.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Please call the roll.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 22, Supervisor Walton. Walton, I, Supervisor Wong. Wong, I, Supervisor Chan. Chan, I, Supervisor Chen. Chan, I, Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, I, Supervisor Fielder. Fielder, aye, supervisor Mahmood, Mahmood, aye, supervisor Mandelman,

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: mandelman, aye, Melgar, aye, and supervisor Sauter, aye, there are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk please call item 23.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 23 this is a resolution to approve an emergency declaration from the Port Of San Francisco to provide immediate emergency repairs to stabilize Dry Dock Number 2 at Pier 68 for an estimated cost of 10,000,000 and to adopt environmental findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Let's take this item same house same call without objection the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk please call item 24.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 24 resolution to authorize the mayor's office of housing and community development to execute a standard agreement with the hcd, the California department of housing and community development, for a $1,500,000 grant award under hcd's pip, their pro housing incentive program, to accept and expend anticipated revenue of PIP grant funds in the amount of $1,500,000

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Again, same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution's adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 25.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 25, this is an ordinance to amend the planning code to permit parking to permit parking of up to two operable vehicles, not including boats, trailers, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, or buses, in driveways located in required front setback side yards or rear yards to affirm the secret determination and to make the appropriate findings.

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

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: I'm pleased to support this ordinance, and I want to thank the mayor and supervisors Chan and Melgar for cosponsoring and bringing this forward. This change is particularly relevant for the West Side neighborhoods like the Sunset, Parkside, and other District 4 communities, where many homes have front setback driveways and street parking can be challenging. Allowing residents to park in their own driveways is a practical common sense approach that reflects how our neighborhoods function. I also want to note that this ordinance received unanimous support from the planning commission and alliance with the city's broader permit s f effort to modernize outdated rules and reduce unnecessary red tape. Ultimately, this is about clarity, fairness, and sensible governance. It provides certainty to homeowners and improves day to day quality of life without undermining our planning goals. For those reasons, I support this ordinance and urge my colleagues to vote yes on first reading. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And I think we can take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, please call item 26.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 26. This is an ordinance to amend the planning code, to make various clarifying and typographical changes, and to prohibit massage establishments and massage solo practitioner uses as accessory uses to residential uses, 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 items twenty seven and twenty eight together.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Items twenty seven and twenty eight are two resolutions that authorize the acceptance and recording of two abrogation easements. Item 27 is from U. S. One hundred eighty, El Camino Owner LLC, for the development at 180 El Camino Real in South San Francisco, California at no cost to the city and county. And item 28 is from Navdeep Bakri for the development of 413 Alida Way in unincorporated San Mateo County, California, at no cost to the city and county, to affirm the CEQA determination and to make the appropriate findings for both items.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolutions are adopted. What happened? It's not same house, same call. All right, Madam Clerk, please Madam

[Speaker 66.0]: call Clerk, sorry.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Supervisor Walton. I guess we need to do nothing. Just need to call the roll. Madam Clerk, can you please call

[Speaker 29.0]: the roll?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Well, we need to rescind the vote and then revote.

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

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Okay.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Supervisor Mueller. Thank you, Supervisor Melgar. We can take that without objection. Without objection, the motion is rescinded. The action is rescinded. And then, Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the items.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On items twenty seven and twenty eight, Supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton, Aye. Supervisor Wong. Aye. Aye. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chan, Aye. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, I. Supervisor Fielder? Fielder, I. Supervisor Mahmood? Mahmood, I. Supervisor Mandelman?

[Speaker 35.0]: I.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelman, I. Supervisor Melgar? I. Melgar, I. And Supervisor Sauter? Sauter, aye. There are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Right. Without objection, the resolutions are adopted. Madam Clerk, please call Item 29.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 29, resolution to amend the street encroachment permit terms for Maiden Lane regarding the designated permittee and permissible activities to amend and rescind the board of supervisors authorization for the street closure of Maiden Lane between Stockton And Kearney Streets and to urge the municipal transportation agency board of directors to modify the street closure hours for such streets, and to authorize the Public Works Director to finalize a modified street encroachment permit for Maiden Lane.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. And we do now have the same House, same call. Without objection, resolution's adopted. No? Yes. Did Supervisor Chyanne Chen vote on the last one? I believe she did. Yeah. Without objection, the resolution's adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 30.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 30, a resolution to add the commemorative street name Stephen Tennis Way to the 200 Block Of Eddy Street in recognition of Stephen Tennis' decades of service, stewardship, leadership, and community building in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution's adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 31.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 31, ordinance to amend the police code to expand the current Tenderloin retail hours restriction pilot program under which retail food and tobacco establishments in the restricted area are prohibited from being open to the public from 12AM to 5AM or from 2AM to 5AM if subject to regulation by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to encompass a high crime area across the Tenderloin and South Of Market neighborhoods and to extend the duration of the pilot program currently set to expire in July 2026, to instead expire eighteen months from the effective date of the ordinance. Supervisor

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

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thanks, President Mandelman. Colleagues, it's my view that this legislation makes small businesses the scapegoats for the failures of SFPD. Instead of addressing real crime, this proposal punishes night workers and small businesses, many of them in an immigrant owned, who are already doing everything they can just to survive. The Small Business Commission voted against this for a reason. It is a roundabout attempt to curb crime by shifting responsibility and financial loss onto small businesses while contributing to the displacement of crime into my district, the mission, which has been consistent with DMACC's on the record strategy and further supported by the tentative study the committee cited in approving this ordinance. Even the mayors sorry. Even the legislation the study's lead author that has been referenced in regards to this legislation has acknowledged that the ban may have caused crime to be displaced. Are we really supposed to believe that SFPD, with a new real time investigation center with, as our mayor has said, ongoing partnerships with FBI, ATF, DA, our city attorney, and other federal agencies involved in disrupting the drug trade with drones, surveillance capabilities, flock cameras, and more doesn't have enough staff, technology, or intelligence to go after large scale gambling operations, illegal casinos, and drug markets without displacing them to nearby areas. This isn't a small business problem. It's a leadership and accountability problem. And I will be in the mayor's Office with my constituents when crime ticks up in the mission. And I will keep repeating this point when SFPD comes asking for millions more of overtime later this year. As commissioner William Ortiz Cartagena said, if you have a mosquito on your shoulder, you wouldn't take a sledgehammer to your shoulder. It would kill the mosquito, but would also lose your arm. For that reason, I'll be voting no.

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Supervisor Dorsey. Thank you, President Mandelman and colleagues. This legislation builds on a pilot program that the board adopted in 2024 to address persistent late night conditions in the Tenderloin, which was driven by drug activity, violence, and related street disorder. That pilot worked. Limiting late night retail hours in a targeted area between the hours of midnight and 5AM had the effect of reducing serious crime, improving street conditions and making the neighborhood feel safer. Those results were confirmed not only by the police department and its data, but also by the community's experience. And an independent academic study released last fall, found a 56% reduction in drug related crime with no evidence of displacement into nearby neighborhoods or to other hours. This ordinance extends that same targeted approach to a larger area of the Tenderloin and to a defined portion of South Of Market including 6th Street, where street conditions and open air drug scenes are at their worst. And, it resets the pilot clock to allow for a full eighteen month evaluation. There is broad community support for this expansion from residents, neighborhood groups, and stakeholders who have lived with these conditions for far too long. At the same time, I wanna be clear that the vast majority of businesses affected are law abiding and doing the right thing. This is not about blaming them, it's a focused time limited tool aimed at disrupting late night conditions driven by a small number of bad actors. My office has been working closely with merchants and business owners and we will continue to do so alongside the office of workforce and economic development and other partners to explore mitigation strategies for compliant businesses because accountability and support must go together. I do want to thank supervisor Mahmood for partnering on this from the beginning and supervisor Wong for his cosponsorship and support. As well, I wanna thank the the businesses who better affected, many of whom, you know, aren't aren't thrilled with this, but understand that they're being asked to sacrifice for the good of the neighborhood to give a little bit of a cooling off period. I would also acknowledge that this is not the magic wand that solves everything. It's only a partial strategy. It's time limited as other things play out. But I really do want to appreciate the businesses who have been engaged on this. And one thing that I have said to all the residents of the neighborhoods affected. It's up to us as consumers to make sure that we're doing our part to reward the businesses that we're asking to close early at midnight. We can do that during the hours that they're open. And I hope that the community will show up to support them because they are doing their part for our neighborhood. And that's something that I hope we can all support. Supervisor Mahmood.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Thank you, colleagues. I'm a cosponsor on this legislation as well with Supervisor Dorsey. And given it affected my district originally, and where the pilot was conducted, I wanted to share some thoughts. This legislation will extend the pilot that's already in place by an additional eighteen months to bring the benefits that we've seen in the Tenderloin to the rest of the neighborhood, but also to the South Of Market to make sure that we're taking a regional approach in these respective neighborhoods that are so interlinked. The data has shown that it is a proven tool to improve quality of life in the neighborhoods at the heart of our city. It's important to recognize that this is not about tackling individual businesses inside their establishments. The city attorney is doing operations successfully on the casinos, the gambling. This is about addressing street conditions outside of the respective establishments. And what we've seen from the peer reviewed studies that have shown is that the drug related incidents around those establishments dropped by fifty six percent during the pilot period. And loitering around late night establishments and again, this is midnight to five a. M, not during the daytime isn't just an issue of optics. It's part of a large and a very real persistent problem of unsafe drug markets taking hold of our neighborhoods. In the Public Safety Neighborhood Services Committee, we've had a couple hearings on this topic over the last year. We heard from families. We heard from women. We heard from children. We heard from immigrants who came in, some of who were in tears, due to the conditions that they have to walk through in the neighborhood every day and every night. Just this morning, someone was telling me how they feel that them as residents are already under a curfew and hostage in their own neighborhood where they don't feel safe going outside. We are administering this type of solution so that the residents of the Tenderloin themselves don't feel they're in a de facto curfew to be able to feel comfortable walking outside. No one is saying that this is a perfect solution. It is a temporary measure for eighteen months, as Supervisor Dorsey mentioned, to allow the city to develop a more long term plan to figure out what changes do we administer to balance all the needs of the neighborhood and ensure that we have the effective tools in place. But we have to stem the bleeding before we can figure out the actual solution. I will also continue to work with Supervisor Dorsey and with the community stakeholders to identify ways to uplift and support the small businesses in the year ahead and acknowledge that those small businesses have been strong partners to the city throughout this effort and share our goal of creating a neighborhood that can be both safe and vibrant. And this curfew will ensure that it's an important step to tackling those street conditions. And thank you again, Supervisor Dorsey, for your leadership on taking this forward.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Supervisor Walt. Thank you, President Mandelman. I just wanted to add because, one, I 100% agree with Supervisor Fielder, but I also look at when we have typically in the past done something that affected our businesses we try to bring businesses together to address the loss of revenue when we banned e cigarettes here in San Francisco we created a mitigation group with the small business community to try and attempt to address the impacts of revenue loss. I didn't hear a conversation about this happening and working with businesses to try to come up with something that will assist them during this time period. And, I know eighteen months of revenue loss can make or break a business, particularly in this climate. And so, I am not going to support this at this time.

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

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: Thank you. Public safety is my number one priority. Last time when we met about this at the Public Safety Neighbor Services Committee, I heard overwhelming support from the communities that were affected by these restricted zones. And there was overwhelming support. I also want to point out that public safety impacts and drug markets in neighborhoods in Districts 5 And 6 also affect the rest of the city. Because when there is an environment like that, we lose business. We lose tourism. People do not want or feel safe coming into the city. And we need to be able to create the environments for success for our communities. And that's why I am strongly in support of this. It's not the perfect solution, but it's a way to bring in more environmental factors to help reduce drug markets out in the open. Thank you. Supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. I think we have done something similar, haven't we, in the past, in tenderloin, like, restricting the hours, but as a pilot program as well. And I'm just kind of curious that I appreciate a presentation from the Public Safety Committee from SFPD indicating the photos of before and after, comparing the previous, like, 2024 versus 2025 time period. But I do also share the concern of Supervisor Fielder mentioning when you're sort of restricting one area, sometimes what we do is you end up pushing the flow of that population to somewhere else. I'm just kind of through the chair to Public Safety Committee maybe or to anyone can answer. The question is, then, how do we address, once you implement the restrict hours in this area, what are we going to do with the neighboring area?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Supervisor Chan, for the question. If Chair Dorsey, the author, would like to answer Sure.

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: So the feedback that we got from the police department was that there was not an appreciable migration of bad behavior to adjacent neighborhoods, including the neighborhood I represent. There was bad behavior there already. What was interesting is you know, in the process of doing outreach to the businesses and to the neighborhood and community, you may recall the San Francisco Standard actually published a study that was done by an Italian university that found the same thing. I think that there was a reduction in drug related lawlessness without a measurable displacement to adjacent neighborhoods. Ultimately, this was a strategy about a temporary cooling off period between the hours of midnight and five a. To make the neighborhood less inviting to drug related lawlessness that includes things like fencing operations and often violence and sort of chaotic conditions that are really wreaking havoc on some of the residential areas around there. So I was certainly satisfied that this was born out in a couple of different results. So it's eighteen months. We're going to be working with business communities. And I think this is something that's worth voting for. Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you. I just want to follow-up on that study. It was the lead author who also acknowledged that there may be displacement effects of crime to SOMA and that this was a tentative study, that they needed to do more. And so it's all about where you're looking and also just taking the author's word for it that there's more research to be done about the actual impacts of this policy, including displacement. And so that is exactly the study I'm referring to when stating my position around this legislation.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 31, Supervisor Walton. Walton, no. Supervisor Wong? Yes. Wong, I, Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan I. Supervisor Chen? Chen I. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey I. Supervisor Fielder? Fielder no. Supervisor Mahmood? Aye. Mandelman I. Supervisor Melgar Melgar aye and Supervisor Sauter. Sauter aye. There are eight ayes and two no's with Supervisors Walton and Fielder voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk please call item 32.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 32 resolution to determine that the person to person premise to premise transfer of a type 21 off sale general beer wine and distilled spirits liquor license to a malls market located at 1416 H Street will serve the public convenience and to request that the california department of alcoholic beverage control impose conditions on the issuance of the license.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Please call the roll.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 32 supervisor walton. Walton I supervisor Wong. Wong I supervisor Chan. I. Chan I supervisor Chan. I supervisor Dorsey. I. Dorsey I supervisor Fielder. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmood? Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelman?

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: Aye.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar, aye. And Supervisor Sauter? Sauter, aye. There are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the resolution is adopted. And let's go to committee reports. Please call items forty five and forty six together.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Items forty five and forty six are two ordinances that were considered by the Land Use and Transportation Committee at a regular meeting on Monday, February 2, and were forwarded as committee reports. Item 45 is an ordinance to amend the planning code to add a new appendix P to article 10 preservation of historical architectural and aesthetic landmarks to create the Chula Abbey Early Residential Historic District.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Let's take these items. Same house, same call.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Apologies, Mr. President, that was just item 45. Keep going. I will finish with item 46, ordinance to amend the planning code to add a new appendix Q to Article 10, preservation of historical architectural and aesthetic landmarks, to create the Alert Alley Early Residential Historic District, and to affirm the secret determination and make the appropriate findings for both items.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And, like, let's take these items, same house, same call, without objection. The ordinances are passed on first reading. And, let's go to roll call.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Supervisor Walton, you're up first.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Colleagues, today I am introducing a resolution on behalf of the youth commission to declare February as teen dating violence awareness and prevention month. Thank you to the youth commission for working on this in partnership with black women revolt and Asian women's shelter on this important issue. One in three high schoolers will experience dating abuse before high school graduation. Young people are impacted by abusive relationships when they are threatened with or subjected to physical violence, sexual violence, psychological aggression, or stalking from a current or former intimate partner. Dating violence can also occur digitally through social media and other electronic communications, and young people experiencing violence are more likely to be vulnerable to long term behavioral and health consequences, including mental trauma and drug abuse, which also increases the risk of violence in adulthood and future relationships. Therefore, it is critical to educate young people about the signs of domestic violence to set them up for success by allowing them to recognize for themselves what's healthy, nonviolent relationships look like. I wanna thank supervisors Fielder, Chan, Mandelman, Mahmood, Wong for your early co sponsorship. The rest I submit.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Supervisor Walton. Supervisor Wong.

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

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, Madam Kirk. Colleagues, today I'm honored to introduce a resolution celebrating 2026 as the year of the horse. This resolution is very meaningful to our city and to my district. Celebration of Lunar New Year in San Francisco has become a culturally significant event which begins with the new moon on the first day of the new year and ends on the full moon fifteen days later. The Lunar New Year is significant holiday for Asian families to gather together to honor their ancestors welcoming the new year with hopes, prosperity, and good health to celebrate cultures and traditions. 2026 is the year of the horse, which promises to bring energy, freedom, and forward momentum. I would like to thank all my colleagues for your unanimous cosponsorship. And I would also especially like to thank Supervisor Connie Chan for her support as my lead cosponsor. The rest, submit. Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Supervisor Chen. Supervisor Dorsey, submit thank you. Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Colleagues, today I'm introducing a resolution to affirm the board and the city's commitment to protecting the future of a center for Latino arts and culture at 2868 Mission Street, the site of the current Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts, also known as MCCLA. For forty nine years, the nonprofit organization known as the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts has been providing not just programming but lifelines for thousands of Latino San Franciscans who take pride and purpose from visual arts, dancing, and performing arts. Currently, that organization's stability and future is uncertain, causing a great deal of concern and upset in the mission community. I don't think I can overstate the importance of the historical legacy of this building. This building has been the site where many successful Latino poets, printmakers, dancers, musicians, painters, sculptors, muralists, and more have incubated their craft, where iconic and world renowned annual celebrations in San Francisco have taken place, including Latin heritage community celebration, Dia de los Muertos, Day of the Dead, Sola Mujeres, an annual art exhibition, and, of course, Carnaval in the Spring, along with daily programming and expositions featuring local legends and Latino artists from the community. It was declared a San Francisco landmark building in 2022 by the board of supervisors. And per city charter, the San Francisco Arts Commission, the owner of the building is mandated to use it for community arts and culture. It is a central and very prominent feature of the Mission and 24th Street corridor the Gallipay De Cuatro Cultural District of District 9. This resolution affirms the commitment by the city to ensure that this building at 2868 Mission, now after the planned earthquake retrofit and into the future remains a hub for Latino arts and culture despite the uncertainties of the status of any single nonprofit. Programming grants can and should be available to a suitable nonprofit that meets the criteria to run such a center. Additionally, we want to ensure that the historical archives and community arts assets in the building should be preserved and protected by and for the community. The arts in general in our city are currently at risk with the collapse of California College of the Arts, Mexican Museum, and other centers facing threats to their integrity. The revitalization of San Francisco cannot happen without the important role of community arts and culture, and specifically Latino arts and culture, which must not only be cultivated but protected and considered as important as any other placemaking strategy. I want to thank my co sponsors, supervisors Melgar, Chan, and Walton. As well, today, I'm introducing a revenue measure to be put on our November ballot to establish a public bank for San Francisco. San Francisco was once a place where people with almost nothing could come make their dreams real. Now San Francisco is increasingly becoming a place where dreams require vast capital or proximity to those who have it. For those without either, Wall Street banks offer capital in exchange for profit maximizing interest rates, if any capital at all. This has culminated in a pernicious cycle of exclusion in the economic and social fabric of our city, of black and brown people, immigrants, LGBTQ people, artists, and working class people of all backgrounds who have all made San Francisco what it is today. Rents are rising faster than anywhere else in the nation. Our city has a goal of building 46,000 affordable homes by 2031 with no financing plans to get there. Small businesses we know and love are dying along with the jobs that they bring. That is why today I'm introducing this revenue measure to be put on our November ballot to tax some of the wealthiest financial corporations in the city over a period of eight years to establish a public bank. This bank will put sustainable capital into the hands of working people and the sectors that directly support our place in the city, truly affordable housing, small businesses, and green projects. It will achieve this by partnering with local credit unions and other financial institutions that share our goal of maximizing public good rather than maximizing profits in the form of no to low cost loans. Any earnings realized from the public bank will be reinvested into the bank and the public good it promotes. This synergistic ecosystem will help provide control over our local economy and promote diversity in a local and global economy that leaves our most important and least prioritized sectors behind. I look forward to talking with you more on how we can stand up this public bank for the public good of San Francisco. And I want to thank Scott Reber, Kern Matsubara in the city attorney's office, controller Greg Wagner, and Amanda Confried in the treasurer and tax collector's office for their work on this ordinance. The rest I submit.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Supervisor Fielder. Supervisor Mahmood, submit. Thank you. Supervisor Mandelman.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Madam Clerk. I got a resolution and an memoriam, and some other items we'll submit. Colleagues, today I'm introducing a resolution to add the commemorative street name Ed Decker Way to the signage for the block of Van Ness Avenue between Oak Street and Hickory Alley. Ed Decker is the founder and artistic director of the New Conservatory Theater Center and has led the organization for forty five years, distinguishing him as a trailblazer in the world of LGBTQ plus theater and progressive theater education. During his tenure, Ed built the theater which is located at the corner of Van S And Oak into one of San Francisco's most prized cultural institutions. Under his direction, the theater has produced more than 50 world premieres by established and emerging queer playwrights, employed thousands of Bay Area theater professionals and teaching artists, and launched the careers of nationally recognized theater artists. As a theater leader, activist, and arts educator since 1974, Ed Decker has worked with a broad swath of artists, political leaders, audiences, community organizers, local businesses, and volunteers. In 1986, in response to the AIDS epidemic sweeping the nation, Ed created the Landmark Youth Aware Turing Educational Theater Program to educate and raise awareness among young audiences about the impact of HIV AIDS, an effort that reached more than 800,000 students in the Bay Area and Northern California. He also set up an after school drama program that offered scholarships and low cost fees, ensuring that any child could participate regardless of ability to pay. Ed's leadership has won him numerous awards, including KQED's Local Hero Award, Stop AIDS Project's Chuck Frucci Award, an Endeavor Foundation Award, and two San Francisco Chamber of Commerce Arts Excellence Awards. He's also a nationally recognized playwright. On May 20, on 05/19/2026, the new Conservatory Theater will celebrate its forty fifth birthday. Ed will be stepping down as the artistic director for the theater that month, ending a remarkable tenure distinguished by extraordinary leadership and dedication to his craft. This sign is a way to honor Ed Decker for his incomparable achievements on behalf of the arts and on his retirement. And, I want to thank Barbara Hodgen for the, Hodgen, the executive director of the New Conservatory Theater Center, for championing this commemorative street renaming. I also want to thank Supervisor Dorsey for his early co sponsorship and collaboration on the project, as well as my legislative aide, Grace Wong, for her work. Secondly, today, I'm asking that we pause to honor the life and legacy of Michael B. Freeman, a colleague whose work helped shape how San Franciscans see and understand their government. For more than twenty years, Michael served the city and county of San Francisco with commitment and quiet excellence. He was a foundational force in the creation and growth of SFGov TV, helping guide the channel from its earliest beginnings into one of the most respected local government television operations in the country. Through periods of transition and growth, Michael provided steady leadership overseeing major advances in production facilities and technology and helping modernize city hall's broadcast operations for a new digital era. Michael was also a gifted creative producer, videographer, editor, and musician Through programs like District SF, Meet Your District Supervisor, legislative updates, and election coverage, he brought clarity, context, and humanity to local government, making civic life more accessible to residents across San Francisco. Just as important as his technical and creative contributions was the role he played as a mentor and trusted colleague. Michael was generous with his knowledge, thoughtful in his approach, and deeply respected by those who had the privilege of working alongside him. Michael retired in June 2015 and spent the last ten years enjoying life with his wife, Susan Kuchinskas. His sudden passing is a profound loss to all who knew him and to the institution he helped build. Michael's work reminds us that public service doesn't always happen at a podium or in this chamber. It also happens behind the scenes through dedication, craftsmanship, and a belief in the value of public access and transparency. Behalf of the Board of Supervisors and the City and County of San Francisco, we extend our deepest condolences to Susan, to Michael's family, and to his many colleagues and friends. His legacy will continue to live on through SFGov TV and through the many people he inspired along the way. And the rest I submit.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Mr. And we will send the in memoriam on behalf of the entire board.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: That would be great.

[Speaker 67.0]: Let's Thank you, Mr. Do that.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Next up, Supervisor Melgar.

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Thank you, colleagues. I just want to echo and support Supervisor Fielder in the resolution she has introduced to declare the Board of Supervisors' commitment to protecting and preserving the long term future of the Center for Arts and Culture in the Mission at February. And I want to thank you, supervisor, for your work and your leadership and that of your staff. It has been really amazing. I have been sounding the alarm about the situation there for several years. And you have taken it seriously, as did your predecessor, Supervisor Ronan. Like many of you who spend time in Chinatown, or Fillmore, or Bayview, you know, Latinos, the mission is the center of culture and community. And this building, in particular, connects us to our culture and community. I dance Afro Latino arts. And dance is a very important part of my life and my family's life. I've danced in Carnival every year since I was 18 years old through three pregnancies. And my girls dance now, and they dance with me. And it's a really important part of how we connect to our community and our culture. And it happens at that building. I just have to add that, you know, the struggles that the community has had in that building, in with funding with the city, and its relationship with the city would never have happened if this had been the ballet or the opera. I think it is a direct result of an underserved community that doesn't have as many resources, but desperately needs that connection to community, to culture, and the arts. And so we've got to do better as a city. Preserving the cultural communities of the rich diversity that is the fabric of our people everywhere in the city. And we have to do better with how we have these relationships, the respect and the dignity that we offer to these communities. And so thank you, colleagues, for taking it seriously. Thank you, Supervisor Fielder, for introducing this resolution. And the rest I submit.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Supervisor Melgar. Supervisor Sauter.

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Colleagues, today I'm submitting a letter of inquiry requesting information on the recruitment of bilingual public facing city employees. Residents in our district's diverse neighborhoods should encounter as few obstacles as possible when interacting with city employees and accessing city services. But too often, I've heard from constituents who found language barriers at the moments that they needed support from the city most.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Be it

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: calling a 911 dispatch operator, asking for directions from a transit operator aboard Muni, or engaging with fire, police, and EMT. And as federal immigration enforcement escalates, the need for language access in crisis high tension situations is greater than ever. In fact, the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigration Affairs 2026 report states that there has been an 11% year over year increase and a 36% increase over the five year average for limited English proficiency client interactions. Most critically for the district I represent, client engagements in Cantonese surpassed 500,000 instances in fiscal year 'twenty four-'twenty five. This amounts to a 42% increase compared to the previous fiscal year, and a 41 increase from the five year average. Investing in bilingual city employees is the single best way that we can bolster our language capacity and support. We must do more to recruit, retain, and support frontline, public facing city employees in key roles across departments like SFPD, FHIR, the Department of Emergency Management, Department of Public Health, three eleven, and SFMTA. The Department of Human Resources data shows that certified bilingual employee positions have a 17% vacancy rate, higher than a citywide average of 12%. This higher vacancy rate suggests that our current approach is not adequate. So my letter of inquiry asked for specific strategies, budgets, and plans for key departments in their work to recruit more bilingual employees. We should examine how our bilingual pay bonuses compare to other cities, And we should ensure that certification exams conducted by Department of Human Resources meet the reality of language used on the ground. Our city has shown that it can produce results when it gets serious about improving recruitment efforts. Last year's mayoral directive, rebuilding the ranks, has already improved applications to the police academy by some 50%. And with a similar level of focus and intent here, I know we can do the same to fill critical frontline roles. So, I look forward to working with departments and my colleagues to ensure that we do just that. And, the rest, submit.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Supervisor Sauter. Mr. President, seeing no further names on the roster, that includes 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]: All right. At this time, the Board welcomes your public comment if you line up on your right hand side of the chamber. You may speak to Items 49 through 54. Those are on adoption without committee reference. You may also speak to general matters not on the published agenda but must be within the boards subject matter jurisdiction. All other agenda content will have already been reported out by the committee where public comment has occurred. By prior arrangement our office is in receipt of a request for language accommodation for item 51 and we will have spanish interpretation provided comment during general public comment. Let' hear from our first speaker please welcome. We're setting the timer for two minutes.

[Speaker 67.0]: Thank you. Good evening, supervisors. My name is Lance Tomah. I'm the CEO of San Francisco Community Health Center. We applaud the sponsors of the resolution that reaffirms San Francisco's commitment to gender affirming care. The sponsors, Supervisors, Mandelman, Fielder, Dorsey, Chan, Walton, Mahmood, and Melgar, thank you, thank you, thank you. And we urge passage of this resolution. San Francisco Community Health Center was targeted within a few days of the Trump administration taking office with our trans focused CDC funding terminated outright because of the executive order on gender ideology. We had no other choice but to fight back and sued the administration along with eight other LGBTQ organizations across the country with Lambda Legal representing us. Alongside the our health center's longstanding gender affirming care that we provide, we currently operate a standalone facility run by and for the trans community. Trans Thrive is a safe haven, a refuge, and a community inspired space for the trans community to access resources and services and to continue to contribute to the fabric of our community. We also lead the health access point for the trans community. We lead HIV care and treatment services for the community. And for the past two years, we've been operating the first of its kind in the country emergency shelter for trans and gender nonconforming individuals in our city, the Tamen Butin Navigation Center, 84 beds that are filled every single night. We, at San Francisco Community Health Center, are engaged in efforts to ensure that the rights and protections for unfettered access to comprehensive health care for trans individuals are protected and upheld. We look forward to you for your explicit commitment to trans communities to justice and to affirming your stance that prematurely complying and anticipatory obedience to the rules and laws that do not apply to us in California will not be tolerated here in our city and county of San Francisco. Thank you very much.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Before the next speaker speaks, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the board has a rule that there's no audible sounds of approval or against something. But if you do want to send us a sign, just signal as such. Thank you for your patience. Welcome.

[Speaker 68.0]: Thank you. Good evening, supervisors. My name is Doctor. Tatiana Moulton Santiago. I am the Chief Strategy and Workforce Officer in San Francisco Community Health Center and the co chair of the National Transgender Healthcare Advisory Group. Our health center serves eighteen seventy one transgender clients, including sixty five percent of all transgender women in San Francisco. When the federal government terminated our CDC funding, as my colleague said, because we serve trans people specifically, we didn't retreat. We fought back, and we sued the administration. We never stopped serving our community for a single day. That is the standard every provider in this city should be held to, and that is why this resolution matters. Right now, health care providers in San Francisco are preemptively stopping gender affirming care for youth. Before any final federal rule exists, while California law steals mandates access and while our attorney general stands ready to block these pro proposed rules in court, that is not legal caution. That is abandonment. And our young people are paying for it with their lives. The data is unambiguous. Youth receiving gender affirming care have seventy three percent lower odds of suicide suicidality in states that have enacted bans, suicide attempts among trans youth increased seventy two percent in the first year alone. Every major medical association in this country supports this court this care as medically necessary and lifesaving. That is not a debate that is not a debate. That is a settled science. San Francisco has always led. From the AIDS crisis to marriage equality to sanctuary protections, this city has never waited for permission to do what is right. 25 states have banned this care. 40% of trans youth in America live under these restrictions. They are looking to cities like ours and asking, does anyone still believe we deserve to live? This resolution answers yes unequivocally yes. I urge you to pass it unanimously. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 69.0]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Kaitlyn Fowler. I serve as the community relations manager at San Francisco Community Health Center. I urge you to consider this crucial importance of maintaining and enhancing gender affirming care and resources with our community. At San Francisco Community Health Center, we have consistently answered calls during every health crisis, whether it comes from the Department of Health, or whether it comes from a diverse community that we serve. San Francisco has set a commendable standard in affirming identities of women of trans experience, both young and old. Our work at San Francisco Community Health Center goes beyond just fulfilling the need. We provide space to restore dignity, hope, confidence in individuals who face systematic barriers. We often consider gender affirming care a safe haven. For many of our youth, gender affirming services serve as merely as not just a medical necessity, but a way of life. As we move forward, it is imperative that we continue to invest and protect these essential structures. The importance of gender affirming care is profound and shape the future of our community. Let's prioritize and continue to advocate for the resources that support our trans and non binary individuals, ensuring them the access care they deserve. You for your attention thank to you for this your attention to this matter, and let's continue to make a better and healthier San Francisco. Thank you.

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. Super Bowl week. I love football as much as the next guy, but I got to say, you know, I'm tired of all the games. Once again, in typical San Francisco fashion for a major event, we have shepherded hordes of fentanyl addicts and homelessness into the surrounding neighborhoods. Downtown is sparkling clean once again, much similar to that of when president Xi visited a few years ago during the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference. It's nice some of the supervisors here today have intentions of cracking down on the crime and the drug trade and all that jazz. Unfortunately, the Honduras Fentanyl dealers who are operating in our community, who have taken advantage and exploited our sanctuary city I love immigrants as much as anybody else. I believe they're some of the best people in the world, but if you're here in San Francisco to sell Fentanyl, you should be deported. And these drug dealers are operating on electric scooters. They're circling around, so this whole hide and go seek, whack a mole game you guys got going on, it's not sustainable. Sad we have to close down our businesses earlier than

[Speaker 65.0]: they should

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: be open all night, if anything. Right? You know, fentanyl is showing up on playgrounds and in schools. Five thousand people have died from fentanyl in San Francisco between the years 2019 and 2026. This is a fentanyl genocide, a humanitarian crisis. Fentanyl comes from China across the southern border through the Port Of Oakland, and, you know, just sound like a broken record, and I think, you know, I've heard you guys promise year after year you're going to crack down or do something about it. It seems like the only time our city gets cleaned up is when there's a major event. It's really sad because residents, we've been begging days upon months upon years on end to please do something about the humanitarian crisis in our community. It's it's really interesting to see you guys, what you will do, what you will accomplish when you want to. But if it's if

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: it's not

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: the Super Bowl, it's regular schedule.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Right, let's welcome our next speaker.

[Speaker 70.0]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Shamann Walton. I'm a registered nurse working in psychiatric and mental health care here in San Francisco. I'd like to speak briefly about what happens downstream when transgender youth lose access to appropriate health care. In mental health settings such as mine, we don't see abstract debates. We see the outcomes. Higher rates of depression, anxiety, self harm, and crisis level presentations when care is delayed or denied. From a health care systems perspective, this is not cost saving, it's cost shifting. When preventative outpatient care is blocked, those needs don't disappear, they reemerge later as emergency visits, inpatient admissions, and long term psychiatric care, which are far more expensive for the city, the state, and our country as a whole. As a nurse, I support policies to keep care evidence based, accessible, and preventative, especially for young people, because that's how we protect both patient outcomes and public resources over time. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 63.0]: Yes, hi. Hello. Oh, there we go. Do I got it? Am I here? I'm there. Okay. My name is Josha Milewski. I'm a displaced tenant from 50 Golden Gate Apartments. I was displaced due to fire. I'm asking to please approve item 51 supporting fire displaced residents with extended aid, case management, and stronger language access? What I found out from becoming displaced due to fire is that when you go looking for another place to rent, landlords don't care too much about your assets. They look at your income. And, I'm retired and I live enough fixed income, but income isn't enough to secure housing in this market, which is very constrained. Although, I have liquidity assets and a four zero one ks that can cover rent in this market, landlords are reluctant to rent to me because of my income. And then what I found is when I applied for temporary assistance for displaced persons through San Francisco's Human Services Agency, my liquidity assets became a liability for qualifying for temporary housing. I'm one of those people in the missing middle, excluded from rental assistance due to asset thresholds that do not reflect the actual needed liquidity resources required to live in San Francisco. This resolution supporting fire displaced residents with extended aid, case management, and stronger language access addresses these issues. I urge the Board of Supervisors to approve the resolution, and please hold Mosser accountable for its actions concerning tenant refunds of their December rent. And thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 25.0]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker. Good evening. Hi. My name is Melgar Villal. I'm also one of the displaced tenants at 50 Golden Gate. Like many residents of the building, my family lost a sense of safety overnight. We were forced out of our home with little warning, limited access to our belongings, and no clear timeline for when or if we could return. The space net is the space meant is not just about losing a physical space. It's about losing stability, routine, and peace of mind. We were told to seek assistance through the Human Service Agency, which is meant to be a lifeline for people in crisis. It would aid in all cause of a new temporary apartment. However, we were informed that we do not qualify for help because our assets are above the current limit. I want to be very clear about what that means in my life. My husband has survived two brain tumors. Because of that reality, we have been financially cautious out of necessity, not privilege. The assets we have are not excess or disposable. They are a safeguard against catastrophic medical costs, gaps in insurance coverage, and future emergencies. They represent survival planning, not financial comfort. Yet, under current system, having prepared responsibility disqualifies us from receiving emergency assistance during the one of the most destabilizing events a family can experience. This is where the system fails the very people it should be protecting. Middle class families often fall into a painful gap. We earn too much to qualify for help, but not enough to observe sudden life altering losses. A fire does not discriminate based on income, and neither should access emergency support. Displacement affects mental health, physical health, employment stability, and long term financial security. Regardless of a widespread what a spreadsheet says about the assets we're not asking for special treatment we're asking for a system that reflects fairness compassion and the true cause of living in San Francisco so please support number 51, and please hold Moser accountable. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 71.0]: Hello. My name is Ariel Park, and I'm also a displaced resident of 50 Golden Gate. And I was someone that fortunately did qualify for SHA funding, and I'm currently residing in TNDC property. So I I mean I'm an I am an example of when the city gets it right and I'd like to see the city get it right much more often because some of the some of my neighbors, you know, you know, they they have low income but their assets are too high or there's something preventing them from qualifying for emergency assistance. And the $30,000 threshold would evaporate very quickly here in San Francisco and even in lower cost of living areas. So I'm here in support of fifty one, and also to hold Mosser accountable. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 72.0]: Hi, my name is Pamela Smith. I'm also displaced from 50 Golden Gate, my home, for nineteen years. And I just want to say it was very traumatic not qualifying for HSA, although my income is very is not very much. And I just really urge you to support Resolution 51.

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: Thank you.

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

[Speaker 73.0]: Good evening. My name is Ann Marie Van Biren, and I am a resident of 50 Golden Gate. That is until December 12, when at 03:15AM, there was a three alarm fire that displaced 66 units in our building. And I am here to thank our supervisor in District 5, Bilal Mahmood, for putting forth this resolution to increase funding to the Human Services Agency and the temporary assistance for displaced persons. Because being on the sidewalk at 03:15 in the morning while your building is burning is not an experience that anyone should have to go through and I hope you never have to go through it. The resolution would increase the asset cap from $30,000 to medical limits which are $130,000 for an individual and what has happened is a lot of people have as it is now you're allowed 100% of area median income and $30,000 asset cap to qualify for the program, which helps to pay for the difference between your rent controlled housing and your market rate housing, which is temporary until your place is reconditioned. And so the situation with raising the asset cap would help so many people that are low income, perhaps 50% of AMI, but have just enough over that 30,000 that they're not qualifying. And what's happening is they're falling through the gap and are unable to qualify for housing because they don't make enough to make the rent. So I'm hoping you will support this and that we can hold Monster accountable for keeping a tight timeline on rehabilitating our buildings so it's inhabitable again. Thank you so much.

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

[Speaker 74.0]: Hi, my name is Gregory Johnson. I've been a resident of 50 Golden Gate since 1994. And on December 12, found myself instantly homeless. A few years ago, I got a job where I was able to finally save some money for my future. Because of that, I don't qualify for assistance. I don't think it should matter how much money someone has saved. When a person is faced with a disaster or displacement, not of their doing, assistance should be available. Thank you for your consideration.

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The follow-up is a summary. Hello Board of Supervisors, my name is Alicia Leal. I'm also a resident from 50 Golden Gate. I'm going to read you an email that I sent to the landlord regarding the situation that I find myself in. Let me tell you, though you already know that your security workers your workers and the security staff broke into my apartment and stole all my cash. They searched on my bed and in my drawers and took away my designer handbags and gold bracelets I bought five years ago for my son's graduation next year at the now closed mall. They took my passport and my headphones. Look Mary, I can replace all material things by working, but I had been saving cash for my son's college tuition in Mexico for eight months for over $8,000 in cash. I mailed you earlier to let you in to get back my money. I warned you that you didn't want any surprises, that I didn't want any surprises, but when I walked into my apartment it was a complete mess. You're not helping me get a new apartment. You haven't even paid back the rent I paid for December and you think the situation is going to stay that way. I request to be temporarily relocated to another larger unit while 50 Golden Gate is restored. During any temporary relocation, my current lease must remain in full effect at my current rental rate. At this temporary relocation and this temporary relocation will not be considered a voluntary vacancy or a termination of my lease or a waiver of any right. I relinquished my rights for an apartment at 50 Golden Gate. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 64.0]: Supervisors, you very much for listening to our statements. Beneath every single person's emotion, experience, and statement that you've heard, you're going to find that ultimately Resolution 51 that's being put forth by Supervisor Bilal Mahmood here is effectively a homeless prevention measure. It's also a test of whether our city responds to disaster with equity, transparency, and whether we build a system that works the next time that this happens. As has been the case this time, some of these tenants are now homeless. Some of them are living in their cars. There was a woman less than two weeks ago who gave birth to her child at a hospital in San Francisco and went home to her car because of this fire. Now, in addition to upping the asset threshold, it would direct HSA, human service agencies, and partner departments to implement a unified displacement response protocol with staff case management and sustained language access for non native speakers. District five's review documented serious gaps that left residents without timely emergency housing, without financial relief, food assistance, transportation, or clear rehousing pathways. Effectively, it was a temporary help that expired in a way that didn't help recovery, it just delayed it. This resolution is designed to fix those specific failure points. Everyone here is begging you, please vote yes on Resolution 51 and funding it so that these changes actually get implemented. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 75.0]: Hello. My name is Gardenia. I'm a former resident of 50 Golden Gate Avenue, a mother and an advocate for my fellow neighbors. I no longer live in San Francisco, not by choice, by by circumstances. Yet I have been commuting from the East Bay to show up for my neighbors because our mayor has not. Please approve item 51. This building is literally three blocks away from City Hall, and yet families are sleeping in cars, shelters, bus stops with children. This past weekend, I received a call from a mother who had just given birth. They should have been recovering bonding with their newborn. Instead, she has been preparing to return to her vehicle because she was not approved by HSA. This is not an insulated failure. This is a systematic breaking people. Families are stuck into a limbo because the income thresholds that punish responsibility thresholds that account savings meant for surgeries, medical care, or retirement as if they are in wealth. That is not wealth. This is planning for survival. HSA is also severely understaffed. Two staff members responding to a housing disaster, one of them was actually on vacation. This was one building. Imagine if it was an entire block. This is how homelessness starts. Not because people are irresponsible, but because working people who pay rent and taxes are abandoned when a crisis hits. I have personally been paying for food, diapers, and basic necessities out of my own pocket to help some of these families. We were told muni passes will be issued. They weren't. Families cannot access food stamps because they do not have the access to provide an address. So I've partnered with a couple of small organizations to provide the support, but where is our mayor? We asked for item 51 to be approved, but for also to hold Mosser accountable. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 76.0]: Hello. My name is Hailey Myrna Melgar. I am an organizer at the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, and I've been supporting the tenants at 50 Golden Gate. I just want to say that this isn't the only building that desperately needs you to pass Resolution 51. As an organizer, I'm currently working with two other Mosser or formerly Mosser buildings who experienced fires. And in their time of crisis, they only got empty promises from Mosser. Overall, our organization has seen no less than hundreds, maybe thousands of tenants over the years who have been displaced by fires. Many of them have not been eligible for city services, or they haven't been able to access them because of language barriers. It is absolutely critical that the city increase the HSA threshold and provide more support to this service. It's the city's responsibility to take care of its people and to protect them from landlords that aim to make money off of bad conditions, neglect, and displacement. Adopting resolution 51 would be a first step that each of you could take today to prove to these residents and to all tenants in San Francisco that the city has their backs. I urge you to immediately adopt this resolution and prove San Francisco City government to be one that stands with tenants in the face of landlords who neglect and disrespect their residents.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. May I ask the gentleman in the back with the light on the camera to you're welcome to film searches. Don't use your light. Welcome.

[Speaker 77.0]: Hello. I'm here to support Resolution 49 for gender affirming care for trans kids. I also support Resolution 51 and am in solidarity with everyone that was displaced by the fire in the Tenderloin. I thank the Rainbow Families Action and the Trans Caucus from the Harvey Milk Club. Genuinely thank them for working on this resolution. My comment is just representing myself. So why why did this take so long to even say that you would support trans kids and that they should have gender affirming care? Especially, it's been a year since some of you stood on a stage in front of a camera saying you would protect trans kids from shit like this. A year later is when you come out with the resolution. Like, I I'm offended. I'm not grateful for your severe tardiness. I'm not grateful that you were silenced for this past year while kids were having their health care taken away from them temporarily in San Francisco that was under threat a few times. You the board here previous board also unanimously voted to pass my resolution to protect trans kids and adults, so I am intimately familiar with your performative nature as a board. If you want to prove that this is not performative, back this up with some real action. Okay? How about stopping the Office of Transgender Initiatives from being dismantled, defunded, and disempowered? You can start there. You can make the Trans Sanctuary City resolution an ordinance like the immigrant sanctuary city ordinance

[Speaker 27.0]: is so

[Speaker 77.0]: that something is enforceable. It's not just words, words, words. You can return the cultural competency training to SF Government Employees. That was taken away. You could advocate for us to not have our funding taken away by the goddamn mayor. The mayor is just, like, cutting everyone off at the knees in this city. Like, really advocate for us. Like, I don't know. Do your own protest or something.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Let's welcome to our next speaker.

[Speaker 78.0]: General comment. This week in San Francisco, we are hosting the Super Bowl activities. But just last Friday, a child was shot and killed at a public park and two other children wounded. Sit with that. While the city prepares for celebration, families are planning funerals. We are told to cheer, to spend money, to look away while our children are dying. This is not just random violence. This is systematic failure. We need to talk about prevention. Our youth need places to go, real funded neighborhood based hubs where they are safe, mentored, supported and seen. Parks and playgrounds should not be dangerous zones. They should be protected spaces. We also have to be honest about displacement. Black families have been systematically pushed out of the very neighborhoods we have built around the world, often in the name of redevelopment. When families are removed, communities' ties are broken, youth are destabilized, and safety declines. You cannot displace people, remove resources, and then act surprised when violence increases. These outcomes are connected. They are the result of policy decisions. The city continues to spend millions on major events and institutions while failing to invest at the same level in black children and families, the ones that's left. Meanwhile, black youth are being lost to violence, displacement, and neglect. We are despairing from San Francisco, but not by accident, but by policy. You cannot continue to fund spectacle while neglecting survival. That is a choice, and choices have consequences. I'm asking the board to prioritize funding for neighborhood based youth hubs and violent prevention before the next tragedy happens, not after.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Just a reminder, show your support as such, no audible sounds please. Board roll. Thank you. Welcome.

[Speaker 79.0]: Good evening supervisors. Reverend Doctor. Rohr, proud transgender resident of Bernal Heights. I know that this is the place where we will be reaffirming trans healthcare, because this is the place where transgender healthcare was born. I was here in the room the day that supervisor Bevan Dufty made it a law that employees of San Francisco could get trans services covered in their insurance. Which proved to additional insurance companies that it was affordable, it wasn't going to sink the bill, that trans people aren't the crazy things imagined by angry loud people on TV, and that compassion can lead the way. Y'all did it in this room, and I also know that each day you show up to do it again. Remember when Vicki Lee was here? So many hours ago, you guys. A young Vicki Lee filled out the paperwork to allow the very first transgender organization in The United States to be founded at Glide Church. It was still illegal to be trans then. We fixed that later. That group was founded to create peer behavioral healthcare support because no therapist would do it. Down the street on Hyde Street, trans man Lou Sullivan, whose journals are stored at the San Francisco Public Library, created a newsletter that for a decade taught trans people how to advocate for themselves at the doctor's office, because back then too, doctors refused to learn how to care for us, using misogyny mostly. Harry Benjamin had the very first health clinic that was actively caring for trans people. It was at Union And as we have heard before, we get most of our information about where to get our healthcare now from the communications office at the mayor's office of transgender initiatives. A position currently not filled because of a hiring freeze. We want both your support in this document, and in the budget in the months to come. The Cultural District hosts a lot of our trans awareness organizations, because the Department of Justice federally declared a bounty for people who declare trans healthcare. We need our

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

[Speaker 80.0]: Hi. My name is Richard Johnson and I'm doing a, excuse me, a follow-up to what I discussed at last week's Board of Supervisors meeting. It's about the Hayes Street closure. And it's about the undue influence that's happening within this corridor. We have a supervisor that is unduly influencing the SFMTA. We are finding this out through disclosure requests. We're at the whim of the board here because the way that the appeal project process goes, it comes to you as the supervisors to appeal on an appeal from the SFMTA. We have over sixty weeks of violations that have been documented. And this has actually led to one of our members to have legal action threatened against them for a stay away order. And the other issue is with, we've been through this road before about SFMTA appeals. And it's interesting, it comes down to what the supervisor wants. We hear from every other supervisor. And I think that needs to be called to attention of both what's happening with the SFMTA and the culture of kind of backing what the, what a fellow supervisor does at the expense of a minority group that is very vocal, very loud. We have well documented things. And it's interesting how we're discussing about these, all these issues of diversity and equity. And this to me embodies all of this and it comes back to you as a group that this is an in house thing that needs to be looked at, at the undue influence of the board of, on the SFMTA and the appeal process. Thank you very much for your time. And I look forward to speaking with you again. Bye.

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

[Speaker 81.0]: Before I start, I wanted to say thank you to Supervisor Chan for supporting trans people's right to health care. Hello, everyone. My name is Kayden, or Kay Trocamo. My pronouns are hehim and theythem, and I am a trans man. I came out as genderqueer nearing the end of the pandemic and started identifying as a trans male three years ago. Currently, I am hoping to medically transition. In fact, about a year ago now, I thought I'd be preparing for top surgery. However, due to intense pressure from the federal government, my health care provider put a ban on gender affirming surgeries to people 19, stopping the process for me as an 18 year old. As you may have heard before, trans affirming care is lifesaving. And I'm not going to go more sorry. Gender affirming care isn't just top surgery and bottom reassignment surgery. Gender affirming care is gender therapy, counseling, hormone replacement, and blockers. For many people 18, surgeries are rare because of the long evaluation process. I know someone who's been on the list for five years. For many reason, for many people by cutting access to healthcare for trans people, not just for minors, we are increasing the rates of suicide in trans individuals and putting their safety at risk. At this moment, our current administration has labeled people like me terrorists. We have seen a spike in hate crimes against trans people throughout The U. S. Suicide rates in LGBTQ communities have increased significantly, discrimination is rampant, and our rights are being stripped from us. San Francisco would not be San Francisco without trans people. But, I feel the I need I feel the need to remind you that we are home to the world's first transgender district founded in 2017. While we've had our problems, San Francisco has historically been a safe spot for LGBTQ people, especially the trans community. To not support your trans neighbors and citizens is an insult to SF history.

[Lauren Chang, Land Use Counsel (Project Sponsor, 3333 Mission)]: Thank you.

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

[Speaker 82.0]: My name is Ella. I'm a high schooler, and I use theythem pronouns. I first came out in July 2022. I wouldn't have been brave enough to find and stand up for myself without other strong trans youth telling me that there was something worth finding and something worth fighting for. We need to be alive to support each other. Gender affirming care simply does that. I want to go to school with other trans kids. I want to learn from trans teachers, and I want trans people to be my friends and bosses and coworkers because they make me feel safe, and they make me feel like I can live in this world. Community is everything for me. I've been lucky enough to find some of these people in my life, and it has been life affirming. But due to restrictions on gender affirming care for trans youth, self harm and suicide continue to threaten my community. Self harm and suicide should not be something my friends and I talk about. If we are not alive, it is hard to have a community. I urge San Francisco to pass item 49 so trans youth and adults can have a community to find when they come out. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 83.0]: Good evening Board of Supervisors. My name is Atticus. I go by sheher. And, I wanted to speak on the fact that this resolution has the chance to be a driving force of hope for trans people in this country. Now as we all know that there have been many anti trans bills being passed or intended to be passed in other states and cities that can be only be described as bleak blocking access to lifesaving gender affirming health care for younger people and not allowing trans people to travel and validating their driver's license and passports. But with so many of these harmful and oppressive bills, we have the chance to be different and to give trans people the hope they desperately need driving people to stay in the city and feel safe. This resolution will not only change lives, but it'll save lives, and for the sake of this city's community, pass the resolution. Thank you. That's all the time I need.

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

[Speaker 84.0]: Hello, I'm Arnie with Rainbow Families Action. It's common practice in our group to speak for roughly the majority of our parents for whom speaking out loud would actually endanger their children. I just want that to sink in for a second. For parents to speak up for their children will endanger their children. And, I'm going to read one of those now. I have been fortunate enough to count against many trans, non binary, and gender non conforming young people among students, friends, and extended family across multiple states and countries. Some of these folks have been able to access gender affirming care, and some have not, and I have seen firsthand what a difference that access can make. This care is not only gender affirming, it is life affirming, and I am grateful to the Board of Supervisors for recognizing that today. In an ideal world, or even a decent and reasonable one, this resolution would not need to exist. As a rule of institution itself points out, San Francisco is already a sanctuary city and safe haven for those who need and those who provide this care, and our state and local laws already protect gender from incur as medically necessary. But in this world, when the CEOs and administrators of the health care providers our community members depend on for care, have repeatedly shown that they are willing to throw vulnerable children under the bus, our children, when they are choosing to pre comply with federal rule changes based on ignorance and bigotry, not medical understanding, it becomes necessary. I am grateful to the Board of Supervisors for recognizing that necessity. Thank you, Supervisor Chan, and all those who co sponsored and worked to pass this resolution for reminding healthcare providers of their ongoing and unchanged obligation to their patients. Thank you for standing up to federal overreach and insisting that healthcare providers put patients before politics. Thank you for seeing and valuing and protecting trans kids. And that's from the voice from a mother who is not able to be here today because showing their face would endanger their child. And I want you all to remember that as allies, we need you to stand up because many families, many kids cannot stand up for themselves because it would make their lives miserable. So please stand up as you have today. We appreciate it, Supervisor Chan and everyone else. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 85.0]: My name is J. M. Jaffe. I use they and them pronouns. I'm the Executive Director of Lion Martin Community Health Services in the Mission. We're a federally qualified health center. And I am the only transgender executive director of a federally qualified health center in the country. I commend Supervisor Chan for introducing this resolution. Trans people have been dying all around us. So it feels really hopeful to finally see acknowledgment of the vulnerabilities of our communities. Genocide experts have said that a genocide is already in progress against transgender people in this country. We're, in fact, quite far along that path already. And the lack of response from the city last year led us to actually expand and open our doors to minors for gender affirming care at Lyon Martin. We decided that we would be the safety net to the safety net because the city did not have a response. As clinics and hospitals across the country shuttered their doors to these kids, we opened ours. And so again, I just want to commend Supervisor Chan for this resolution. And yet, I really want to highlight that city departments are cutting $400,000 per year in our budget this year, starting July. And this is despite promises and declarations. Even in Mary Leary's inaugural speech, he mentioned that there would be no cuts to Lyon Merton. Do not let this resolution be performative. We have work to do that we can only do with your support, and we are here and ready to do it. Only one of you has responded to my request to meet and to discuss the genocide at hand, and that is Supervisor Mandelman. I welcome all of you to come to Lion Martin to see what we're about, to see what we're doing, and see what we're building so you can join us. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 18.0]: Good evening. I am a Citi employee, a member of IFTPEL21, and a part of Rainbow Family Action. I'm here to speak on behalf of myself and all of our families supporting Supervisor Chan's resolution. As a person with a disability, I know the direct actions of the powerful can determine whose lives are to are deemed worthy and able to access life or death health care. Gender diverse kids are worthy. I wish she could have been in all of our nursery rooms when our child declared who they are first to the dog or to or through potty training books before they knew the right terms for anatomy. If only you were there at preschool when they wore that princess dress or jumped under the parachute with the boys. You missed the family dinner when our non binary preteen retold courageously using theythem pronouns at school for the first time. You weren't in grandma's car when our teens spoke their truth on living stealth, because ultimately what's under their clothes is no one else's business. But most of all, I wish you were in the exam room witnessing the elated relief on their face at their first hormone treatment. No one else understands more than the medical care team that have known them for years and are serving our youth daily. Gender diverse kids are strong when others don't understand or agree with who they are, staying true to themselves when they lose friendships, faith community, or family relationships after coming out. We need the powerful in this city to be as courageous as our youth and stand up for access to transgender health care For doctors, trans, BIPOC children of San Francisco, and families from other states who have suffered by losing local access, our access to care is at risk and we need your powerful support behind us that might shutter the larger hospital clinics when they close. Thank you.

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

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Hello. Thank you all. I'll be

[Speaker 86.0]: reading something I put together, and I just want to be clear that I'm here on my own time and personal capacity. So thank you, Supervisor Chan, for this resolution. I rise in support of item 49 affirming San Francisco commitment to trans folks and access to health care. My name is Chyanne Zaldivar. I work for the Office of Transgender Initiatives. I'm a trans woman and community advocate, an artist that has served the city for five years and has been doing art with the city for over ten years as the pop up drag queen at the Ferry Building, as well as being with the Compton's Cafeteria riot play put on by the Tenderloin Museum honoring trans women of color who made trans movement possible here in San Francisco. So San Francisco is home to the only transgender government office in the world. And the Office of Transgender Initiatives is going through a moment of diminishment and change that I want to make sure is pertinent to your roles as supervisors and leadership. While the city reaffirms its values through resolutions like this one, budget decisions are diminishing OTI and cutting funding to community organizations that provide direct lifesaving services. These are not abstract decisions. Directly They impacting care, safety, and survival, and they are indeed decisions. San Francisco's queer history demands better. Trans women, particularly trans women of color, built the foundation that allows me to stand here today. Their leadership has laid the groundwork for protections across the entire LGBTQ plus community. And so while this resolution is extremely important and we want San Francisco leadership to stand and say what it's saying for community. We need that the decisions made by public elected officials to reflect their support and allyship. We feel these

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

[Speaker 87.0]: Greetings, supervisors. My name is Ren Schaefer, theythem. And I am a member of Indivisible, who moved to the Richmond neighborhood of San Francisco from The United States South just at the beginning of COVID. As a trans person who found refuge here, it's heartening to see a supervisor I voted for, sponsor item 49, making an attempt to counter the insane circumstance of hospitals denying care supported by doctors and science, making their decisions instead based on fascistic moral panics and scapegoating. As someone who experienced suicidal ideation in my teens from failure to find care that I didn't know existed, I'd like to hope that San Francisco can tap into the history that made this city a beacon of equality and progress and guide the rest of the country in passing similar initiatives of caring so that such standards can also be extended to my siblings in the South. I'd like to add my support for item 51 and for previous statements supporting transsanctuary ordinances and forcing an end to mayor Lurie's associated hiring freezes to make these actions more substantial. Thank you for your consideration.

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

[Speaker 66.0]: Supervisors, my name is Beverly Litkin. I'm a summer resident organizer with Indivisible San Francisco and a transgender woman. We support Supervisor's Chen's resolution as a wonderful first step. I need progesterone or I get depression. I need estrogen or my bones start to crumble. I need a gender affirming surgery to live a safe life without gender dysphoria, and I got it in the Bay Area. Adults and children like me need clinics to stay open. San Francisco is supposed to be the shining city on a hill where rainbow refugees flee. The whole world watches us and follows our example. In this time, our reputation and the lives of our trans population are at stake. The city can choose to use its power to help the trans community. I have some suggestions. Upgrade the trans sanctuary resolution to a stronger trans sanctuary ordinance, enforce our laws for San Francisco health providers who obey in advance, let us enforce the laws with a private right to action for the denial of gender affirming care, make it possible for us to file civil suit for imminent and actual injury due to the denial of gender affirming care, say by an HMO, Cover gender affirming care under the San Francisco Health Plan regardless of federal attacks. Budget adequate funds to trans care. Hormone therapy, as you heard earlier, saves money with better mental health, better economic productivity, and for children prevents the necessity of gender affirming surgeries. Finally, our providers to give care to other states by telemedicine and mail. I'm glad that one year into this dark time, the Board of Supervisors has turned its attention to helping the trans community. Please work with our community leaders to follow-up this resolution with substantive legislation. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 88.0]: Hi, I'm Rachel Scarborough, sheher pronouns. And I'm grateful to Supervisor Chan for putting this resolution forward. And I hope to see it approved unanimously. I can say that transitioning and the gender affirming care that I've received in San Francisco has been transformative to me. I live a happier life, a fuller life, and I'm a better person for it. But it was a long road for me to get here. I grew up in a deep, conservative, and rural area in California in the 80s. And at that time and place, there was no space for me to really understand myself even though deeply, internally, I knew what I was.

[Speaker 79.0]: And

[Speaker 88.0]: we see what's happening now that we have an administration at the federal level who wants to take the world back to the world that I grew up in. I hope that no child would ever have to endure what I endured to get where I am now. I got lucky. I survived. I made it through. But that is not the outcome for many, many others. So again, I'm very happy to see this resolution being put forth. I hope to see it followed up with action and funds. And that's all I've got to say. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 55.0]: Welcome. Good evening, everybody. I'm here to commit, comment on the gender affirming care for trans youth. My name is John Allman, and I've lived in the Mission District for the past sixteen years. I am a gay cis male, which of course means that I was born male and have always identified as male. I am also a committed ally to the trans movement and a big supporter of pro trans legislation. I am a member of Indivisible SF, and I'm very active in our LGBTQ work

[Speaker 51.0]: group.

[Speaker 55.0]: The work group is necessarily focused these days on pro trans issues because our federal government is working so hard to restrict our personal freedoms, especially those of the trans community. Indivisible SF has a large membership that we can quickly organize to provide support for any pro trans legislation. Now, on a personal note, several years ago, I needed to get testosterone injections twice a week because I guess my doctor thought I was getting little too girly. But seriously, as hormone injections are considered to be gender affirming care, my injections could be determined to be illegal. This especially applies to trans youth who may be in the middle of receiving hormone therapy when the law is passed, potentially causing severe medical and psychological issues. We must remain vigilant. Make no mistake, the current law may only apply to teenagers right now, but it's pretty much guaranteed that conservatives in our government won't stop there, but will eventually attempt to expand the law to refuse gender affirming care to anyone, regardless of age. I'm very proud to live in San Francisco and appreciate that we have people like Supervisor Chan and her commitment to prioritizing these issues. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

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

[Speaker 56.0]: Hi, my name is Victoria Liang. I am a nurse here in San Francisco. I work at Kaiser and at Sutter VNC, and I'm here in support of Supervisor Chan's resolution to reaffirm San Francisco's commitment to gender affirming care for transgender, gender expansive, and LGBTQIA plus rights. I'm sort of frustrated with how bad the world is today that health care the health care of vulnerable communities are constantly being under attack. Trans rights affect everyone and I believe that health care is a human right not a privilege. Gender affirming care is life affirming, life saving care, and it's not just transition related care, as people have mentioned. Gender affirming care affirms the experience of all health care encounters. Transgender folks are already at increased risk of having just a horrible time at the doctor's office or anywhere in health care, So why exacerbate these already strained relationships between trans folks and the health care system? Why make it hard for nurses to care for our patients? What we need right now is more care, and we need more courage from those of us living in any form of a privileged body. If you're not standing up for communities more marginalized than you, then we, the people of San Francisco, we just want you to step aside. Speaking up is the least I can do, and passing this resolution is honestly the bare minimum that you guys can do. We need more leaders to guide us out of this wreckage of an administration, not more soldiers to fall in line. And I was born here in San Francisco at the same Kaiser that I work in right now. I was raised in a San Francisco that had the spirit of equality and expanded the circle of inclusion. I love the city because I felt free to grow up here I want that for our future kids. Wouldn't you want to be cared for by a nurse who accepts you for who you are? Taking away health care from children is just unnecessary and shortsighted and nothing really should be taken away. We should be expanding health care for everyone. And San Francisco has the opportunity to remain a leader in the LGBTQIA plus rights, and we set the standard.

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

[Speaker 89.0]: Good evening. I'm Tab Buckner, and San Francisco has taken pride in being a sanctuary city for our immigrant residents. But we also need to make sure that the same applies to our trans siblings, many of whom moved here to escape hostile surroundings. The nation's toxic political climate has allowed hundreds of anti trans legislations to be passed around the country. This onslaught has unfortunately contributed to elected officials, including our own governor, back off on trans rights, and embolden the private sector to restrict or completely ban services for the trans community. This crisis has severely affected the security, mental health, and quality of life for trans people of all ages, particularly our youth. As executives and upper management in the for profit healthcare industry make obscene amounts of money. Trans people earn significantly less than the average American worker, and a disproportionate amount of unhoused youth here in San Francisco are trans. It is imperative that all support services, including health care, are accessible to all of trans residents that we have here, including critical gender affirming care that has become increasingly difficult to obtain even here in the Bay Area. The trans community has historically made and continues to make enormous contributions to San Francisco's cultural fabric and livelihood. Please implement Supervisor Chan's resolution to put our city on record with a firm commitment to ensure the safety, freedom, health, and well-being of our trans community. And, thank you, Supervisor Chan, for your authoring it.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you so much for your comments. We welcome our next speaker.

[Speaker 90.0]: Members of board of supervisors and mayor offices of San Francisco. Two weeks ago, I saw a movie in Metreon called Rosemead. The leading actress is Lucy Liu. I saw her in a poster and last two full hours to watch her. She is not only a ideal actress, but she's my hero. I'm here to report the finding of what the movie was about. It was about a mom Irene and her son Joe. When Joe was a freshman his dad died of cancer and as he approaches 18 is very apparent that he has schizophrenia. Upon approval from his high school they have hockey stick or a drill to affirm that he is not mentally stable. They offer help to support his son. But Irene, because of such a stigma attached to mental health, especially in the Asian community, she decided to take matters to her own hand. On his eighteenth birthday, he decided to end his life. Just before he shoot him twice in the chest, he called his best friend. He said, can you please burn all the photos because I wish to be forgotten. Well, at toward the end, she did not end her life because she want to punish herself, but because of Lucy Liu's great actress, her stories live on. I myself, I'm very grateful to have a chance to lend my voice to the public. Just yesterday, Elon Musk has acquired SpaceX as well as x AI. I am here to affirm that I'm a chief software architect of x AI. And, I just spoke to Tony Robbins. And, what Tony Robbins said is, a gift cannot be could only be created. I'm here to continue my voice, especially in the Asian community and beyond. Thank you.

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

[Speaker 62.0]: Hello, supervisors. Thank you for hearing us. Thank you, Supervisor Mahmood, for Initiative fifty one. I was with you at the Fillmore neighborhood cleanup this Saturday. My name is Julie Chyanne or Julie Tran. I use she, she, they pronouns. I'm an ally to our trans friends. I see you, and you matter to me. I was also displaced from 50 Golden Gate Avenue, and I am here in support of item 51. I was not planning to speak today because I am one of the lucky few I am one of the lucky few who have been approved for temporary housing for a temporary housing subsidy. I am still unhoused, though. I have been hotel hopping and couch surfing for over a month now. I came today in solidarity and in community with my neighbors who were denied housing assistance. I lived at 50 Golden Gate Avenue for nearly two decades, and I've gotten to know my dear neighbors during these years. Without naming names, I would like to share some of their occupations and contributions to the city and county of San Francisco. My neighbors are or were a gardener in Golden Gate Park, a server in the Castro, a cashier in SoMa, workers in the Design District in Mission Bay, as a travel agent, security guards, and stagehands in the Theater District. I stand here not so much for myself, but for them. I stand here to ask you this. Is San Francisco a sanctuary city only for tech companies with tax breaks, for people living, dealing, using on the streets and the sidewalks and shitting? Excuse my language. Or is San Francisco a sanctuary city for the working middle class too? If sanctuary if San Francisco is truly a sanctuary city for all, then I urge you to say aye to item 51. Thank you for your time this evening.

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

[Speaker 91.0]: Hi, soups. My name is Sydney Simpson with the California Nurses Association, executive board of San Francisco Labor Council, and co founder of the Harvey Milk Club Trans Caucus. Big thank you to Supervisor Chan for sponsoring this resolution for us, and I'm going to take up a little more of your time to ask you what we can do next. I want to make myself available to you, as well as all of our partners in labor, community organizations, democratic clubs, and the 300 families of rainbow families. We are available to you for conversation on how we can tangibly support this community with legislation. I think we can start with responding and scheduling a conversation with J. M. From Lion Martin. That seems like a reasonable place to start, and we look forward to hearing how that conversation goes. Kaiser literally pays me to figure out how to improve the quality of care for our trans patients. So as they actively strip services away from them, I would love to use that time to figure out how to get this life saving care to these patients by any creative means necessary. And I think you all could probably help me with that. We're very interested in ways we can backfill our funding for our programs, support our trans residents in tangible ways. So, we aren't going anywhere. We aren't going away. And I look forward to hearing more from you all. Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. All right. Are there any other members of the public who would like to address the board during general public comment? Please step up. Alright, Mr. President.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, let's go to our for adoption without committee reference agenda, items 49 through 54.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Items 49 through 54 were introduced for adoption, but without committee reference. A unanimous vote is required for adoption of a resolution on first appearance today. Alternatively, a member may require a resolution on first appearance to go to committee.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Supervisor Mahmood. I'd to request severing item fifty one and fifty two, please. Okay. Supervisor Walton.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Please sever item 53.

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

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: I'd like to be added as a cosponsor to forty nine and fifty one, please.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Sever 49.

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Okay.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right, so Madam Clerk, on items fifty, fifty four, and 54, can you please call the

[Speaker 74.0]: roll?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On items fifty and fifty four, Supervisor Walton.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Aye.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong? Aye. Wong, 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 Fielder, Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmood, Mahmood, I. Supervisor Mandelman,

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelman, I. Supervisor Melgar, I. Melgar, I. And Supervisor Sauter, Sauter, I. There are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the resolutions are adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 49.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 49, resolution to reaffirm San Francisco's commitment to the rights of its transgender, gender nonconforming, intersex, and two spirit residents and employees to obtain gender affirming care without discrimination, and strongly urge health care providers and insurance carriers operating within the city to adhere to state and local laws mandating access to medically necessary health care, including gender affirming care.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. I do want to first thank Rainbow families and as well as Harvey Milk Democratic Club, specifically Trans Caucus, for their, really, guidance and support on this resolution. I colleagues, I also want to thank you because of you and because of San Francisco that I have no doubt to be able to introduce this resolution and to trust that it is not controversial, that we can put this on adoption without reference to committee, and that it will be unanimously approved. But I do want to articulate that this is a moment where, as I want to be before you about this clause, amendment that is put before you today on page five, and highlighting a moment why it's so different and why we have to do this resolution at this moment. And that is on page five, to add this clause, further resolve that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the Clerk of the Board to send a copy of this resolution to leadership of Sutter Health, Kaiser Permiente, University of San Francisco Health, and Stanford Medicine. The reason being is that these healthcare service provider are halting very critical gender affirming care for our youth as their response to the threats from the Trump administration, which is not necessary because both the state and local law protect them to provide this care. And yet, here we are. We have learned from the Rainbow's families, and many have actually pushed back on Sutter Health and successfully be able to push back on Sutter Health to continue to provide that care. But we know that the fight is not over. It's the reason why the San Francisco Board of Supervisor have to introduce and pass this resolution to show that in solidarity we do want our health care service provider to provide this care and to also remind them they are operating and doing business in San Francisco and that we will they will face pushback should they not provide this care. I think that is a strong stance. However, as your budget committee chair, I do also wanted to recommit ourselves in this upcoming budget. And I do want to flag for you that two years ago two fiscal years ago, we have Bilal and Bilal Bilal Bilal which means that the Department of Public Health is going to cut roughly about $17,000,000 And at that time, while we approved that reduction, it wasn't clear to us exactly what will be cut. As we're learning, I think that as we're learning more and from Director Dan Tsai about what is being cut. I certainly hope that, through those conversations, that both the mayor and his Department of Public Health will reconsider some of these cuts that impacting our transgender community and our LGBTQ community through the budget process. So with that said, colleagues, I hope to amend this resolution as I read out loud with this additional clause, and I hope to have your support.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Chan has made a motion that's seconded by Supervisor Dorsey. And I think we can take that motion without objection. Without objection, the motion passes. And then on the amended resolution, I think we can take that same house, same call, without objection, the amended resolution passes. As amended. All right, Madam Clerk, please call item 51.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 51, this is a resolution to urge the city of San Francisco to strengthen fire displacement response systems and prevent newly displaced residents from becoming homeless.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Supervisor Mahmood. Colleagues, I want to start by sincerely thanking the tenants of fifty Golden Gate and community advocates who came out today, and over the past weeks for continuing to share their experiences. This resolution was called for in light of the displaced residents after a three alarm fire at 50 Golden Gate, in December. Since then, as we've heard during testimony today, we've heard from parents who are caring for newborns without stable shelter, from families who have been forced to sleep in cars, shelters, or rotate between couches, just blocks from this building that we're in right now. We've heard from residents who did everything right, paid their rent, worked, saved responsibly, and still found themselves falling through the cracks after a fire. Several speakers today highlighted how current income and asset thresholds exclude working families who are not wealthy, but are penalized for having modest savings set aside for medical care, emergencies, or retirement. Others spoke about language barriers, understaffing, and the emotional toll of navigating a complex system while traumatized and displaced. We also heard how residents were left to organize food, diapers, transportation and housing searches on their own, relying on mutual aid and community groups rather than a coordinated city response. That should concern all of us. I want to acknowledge the work that frontline staff and community organizations have done under very difficult circumstances. At the same time, the testimony today makes clear that our current systems are not built to meet the scale or duration of displacement that fires are causing in San Francisco today. This resolution exists because of the people who spoke today. It reflects what they told us we need: more staffing, clearer support, fairer eligibility rules, and language access that actually works in practice. No family displaced by fire should be pushed closer to homelessness simply because our systems are too rigid or too under resourced. The stories we heard today are exactly why this body needs to act. I'm grateful to every tenant and advocate who came and took the time to show up, to relive painful experiences, and to demand better from their city. Your voices are shaping this policy, and they deserve to be met with action. Thank you, Supervisors Chen, Chan, Dorsey, and Melgar for your cosponsorship. Colleagues, I hope to have your support.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Supervisor Mahmood. I think we can take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 52.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 52 is a resolution to support California state assembly bill number sixteen thirty three which seeks to establish the private detention facility tax law to impose an annual tax on private detention facility operators and direct revenues to the due process for all fund to support immigration related services, and to reaffirm San Francisco's commitment to immigrant rights due process and community well-being.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Supervisor Mahmood. Thank you, President. Today, we're voting on a resolution to support Assemblymember Matt Haney's AB1633, legislation that addresses the growing role of private corporations profiting from immigrant detention. While families are separated and communities destabilize, private detention operators continue to generate revenue from ICE funded facilities. AB sixteen thirty three would impose a 50% gross receipts tax on private detention facilities and direct the funds to the due process for all fund, supporting legal services and other critical resources for immigrants and their families. It's a straightforward idea. If companies profit from detention, they should help pay for the legal and community support systems their practices make necessary. San Francisco has long stood for due process, dignity, and protecting immigrant communities. Supporting this bill is consistent with our values and our commitment to justice. I respectfully ask for your support on this resolution as well.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And with that, let's take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 53.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 53, resolution to recognize and celebrate Black History Month during the month of February 2026 in the city and county of San Francisco.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Supervisor Walton. Thank you President Mandelman. Colleagues, every February we take this time to reflect on the achievements, contributions, and rich cultural heritage of black Americans, both in our city and across the nation. I want to acknowledge former supervisors Sophie Maxwell and doctor reverend Amos Brown for initiating this resolution at the board of supervisors many years ago. Thank you to all the members of the board of supervisors for signing on. For many of us, we celebrate black history every day of the year. As you know, we are now witnessing widespread attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion across the country, as well as efforts attacking communities of color. These are not attacks on black communities only, but also our immigrant communities, our queer and transgender communities, people with disabilities, women, and more. It is absolutely imperative that we remain critical and continue to fight for the rights that those who have come before us have fought so hard for. These rollbacks and erasures of history threaten hard game rights and reinforces systemic inequities that our ancestors and civil rights leaders fought tirelessly to dismantle. We cannot simply celebrate black history. We must actively defend and advance it. That means continuing to fight for justice, pushing back against policies that strip away our rights, and demanding action that uplifts black communities. In San Francisco, that means investing in our black communities, implementing rep recommendations from the San Francisco reparations plan, expanding access to quality education, creating pathways for workforce development, and supporting black home ownership and economic empowerment. As we celebrate black history month, let's honor the past by shaping a more just and equitable future, one where progress is not only recognized but protected and expanded, especially in our current times. With that said, I do wanna highlight some Black History Month celebrations that we will be hosting as an office. Next Wednesday, February 11 from four to 6PM, we will be hosting our annual Black History Month art gallery in our office in Room 279, featuring art by local Bayview artist Malik Sinefru, who is an artist who was born and raised in District 10. The rest, oh, I must have been. Thank you.

[Elias French, City and County Surveyor (Public Works)]: All right.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Supervisor Walton. We can take this item. Same house, same call, without objection. The resolution is adopted. And, Madam Clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: There are none to report, Mr. President.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Could you please read the in memoriams?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individual, at the request of Board President Mandelman to be on behalf of the entire Board of Supervisors for SFGov TV's former but longtime production and operations supervisor, our colleague Michael B. Freeman.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda. Madam Clerk, do we have any further business before us today?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: That concludes our business for today.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Then we are adjourned.