San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Good afternoon. Welcome to the 02/10/2026 regular meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Mr. President. Supervisor Chan? Present. Chan present. Supervisor Chen? Chen 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 Melgar present. Supervisor Sauter? Present. Sauter present. Supervisor Cheryl? Present. Cheryl present. Supervisor Walton? Present. Walton present. And Supervisor Wong? Present. 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 Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatushaloni 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 Ramatush Ohlone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Colleagues, will you join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. On behalf of our board, I'd like to acknowledge the staff at SF Gov TV, and today that's particularly Kalina Mendoza. They record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. Madam Clerk, do you want to take us to our two p. M. Special order?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes. The special order at two p. M. Is the appearance by the Honorable Mayor, Daniel Lurie. There being no questions submitted from eligible members, the mayor may address the board for up to five minutes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Welcome, Mr. Mayor.

[Mayor Daniel Lurie]: Thank you. Good afternoon, board president, Mandelman, and members of the board. This morning, I visited Youth First in Ingleside, a city funded organization that is helping to take care of 65 public students today while schools are closed. Yesterday, the city served thousands of meals to students, our community based organizations care for thousands of kids. I visited sites in the Mission, the Tenderloin, and the Outer Sunset. The staff at these organizations and our city employees have really stepped up, I'm grateful to all of them. As the school district and union continue negotiating, we are continuing to provide support to families today and monitoring constantly to prepare moving forward. I am glad that both sides are at the table today as they were yesterday. I will say here what I have said to both sides day after day. Let our kids get back to school where they belong. Our kids deserve schools where they can thrive and their educators feel truly supported. I firmly believe that if both sides stay at the table they can come to an agreement. I've encouraged them to do that as quickly as possible so we can get schools back open and kids back in the classroom. Now, on another topic, this past week, San Francisco hosted nearly 300 events across the city, the Pro Bowl at Moscone Center, concerts at Bill Graham And Pier 80, community activations like NFL Play sixty, the Ferry Building Light Show and more to celebrate Super Bowl week. We welcomed visitors from around the world with an estimated $440,000,000 in economic impact to our city. From just Tuesday through Monday, SFO saw roughly 800,000 arrivals and departures. As I traveled across the city, I heard from visitors, media, and locals alike. San Francisco was shining. None of this would have been possible without our city workers. Our public safety teams, SFPD, the sheriff's office, park rangers, the department of emergency management, fire department, EMTs and paramedics were deployed across the city to keep residents and visitors safe. SFMTA muni operators, parking control officers and frontline staff kept our transportation system safe and reliable. On average, this is a wild stat, we carried 17,000 more passengers per day than the previous week, totaling 2,700,000 trips during the weekdays. I want to thank as well Public Works and Rec and Park for supporting operations citywide. We also had support from regional and state partners. I want to thank the governor for additional support from California Highway Patrol, as well as BART Police and Caltrans, who helped maintain transit and roadway safety throughout the region. San Francisco showed what we can do when we work together. Thank you to every city worker and partner who helped make this successful and helped make it a proud weekend for San Francisco. And I want to thank also all of the members of the Board of Supervisors for your constant support of that event,

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: and it was one that will long be remembered. So that is all. I appreciate the opportunity.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for all of your work over Super Bowl weekend, both on the Super Bowl itself and on trying to bring resolution to the school district situation. And with that, this matter has been discussed and is now filed.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: You're out of order.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. Madam Clerk, let's go back to communications.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Mr. President. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors welcomes your attendance here in person in the board's Legislative chamber, Room 250, 2nd Floor Of City Hall. When you're not able to be here, the proceeding is airing live on SFGOV TV's channel 26, or you can watch the live stream on the go at www.sfgovtv.org. If you'd like to submit your public comment in writing, you can send an email to BOSSFgov dot org, or use the postal service, just address your envelope. To the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the number one, Doctor. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, room two forty four, San Francisco, California, ninety four thousand one hundred two. If you need to make a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disability Act, or to request language assistance, contact the clerk's office at least two business days in advance by calling (415) 554-5184. Thank you, members, Mr. President.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's go to approval of our meeting minutes.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes, approval of the January 20 01/06/2026 board meeting minutes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Colleagues, can I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented? Moved by Chen and seconded by Melgar. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On the minutes as presented, Supervisor Wong. Wong aye. Supervisor Chan. Chan, I. Supervisor Chen. Chan, I. Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, I. Supervisor Fielder. Fielder, I. Supervisor Mahmood. Mahmood, I. Supervisor Mandelman? I. Mandelman, I. Supervisor Melgar? I. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. Supervisor Cheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. And Supervisor Walton? Walton, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. Madam Clerk, let's go to unfinished business, item number one.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item one, 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 one, Supervisor Wong. Wong, I, Supervisor Chan Chan, I, Supervisor Chan Chan, I, Supervisor Dorsey I. Supervisor Fielder, Fielder, I. Supervisor Mahmood, I. Supervisor Mandelman,

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

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

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item two, this ordinance accept and expends 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 and to amend the annual salary ordinance contained in file number 20 five-five 90 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.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And, I believe we can take this item, same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed. Madam Clerk, please call item three.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item three, this ordinance amends the planning code 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 CEQA determination and to make the appropriate findings.

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item four, this ordinance amends the planning code to make various clarifying and typographical changes to prohibit massage establishments and massage sole practitioner uses as accessory uses to residential uses to affirm the secret determination and to make the appropriate findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Again, same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed. Madam Clerk, please call items five and six together.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes. Item five is an ordinance that amends 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. And Item six, this ordinance amends 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 for both items, to affirm the CEQA determination and to make the appropriate findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And I think we can take these items, same house, same call, without objection. The ordinances are finally passed. Madam Clerk, please call item number seven.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item seven, this ordinance amends 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 two a. M. To five a. M. Subject to regulation by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to encompass high crime area across the Tenderloin and South Of Margant neighborhoods, and to extend the duration of the pilot program currently set to expire July 2026 to instead expire eighteen months from the effective date of the ordinance.

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item seven, supervisor Wong. Wong, I. Supervisor Chan. I. Chan, I. Supervisor Chen. I. Supervisor 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 Melgar, I. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, I. Supervisor Cheryl? Aye. Cheryl, I. And Supervisor Walton? Walton, no. There are nine ayes and two nos with supervisors Fielder and Walton voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The ordinance is finally passed. Madam clerk, let's go to new business. Please call item eight.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item eight, ordinance to amend the police code to revise the procedures for alarm companies and alarm users to claim refunds or credits of overpaid alarm fees under the police emergency alarm ordinance.

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item eight, Supervisor Wong. Wong, I. Supervisor Chan. I. Chan, I. Supervisor Chen. Chen, I. Supervisor Dorsey, 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]: Mandelman, I Supervisor Melgar? I. Melgar, I Supervisor Sauter? I. Sauter, I. Supervisor Cheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. And supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. There are 11 ayes.

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item nine, this is an ordinance to de appropriate 250,000 from general city responsibility and to appropriate 250,000 to the department of children youth and their families to support the district ten safety plan to include services at the Hope sf sites violence prevention events safe passages, response to schools, and as needed support to the youth and residents most impacted by violence in fiscal year twenty twenty five-twenty twenty six.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Let's take this item, same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, please call item number 10.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 10, this is a resolution to approve the terms and conditions and to authorize the general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and or the city's director of property to execute certain agreements with the city of Daly City for sale of easements for storm water facilities at Lake Merced and license agreements and a purchase and sale agreement.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 11.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 11, this is a resolution to authorize the tax collector to sell certain parcels of tax defaulted real property at public auction and sealed bid auction.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 12.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 12, this resolution approves and authorizes the city and county, acting through the sheriff's office, to enter into a professional services contract with Connections CA LLC for operating the Rapid Enforcement Support Evaluation and Triage Center, a safe alternative to incarceration for individuals brought in by law enforcement for public intoxication or drug use submitted as a core initiative contract for a total not to exceed amount of approximately 14,500,000.0 with an initial term of two years and two months to commence on 02/01/2026 through 03/31/2028 with an additional option to extend for one year.

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

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. I have a question for the BLA. How can you explain the part in the fiscal impact analysis in the BLA's report? In fiscal year twenty five-twenty six, the contract is funded by a general fund work order from DPH to the sheriff's office. Sheriff's is requesting funding for the contract in subsequent years. However, at least 3,100,000.0 in contract costs are not budgeted in fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven. So where where is this funding coming from?

[Nick Menard, Budget and Legislative Analyst]: Nick Menard from the Budget Legislative Analyst Office. So we don't know. It will probably be the general fund. The sheriff is going to request the full cost of the contract next year in their budget of $6,300,000 There's $3,100,000 in DPH's budget next year that could probably offset at least a part of that. But the remaining costs would need to be or a new general fund cost that will need to be funded in the upcoming budget.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. Thank you. Colleagues, I first off, I have concerns about this contract, as I understand the reset center may or may not be subject to state standards around these kinds of facilities, and we don't actually know the answer to that at the moment. Secondly, at a time when DPH is making $17,000,000 in painful budget cuts to programs in the community that serve some of the most vulnerable people, like Healthy Steps at the Children's Health Center, organizations that serve trans and elderly communities, communities of color. This agreement would transfer around $3,000,000 a year, it sounds like, from DPH to the Sheriff's Department for a completely new program run by out of state providers. And so, I will not be supporting spending city funds for new sheriff facilities that come at the expense of community health programs.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: Thank you, President Mandelman. You know, first and foremost, during budget committee time, we have this discussion about the funding. I think we intended to, at that time, was to put the dollar on reserve, or I should say, actually only release for certain dollar amount. And then we want to withhold the remaining of the contract. But according to city attorney, we couldn't do that because then it will be the board amending the specific contract term. And what we have end up settling is that we know that it's not a fully funded contract. It will come to the board I should say, the budget committee during the budget process, at which time it was we had articulated that it was our intention to withhold or to put the funding remaining of the contract funding for the remaining contract on reserve until we understand what the center like, what's the pilot, detail more details. However, that I have now received additional information that I did not have during the budget committee. And the additional information that I receive, I find it troublesome and problematic and about just the model of the center. And I just think that this is problematic. I think that this information should really should have been provided to the budget committee prior to it going through the budget committee. So I also see that Vice Chair Supervisor Dorsey is on the docket. And I wanted to kind of open up the conversation about the additional information that this body end up receiving before the budget committee. It's really not traditionally what we would have. Like these actually these information we should actually have before coming to the full board and allow some discussion. But so now I am just concerning about how this is was all coming together.

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

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. So as I said in the committee hearing, this item matters a lot to me. And not solely because the facility is in my district, and not solely even because this is an issue that's a priority to me as a recovering addict myself. It matters because, in my view, this is the single most important drug policy innovation San Francisco has offered since the advent of the fentanyl crisis. Crisis. I think this will work. I think it imposes a much needed measure of accountability that has been too long missing in our approach to public drug use and its myriad related harms. I think it will help start to shut down the magnet San Francisco has become as a national and even global destination for drug related lawlessness. And I think it will save lives. For too long, when offenders are arrested for public drug use or intoxication, our only real options have been jail or an emergency room, both of which take police officers off patrol for several hours. Neither option works well. Both of us keep stuck in the same cycle. And frankly, the same cycle is something that we can ill afford in today's fentanyl era with a drug overdose crisis that is still setting records. RESET is an innovative approach that will improve efficiencies and outcomes scaled up. I think this is the model for how we will finally make progress toward ending the phenomenon of public drug use in San Francisco. It is an involuntary custodial intervention for people engaged in illicit drug drug use in public. It will reduce from several hours to fifteen minutes the amount of time police need to make an arrest, to confiscate users drugs and paraphernalia, to get drug use off the street, and to put drug users in a supervised and coercive setting to hopefully make better choices, or to face escalating consequences that are themselves foundational elements for most people who have successful recovery journeys. Substance use disorder, the clinical term for drug addiction is a medical condition, But it frequently also results in crime and not solely the crime of using illicit drugs in public. It fuels retail theft, street disorder and no small number of episodes of serious property and violent crime. It is also among our leading causes of preventable death. And if we are serious about saving lives, we need better, more consequential demand side interventions like the Reset Center that give those with addictions a real chance for recovery and that recognize illicit drugs are a public health and a public safety problem. I know we've heard from some advocates who feel our criminal justice system has no role play in addressing public drug use and I would say that they are free to petition our state legislature to repeal our drug laws. But until and unless that happens, San Franciscans have a reasonable expectation to see their state laws enforced. We owe San Franciscans nothing less than to take every step we can to make our city a destination for recovery instead of a destination for drug related lawlessness. The RESET Center alone won't accomplish this, but I have every confidence that it reflects the bold approach our city needs that will. And I hope it earns everyone's support.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Let's go to supervisor Sherrill, and then we can circle back to Fielder and Chan.

[Stephen Sherrill, Supervisor (District 2)]: I'd like to be added as a cosponsor to this measure. It's time to save some lives.

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

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

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thanks, President Mandelman. I want to see a successful reset center. This is a huge need in the mission for people who are using drugs in public to be somewhere. And I understand from DPH, from DEM, DPW, SFPD, this is a huge need and want for a long time. And if we don't do it correctly, this price tag is going to go way up. Way, way, way, way, way up. And I'm concerned that there's going to be very few outcomes to actually show that it was worth it. It's not about an either or, harm reduction, enforcing drug laws. It's actually none of that. It is about having somewhere for people to go. But if we don't do it correctly, if we don't abide by state standards when we're talking about coercion, we have to be so careful. And I am just not sure that it is worth the cost of also cutting off other parts of our critical care system. Again, like community programs serving some of the most vulnerable people that also could be overlapping with this population. And again, I remain very concerned about doing this correctly. And I'll leave it at that.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: Thank you. Thank you, President Mandelman. I think that because of the additional information that we all received, I just find that that is material. And I think I would have a very different perspective about the Reset Center last Wednesday when it was discussed and took upon. In fact, I think if I had that information even before putting that item on agenda, I think I would have viewed it very differently. Because my assumption has been the fact that there's a lot of issues operationally were solved, I should say, that I thought that in in on many levels that is solved, vetted, and well thought out. But with the additional information, I just think that it's not and that there are still challenges that we haven't completely vet. And and and and then also, I I think I I could, at least last Wednesday, felt that while it's not fully funded, but majority twothree of the funding was made available, maybe roughly a little bit more than $3,000,000 was provided, we could actually have that conversation in the second year and during the budget process and potentially release certain dollars and then withhold some waiting for results of the center. But with additional information, it it it make me deeply questions the operation model and its its legitimacy. So I with that, like, because of the new information that was provided literally just a day ago, less than twenty four hours, I regrettably I mean, think that we need an innovative approach to what we're seeing as a public health crisis on our streets. But now, think it just threw me off, and then I have a whole set of new questions about this. So regrettably, will be not supporting this simply because of the information that I received on Monday. Thank you.

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

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: I just wanted to ask a question of the chair of the budget committee, because usually, those of us who are not on the committee rely on the committee doing the work, and it comes out with a recommendation or not. And so do you think that the outcome and the recommendation of the committee would have been different if you had had this information last week?

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: And

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: then my other question was, would it be helpful to send this back to committee rather than voting on it today?

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: Thank you. I think through President Mandelman, I think what I would have done probably is during the presentation of this center, think I would have probably dived deeper into just the process and really the process itself. Meaning, let's call it what it is. Right now, this model, as it currently is, is that people will be detained in this space. And it's not voluntarily to be detained in this facility. My expectation is that we would have worked out many pro many locality of with that operations to ensure that we can keep this operation going. But I think with the new information that clearly either we ignore that or we didn't figure out the operation model.

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

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: The second question is would it be helpful to send it back to a committee? Or

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: I personally would think that I mean, I think that this is a moment where, like, I don't know, even if it's sent back to the committee, that it will change the operation model. I think can like, you know, I think that this is collectively we all should decide that I mean, I wish we are having a closed session right now. You know, like, let me actually, you know what? Can I I'm going to answer this question? I think that this is one of those questions that I will love to send it back to committee, but then but also allow committee of the whole and not I I should say, I would love to send it to committee of the whole and then to allow a closed session for us to have these type of discussion. We have similar we have similar ideas in the past, frankly, in a different kind of way, like safe ingestion site. We have very similar ideas floating around. In the past, we decided that we're going to have a closed session and discussion. So I am just going to leave it like that.

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Supervisor Dorsey. So I would be disinclined to send it back to committee or to have a closed session on it. One of the things that I would just remind colleagues is this is a it is a 25 bed facility. This is a pilot program. As things go in the drug policy realm, this is something that we are trying. And one of the things that I think really distinguishes drug policy in the fentanyl era that has bedeviled a lot of things is we need to try different things. And a lot of things that worked back in the good old heroin days aren't working in the fentanyl era. We're not alone among cities in dealing with this. This is an approach that I'm satisfied reading the city attorney advice and talking to the mayor is gonna be doable. I I don't think that it would I think we have time before this opens to hammer out any any issues that may come up. But I don't think that there is a reason not to approve this contract as it's presented to us.

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

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: I would just say respectfully that is our role at the Board of Supervisors to iron this out before it's approved, to iron out these questions. And I think wherever it is here or back at committee, a closed session would be absolutely appropriate. I was going to ask board procedure wise and rule wise what I could do to make the motion to send it back to committee.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: You just made a motion. Is there a second?

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: I'm having a motion then.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Oh, you don't want to make that. But at some point, could make I'm sorry, are

[Speaker 11.0]: you making

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Well, I would like to move to send it back to Okay.

[Nick Menard, Budget and Legislative Analyst]: So is

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: there a second? Second. All right. So there's a motion from Fielder to send it back to committee. There is a second from Chan. I believe that the board liaison would like to be recognized. Mr. Tonksavat?

[Mr. Tonksavat, Board Liaison (Mayor’s Office)]: Thank you for the questions, board members. I'm going to actually ask Sheriff Miyamoto if he and Undersheriff Johnson, if they could come up to the podium and help shed a couple more thoughts on maybe the questions that the Supervisor Chan has on this. Thank you.

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. I appreciate the opportunity to come and clarify some things. I hear the discussion. I understand what some of the concerns are. I want to paint a very simple picture, though, of what we're talking about. This center is designed as an alternative to bring somebody to jail for a health reason. Being under the influence in the public is an offense. The jail, when individuals are arrested and detained and brought in under this circumstance, has limited conditions in which they can accommodate the individuals who are coming in that are intoxicated or under the influence. The holding cells are just holding cells. There's access to medical care and jail health services, but it is not to a degree that it is nurturing or therapeutic or constant care because our jail health services staff deal with the entire the entirety of the population in a jail. This center, the RESET, is designed to be an alternative location to bring an individual who is being compelled to come with us because of the public offense to a more therapeutic environment. And the ability to have that option to place them in a reclining chair, to place them in a place where they can sober up in a safe environment, not on the floor of a holding cell or on the bench of a holding cell, is my interest as the sheriff to have that space for them to come to. This same individual would be picked up in the public by police, by sheriffs, arrested and detained under those circumstances, and without this center would be brought to either jail or if their condition necessitated it to the hospital. And this is the option right between a jail and right between a hospital that we are asking for as an option to help people that are under the influence.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Right. Thank you, Mr. Sherrill. Chyanne.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: Well, I mean, I think since I didn't have the opportunity to ask these questions without you know, with some of the new information, then I would like to ask this question. So is this center a detention facility, or is it not?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: So we requested an evaluation from the Board of State Community Corrections. Their evaluation ascertained that this is not a detention facility, what we call a type one holding facility. To paint the picture again this doesn't have bars this doesn't have locked doors this is an open almost dormitory like environment similar to eight twenty Geary where there's access immediate access to care the intention is to make sure people have the opportunity to sober up and then what we do after they're sober is and they're able to care for themselves or at least are in the process of becoming able to care for themselves, we issue a certificate of release right there. So they are not booked into the system and they are still given the opportunity to rest up to care for themselves under the supervision of health care personnel, clinicians, and people who have connectivity to other services outside of the center.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: And so what you're saying is that we have received a formal determination from the Board of State and Community Corrections that this is not a detention facility.

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: Yes. We asked for that not just verbally but in writing, and we did receive that in writing.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: Oh, so we saw that in writing? Yes. Okay. That's not what I'm being told, but and so have we then been formally determined that the facility is a temporary holding facility?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: No, actually it's not a temporary holding facility.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: And it's a sobering center?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: For lack of a better term, yes.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: And but how do people get to the center? Are they the the the the population that end up arriving at the center is voluntarily, or would they or after they were detained?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: They would be compelled to come to the center under our custody because they're being arrested on the street for being under the influence.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: So the only time that the so the only population or only tie only the the individuals the only the individuals that will be arriving at the center are the individuals that will be detained and arrested.

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: They would yes, correct. We have all the other options currently available for individuals for varying degrees of voluntary access to services for being supported by street crisis response teams by our ambassadors by our volunteers out there The one step that this this one gap that this fills is instead of having somebody who is arrested or detained under the influence being brought to jail, they're being brought to this facility to sober up.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: But then this would not consider even as a temporary detention center?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: No it would not be. Under the evaluation of the board of state community corrections this is not a type one holding facility, a detention facility.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: And we have right we have, like, written documents by them saying that this they have deemed that this is not a detention facility?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: I have actually seen the emails that were written by our representative from the Board of State Community Corrections, which clearly state that this is not a type one detention facility.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: I would like to see that I would like to see that information as a would and if that city attorney also agree that considered that as a formal assessment from the Board of States and community of corrections.

[Nick Menard, Budget and Legislative Analyst]: Do you

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: want us to come back to this? We could do our 02:30. Come back. Okay. So we will Supervisor Walton. But before we do, Supervisor Walton.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: We have a motion on the floor.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: But we when we will take that up when we come back. We can do that? Yeah. All right. So we are going to take a little break to go to our 02:30 special commendation. Madam Clerk?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: This is the recognition of commendations for meritorious service to the city and county of San Francisco, special order 230.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, madam clerk. We will start with district two supervisor Sherrill.

[Stephen Sherrill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Colleagues, today I am honored to commend the animal care and control, ACC, team who recently did our community a great service by safely capturing and relocating a roaming mountain lion on 01/27/2026. They include officers Peter Quirk and McKenna Tumath. Sorry if I mispronounced your name. Lieutenant Stephanie Reyer, Lieutenant Jason Kent, who couldn't join us today, Captain Rebecca Fenson, and Deputy Director Amy Corso. Please come step up to the dais right meow.

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

[Stephen Sherrill, Supervisor (District 2)]: First of all, thank you. From all of us, thank you. As you may have seen, local residents first sighted a mountain lion early you know, it says pause here in my remarks, but it's spelled

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: p a u s Oh, god.

[Stephen Sherrill, Supervisor (District 2)]: So the mountain lion was sighted early on the morning of Monday, January 26, close to Lafayette Park. And immediately, the animal care and control team leapt into action. First, the ACC team issued a statement to the public educating all of us about what to do to stay safe. Then the officers, along with rec and park rangers and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, patrolled Lafayette Park, the surrounding area, responding to tips and calls from the public. These officers were stationed all night in order to ensure the safety of the public and the mountain lion. And even after locating the lion, they strategically waited for the animal to be in a position where the ACC team could safely tranquilize him, successfully securing him for relocation at 10:30AM on Tuesday, January 27. Now, for those who are worried, the ACC team then coordinated with a biologist from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the San Francisco Zoo chief veterinarian, Doctor. Adrian Mutlow, to ensure that the young lion was in good health, equipping him with a new tracking collar and sending him back to his habitat in the Santa Cruz Mountains. This team's readiness, coordination, and execution were truly perfect. And we are all grateful for their quick work to capture the mountain lion just thirty hours after being notified. It turns out the lion was originally tagged by the Puma project, but he lost his original tracking collar as a kitten, which allowed him to wander from the Santa Cruz Mountains to San Francisco without being noticed. And while this event is normal for male lions at around two years old who are trying to claim their own territory, it is positively not normal for these lions to arrive in San that's the last pun, I swear, for these lions to arrive in San Francisco. And this lion seems to have found the city's inclines too mountainous. But above all, one thing is very, very clear. We all have to expect the unexpected in San Francisco. And you all were remarkable in your quick ability to do just that. The staff at ACC are unsung heroes of this city, not just last month, but all year round. You provide vital care for our beloved pets. And you ensure public safety in, frankly, wild instances like this. And with that, I am so grateful for the proactive, informative, careful, thoughtful manner in which you all acted to ensure both our community and the wildlife that calls the area home safe. It is my honor and pleasure to commend your actions here today at the board. So thank you to all of you. And I'd like to invite Deputy Corso to share a few words on behalf of the group.

[Amy Corso, Deputy Director, Animal Care & Control]: Thank you, Supervisor Sherrill, for this honor. I'm proud to be standing here with four of our animal control officers who represent a small but mighty ACO team. We currently have 14 officers who serve the entire city from 6AM to midnight, seven days a week. Now this job can often be a thankless job, but they do it because they love it and they truly care. On the events of January perfectly highlight the dedication of this team. These officers worked tirelessly throughout the night tracking this lion, working extra hours on top of an already long ten hour shift. And then they showed up the next day for work, no complaints. So this was actually the fourth incident of a mountain lion since 2017 that ACC successfully coordinated a multi agency response to relocate. And they did it successfully, and we prioritized public safety while maintaining the welfare of the lion. And while we don't do this job for the recognition, this acknowledgment means a great deal to us all. So on behalf of the entire team, thank you.

[Stephen Sherrill, Supervisor (District 2)]: And I'd also like to recognize ACC Director Virginia Donahue, who I believe is here with us today. Thank you for your leadership, Director.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: District 10, supervisor Walton. Thank

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: you so much president Mandelman. Colleagues, today as we continue to honor the contributions of black people here in San Francisco, It is truly an honor to recognize and celebrate a remarkable leader, advocate, and community pillar, miss Chyanne As you walk up to the podium, for more than three decades, Chyanne Chen poured her heart, her time, and her unwavering commitment into the Bayview Hunters Point community. Chyanne Chen's dedication to our young people is especially powerful. During her ten years with Hunters Point family and girls two thousand, first as a case manager and later as program director, She helped guide, mentor, and uplift countless youth ensuring they had the tools, confidence, and support needed to thrive. Her work was never just a job. It was a calling rooted in building stronger futures for the next generation. Her leadership extends far beyond one organization. Chyanne Chen played a key role in environmental and neighborhood beautification efforts working alongside community leaders like Geoffreya Morris to advance the nine for one two four parks grant proposal, an effort focused on improving and preserving the public spaces our families rely on every day. Chyanne Chen also been a consistent presence in youth sports and recreation, contributing her voice and energy as a football announcer with the Brown Bombers and supporting adult softball programs. Through sports, she has helped foster teamwork, discipline, and joy for residents of all ages. An alumni of McAteer High School and San Francisco State University, Chyanne Chen, continues to lead by example as president of black women investors, an all female African American investment organization dedicated to building wealth, hosting community centered events, and creating financial opportunities that strengthen both families and neighborhoods. Through this work, she is helping redefine what collective empowerment and economic justice look like in real time. Currently, she is also I'll wait. I'll wait for the supervisors. Thank you. Currently, she is also thirteen years with MTA's Department of Traffic and

[Speaker 16.0]: Business and

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: now serves as a supervisor. But beyond her many titles and accomplishments, Chyanne Chen most proud of her family. She is a devoted mother to her sons, Karim, a recent graduate of Jackson State University and Amir. She is deeply supported by her husband, mister Emil Robinson, whose love and partnership have been a cornerstone of her strength. Today, we recognize not just the work Chyanne Chen done, but the lives she has touched, the doors she has opened, and the lasting legacy she continues to build in Bayview Hunters Point. Her commitment reminds us what true community leadership looks like. Thank you for your service, your leadership, and for continuing to inspire us all. Today, Chyanne Chen, we honor you.

[Chyanne Chen (SFMTA Supervisor and community honoree)]: You make me sound hecka good. Alright. So thank you to everybody. I'm a be short and sweet. Anybody who knows me know I'm definitely never short and sweet, but I'm a keep this simple. Shamann, you made me sound excellent. I feel like Michelle up here. I'm up for rock. Right? But, no, thank you to everybody that's came out. Of course, I'm supporting my community as much as I possibly can, always and continuously will. But I wanna say thank you to my community. Do you see my people in here supporting me? I got my mother. I got my mother in here, my two sons in here, my stepmom, my mother-in-law, my auntie. I got three best friends that's been my friends for over forty years, and my PCOs. Look at my stand up PCOs. People still getting tickets. People still getting tickets. I promise. But thank you guys. So I I just wanna say thank you to my community if that makes sense. It takes a community to build a community and Shamann. Thank you for always taking care of my my boy, Percy, SJ. Just major love to everybody. Thank you so much.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Know supervisor Walton wants to part of the conversation about item 12, so we're going to go to item 13.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 13, this resolution retroactively authorizes the police department to accept approximate $1,100,000 grant from the California Department of Justice for the 2025 tobacco grant program to fund personnel and operating expenses for the SFPD's d m a c c, the drug market agency coordination center, project term beginning on 11/21/2025 through 06/30/2029.

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 13, Supervisor Wong. Wong, I. Supervisor Chan. I. Chan, I. Supervisor Chan. 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]: Mandelman, I. Supervisor Melgar, I. Melgar, Supervisor Sauter, I. Supervisor Cheryl, Aye. Cheryl, aye. And Supervisor Walton? Walton absent.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 14.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 14, this item was referred without recommendation from the budget and finance committee. Item 14 is an ordinance to approve a hotel development incentive agreement between the city and county and Bespoke Hospitality LLC for the Hearst Hotel development project to provide 40,000,000 in financial assistance in net present value over twenty years calculated for measurement purposes only as a percentage of new transient occupancy taxes the city actually receives from occupancy of guest rooms in a proposed new hotel related to the development and operation of a project on certain real property known as 5 3rd Street And 17 Through 29 3rd Street to waive chapter 21 gs of the administrative code and certain sections of the labor and employment code and to ratify past and to authorize future actions in furtherance of this ordinance and to make the appropriate findings.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: Thank you, President Mandelman. I first really want to thank Vice Chair Dorsey for just all the conversation during the budget committee. I know that Vice Chair Dorsey, this is not only a project that he supports, that he's a co sponsor, but also with the willingness to have the open discussion about not just about this project and with the understanding that my question really mainly focused on the investment, again, in downtown and in area, that we are putting a lot of resources in this space. And that be it around, most recently, week, colleagues, the downtown revitalization financing plan that dedicated $610,000,000 of future revenue that for the over forty five years investments in that area, not to mention the impact fee waivers, inclusionary waivers, allowing commercial spaces to convert into residential. And I I think that here we are, another property within that zone. This time, it's a hotel development with $40,000,000 dedicated again, future revenue of the $40,000,000 dedicated over twenty years of time in the hope that this will, again, that corner, specifically at 3rd Street and Market. While I I really, think that downtown is critical to San Francisco's, local economy and, and how we can bounce back, this is something that we must do in terms of investing in downtown. I began to have more questions than answer to Mayor and his team about these investments and how these investments actually all going to come together. I would like to have better understanding of a vision for the entire zone before I continue to support these types of piecemeal projects, so to speak. I would like to have a more cohesive investment plan for downtown and so that we can collectively and comprehensively calculate and project both our investments dollars from the public dollars, and then as well as the type of revenue that we expect us to generate so that we have a better idea, but also better metrics to measure that success. Clearly, these are long term investments, typically more than a decade, you know, up to forty five years. But I still would like to have a more comprehensive evaluation and comprehensive analysis, and that allow us to make a better determination whether these types of investments will yield the results that we are looking for. And so, for that, I would not be in support of this item 14, although I think that that is not to say that I will not change my mind down the road when I have a better understanding of the information that I have just mentioned from the mayor and the mayor's team. Thank you.

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

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. The budget committee sent this out, as you know, without recommendation. And as I said in committee, I tend to view doing that as a courtesy that we send from the budget committee to you when there's an active contention or issue and I know chair Chan had concerns and including concerns by the way that I share about being maximally transparent when whenever we're doing something that is committing resources or in this case denying ourselves resources, if we have an obligation to be transparent with the finances on that, I am a 100% on board. That said, however, this is something that I feel very strongly about. This is the kind of incentive that we need for projects like adaptive reuse projects that are uniquely important. I personally am strongly enthusiastic about adaptive reuse projects like this ones and others that I may talk about even today. Office conversions like this project enable us to retain the rich heritage of our historic assets which make our downtown streetscape such a globally admired destination. But it also enables us to facilitate new uses that reinvigorate our downtown for twenty first century economic imperatives. This is an intentional incentive like the $40,000,000 credit fills the project feasibility gap and we have guardrails in place to exercise fiscal oversight. The program will expire in twenty years even if the hotel does not succeed and the benefit will cut off sooner if it's a success. The conversation at the budget committee centered on the need to have a comprehensive vision for downtown and I and our use of financial incentives. I don't disagree But I think this agreement is part of a policy framework from OEWD to specifically incentivize hotels, which I think we need. An individual agreement like this one is tailored in a way that strikes a balance between kick starting a project and retaining as much of our tax benefits as we can. And this will be a project by project call. So colleagues, I hope to have your support on this fair agreement that will bring 150 jobs downtown, preserve historic resource, and invigorate a part of Market Street that I represent.

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

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. I'm looking forward to supporting this as well. This hotel sits just a few feet out of my district, and I think it's a really important space on Market Street. You know, I've looked at the numbers here, and I'm very comfortable with the numbers. The proposed development is projected to provide net general fund revenues of approximately $713,000 per year compared to the existing land use. When you look at what's there right now, 70%, 80% office vacancy on that site. You compare it to what will be there, we're looking at a 10x increase in property tax revenue each year. We're also looking at approximately $157,000 in net revenue to the MTA each year. That is money, I think, we can all agree that we'd like to see put into transit and invested into our public transportation. You know, the structure of these incentives and deals means that we look at these one by one, one off. That's what we're doing here. And this particular development is a good deal for the city, I look forward to seeing it built.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Supervisor Walton. Thank you, President Madelman. I a quick question, because I know there's talk about the increase of property tax revenue. Who can tell me how much of that goes to the developer and how much of that goes to the city?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Does who has a potential BLA?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Want to

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: try, Mr. Myrna?

[Nick Menard, Budget and Legislative Analyst]: Yeah, Nick Myrna Melgar from the budget legislative analyst office. So this agreement rebates the hotel tax, not the property tax. And so the hotel tax generated by this project will be about $3,000,000 a year. That would be the city giving that back to the developer. But the city would retain its share of the property taxes under the agreement. It's not like a

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: But we don't get any of the hotel tax? Correct. But we get our regular traditional property tax?

[Nick Menard, Budget and Legislative Analyst]: Until the city pays $40,000,000 or the payments happen over twenty years.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: And then how does this increase property tax revenue?

[Nick Menard, Budget and Legislative Analyst]: Because the value of the hotel is higher is projected to be higher than the vacant office building that's there now.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: So they're not they're not paying they're gonna pay more property tax than they pay today? Correct. How much more?

[Nick Menard, Budget and Legislative Analyst]: Off the top of my head, I believe it's about $500,000 a year additional. Thank you.

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: If there's no more comments or questions, Madam Clerk, please call the roll on item 14.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 14, 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?

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelman, I. Supervisor Melgar? Melgar aye Supervisor Sauter aye Supervisor Cheryl aye Cheryl aye and Supervisor Walton aye Walton aye there are nine ayes and two noes with Supervisors Chan and Fielder voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The ordinance is passed on first reading. Alright, colleagues. We've got a couple of 3PM, or a few 3PM special orders. We will get through those, then we will come back to item 12, and then we will make our way through the remainder of our, of our items. So, with that, Madam Clerk, I think we're going to take our three p. M. Special orders not in the order that they are in our agenda, because I think we think we may be able to relatively quickly dispose of items 27 through 30. So could you please call items 27 to 30 together?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes. Item 27, this is a public hearing of persons interested in the de facto denial of a conditional use authorization for a proposed project at 524 Through 526 Vallejo Street and 44 A San Antonio Place to legalize the merger of three dwelling units on 2nd And 3rd Floors into one dwelling unit and to reinstate one dwelling unit on the Ground Floor within an existing four unit residential building Item 28, 29, and 30 are the motions associated with that public hearing.

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

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Thank you, President Mandelman. On these items, in the last day or so, new information has come to light that I think both parties and this body should have more time to digest. And so given that, both the parties involved here have agreed to a continuance. And I would like to make a motion that we continue this item until March 10.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: March 10, seconded by Walton. All right I think we need to take public comment on the continuance before we vote on it. So Madam Clerk do you want to call for public comment on the continuance?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes, the President has now opened public comment on the continuance for items 27 through 30. This is the appeal of the conditional use authorization de facto denial for the Vallejo Street project. If you're here, now is your opportunity to come forward. Mr. President.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Public comment on the continuance is closed. Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the motion.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On the motion to continue items 27 through 30 to 03/10/2026, Supervisor Wong. Wong, I. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan, I. Supervisor Chen? Chen, I. Supervisor Dorsey? Dorsey, I. Supervisor Fielder? Fielder, I. Supervisor Mahmood? I. Supervisor Mandelman?

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelman, I. Supervisor Melgar, I. Supervisor Sauter? I. Soder, I. Supervisor Sherrill? I. Cheryl, I. And Supervisor Walton? I. Walton, I. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the motion is approved, and these and items 27 to 30 are continued until March 10. All right. Madam Clerk, that takes us back. Let's go to our first two 3PM special orders. Please call items 19 through 26 together.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes, I will group items 19 through 22. They comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act issued as a categorical exemption by the Planning Department on 05/29/2025, for the proposed project at 350 Amber Drive to install a new AT and T macro wireless telecommunications facility on an approximately 104 foot tall monopole consisting of 12 new antennas and nine new remote radio units and ancillary equipment within the P Public Zoning District and the OS, the Open Space Height And Bulk District. Item 20, this motion affirms the Planning Department's determination that the proposed Amber Drive project is categorically exempt from environmental review. Item 21 is the motion to conditionally reverse the determination subject to the approved findings by the board in support of that determination. And, item 22 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings. The second grouping, this is item 23 through 26, comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a conditional use authorization for the same project at 350 Amber Drive, again issued by the Planning Commission by its motion dated 09/25/2025, to install the aforementioned wireless telecommunications facility from AT and T. Item 24 is the motion to approve the Planning Commission's decision to approve conditional use authorization. Item 25 is the motion to disapprove that decision based upon approved findings by the board. And item 26 is the motion to direct the clerk to prepare findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right, colleagues. This will be a little bit repetitive. But as you heard, we have before us two appeal hearings with one appellant on the proposed project at 350 Amber Drive. Items 19 to 22 comprise the appeal of the determination of exemption from environmental review, and items 23 through 26 are the appeal of the conditional use authorization. After the hearing, the board will vote on two things. One, whether to affirm or conditionally reverse the planning department's determination that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review, and two, whether to approve or conditionally disapprove the conditional use authorization for this project. Consistent with past practice, unless there are objections, we will proceed as follows. We will give up to ten minutes for a presentation by the appellant. Then we will open the floor for public comment with two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. Then we will hear from the planning department for up to ten minutes. Then we will hear from the project sponsor for up to ten minutes. That will be followed by public comment. Again, up to two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal. Finally, we'll bring the appellant back up for three minutes of rebuttal. And then we will deliberate. Colleagues, I don't see any objections or questions. And seeing none, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. All right, and I will invite Katherine Dodd up to present on behalf of the appellants.

[Katherine (Catherine) Dodd, Appellant representative]: Thank you, Supervisor Mandelman. Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Katherine Dodd. I'm a Syden County retiree, a former aide to two supervisors, former chief of staff, Deputy Chief of Staff to Mayor Newsom, and former director of your health service system. I've lived and served San Francisco for forty nine years. Today, I speak as a member of the Diamond Heights Community Association. We request that the board uphold both appeals, the CUA and the CEQA exemption, and deny this project or remand it back to planning, find that the application is incomplete, and order additional environmental review. 104 foot macro tower would be the tallest structure in the area, and therefore not necessary or desirable or compatible with the neighborhood community. Moreover, the proposed tower is not consistent with the city's citing guidelines for wireless facilities. Remanding back to the Planning Commission would be appropriate as the applicant has received the applicant has made significant changes to the project since the Planning Commission approved it. Several recent appellant and trial case rulings have found that towers are not a small structure and exempt from environmental review. AT and T has numerous alternatives for providing wireless service that don't involve constructing a 104 foot 10 story tower. The board should deny the project and order the city to consider alternatives. The request is squarely in the board's discretion. We're not asking you to negotiate wireless service or RF emissions. We're asking you to exercise core legislative authority over land use, aesthetics, and environmental review. Federal law preserves this local control so far. In 2018, the California Supreme Court unanimous unanimously upheld San Francisco's personal wireless facility ordinance, confirming your authority to consider aesthetic sighting impacts and neighborhood compatibility. Fairness of this process was undermined by AT and T's late submittal of final arguments. Our attorneys submitted information on time by January 30, and AT and T submitted theirs five days later, specifically responding to our filing and introducing new information that we did not have sufficient time to respond to. Bias has been shown in the findings documented through public information requests that planning staff requested AT and T to help draft the findings that were ultimately approved by the commission. This collaboration gave AT and T advantages that residents were denied. The conditional use authorization falls squarely in Section three zero three standard requiring projects to be necessary or desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood. This massive 10 story tower on the boundary of open space parks surrounded by RH1 residential zoning does not meet that test, and AT and T's preferences for necessary and desirability should not be taken into consideration. Overwhelming, 83 letters were sent to the Planning Commission expressing substantial specific aesthetic and safety concerns. It demonstrate that it's not desirable or necessary. For example, residents wrote, the view of the trees comforted me during chemotherapy. My kids play at Christopher Park, and I want them in nature, not dominated by an industrial tower. I moved here for the open open sky preserved by underground wires, and and watching a red tailed hawk sitting on the police academy fence is magical. Since September, another 75 comments were submitted, which include brown these are examples. Brown paint won't camouflage a structural tower 20 feet above the tree line, or a 700 cubic foot antenna atop the tree canopy array is unacceptable whether it's painted brown or blue. And the newly announced street level transformer will be visible and noisy, contradicts the Planning Commission's findings from September 25 that all equipment would be behind the police academy and not visible from the public street. It's not compatible with the nature of the neighborhood. Diamond Heights was designed in the sixties by famous modernist architects to preserve views of the park and open sky. A 10 story structure 20 feet above the trees in open space surrounds surrounded by RH1 zoning of maximum four stories violates the character, as well as the general plan's goal of preserving open space and protecting parks from development. Our park our parks are a focal gathering place where families seek nature experiences, not industrial structures. It also violates the citywide biodiversity policy by endangering wildlife in our forests in Glen Canyon. Scientific literature documents bird deaths from tower collisions. Both Planning and AT and T claim that animals don't move around more than 200 feet. Even a five year old would dispute that. Further, the general plan calls for the police academy to be moved and centralized. Research shows property values decline near antennas. That will that will affect the police academy's property value as well as ours. In a meeting, supervisor Mandelman asked whether a whether AT and T would compromise on size, alternative networks, or location. They refused, stating this project is necessary for our business goals. The statement matches AT and T headquarters' comments in December 2025 on FCC regulations proposing to eliminate all local control, wherein they said, we support the proposed regulations. They will allow us to densify our macro tower network and advance our goals. AT and T, in that meeting with Supervisor Mandelman, also refused to agree not to add a second level of bulky antennas. AT and T misled the four of the seven planning commissioners and convinced them that this tower was necessary for safety, specifically for FirstNet safety. FirstNet emergency communications are used only by first responders. Right now, FirstNet is the communication used by ICE, and AT and T was given additional funds to track undocumented immigrants with it. We do not need FirstNet in San Francisco. Fire Chief Crispin and Ingleside Captain Newbeck stated at an October 25 community meeting that FirstNet is optional. It's not required for our first responders. A Department of Emergency Services manager said she didn't even know what FirstNet was. AT and T requested support letters from the fire chief, interim police chief Yip, and sheriff Miyamoto, and provided each a draft letter. Fire Chief Crispin declined to send a letter. Chief Yip didn't respond and didn't send one, only elected Supervisor Miyamoto sent a letter, drafted by AT and T. AT and T also misled the commission about nine eleven services. Chief Chrisman and Captain Newbeck confirmed to us that nine eleven calls from any carrier reached the nearest tower. AT and T's tower doesn't change 09:11 access. Everyone already has it. Most importantly, a giant macro tower isn't required to strengthen signal strength in specific areas in our neighborhood. Verizon and T Mobile use uninstrusive small cell networks throughout the neighborhood. AT and T refused to consider these because their business plan is to reach far beyond our neighborhood. Planning approved this location as preference one under the city's wireless siting guidelines. Preference one is for facilities mounted on public structures fire stations, utility structures, community facilities. This macro tower is not mounted on an existing structure. It's a new freestanding 10 story foot macro tower in a lot zoned for public, but it's surrounded by residential and bordering parks. Therefore, it should be classified as preference six or preference seven. Preference 6 is limited. Preference 7 is a disfavored location specifically for residential neighborhoods and parks. This misclassification allowed the project to bypass heightened scrutiny required for new ground mounted installations in residential areas and natural areas. This appeal, if denied, sets a dangerous precedent for towers throughout the city. The secret class three exemption is improper. This is not a small structure. Planning relied on inaccurate articulation that doesn't match the statutory test. The project also triggered exemptions, including fire hazards, historic neighborhood status, and threats to biological services. AT and T made significant material changes after the Planning Commission approval. Their late February second submission reveals drawings labeled future antenna, second layer. The second layer was not approved by the commission. If one layer that they've proposed is enough to cover the currently weak signals, why plan for two? Because AT and T will generate funding from rental agreements on the second layer. Additionally, they expand coverage beyond our neighborhood and let them better compete with cable providers. On January 12, AT and T notified our association of a new noisy transformer planned for in front of the police academy. We like to listen to the birds in the park, but now there'll

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: be a

[Katherine (Catherine) Dodd, Appellant representative]: noisy transformer. This edition contradicts both the CUA and CEQA findings. What does that mean?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: You have twenty eight seconds left.

[Katherine (Catherine) Dodd, Appellant representative]: Okay. I'll say that the project is not compatible with the planning code or general plan. It will have environmental impact, and it will not contribute to neighborhood character or stability. It does not it constitutes a developmental beneficial development only for AT and T's business goals, not our community. We urge you to uphold these appeals and protect our neighborhood and other neighborhoods from this unnecessary incompatible project. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do you want me to caution the audience that we don't actually have applause?

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: right. So we have roles in the chamber that we're not supposed to applaud. Although but visual manifestations of approval are okay. There we go. The clerk has demonstrated. All right, colleagues, I do not have any questions for the appellant at this time, although I may later. And so seeing, it looks like no one else does either. And so, Madam Clerk, let's open up public comment in support of the appeal. If folks could line up over on your right, our left, our clerk will take us through public comment.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Mr. President. We are setting the timer for two minutes. You'll first hear the soft bell. That will let you know to wrap up your comments, as you'll have thirty seconds. And once the second timer does ring, I do apologize if I interrupt you, but please try to keep your comments to two minutes. Welcome to our first speaker.

[Daniel Sherrill, President, Diamond Heights Community Association]: Thank you for having me, and good afternoon. My name is Daniel Sherrill and I'm president of the diamond heights community association. I'd like to be clear this appeal is not about a prohibition of service it's about how that service is delivered. A large monopole covered in antennas isn't the only way to provide coverage but it is the most visually and environmentally intrusive option. It should not be allowed. There are viable alternatives that would easily allow AT and T to expand its business goals while also delivering on the needs and rights of Diamond Heights residents. Here are two simple examples. First, distributed antenna systems known as DAS. DAS uses multiple smaller towers with smaller antennas either mounted on existing infrastructure or small purpose built towers to provide area wide coverage. Instead of concentrating massive impacts in a single location, DAS distributes service discreetly and is perfect for dense and hilly neighborhoods like ours. The impact of small towers on the community would be minor. A second option are just small antenna cells located on existing utility poles or street light posts. These facilities are compact, low profile, and designed specifically to avoid the need for giant towers. They're literally everywhere in San Francisco right now and virtually no one cares about them. Small cells are a spectacular solution not just for Diamond Heights but any residential neighborhood in San Francisco. Community impact is extremely low but still it unlocks lucrative business opportunities for AT and T and other wireless carriers. Moreover, they avoid the headache of community opposition and appeals against monopoles that every single district supervisor in this room is gonna have to contend with in their own districts if AT and T is able to build their tower in Diamond Heights. There are alternatives that are technically feasible, economically viable, legally permissible, and active today. You have the opportunity to drive innovative, nearly invisible solutions here in San Francisco, and set the tone for decades to come. Thank you.

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

[Betsy Eddy]: Good afternoon, supervisors. I'm Betsy Eddy, former president of the Diamond Heights Community Association, and I'm speaking on the fire danger that is implicit in this proposed cell phone tower. AT and T's late submittal disparages Susan Foster by saying she provides no evidence that she is a fire expert. Miss Foster has been a noted fire consultant for twenty years. Recently, she wrote the new fire regulations for Los Angeles after the Palisades fire. AT and T submitted other inaccuracies. Fire inspector Oldage states that miss Foster's description of fires, quote, high winds and nearby receptive vegetation were the contributing fires in those fires that she described, both of which occurred in conditions that do not occur in San Francisco. Mr. Oldridge is unfamiliar with the proposed site, where winds are regularly 20 to 40 miles per hour and reach 80 miles per hour in fierce storms. The proposed location would sit very close to a grove of combustible eucalyptus tree. AT and T states as well a fire involving a self tower is not a frequent or requested occurrence. As the founder of Resilient Diamond Heights that has been working for eighteen years to prepare Diamond Heights for all types of emergencies, I strongly disagree. In your board packet, there is a link that shows multiple fires in California and across The United States that were started in telecom communities. We are already fearful of a fire in Glen Canyon Park by fireworks, a cigarette, or an unhoused person's camping fire. And we feel that a branch could

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

[Holly Newmark (reading a letter from Evelyn Rose)]: My name is Holly Newmark. I'm reading this letter from Evelyn Rose, founder of Glen Park Neighborhood's History Project, who could not be here today. Dear honorable members of the board, Diamond Heights, a mid twentieth century redevelopment project, was intentionally designed by landscape architect Vernon Demars with a low profile footprint that is aesthetically synchronized with the surrounding landscape. The three sixty degree visibility of the AT and T 104 foot macro tower is expected to have a negative impact on the intentional low profile contours and unique history of Diamond Heights. Yet, AT and T and the planning department have failed to address what impact installation will have on the historical built environment. The planning department's own citywide cultural resources survey is currently identifying sites that are eligible for the article 10 landmarks work program. Oh, and other historic preservation protections and incentives. Diamond Heights residents deserve equitable opportunity to access article 10 protections and other benefits. Installation of the AT and T macro telecommunications tower has potential to exclude Diamond Heights residents from any future consideration. I, therefore, strongly urge the Board of Supervisors to overturn the CEQA exemption for AT and T's 100 foot macro tower to enable a proper evaluation of the potential impact on the historical integrity of Diamond Heights. Sincerely, Ellen Rose. Thank you.

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

[Kevin O’Connor]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Kevin O'Connor, I live in Mira Loma Park, a neighborhood of 2,200 homes located along Mount Davidson on the West Side Of Glen Canyon, just across from the Diamond Heights neighborhood. I'm speaking today on behalf of the Mira Loma Park Improvement Club, a nonprofit serving our neighborhood since 1934. And for nearly ninety years, we've worked closely with the city agencies on planning public safety, resilience, and community well-being. We support the appeals of both the CEQA exception and the conditional use authorization. This massive tower does not meet CEQA guidelines nor Planning's citing guidelines. This is the first massive tower exempted by Planning in a residential neighborhood bordering two parks. This approval sets a dangerous precedent for macro towers to proliferate in residential neighborhoods citywide. AT and T says this macro tower is necessary desirable and compatible with the neighborhood we disagree allowing the exemption sets a dangerous precedent for all neighborhoods this massive tower is not a small addition to an existing structure its 12 bulky antennas towering 20 feet above trees atop a 104 foot pole visible throughout the neighborhood overlooking Christopher Park and Glen Canyon there are no freestanding towers of this height existing in residential neighborhoods next to parks the planning commission approved this tower for publicly used structures like police stations and utility buildings. However, this new tower is behind the police academy. Massive towers don't belong adjacent to parks, playgrounds, and homes. We urge the board to grant the CEQA appeal and require a full environmental review and grant the conditional use authorization appeal. Thank you for your consideration.

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

[Deborah Murphy]: Hi, I'm Deborah Murphy, President of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods. It's a tough act to follow with Kathryn's wonderful speech. My only criticism is she covered all

[Speaker 11.0]: the points I wanted to

[Deborah Murphy]: make, but I'm going to emphasize a few things. There's key safety issues in this location. The fire risk, seismic landslide risk, natural resources, the approval made based on misleading claims. For these reasons, this project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption. The tower would only help AT and T customers. T Mobile and Verizon have good cell phone coverage in Diamond Heights without the 10 story towers. AT and T refused to consider other alternatives. I don't give into corporate greed and let AT and T have this tower. I was at that meeting when Fire Chief Crispin said they didn't need it. So please listen to your constituents. Look at all the people who come out here on a cold, rainy day to because they're opposed to what AT and T wants to destroy their neighborhood. Thank you.

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

[Vladimir Kostikov]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Vladimir Kostikov, and I'm a longtime San Francisco resident. Came here in 2013 for the job and stayed for the city that I now proudly call my home. My family purchased our first house last year in Diamond Heights on Amber Drive, just a few feet away from the proposed project site. The place seemed perfect to raise our kid in. It's a lot of parks around. It's very safe. It's very quiet. Now, the proposed project, if built, will have a long lasting effect on insurance cost, property values, and safety. I'm unfortunately no longer sure that would be the right place to raise our kid in. My community has been voicing their concerns about this project very strongly and very consistently. More than 80 letters submitted in opposition to the public commission. More than 20 people stayed in line to speak their hearts against this project during the planning commission hearing. But we weren't heard. And now we're here today, our last chance to speak our hearts in front of the board of supervisors. We're hoping you hear us and support our appeal and require corporations to build something that makes our parks nicer, not worse. We all live in a city that's very expensive. San Francisco is pricey, everybody knows that. We all paid the premium for that. Why don't we require corporations to do the same and build something that's not a giant corn off monopole in front of our parks, but do something that makes it nicer? Thank you very much. Thanks if you will make me speak.

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

[Tim Wolford (former City College of San Francisco Trustee)]: Good afternoon, my name is Tim Wolfrid. I'm a forty year resident of Diamond Heights and a former trustee at City College of San Francisco. I believe rejecting our appeals sets a dangerous precedent for San Francisco. The planning department has asserted, I think mistakenly, that the three towers approved in this last year with a CEQA exemption are comparable to and set a precedent for the planned one in Diamond Heights. We don't believe they do. The first example of the three is a 40 foot tower to be installed at 1475 25th Street. It's sited on a hilltop overlooking a large industrial area between Highways 101 And 280. No trees, very few residents nearby. The second example they've raised is a 60 foot tower adjacent to the athletic fields at the West end of Golden Gate Park. No homes nearby. The third example, or precedent they exert, is this 90 foot tower in the Palace Of Fine Arts parking lot, which is surrounded by warehouses and Highway 101. None of these locations match 350 to Amber. The new tower on Amber Street will be the first 10 story tower in a residential neighborhood and right above two parks. Only four macro towers this size or taller exist in San Francisco at this point. Two are attached to downtown buildings, one is in the Presidio Sports Basement parking lot, and the fourth is at the Balboa Park BART Station. If these appeals are denied, the new giant macro tower will be a precedent cited when AT and T seeks approval for towers in other neighborhoods. We, our benefit and those neighborhoods' benefits, we ask that you accept our appeals. Thank you.

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

[Dr. Candice Loe]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Doctor. Candice Loe. I have a PhD in ecology and evolution. I'm also a native San Franciscan. Currently, I'm in the I'm living in the notorious D-four. But I'm here as an ecologist, and I want to talk about my experience in Glen Canyon Park and the importance of preserving that entire area. What I want to address is the what planning the planning department at AT and T did in terms of measuring the distance of the proposed 104 foot tower to the mapped habitats that are really effectively an intact ecosystem because it's part of our native significant natural areas of San Francisco and should be, you know, well protected. So my basic problem with that premise and that fact is that the organisms that you're talking about in Glen Canyon are not conserved to a two dimensional space. And so when you measure on a map a 150 foot space, you're measuring a boundary that's on a piece of paper, essentially. So my point is that fact in itself is on its face proof that we need more research and more assessment before going forward. So, yeah. So, essentially, I think it is a false premise to assert that animals and birds ignore fences. They may be trapped by the fences, but they're not ignoring it. And then, what is being ignored is actually the tower itself and the impacts, the negative impacts of the tower. It's going go beyond the fences. So, it's not going to protect the the community, the natural community that we aim to protect. So, in my scientific opinion, the statements from the planning from Planning and AT and T are not credible. Their responses demonstrate exactly why this exemption appeal must be approved, and a full environmental impact report is required.

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

[Maggie Hoppe]: My name is Maggie Hoppe, and I'm a longtime resident on Diamond Street. I'm speaking today about the danger to trees in Glen Park for the proposed cell tower location. I will read from my words and those submitted by Jocelyn Cohen of qualified ISA certified arborist, an arbor ecologist, APA certified aesthetic pruner, and a tree risk assessment qualified certification person. The location for the proposed macro tower is surrounded by tall trees. This 100 foot tall tower will weigh many tons and will require digging most likely between thirty and ninety feet to find bedrock to stabilize the structure. Digging and drilling to these depths is not the only concern for the trees. It is additionally hazardous to the surrounding landscape, which will forever be devastated in our lifetime and for hundreds of years beyond. Heavy equipment used in root protection zone is a death sentence to trees and the tricky thing about root disturbance is the effects do not sometimes show up for as long as a decade, and by then people have forgotten who was responsible for the loss of a natural ecosystem in an urban area. Even vibration structures from the high winds, which is a known weather event in Glen Park, will disturb the soil and the tree root systems. Putting a cell tower amid significant habitat area is irreversible, irreversible mistake. Thank you.

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

[Leslie Diadea]: Good afternoon supervisors. My name is Leslie. I'm a District 3 resident. I'm here to ask you to imagine what San Francisco will look like if these appeals are denied because the consequences extend far beyond 350 Amber Drive in Diamond Heights. This will be the first macro tower of this height and mass in a residential neighborhood bordering two parks. AT and T operates on precedent. When they get this approval for a macro tower at a residential park border using flawed environmental review, they will replicate this citywide. Let me be specific. Edge Of Stern Grove, R H 1 Homes. Mount Davidson, residential neighborhoods, natural area designation. McLaren Park, border near Visitation Valley. Richmond and Marina districts along Golden Gate Park's edges. Every single one becomes a likely macro tower location using the exact rationale planning used here. This isn't speculation. It's AT and T's business model to densify their macro tower network. They prefer city owned land because it's cheaper. And they've discovered planning will approve residential and park borders without serious scrutiny. The secret violations here are particularly dangerous as president. Planning approved a categorical exemption for a structure five times taller than surrounding homes, ignoring migratory bird collisions, twenty four seven transformer noise heard across the street, and conducting zero alternative analysis. That same exemption claim can now be copied and pasted into applications citywide. By granting these appeals, you stop this cascade before it starts. Require planning to follow the city's wireless sitting guidelines. Conduct proper environmental reviews and demand real alternatives analysis. Protect San Francisco's residential neighborhoods and park borders citywide. Grant the appeals. Thank you for your time.

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

[Gerald Porter]: Good

[Jay Wagner]: afternoon, supervisors. My name is Jay Wagner. AT and T claims that there's no proof that cell towers reduce property values but the evidence is clear, California law recognizes cell towers as a risk. The California Association of Realtors disclosure form lists them as neighborhood nuisances that sellers must report. Studies confirm this impact. A university of Kentucky study found homes within 1,000 feet of a tower sold for nearly 2% less than comparable properties farther away. A University of South Alabama study of over 23,000 home sales found values dropped 2.65% within point seven two kilometers and 9.78% if the tower was visible to sellers property. Federal authorities treat towers as hazards hud requires appraisers to flag nearby properties report on marketability and check the towers fall distance Government agencies, including Maryland's property tax assessment appeal board, have formally reduced home values due to nearby towers. For nearby neighbors, this tower threatens real financial harm. Homes will be harder to sell and worth less, while AT and T profits. The homeowners lose equity. Also, I wanted to if you could please just imagine waking up in the morning and going to your window and looking across the street and seeing this 100 foot eyesore, and looking, it's looking back at you, and I don't think it's a good feeling. And I hope you remember that when you vote. Thank you.

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

[Betty Peskin]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Betty Peskin and I've called Diamond Heights my home, where I serve on the board of the Community Association. Thirty four years ago, my spouse and I moved from Noe Valley to the 800 Block Of Duncan Street, just one block from this proposed tower, because we were seeking more open space, public parks, and the natural beauty of Glen Canyon Park. Diamond Heights, as you know, is also known for its strong persistent winds, which make fire safety a critical concern. Introducing a 104 foot tower and its fuel tanks to the edge of a wooded park raises serious safety risks that should not be ignored. As a retired school teacher with a forty four year career, home ownership was a hard earned dream. After more than twenty years of renting in Noy Valley, we were able to purchase a home. And like many other residents, we are still paying for it. The possibility that this tower, built as proposed, could significantly erode the value of our home threatens our financial security and retirement stability. Each of you has received letters from six licensed real estate professionals who have all warned of the financial consequences to the value of nearby homes. All of them have opposed this tower. One realtor with fifty years of experience states that homes near cell towers can lose up to 10% of the value while the others have stated they could lose between 812%. People don't want to live near them. By placing that huge macro tower in a residential view corridor would signal a shift away from the thoughtful planning and environmental sensitivity that makes Diamond Heights so livable.

[Speaker 33.0]: Thank you.

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

[Shana (no last name stated)]: Good afternoon supervisors my name is shana I was born and raised in the inner sunset and now live in Diamond Heights. I ask you to imagine this decision not as a policy question but as a personal one imagine a 10 story industrial tower rising beside your home above your trees your views and the place where your family feels safe this is what's being proposed for our neighborhood Diamond Heights is a quiet nature filled residential community. The monopole would be placed in a windy grassy canyon in a wildfire prone and seismically active area with a diesel fuel tank at its base. That combination raises real safety concerns for the families and seniors that live nearby this project would also significantly impact property values for many of us our homes represent our life savings an industrial tower of this scale next to residential homes would inevitably reduce home values and make it harder for families to sell or invest in their future we' not opposed to connectivity We are asking for a responsible placement and consideration of less harmful alternatives. Please uphold the appeal, and don't allow a project in our neighborhood that you would never accept in your own. Thank you for your time and service.

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

[Robert Orrin]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Robert Orrin. I'm a fifty year resident of San Francisco, and I've resided at 266 Amber Drive for the past twenty years. I urge you to grant both appeals. Denying them sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the planning commission to rely on findings shaped by AT and T without the community input required under San Francisco' 2011 personal wireless service facility ordinance upheld by the California supreme court. AT and T justified this tower by invoking emergency communications and first net Yet FirstNet is currently used by ICE ICE through an AT and T contract. And all four commissioners who voted in favor relied on this claim while ignoring three critical facts. A tower of this size is not necessary to improve AT and T coverage. Boosters are available for FirstNet, and the fire chief and eagle side captain confirmed that FirstNet is optional and that 911 calls connect to the nearest carrier regardless. This approval is based on flawed analysis that AT and T can now replicate citywide. Planning and AT and T point to similar towers, but none are located within residential neighborhoods, and no approved park towers reach 100 feet near homes. Planning improperly used a categorical exemption to bypass CEQA despite clear environmental and wildfire risks in a wildfire urban interface area. This approval sets no meaningful limits, and AT and T can expand with minimal oversight, harming neighborhood character and exposing the nearby Noe Valley Nursery School to routine diesel generator testing. Granting these appeals affirms San Francisco's laws and environmental protections. Less intrusive alternatives exist. Other carriers do not require macro towers here. Please please stop a precedent that turns residential park edges into industrial zones. Thank you.

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

[Gerald Porter]: Good afternoon. My name is Gerald Porter, and I live at 266 Amber. I'd like to urge you to grant both appeals because this is not just about one tower. Rather, it's about whether San Francisco keeps any legal authority to guide where the wireless infrastructure goes into residential neighborhoods and along park borders. Right now, the city has clear legal tools. Our wireless siting guidelines designate RH1 areas as disavowed locations. CEQA requires environmental review when projects may have impacts. Planning Code Section three zero two requires findings that projects will not harm the neighborhood character, public health, environmental quality, and specifically protects nature. If these appeals are denied, you validate planning's decision to ignore the protections. AT and T will cite this approval in future cases, arguing that the board already determined that our H1 neighborhoods and park edges are not disfavored, and exemptions are appropriate regardless of scale or location. Federal law does not prohibit requiring alternative analysis, environmental review, or compliance with local settings. Those are the tools that allow the city to steer steer the facilities toward appropriate locations like industrial areas, commercial corridors, and existing utility sites. San Francisco has successfully defended these tools before. Our wireless ordinance was upheld unanimously by the court supreme court in 2018. It is now a national model. Getting these appeals to preserve the city's authority affirms that our guidelines and protects city neighborhoods and residents. Thank you.

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

[Mr. Tonksavat, Board Liaison (Mayor’s Office)]: Good afternoon, supervisors and staff. My name is Bart Fisher, and I've lived in Diamond Heights for over a quarter century. During that time, I don't believe any issue has galvanized our neighborhood and gotten us as upset as the plan to build this 100 foot monstrosity in the middle of our beautiful and historic community. I believe the four planning commissioners who voted for this were negligent in upholding their duties to our laws meant to protect our neighborhoods from such detrimental changes. At this hearing, not a single resident spoke in favor of this AT and T handout while there were dozens in attendance who spoke against it. I ask each of you to reflect in your heart how you would feel about having a 10 story cell tower being installed this in the center of your community. Imagine the tall, ugly eyesore looming over your neighborhood, visible from almost everywhere, inducing additional potential dangers, and being built right next to the park where your local children play. I believe if you are honest with yourself, you would behave exactly like me and my neighbors and do everything you could to stop it from being built. You would be praying that those you've elected will find the courage to do the right thing and stand with you by stopping the project since this since once this is done, there's likely no going back. Thank you for your time.

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

[Elena Ponce]: My supervisors.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Can you grab that microphone really close, so we can hear you best? Thank you.

[Elena Ponce]: Sorry, I'm only five one. Hi, my name is Elena Punty. I came to San Francisco in 2003. I came for nursing school. I'm a nurse, I'm a mom, and after I finished my education I thought I'd like to stay in San Francisco. I'd like to give back to the city that educated me. Since then, are a lot of reasons to leave San Francisco we all know it' in the doom loop. When there are a million reasons to go for families another one is just another straw on the camel s back to leave. If we want to make a city that feels inclusive of families of little ones of people staying I think listening to the residents is a good way to do that. My daughter loves that park. Sorry. Nervous. Yeah, that's that's her go to. And it just so happens to be within walking distance of a property that I was lucky enough to get during the pandemic. So to have a place of my own for my kid to grow up in and just to have another one more reason to you know leave. Sorry I just think it's unfortunate, and I really hope that the supervisors today would really, really listen. Thank you.

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

[Thea Selby]: Hi there. My name is Theia Selby. I am a co founder of the Lower Hape Merchant and Neighbor Association. I have a small business a block away from Union Square. I am a former trustee of the board of, of, San Francisco City College. I am, also a co founder of San Franciscans for Local Control. And what San Franciscans for Local Control was about was urging our board of supervisors to take the very little power. You have very little power on this particular thing, and I happen to know that. But to take the very little power that you have and use it for the people of San Francisco. In 2010, John Avalos introduced the Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permits Ordinance requiring antenna applicants to consider the visual impact this is about the only power you have of any new installation citing the need to regulate placement that will diminish the city's beauty. Some people say the city is about tech, others government. I would say tourism is very high on the list. The ordinance was challenged at court, and it was upheld. And it's still in effect today. In 2025, John Avalos wrote the planning commission and urged them to reject the cell phone structure because it would dramatically change the aesthetic character, which is about all you got, guys, of the neighborhood, including Glen Canyon Park and George Christopher Playground, this proposed facility will ruin Vista's. You've heard that over and over. And this is one of the things that you have the control to decide that you will not allow AT and T and others to do. He stated that approving the CEQA appeal is a must. The project fails the core metrics required. It is not desirable. It is not necessary. It is not compatible with neighborhood character and fundamentally inconsistent with the general plan and the intent of the open space designation. Please use the power you have. Thank you.

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

[Chanda Williams]: Hi. I'm Chanda Williams. I've lived in Diamond Heights for twenty five years. And I just have a more emotional appeal. There are a lot of people on my street who couldn't be here today that would like to be because they're at work, or they have kids they have to pick up at this hour, or whatever else. But we're all scared. We're really frightened. I'm not the only one. There are several people in our neighborhood who've been evacuated from fires. I was evacuated from the Palisades fire last year. These fires go fast. The winds in Diamond Heights and all of our wood houses butted up against each other, all that brush down in the park. It's scary. It's really scary to us. So please consider protecting the safety of your constituents rather than lining the pockets of a multibillion dollar corporation. Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Are there other speakers in support of the appeal or against the project? This is your opportunity to provide comment. All right, Mr. President.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. Public comment in support of the appeal is now closed. And now we will hear for up to ten minutes from representatives of the planning department.

[Josh Pollack, Planning Department staff]: Could we go to the sides, please? Afternoon, President Mandelman and members of the board. My name is Josh Pollack, Planning Department staff. Joining me today are Joy Navarrete and Elizabeth Gordon Junkier. The item before you is the appeal of a categorical exemption issued by the Planning Department for the 350 Amber Drive project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. Our December 1 appeal response is included in the board's packet. In this presentation, I will highlight the department's main responses to the appeal. But first, I want to acknowledge the testimony today from the speakers and supplemental correspondence received from those who are concerned about the potential environmental impacts of the project. These issues have been addressed in the department's appeal response. The project is located at 350 Amber Drive, with frontage along Amber Drive to the Northwest, Turquoise Way to the West, and Duncan Street to the North. The property is owned by the city and county of San Francisco, and is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Police Department, or SFPD. The total lot area is about 195,000 square feet, or roughly four and a half acres, and contains three two to one to two story buildings currently occupied and used by the SFPD as its police academy. The parcel is adjacent to Glen Canyon Park and Christopher Park. The proposed project will construct a new AT and T macro wireless telecommunications facility on a new approximately 104 foot tall monopole located at the rear of the San Francisco Police Academy over a paved parking area with a footprint of approximately five fifty square feet. The new facility would consist of 12 antennas, nine remote radio units, three tower mounted surge suppressors, one global positioning system unit mounted on a proposed outdoor equipment cabinet, one walk up cabinet, and one thirty kilowatt direct current backup generator with a 190 gallon diesel fuel tank on a concrete pad. The ancillary equipment would be surrounded by an eight foot tall chain link fence. The project meets a definition of a class three infill exemption, as it meets all criteria identified on this slide. In addition, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption apply, including significant effects due to unusual circumstances. The appellants alleged that the proposed project would have substantial impacts with respect to seismic hazards, fire risk, air quality, and biological resources. This is not the case, as I will address for informational purposes. The project site is not in a seismic hazard zone for landslides. Rather, it is located approximately 50 feet from an area that is deemed a seismic hazard for landslides. The project would not result in significant impacts related to fire risk due to accidental fires or wildland fires. San Francisco is not located in a wildfire hazard zone, as shown in the fire hazard severity zones map, which is mapped by CAL FIRE, per mandates under the California Public Resources Code. The project would not result in significant air quality impacts. There are no unusual circumstances surrounding the project related to air quality impacts. All of the monopole facilities in San Francisco include diesel powered backup generators, similar to the proposed project. The proposed project would utilize a 30 kilowatt diesel powered backup generator, which does not require a permit from the Bay Area Air District. The appellant claims that fuel tanks are known to leak air pollutants, and that the project would create exposure to air pollution, but does not provide substantial evidence to support this assertion. The project would not result in significant biological resources impacts. The recreation and parks department previously completed an assessment of significant natural resources, which included a detailed evaluation of Glen Canyon Park. The assessment found that the interior portions of the adjacent park support sensitive species. However, in evaluating the assessment, the planning department found that the natural area boundary and rec parks evaluation over 100 feet away from the project site. In addition, the area closest to the project site falls under least sensitive management area. Due to the distance from any sensitive areas, biological resources in the park could not be reasonably affected by construction or operation of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not result in any significant impacts related to biological resources. In closing, the department has substantial evidence to support the determination that the project qualifies for a class three categorical exemption, and no exceptions apply. The appellant's arguments do not meet the legal burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise. There is no basis for requiring preparation of a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report. Therefore, we ask that you uphold the class three categorical exemption and deny the appeal. Thank you. This concludes my presentation. Elizabeth Gordon Jeanquier will now address the conditional use appeal.

[Elizabeth Gordon, Planning Department staff]: Thank you, Josh, and good afternoon, President Mandelman and members of the board. My name is Elizabeth Junkier of Planning Department staff, and I will very briefly address the second appeal before you, the Planning Commission's approval of the conditional use authorization for the wireless facility at 350 Amber Drive. On 09/25/2025, the commission conducted a public hearing and voted four to three to approve the project under conditional use. In their motion 21,825, all conditional use findings were made in the affirmative. As part of the commission's deliberation, commissioners referenced the need for additional coverage provided by the project and the benefit to emergency services. My colleague Josh has adequately described the location and the facility itself and many of the concurrent environmental health and safety arguments that are similar in the conditional use appeal. So I will not address those at present, aside from stating that as part of the permitting process, the project would be required to meet rigorous state and local fire codes and conditions, and the building permit application would be reviewed pursuant to state and local building codes. Also, in its deliberation, the commission found the project consistent with the recreation, open space, and safety and resilience elements of the general plan, indicating that improved cellular coverage would be necessary and desirable to the community and greater city, and allow for better utilization of the playgrounds and parks. Because the proposed project is in an existing parking lot and zoned public at the rear of the existing San Francisco Police Academy, it is not accessible to the public or residents. It is not located on Rec and Park Department land. It is not identified as existing or proposed open space in the general plan. It is identified as a preference one wireless location. The 06/09/2025 Rec and Park Commission hearing per resolution confirmed that the net new shadow cast by the proposed project was limited. Finally, the proposal is consistent with the safety and resilience element, which specifically states that private communication systems are critical facilities in the city's communication system. And redundant networks will help ensure that incidental failures do not have grave impacts. In conclusion, the department recommends that the board uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the conditional use. This concludes the department presentation. My colleagues from the department and I are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you. I have questions, but should I go first? Okay.

[Chyanne Chen (SFMTA Supervisor and community honoree)]: All

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: right. Thank you, Supervisor Chan. Let's start with the CEQA, Mr. Pollack.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: So

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: I have two thoughts about the CEQA appeal. On the one hand, the appellants are arguing that this project should be subject to an environmental impact report, which strikes me as odd. I mean, that would be many hundreds of pages with, lots and and lots of analysis of all sorts of things. So I am sympathetic to the department's feeling that that's not appropriate for a project like this. And I understand relying on the CEQA exemption, but I do wonder I mean, this is not a big facility, but it is a very tall facility. So how do you think about height in weighing whether something fits within the small facility exemption?

[Josh Pollack, Planning Department staff]: Thank you for the question. So considering the height, we looked at the context that the tower was in. So the tower itself is 104 feet. And the nearby

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: tree Which is tall. It's 10 And

[Josh Pollack, Planning Department staff]: the trees that it would stand adjacent to are approximately 90 feet. So considering the context of the towers in, we determined that it was small in that context.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Is there I mean, would make it big? Is there a telecom facility that would not fit within the small facility exception?

[Josh Pollack, Planning Department staff]: If it was substantially larger than the surroundings, if it was a large facility which there was nothing of comparable height, I think we would consider that to not meet the categorical exemption.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: But generally, the department thinks I mean, you've approved a number of telecom facilities based on this exemption. The difference that I'm hearing from the appellants is that, you know, this quite a bit taller, and that's true, right?

[Josh Pollack, Planning Department staff]: I mean, I think considering the categorical exemption that was done for the cell tower that was adjacent to the Palace of Fine Arts, you know, was around a similar scale, you know, 90 feet in height. So I think it's been used in a similar way before through, you know, in other parts of the city.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. All right. I have more questions about the conditional use. And I think I guess I am trying to understand, and if you have some thoughts about the relationship between the traditional conditional use approval standards, whether something is necessary and desirable, and the ongoing ability, I guess, of cities to apply that. I guess, this 2018 Supreme Court case, ability of cities to evaluate at least some of the impacts of telecom facilities and deciding whether to approve them or not. But that's, you know, on the one hand, have that. But on the other hand, we have the Telecommunications Act. And can you explain the relationship between the kind of limitations on a city's ability to say no under the Telecommunications Act, and the standards that exist for conditional use? I mean, I can ask the question again in sort of a different way. I mean, the public and the appellants are generally arguing that this project is not necessary and desirable. And that would be the traditional argument under, you know, about a conditional use. And I'm gathering from the documents that I'm reading about this, you know, from the argument that the appellants and the city and AT and T are having that that's not the only conversation you have when you have a telecom facility. You're also having and having to evaluate adequacy of coverage, evaluation of potential alternatives. So is it possible that something could be not necessary and desirable, but the city would still have to approve it?

[Audrey, Planning Department staff (wireless/appeals support)]: Thank you, supervisor. Audrey Myrna Melgar, Planning Department staff. I think generally you are correct that the Telecommunications Act does require us to consider other factors. And it does not necessarily limit, but it reshapes what we consider to be discretionary in terms of what can be approved and what can be limited when it comes to telecommunications facilities.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And so then there's this sort of two prong test that we have to look at, I think. And you should tell me if I'm getting this wrong. But it seems like you're then looking at, one, whether there's a gap in service. And then if there is a gap in service, and there's evidence of a gap in service in the record, whether the telecom company has adequately looked at potential alternatives to do it in a different way that would be less intrusive.

[Sylvia Jimenez, Planning Department staff]: Thank you, President. Sylvia Jimenez, department staff. And to answer your question, it is a two part question. I think the first one you're referring to is coverage maps. As part of the conditional use authorization application, applicants are required to submit documentation verified by a certified engineer that shows the level of coverage in the area that they're proposing to install their macro site. In this scenario, the applicant did submit such coverage maps. It shows anything from inadequacy, from not being able to take a phone call in a moving vehicle, to just not being able to make a voice call. And all of those things combined determined that there was an adequate coverage. This information was provided. Again, the onus is on the applicant to submit that information. And they were able to demonstrate that. As far as the alternative site analysis, that is only required for sites that are considered preference five and above. So, the city has a ranking system of hierarchy when it comes to locating these macro sites. The rating being one through seven, one being a preferred site. Typically, are public uses, fire stations, police stations, areas of that nature. And a preference seven being a disfavored site, mostly residential areas, which I know there's a little bit of an argument that this is a residential area, but the actual site itself is a public use. Therefore, because it is considered a preference one site, an alternative analysis was not required. However, the applicant chose to conduct an alternative analysis, and presented at the Planning Commission for discussion and review, as a voluntary way of responding to the neighbor's concerns.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. So let's talk a little more about each of those two. Because there's an argument in the documents between the appellants and the project sponsor in the city about what of what is a gap. And I think although we're going hear from the appellants on rebuttal but I think that the appellants are saying that because AT and T has not shown that there is a complete gap in service, that there is a spot where you cannot get cover you cannot get cell service ever, that that doesn't adequately demonstrate, that doesn't adequately meet the service gap prong. I assume the city disagrees. And I'm curious if you want to explain why you think weak coverage is enough to justify a telecom company being able to put in a facility, even were it otherwise not necessary and desirable?

[Sylvia Jimenez, Planning Department staff]: Yes, I think our department policy has always been to determine not just non existing coverage, but the quality of the coverage is important as well. And I think some of the examples that were given at the Planning Commission, after being prompted by some of the commissioners, was in case of an emergency, would somebody be able to just use their phone and call emergency services, whether it would be being attacked at the park or in an emergency scenario such as an earthquake. And we determine, at least our department policy is, unless we're given different direction, is that inadequate service is considered a coverage gap.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And the trouble with that answer is then you're saying it's up to the city and the kind of standards we are locally setting around this. And this happened in the planning commission presentations, that there was this sort of centering of this argument about whether there was a danger and an emergency in the canyon. I'm not sure about this, but I actually think that this and the appellants are welcome to argue with me about this, and I'm curious if this is the position of the city. I think that the standard is basically, if they're not able to provide the service that they think they should be able to provide, they have and they can demonstrate that, that's not good service, basically, that they've met that first prong.

[Cammy Blackstone, AT&T]: That is correct.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: That's the city I mean, that's the planning department's view of this. Okay. Okay, and then so then there's the second question. Because even if they could meet that, they would still be out of luck if they weren't doing an adequate I mean, we'd be back into looking at whether things are necessary and desirable in that kind of weighing, where I think the neighbors have a much stronger case if they weren't looking at less intrusive ways to do this. And I think AT and T, they've gone ahead. They've done that analysis of, and they have a story about how they've looked at all these other sites, and there's not the other sites, they've tried. And really, the only way for them to do this, this type of facility, is to build this type of 100 foot tower, which may or may not be a small facility, but if it is a small facility exempt from CEQA, but that they have to do it this tower in this way because that's the only way to do that kind of facility. And I think they could probably support that if we force them to litigate it. But there seems to be a different argument coming from the appellants, which is, but you also have to look at alternative technologies. And they haven't looked at alternative technologies. And my question is whether that is something that's been litigated or that we have a sense of whether we can tell them that they have to look at, for example, distributed antenna systems rather than this type of facility.

[Sylvia Jimenez, Planning Department staff]: The way that the alternative analysis requirement is currently written, it speaks to location. So exploring other types of technology that could achieve the same amount of coverage is currently not something we require, especially not for a preference one site.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: It'd be great to know whether that's because we can't.

[Sylvia Jimenez, Planning Department staff]: It could be. I mean, I would have to consult with our wireless authorities. Why

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: don't you all chat amongst yourselves? Sure. Okay. Supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: Thank you, President Mandelman. Just kinda curious. A project of this size with the footprint of 550 square feet, but also it has a backup generator and a 190 gallon diesel tank. Is this something that we have seen before in San Francisco in this size?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: They're chatting about my question, it's the secret people who are still there. So the question from Supervisor Chan was related to the generator and the fire risk, I think, right?

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: Well, generator, like there's a backup generator, and then you also have like 190 gallons. Well, there's some discrepancy. I think the AT and T say it's 150 gallons, but according to planning department, it says 190 gallons, so up to 200 gallons of diesel tank. And then you also have a base, though. The base is looks like it's a footprint of 550 square feet. So the question is, have we seen a size of this type of antenna from for any, actually, just AT and T, but for now for AT and T, anywhere in the city at the moment? Have this been done before?

[Josh Pollack, Planning Department staff]: Yeah, thank you for the question, supervisor. So my understanding is that the proposed facility that's adjacent to the Palace Of Fine Arts is comparable in terms of footprint and height, and that it's standard practice for similar sized monopoles to include a backup generator in the case of emergency events so the antenna could continue to provide service.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: What is the size of the Palace Of Fine Art? Here, I'm looking I don't know if this is the accurate information that I'm looking at. It says it's about 78 feet. And interestingly so, that somehow it's a fake eucalyptus tree, like South Tower looking? My understanding is it's approximately 90 feet tall. I'm not sure on what the footprint is on the ground, but

[Josh Pollack, Planning Department staff]: I think it would be approximately similar to what's being proposed here. But I don't know if my colleagues have any specific recollections about that project.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: Apologies. Sorry. Here it says it's like nine twenty four square foot concrete pad. But go ahead. Please continue.

[Audrey, Planning Department staff (wireless/appeals support)]: We will endeavor to get the answer on the size of the concrete pad for the Presidio site.

[Dr. Candice Loe]: No problem. I Thank you, supervisor.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: Thank you. But that right now, so that we have now one in Palace Of Fine Art, and then this is the second one that is proposed by AT and T.

[Audrey, Planning Department staff (wireless/appeals support)]: Yes. That's correct, supervisor.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: Thank you. And then I think I do have that question too, like, about the CEQA exemption. So clearly, you have a precedent before that you issue a secret exemption for the one in Palace Of Fine Art. Seems like it is similarly you also have I I'm just kinda curious having a diesel tank, which is permanent, and a backup generator, also permanent, once it's there, but they don't but they can receive a CEQA exemption?

[Josh Pollack, Planning Department staff]: Thank you. Yes. That's correct. So the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is the agency that's responsible for permitting the backup generators. And if a generator is less than 50 horsepower, which it is in this case, it does not require a permit, because the air district has determined that generators that size do not have significant air quality impacts.

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Supervisor Chan. I do not see any other colleagues in the queue, and so I'm going to invite the project sponsor, AT and T, up to speak for up to ten minutes.

[Cammy Blackstone, AT&T]: Okay, I was gonna do a PowerPoint, but I'm instead gonna use the overhead projector. Can you see? Okay, Cammy Blackstone, hello, supervisors and President Mandelman. I'm Cammy from AT and T, I'm and gonna be joined today by Amanda Monchamp, who is our legal counsel. I just wanna kinda speak to why we need this site. So, this currently is coverage in the area. So what this means is all of the blue and the yellow means that it's like good coverage outside, sometimes inconsistent, but no indoor. And then these white areas, there's no coverage whatsoever. And AT and T is committed to delivering reliable, high quality coverage to all our customers, especially our first responders who depend on FirstNet. But in addition to that, there is an expectation in San Francisco to have indoor coverage. Like, you're driving home from work, you're on a call, or you're walking from the bus stop, you're on a call, and you expect to kind of have it indoors. In addition to that, 25% of the homes in Diamond Heights are BMR residences, And a lot of people actually use their phones and depend on that wireless coverage for their Internet searches, whether it is finding out what their assignment is for school the next day or applying for jobs or checking their bank balances, everything that you would do on a computer. So this is how it is now. No indoor coverage except for over here, which is our other site that's a mile or so away. So once we do build this site, if we get to build this site, this would be the coverage. All of that green would be excellent indoor and outdoor coverage. Of course, there's to be some yellow there, which means good outdoors, but not not reliable indoors. So, that's kind of the coverage argument there. I do want to say that although first responders are not mandated to have FirstNet, they do have it. In fact, 99% of our police officers with the SFPD use FirstNet. Every single fire truck in San Francisco has a SIM for FirstNet. And our Department of Emergency Management uses FirstNet as their primary carrier. In addition to that, we have been looking for ten years for a site in this area to cover this area and address this coverage gap. We've approached many buildings, including the two churches that continually come up, Saint Aidan's and Saint Nicholas. And nobody has been we have not been able to find a suitable site or a willing landlord. So this is kind of our last hurrah. This is the last site. And we came to this site because the police department, Captain Falzon at the time, who was the captain at the academy, begged us to come take a look at this site. It's a preference one. We thought it would be good. We did everything we were supposed to do with this planning application. We did have a community meeting. I did exchange many emails with different neighbors from the Diamond, including folks from the Diamond Heights Community Association. And then we met, of course, Supervisor Mandelman, with you in your office trying to kinda come to an agreement. So AT and T, in our application, we did everything that was required by the planning department, and we intend to do everything that's required by the building department as far as working with every relevant agency and abiding by every city regulation. Is there anything else? This is an important site, I want to turn it over to Amanda. It is a very important site, and I really hope that you will support it, and I will let Amanda respond to the appellant's brief.

[Amanda Monchamp, Counsel for AT&T]: Good afternoon, board. Thank you for your time. Oh, certainly. Here we go. Hi. So I'm gonna address some of the specific questions you all asked, as well as specific comments made today by the appellants. So to get right to the letter that was filed yesterday by the appellants, They cited two cases, and I just want to briefly address them. Neither of them are published cases, which, in California law, means they are basically nonexistent. They are not part of the body of CEQA law. But I just want to address that they are factually also distinguishable and different from the site that's before you today. The only published case that addresses stand alone wireless facilities is cited in our letter. It's called Don't Sell Our Parks. That is a stand alone facility that is in a residential neighborhood, in a park, in a canyon a vegetated canyon. Very much on point. The cases they talk about are light standards, several of them, not just a single site. And the other is an unpublished trial case that was based on a very different record. I was involved in that. So, very different cases, also not part of the actual body of CEQA case law. You raised a concern about the height. So, the exemption does not speak to height. It speaks to square footage. So, when you look at the mass of a building, that would be a 10,000 square foot building, which is the size of a building that can use a small facility exemption if you compare the mass of a five fifty square foot wireless site, even at its height, it's about 5% of the mass that could be exempted with a 10,000 square foot building. So, it doesn't speak to height. It doesn't give any parameters around what is small. But when you look at the size and scale of the building, or the size and scale of a wireless facility, this falls within what is a small facility. I also just want to briefly address, because I just feel bad. Someone mentioned that AT and T was untoward in providing draft findings to planning staff. That is part of an application that's common. That is not untoward of planning staff to ask for that or receive that from AT and T. It's part of the application. So, to the specific issues that have been raised, today, no one really spoke about geological issues. It was discussed previously in a bunch of letters. The site where it's located is outside the landslide zone. Have an expert geological engineer that explained that there will not be impacts to slope stability, groundwater, fill soils. Historic resources the nearby church is not a historic resource. The neighborhood is not a designated historic resource either. Today, a lot of concern was raised about biological issues. Josh already explained there's no substantial evidence of an impact to biological resources. The project site is not in the MA3 area of Glen Canyon Park. Even if it was, we'd contend that an MA3 area is not an area of critical concern, which is the language that precludes the exemption under CEQA. There's also just a discussion that animals don't know where zones go. They could be outside of the zone. That's true. But that the only reason you can't apply an exemption is if you're within a designated area of critical biological concern, which, again, this site is not. As to concern about the trees, we have a certified expert arborist who looked at the impact of the site, including the construction including the use of construction equipment, and concluded that there's only one tree close enough to maybe be affected, and that tree's root structure will not be adversely affected by construction of the site. Some other issues that recently came up, the general plan talking about the police academy moving. There's no specific plan for the police academy to move. There's a discussion about the impact on parks. This site is not in a park. It's in a public facility, but not in a park. There are multiple other instances of wireless facilities near residences, near parks. Two of those that they cite, one in Golden Gate Park, one near the Palace Of Fine Arts that's been discussed, which I believe one facility is 80 feet tall and one is 130 feet tall. Though there are other examples of similar sighting that have already occurred, and like the Don't Sell Our Park in other areas of California as well. Moreover, residential areas commonly have wireless facilities in them. San Francisco is not alone in permitting wildlife wireless facilities in residential areas. Just to give you two examples to have them in the record, 2919 South King Street in San Jose is an example, and 23500 Cristo Del Rey in Cupertino is another example. We agree with planning staff that this is a Category one site. We did go ahead and produce an alternatives analysis that was already discussed. So, this is, in fact, necessary technology. You all rely on wireless facilities. It is necessary and desirable to have wireless service. As to fire, as the appellant's letter admits, this is not in a wild land wildfire urban interface area. As to Fire Investigator Old Ag's declaration that was submitted, his point was not that San Francisco was not windy. His point was that the wind in those other fires that the appellants had cited is very different. Those were dry, hot Santa Ana winds. San Francisco experiences very cold, wet coastal winds. I live six blocks away from the site. I will attest, very cold, very windy. What he was also explaining is that the reason those fires started have nothing to do with wireless equipment. In each of those cases, it was in either Edison or other power provider. Their wires, either sparking dry grass, other poles, other loose wires, in every single one, there was no equipment of from a telecommunication provider involved. Lastly, because I think I'm going to get cut off, the concern about the Telecommunications Act that you guys have raised, the standard is, in terms of a gap in service, if there is reliable in building service, that is what federal courts recognize as a gap in service. It's not a complete lack of service. It's not if you have weak service. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you. Could don't go away. Although this might be a this could be a CAMI question. But this question I was going back and forth, why doesn't AT and T's alternative analysis also look at alternative technologies?

[Amanda Monchamp, Counsel for AT&T]: So, under federal law, alternative technologies is not an alternative that the agency can require be considered. But the other reason here is because you can't use DAS technology distributed antenna systems for FirstNet. And AT and T does have a mandate to provide FirstNet technology, which I know there's been debate as to whether it's used or not. It is used. I think there's someone from FirstNet who will speak to that. But that is one of the main reasons you cannot use that and provide FirstNet.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And this might be more of a question for Ms. Blackstone. But I've heard there's very obvious large facilities generally in the neighborhood. I mean, there's Sutro, there's Christmas Tree Point. Why are those not adequate to reach these areas?

[Cammy Blackstone, AT&T]: Either they're not available, because we have been looking for ten years, and if that were possible, we definitely would have considered it. I will say the areas that we need to cover, I don't know that I don't think that Sutra would, but I don't know Christmas Tree Point. That, I'm sorry, I can't help you there. But this was the only site that we could find where we had somebody who not only encouraged us to site there, but would allow it.

[Amanda Monchamp, Counsel for AT&T]: Available includes whether or not it can be leased.

[Cammy Blackstone, AT&T]: And we do pay. And the city is a very expensive landlord.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. All right. Thank you. We will I don't think I have any other colleagues in the queue. So if there are members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal, please line up over at your right, my left, and Madam Clerk, let's start public comment.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Mr. President. If you'll come up to the podium, you will see that there is a timer on the podium to help you. The first bell will let you know you have thirty seconds to wrap up your comments, and then the final bell will ring. Please keep your comments within that two minute time frame. I hate to interrupt you, but we will. And again, as the President spoke, this is for those who are in opposition to the appeal or in support of the project. This is your opportunity to provide comment to the Board. Welcome to our first speaker.

[Christine Mercado, FirstNet (State of California)]: Thank you. Good afternoon Board of Supervisors. My name is Christine Mercado. I represent FirstNet for the State of California. I'm here in front of you today in support of this tower because public safety has asked me and I'm responsible to make sure that they have the coverage they need when they respond to disasters in the state of California. And this particular area has been a known gap for public safety. As you're probably aware, FirstNet is the only public private partnership, the only public safety network in The United States, which is codified by law. It is not best effort, it is not a commercial network. FirstNet is part of AT and T, but once again it's the only public safety network in the nation. With that being said, in this area, several law of fire EMS currently do not have the resources they need to perform their job duties in a disaster or a simple 911 call. So I'm here to ask you to support the tower moving forward. Thank you.

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

[Mostafa Khan]: Hello. Good afternoon, President Mandelman and members of the board. My name is Mostafa Khan, and I'm a local resident and an engineer. I want to speak in support of the proposed AT and T installation at 350 Amber Street from a reliability and public safety perspective. In San Francisco, we've all seen situations where powder outages or grid disruptions happen. And when these situations occur, whether that be due to weather or maintenance issues, communication systems become even more critical. Cellular networks are often the only way people can receive emergency service, receive alerts, or coordinate with family and neighbors. From an engineering standpoint, modern wireless sites are designed with backup power and redundancy. So, they can continue operating when the electric grid is stressed. In an area like Diamond Heights, filling coverage gaps makes the entire network even more resilient. This project isn't just about convenience. It's about ensuring our neighborhood stays connected when it matters most. I encourage the board to reject the appeals and approve the three fifty Amber application.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: You for your comments. To the next speaker.

[Myrna Melgar (member of the public with same name as Supervisor)]: Hi, all. My name is Myrna Melgar, and I'm a proud San Francisco resident. I'm here in support of the AT and T installation at 350 Amber Street because reliable wireless service because reliable wireless service has become an essential utility, especially at times when other systems aren't always dependable. Thanks, PG and E. When there are power outages or grid issues, people still need to communicate to access emergency information, manage payments, coordinate transportation, or simply check on loved ones. Strong cell cellular infrastructure helps ensure that one system doesn't fail just because another one does. For a modern city, resilient communications are a matter of equity and preparedness. This proposal is a practical step toward keeping Diamond Heights and the surrounding neighborhoods connected and functional even during disruptions. I urge the city to move this forward. Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Myrna Melgar, for your comments. Let's hear from our next speaker. Just wanna remind the public there are no outbursts, please, that would put you out of order. Welcome, sir.

[Ricardo Suarez]: Hey. Good afternoon supervisors my name is Ricardo Suarez San Francisco resident for the last fifty years diamond heights president for the last twenty four years. I love our neighborhood the only problem is that we have the worst cellular coverage anywhere. I' a long time AT and T subscriber and I'm very excited that we' be getting a wireless site server area so I' here today in strong support of this new infrastructure. My apartment complex is a few blocks from the plant site and I couldn' be more excited about finally getting service around the safe way store on Diamond Heights Blvd not only is it problematic sometimes on uber and lyft drivers lose their coverage and they can' use their gps but it' also a huge public safety issue we have a number of schools and day care centers retail spaces and churches in the neighborhood we need to have reliable cell phone coverage in the event of an emergency which is currently not the case I urge you to support this wireless site thank you.

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

[Steve (public commenter; last name not given)]: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Steve. I am a 40 40 plus resident in San Francisco, and I support this project for many reasons, both professionally and personally. Thank you.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Are there any other members of the public here to provide comment to the board in opposition to the appeal or in support of the project? Now is your opportunity. Alright, Mr. President.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. Public comment in opposition to the appeal is now closed. And we will invite the appellant to present a rebuttal argument. You have up to three minutes.

[Katherine (Catherine) Dodd, Appellant representative]: Thank you very much. Kathryn Dodd again, Diamond Heights Community Association. Let me address first some of the issues that were raised. The side of the pad that it's on is not the issue. The side of the giant antenna structure above it is currently at 700 cubic feet, sitting 20 feet above the trees. That you can't ignore that site. AT and T, in their plans turned in on February 2, looks like they intend to add a second antenna structure. That would double that bulky site. So, that's one thing. In terms of the natural resources, we submitted two naturalists. Today, you heard from a PhD prepared ecologist and biologist, birds fly and live in those bushes. No, they don't necessarily live within that boundary area, but those trees surround the police academy. And and bird collisions are a serious problem. They're documented in the literature. The question's about similar towers of this size. The tower that was just approved at Palace of Fine Arts is in the parking lot behind it. It you'll see you can't even see it as you drive toward the Golden Gate Bridge. It's not on the residential side. It's in the parking lot side. It's not near residences. And frankly, the the Palace of Fine Arts is surrounded by a lake. So this is not it's not a comparable comparison. The other site that was identified was the Golden Gate Park near the soccer fields. Again, no residences nearby. So which is why you hear so so much from the residences. The site that was brought up by the attorney said that they presented a San Diego case. That's a 40 foot pole on a on a canyon, but it's a 40 foot pole covered in plastic fake tree, not comparable to a 104 foot pole, above our parks. The alternative analysis, they didn't consider the corporation yard across the canyon at the end of the parking lot for the athletic fields where there are no where there's lots of room, no trees, there's no one living above it, it's not near any people or structures or children. They didn't consider looking at the behind the juvenile justice system, where there's a lot of public space. The idea that we're getting a lot of money from AT and T, the average rent is about $31,000 a year. Just imagine how much money they're going to make. I'm going to limit my comments on the other things at this point. Oh, the map you saw has those blue areas. The majority of those are Glen Canyon and Christopher Park. We don't need indoor cell coverage in Glen Canyon and Christopher Park. You're not looking at the maps. You're being, again, misled by AT and T's propagated maps. Complaining about complaining about coverage near the church and Safeway, they declined. Both Safeway and both churches declined having an antenna, so they're obviously not worried about it. So let me just say this. As volunteers and as neighbors, we have worked to speak truth to corporate power and misleading information. We the whole issue of FirstNet FirstNet sells boosters for rural areas. They don't have macro towers in all rural areas. They sell boosters. We don't need a macro tower to get FirstNet, which is part of AT and T's business plan. The The planning commissioners were misled about FirstNet. They were misled about 09:11. Verizon and T Mobile managed to have coverage without giant macro towers. Is that it?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Twenty eight seconds.

[Katherine (Catherine) Dodd, Appellant representative]: Okay. Let me just end by saying, they accepted AT and T's statement as they've exhausted everything. We rely on our elected officials for more. The board has a clear authority and and discretion to reverse the projects the project projects and grant the appeals and our groups' appeals and preventing macro tower densification throughout the city. Thank you very much.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you. Ms. Dodd, before you run off. I think you heard sort of the tenor of my questions to planning staff. And so I think probably have a sense of where I'm inclined to go with this. I don't think this is, as I've said, exactly a traditional conditional use necessary and desirable question. I think it really is I think we are in telecom act land. And so I do think that these two questions that I'm sort of asking about are kind of, are like probably the core of whether we would have any shot in defending this in lawsuit, which would be likely, I think. And so the first of them, you know, is this question of the gap in coverage. And I don't think it quite satisfies it to say the gap in coverage isn't that great, or it's only in these particular areas, or it's worst in the Safeway parking lot. And they sort of deserve it because they're not allowing I mean, think the test from a court I mean, I'm

[Vladimir Kostikov]: not a judge. I don't know.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: But I think that what AT and T would be asked would be, did they, in the record, show that there is an actual gap in the areas that they're trying to cover? And it seems to me like they've shown that. And before you respond to that, on the other prong, then they have to show whether they've looked at alternatives. And they definitely have shown in the record that they've looked at alternatives. They've looked at other sites, and they've gotten a lot of no's. There seems to be some suggestion, think, from the appellants that they should have looked at alternative technologies. We've heard two things about that. One, we've heard from AT and T's lawyer that, no, we don't need to look at alternative technologies. That's not the test. The test is location. And we've also heard from them and from FirstNet that, no, they can't do what they're supposed to do using, say, distributed antenna systems. That's not viable. They have to do it this way if they're going to meet their obligations under their FirstNet, as a FirstNet provider. So I guess I just, to me, those are pretty compelling. And I wanted to give you the opportunity, if you want to try to address either of those two things that seem pretty important to me.

[Katherine (Catherine) Dodd, Appellant representative]: Thank you, Supervisor Mandelman. First of all, the alternative analysis, they looked at private sites, and private they got turned down by private owners. They did not look at all the public site that was available. I just cited one across on O'Shaughnessy and the area above, the juvenile justice system. Regarding FirstNet, FirstNet, on their website, you can buy a booster for your FirstNet product. So it it doesn't require a 10 story macro tower and next on the literally on the fence line of two parks. It's not we're not talking in a park in the parking lot. We're talking in parking spaces behind the police academy on the fence line of of the border of the parks. I'm forgetting the other question, I apologize.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: It was gap in coverage.

[Katherine (Catherine) Dodd, Appellant representative]: Oh, gap in coverage. So, we identified that Hammond Medicine said they did a drive test because I don't believe the computer fabulated maps. Because if you look at the websites for AT and T, for Verizon, you look at what AT and T submits to FCC, they all say there's 100% coverage. And then AT and T says, oh, well, that's just what we submit. That's what they said in the planning commission meeting. And I've been told that the court will uphold that a very relatively weak signal, which is what Hammond Edison identified, in some areas is considered a gap in coverage. There are other ways to boost that gap in coverage. The police academy begged us to come. Well, police academy is in the shadow. It The police academy could have put a booster inside the police academy years ago that would have improved their service. So this is not the only way to do this. And I just feel like the did I answer your question? Oh, let me in terms of lawsuits, this decision should not be made on we're afraid that we're gonna get sued. San Francisco got sued by the tobacco industry. We got sued by the alcohol industry. We got we've been sued. Oh, we got sued by the plastic bag industry. We're we're likely to have to fight the ultra processed food industry. We're we're we're a city that stands up for people, for their health and welfare and well-being. We are not supposed to bend over and say, oh, no, no, president Trump, please don't sue me. This is a we need to stand up for the the neighbors. We elected you. You're sworn to defend us, and you're not sworn to defend corporate telecom. Thanks.

[Speaker 3.0]: All right.

[Tim Wolford (former City College of San Francisco Trustee)]: Thank All you, Ms.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Right. Unless colleagues have any further questions, I'm inclined to close the hearing. Should I close the hearing, or do you want to leave did you want to ask make your commenters then say your things during the hearing, or should I close the hearing, and then we'll talk? Either way. Let's say that these hearings have been held and are now filed.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: I sure.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: You know, I just wanted to say I do understand the dilemma here. Clearly, we had when I first took office, we had neighbors in reality having AT and T want to install an antenna in a private residence with the agreement that was actually with a private property owner. And we, through the same process, the neighbors appealed this. And I was in support of the constituents who did that because it was a private residence, too. And so I think that I am sensitive to the community input. But I do recognize what President Mandelman indicated. It did result in the settlement. But it did also resulted that that very antenna is still not installed. I just want to say, you know, while the AT and T probably was permitted to do so, it no longer seems to express or moving forward with the installation. So, I just want to put it out there that I am always inclined to fight and push back in these instance to allow the opportunity to sort of have those conversations. So, thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Supervisor Chan. I wanted to ask planning if you wanted to say anything more about any of the things that I asked about.

[Audrey, Planning Department staff (wireless/appeals support)]: Thank you, President Lindelman. We do have an answer to Supervisor Chan's question on the size of the pad for the Presidio site.

[Josh Pollack, Planning Department staff]: It's approximately 600 square feet. 600 square feet is the footprint.

[Cammy Blackstone, AT&T]: Yes. That's correct. And

[Audrey, Planning Department staff (wireless/appeals support)]: then we do have city attorney Brad Russi available if you had further questions on the Telecommunications Act.

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: Deputy CD attorney Brad Rossi. I don't the lawyer for the project sponsor answered your question about the ability to require them to look at different types of technology, and I agree with that answer.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: You agree with their answer. All right. Thank you. I don't see anyone else in the queue. All right. So I mean, think I've sort of indicated how I'm thinking about this. I did vote along with Supervisor Chan for that, to grant that appeal. And that story has actually influenced my thinking. I did not realize until this moment that it still hasn't been installed. But I do know that AT and T, notwithstanding our voting to grant the appeal, a year later, we approved a settlement giving them the ability to do what they had been trying to do in an appeal pretty much like this. So I do think that ultimately, AT and T may choose not to install that. They may find that this facility is too expensive, or they run into too many problems along the way installing this. But I do think it is quite hard under the Telecommunications Act to effectively prohibit AT and T or any other telecom provider from putting in telecom facilities. I think if we were just having a Well, there's different issues here. There's a CEQUA appeal. On the CEQUA appeal, and I said this earlier, the notion that this project should require an EIR seems really weird and not correct to me, and so I can't really accept that. Whether it falls within this exemption exactly, I tend to believe that our planning staff do a pretty good job on their sequel analysis, and they're being advised by good lawyers. It is tall. And I think that, you know, maybe requires like a slightly heightened level of analysis. But even with that, I think I can accept that this is, you know, still falls within that exemption. So I'm not inclined, at least for myself, to say that we should overturn the CEQA determination here. I think that CU is a much more complicated and harder question. And I think if it weren't for the Telecommunications Act, I actually still, I still think it would be a hard question because I do think that there's a, I think it is a known thing that service in the hills above Noe Valley and Castro is pretty bad. And I hear from a lot of constituents who express frustration about the difficulty of keeping cell service as they're either driving around there or in their homes. And that's just a thing that comes up. So I'm, I think, arguing that there aren't gaps in coverage, it sort of flies in the face of like the lived experience of a lot of my constituents. And I think that the record probably meets any kind of requirement that AT and T would have to make to show that there a gap. Even so, there is an impact. I don't think it's a significant there is an impact, a visual, mainly I think visual and aesthetic impact for, particularly for people who live up around the facility. And I think it's totally legitimate and reasonable for people to be objecting to this. But that would be the traditional balancing that we would be doing under a regular old CU. The greater negative impact on people closer, the broader benefit to a larger community further away that would be benefited from the improved cellular service? I don't think we even get necessarily to that question, because I think the telecom test, for me, probably settles this pretty much in AT and T's favor. Now, I have looked at this, looked at this with planning and with the city attorney, and tried to figure out whether, without rejecting the AT and T project, if there were any ways to address any of the other issues that have come up in this appeal. And I guess I would ask that our sergeant at arms hand out Some proposed additional conditions that could be put on this project. I'm going to ask that my colleagues grant condition grant the appeal, I guess, but only for the purposes of making the amendment to add these additional conditions. One related to additional fire department inspection and requiring that they inspect the project and that the applicant will complete any reasonable fire safety related recommendations of the fire department, and restating that the project, including the power source and cooling facility, be operated at all times within state and local fire codes, including the specific requirements for cellular antenna sites and placement of diesel generators. I feel like that's about as belt and suspenders as we can get to put a fire code and fire safety provision into the planning conditions of approval. I'm also going to ask that the project sponsor hire an arborist to prepare a tree protection plan that includes best management practices. And that there be a they say there will be no trees removed. We're going to ask that and they should be held to that. If somehow it turns out that a tree is removed, it would have to be replaced three to one with new trees, as required. And the arborist would sort of, I think, provide recommendations on how to implement that. And then lastly, we're, I'm going to ask my colleagues to require that the project, including the power source and cooling facility be operated at all times within the limits of San Francisco's noise control ordinance, so that any noise here, that it is also a condition of disapproval that they, that they meet the noise standards, that would apply anyway. But again, it's sort of a belt and suspenders to make sure that that would apply. I thought for a long time about trying to include some sort of aesthetics requirement, and went round and around and around with planning and AT and T about whether this is really the best that can be done in terms of making this as non obnoxious as possible. Planning seems to believe that the tree idea, know, hiding this with a tree is a bad idea. I have no basis to argue with that. They've also required that this be painted brown, and that that would be potentially less intrusive than a white pole, and that seems reasonable. AT and T, I had asked about alternatives for the antenna, the sort of facilities themselves, and whether there could be film that was put on them that would make them less visible or would be other colors. They submitted a proposal for that yesterday to planning. We could require it here, but I don't really want to do that without consultation with impacted neighbors. So I'm not going to put in an aesthetics requirement, but I would ask actually if someone from AT and T could come forward. It's probably Ms. Blackstone.

[Cammy Blackstone, AT&T]: Yes, supervisor.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Yeah, so I mean, until this point, and it may be going forward because there are other potential other appeal opportunities, I think, you know, appellants, the neighbors who oppose this, have been mostly focused on trying to kill this project. And so a conversation about like how to make the poll as non obnoxious as possible has not been one that I think might have gone very far. I would like a commitment from you that if that is a conversation that neighbors want to have, that you would be willing to, you and AT and T would be willing to have that conversation with me and my office and the neighbors going forward to look at the other potential alternatives around things like film and coding that could be put over the facilities, around the color of the pole, around any of that stuff to the extent that the neighbors have a consensus position on it.

[Cammy Blackstone, AT&T]: Yeah, absolutely. We're willing to discuss any options that won't hinder our focus, which is to get the signal out. But we're happy to work with them on paint, color, film, whatever we can do to make it less offensive to them.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. All right. Thank you for that. All right. So the first thing that I think I need to do, and I'm going look at the city attorney to make sure I get this right, is I think I need to amend item 25, the is that right? 25, disapproving conditional use authorization. I think I need to amend that in the form that I have handed out to include these additional conditions. So I would like to make a motion to amend it in that. I would like to move to make that amendment. And I would seek a second, seconded by Dorsey. Can we take that motion without objection, colleagues? Without objection, the motion to amend passes. Okay. And then I would like to

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: Mr. Rusty. Deputy City Attorney Brad Rusty. Yeah. I think you should dispose of the CEQA appeal first before issuing the final permit.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Brilliant. Thank you. So, all right. So on the CEQA appeal, I would like to make a motion to affirm the categorical exemption determination by approving items 20 and tabling items twenty one and twenty two. Is there a second? Seconded by Chen. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on that motion?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On the motion to approve item 20 and table items twenty one and twenty two, Supervisor Wong. Wong I, Supervisor Chan Chan no, Supervisor Chan Chan I, Supervisor Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder Fielder I, Supervisor Mahmood Mahmood, I. Supervisor Mandelman?

[Nick Menard, Budget and Legislative Analyst]: I.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelman, I. Supervisor Melgar? I. Melgar, I. Supervisor Sauter? Sauter, I. Supervisor Cheryl? I. Cheryl, I. And Supervisor Walton? Walton, aye. There are 10 ayes and one no, with Supervisors Chan voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. Item 20 is approved, and items twenty one and twenty two are tabled. And then that brings us back to twenty five, twenty six twenty four, 25, and 26. 25 has been amended. And so I would like to make a motion to pass item to approve item 25 as amended, 26 and table 24. Is there a second for that? Seconded by Dorsey. Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on that motion?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On the motion to table item 24 and approve item 25 as amended and 26, Supervisor Wong. Wong, I. Supervisor Chan. I. Chan, I. Supervisor Chen. Chen, I. Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, I. Supervisor Fielder. Fielder, I. Supervisor Mahmood? Aye. Mandelman, I. Supervisor Melgar, I. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Soder, I. Supervisor Cheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. And Supervisor, Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, item 24 is tabled. And item 25 is amended. And item 26 are passed. All right. Madam Clerk, let's go back to item 12.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 12, Mr. President, is the reset item.

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: And Mr. President, I should say there is a motion on the floor, second made by Supervisor Fielder, seconded by Supervisor Thank

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thanks, President Mandelman. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I had some questions for the sheriff or DPH, whoever is present.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The sheriff is present. Great.

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: Hello. I'm sorry. What was the question again, supervisor?

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Sheriff, I will have a series of questions, so think in advance. So first off, what kind of intoxicated individuals will be taken to this site? Is it people intoxicated with alcohol or opioids or something else?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: An assessment will be made by the officers or deputies that encounter the individual. Usually, if they exhibit signs of being under the influence of either alcohol or drugs, there's a series of tests that we conduct. There's field sobriety tests. There's 11,550, which references the health and safety code, a series of tests which you look at the nystagmus in an individual's eyes. There's a seven part test that is conducted to determine whether or not somebody's under the influence currently. It's not like measurement of how much is in their system. It's just an assessment of their current state and their behaviors.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: So individuals who are intoxicated in any which way that sheriffs deem?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: The arrest yeah, the law enforcement officer on the street, yes.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. Thank you. Will arrestees be detained at this facility?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: So the facility is designed so there's no doors, bars, holds. The deputies are actually outside the facility once they take the individual from the police they aren't present inside that's the purview of the actual caregivers and the people that are monitoring their conditions as they are allowed to sober up from their state

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. So arrestees will be held against their own will here or not?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: So the concept is that an individual is intoxicated or under the influence. They're being detained under that. They're being taken into custody under that, arrested under either six forty seven F or any of the 1,100 series charges that pertain to somebody under the influence in the public. They're brought to the facility. There's a triage done in terms of their current condition to make sure that they would be able to enter into the facility to sober up. And once that is done, the officers are allowed to go back on their way. They're not booked into custody. They're handed off to the caregivers and the health professionals, and they're placed in the reclining chairs until they can sober up. One thing we do in this process is something called the eight forty nine. Usually, when an individual takes about four hours or so to become a little more lucid and sober, we issue what is called a Certificate of Release, eight forty nine, and that allows the individual to leave. In this particular case, when the individual is brought there and they are sobered up, they're not in a jail. They are not booked in. They are not behind walls or doors or keys, and they're allowed to leave of their own free will once they've been eight forty nine they're there voluntarily if they choose not to and they leave then they leave there's no compulsion once they're brought to the center of keeping them there involuntarily

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you. At what point will they receive an eight forty nine then?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: That's still in discussion because it depends on the state of the individual. If they are not capable of understanding that they're being released because they're under the influence That's why we usually let them sober up first or have time to rest and then re present to them. In the jails, it's very specific to a time frame when we keep checking on them. Here, there would be constant attention given to them, which would make this dynamic slightly different than what we see in the jails right now.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you. That leads to

[Katherine (Catherine) Dodd, Appellant representative]: my next

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: question. Will there be licensed medical professionals at this facility, like nurses, doctors? Who's making this assessment?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: I believe that there are going to be individuals. Let me bring my undersheriff up she can give you a better understanding of what the staffing plan is for the contracted providers.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you.

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: Good afternoon my name is Kathryn Johnson on the undersheriff. One of the requirements of the contract was that there would be a licensed RN in the facility twenty four hours a day seven days a week. That was one of the determining factors of this issue when the stakeholders from the various departments talked about it. And it's really based on the assessment skills that RNs have that other medical professionals do not. So every triage will happen by an RN who's in the sobering center the entire time, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. There's other care case managers there. Peer specialist is what they're calling them. And then there's some medical oversight by DPH.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. So one RN and then other case managers.

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: Absolutely. And peer specialist. And

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: sheriff's deputies will be outside of this facility?

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: They have what's called an area of responsibility. Part of it is to conduct also good neighbor policy. So they'll be doing foot patrols in the surrounding area. They will be interior to the point where the individual comes in to assure that they're safe during triage, and then to issue the 849B at whatever point that happens, when the person's able to care for themselves. And their primary role is the safety of the staff, the connection staff, and then the foot patrols in the area.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. So will the nurse practitioner, the registered nurse, be making the 08:49 assessment?

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: The medical provider will assess when the person is able to care for themselves, yes.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. Great. And then they will relay that to the sheriff?

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: Correct.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Got it. How many people are envisioned being in the center at any one point?

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: The center has a maximum capacity of 25.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. 25 people for one RN. And how many case managers?

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: There will be six staff altogether, six medical professionals.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Six medical professionals?

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: Well, six case managers that are, that work under the umbrella of the Connections House.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: A case manager is not necessarily a medical professional, though. Correct. One RN, which I would consider the medical professional, the licensed medical professional, and six case managers, maximum 25 people.

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: Maximum.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Understood. Is this an authorized sobering facility?

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: It is a non licensed sobering facility.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. And just walk me through why we would operate as an unlicensed sobering facility.

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: So this is not a local detention facility, nor is it a temporary holding facility. This is an alternative to jail or an alternative to an ED visit. It's the ability to provide linkages to people who desperately need them and to have direct intervention.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. It sounds to me like a sobering facility. Why wouldn't we operate it as a sobering facility?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: As I mentioned earlier, supervisor, the grounds for which we would take an individual into our care and bring them to this location would normally be a delivery to the jail itself. We're trying to create an option that is not jail for us to bring someone to get more care for their current condition because they're under the influence, bring them out of public space where they may not be able to care for themselves. And it's a compelled situation. They're being arrested. They're being taken into custody. But instead of bringing them to jail, we're bringing them to this center. And it's not a medical care facility that we're bringing them to. This is a center that is going to provide the ability to have a space to sober up under constant supervision of both the medical staff mentioned the nurse as well as the case managers and the other individuals associated with the services provided we've tried very hard to create a situation where deputies law enforcement aren't a part of that environment so that they don't feel that we're there to keep them there. Once they are eight forty nine, they're free to leave. Our hope our hope for this is that an individual, when resting, awakens, finds themselves in this place, and instead of deciding to leave, decides to stay a little longer and rest a little more and maybe start to become more cognizant of some of the services that are available. We're trying to create that kind of environment instead of what we do currently right now which is when someone is intoxicated and they're brought to jail they're placed in the holding cell they're still cared for in terms of supervision making sure that they're okay but there's not the focused, detailed, very intentional supervision of that individual. And then when they're released, they're released off Can on the

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: I ask, released where?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: Into the community. They're just released.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay.

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: When they this is what used to be called supervisor at the drunk tank

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Right.

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: Where somebody goes, stays for four hours up to eight hours, and then they're released, they're literally given all their property back and sent out the door.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Right. I' hearing that this is a place to connect people to services but I'm not hearing that people are going to get connected to services. I' hearing that they' going get returned to the street.

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: No. Our hope is to make sure that they connect to services and I believe there' a whole infrastructure that we're going to have available in order for them to be transported to other places, transported to things. One of the things that we've staffed for is making sure that there's some sort of transport available to move them to a service, whether it's a residential treatment service, whether it's a clinic, whether it's some other space that they can go to for additional.

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: And supervisor, if I could just add, we're working on the connections now in terms of linkages once someone's released and where they would go. And we're looking at identifying very specific needs that fit the individual, because not everybody is prepared to connect to a linkage. It just depends on that individual assessment. So that's key in this. And every individual will be assessed. I just want to go back for a minute to your question about the sobering center. So it is, in fact, a sobering center that's non licensed, but other sobering centers in the cities are non licensed. Sobering centers are not a licensed facility. It's a place to take an individual to allow them the time to become sober to the point where they can care for themselves, cause that is what the law requires. Where we take the individual really depends on the availability of resources in the city. And so this is just one more place that we're able to take an individual where they could sober up to the point where they're able to care for themselves and we can try and connect them to some linkages, which is a gap, a service gap that's missing from the jail.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Understood. I understand the concept of sobering up from the understanding of alcohol. But when it comes to fentanyl, being sober from fentanyl is a completely different thing than being sober both have withdrawal symptoms and withdrawing from opioids, benzos, whatever you, whatever, has also life threatening consequences. So I'm just I'm wanting to my questions are all about wanting to make sure that people have the care and are then not put back onto the street and indeed are connected to the health care system in some way?

[Kathryn Johnson, Undersheriff, San Francisco Sheriff’s Office]: Absolutely. And that's our goal with this and the sheriff wants to take that question.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Please do. Thank you.

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: I appreciate that because it is it is not something simple that you can just fix by putting somebody into a place to sleep. Sleep it off is what they used to say. Right? Our jails are designed for withdrawal management also, unfortunately, for those that stay in our custody. Our intention isn't to keep people in custody to go from sobering up to detoxing to withdrawal management. Our intention is to get them to other services. As the undersheriff mentioned, part of our process right now is determining what link with linkages would best be suited for the individual beyond just resting in this place for up to twenty four hours it is not our intention if if it was conveyed earlier that it's our intention just to release the person from the center after a certain amount of time that's not what our intention is it's to really try to connect them to continuing of care for this situation and you're right fentanyl is absolutely a game changer which has led to why we're looking at doing it at doing something, at creating a space outside of our normal constructs of jails or hospitals in order to provide an additional option for these individuals.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Yeah. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. I'm yeah. I'm just trying to understand what happens to someone after their release. And I'm not I'm hearing general references to connecting to services. I don't again, I don't know if DPH is here to answer the question about, like, specifically where they will be connected. Like, the individual is free to go, they get their release form, the eight forty nine b, then they can walk out. They feasibly can walk out at any time because they're not being held. They're not being held against their own will in this facility. So I'm just trying to understand what is the plan for when they leave.

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: Well, I'd like to think that we have a number of options available to us here in San Francisco with the good work that the Department of Public Health has done in this space. There's still a partner in this process with us. We also have a number of organizations and familiarity with what is out there as the sheriff's office because we provide these linkages for the incarcerated as they transition out as well. We're hoping to leverage some of those partnerships as a part of what we're going to be able to offer to individuals that are going to be coming out of this space here at the Reset Center.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thanks. Those are my questions. City Attorney, I have a question about my motion. So if this is sent back to committee by next week, will we run up against a forty five day shot clock?

[Brad Russi, Deputy City Attorney]: Deputy city attorney Brad Rusty. Supervisor, that's correct. This was introduced under the mayor's fentanyl emergency ordinance, and the board must take an up or down vote on the item within forty five days, or the mayor has authority to basically approve this contract. The last day for that is on the twentieth, so next Friday.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Understood. Seeing that, I'm going to rescind my motion.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: So the motion made by Supervisor Fielder is rescinded with Supervisor Chan's, the seconder's concurrence. Is that correct? Okay. Great. Supervisor Chen, you have not spoken today.

[Chyanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Thank you, Vice President. Sheriff, I have another question. What is the maximum time that we have an individual in the Reset Center?

[Jay Wagner]: We know?

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: Great question. Hours.

[Chyanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Up to twenty four hours.

[Sheriff Paul Miyamoto]: Yes.

[Chyanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Okay. Thank you. Are

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: we exhausted? Oh, we're not. Chyanne Chen.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1), Budget Chair]: Thank you. I first do appreciate, Mr. Adam providing the response through email, a response that is from the Board of States and Community Corrections, indicating that at this time, the criteria of a type one facility or a temporary holding facility, this center does not appears to meet that criteria. It does say, though, indicating that they will be forwarding a more formal response, which correlates or it's consistent of the information I got about we're still waiting for a formal assessment. Because it's waiting for it to open this center and to visit. And then they can evaluate the operations. I just have a lot of questions about the center. I do also think that I have questions about the funding. It is my goal that during the budget process that we will have more of these dialogue and these conversation. In events that we can't be sure, I would like to at least put some which we have done it before, even for Department of Emergency Management. When it comes to ambassador program, we can't be sure. Then we would put certain fundings on reserve until we can learn more. Then we release the funding accordingly. It's my goal to do that for this contract. But I am still in that space. I'm not ready to support it today. I can see that this is likely to be approved by this body today. But it's still my goal, very much the same goal, to continue to learn more about this and to have a discussion during budget process.

[Dr. Candice Loe]: Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Chair Chan. If everyone else has spoken, I will say, for me, is not a hard question. I beat you on there as a cosponsor supervisor, Sherrill. But I think the challenges we are seeing on our streets around addiction, open air drug use, and sales are among the most significant and serious facing our city and facing our ability to have full economic recovery and address the concerns that are still expressed around the country and around the world about San Francisco. This is a tiny pilot to test whether a place to take people involuntarily to sober up might potentially be part of an arsenal that we could use to improve conditions on our streets. I think the reality is not having places to take people right now is a huge problem. It puts our police and our outreach teams and even our public health providers at a tremendous disadvantage. And so, I think we need to move as quickly as we can on this pilot, and if it works, do a whole lot more, and if it doesn't, find something else. But, thank you to the mayor and Supervisor Dorsey for pushing this. And with that, Madam Clerk, please call the roll on this item.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On Item 12, 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 I Supervisor Melgar Melgar I Supervisor Sauter Supervisor Cheryl Aye. Cheryl, aye. And Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. There are nine ayes and two nos with Supervisors Chan and Fielder voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, let's go to item 15.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 15 this is an ordinance to order the summary street vacation of city property on unimproved street areas of Moraga And Noriega Avenues to find the street vacation area is not necessary for the city' use to reserve easements related to support for the city owned retaining wall from the street vacation properties, and to include other conditions to the street vacation, to amend the planning code and the zoning map, to rezone the city property, to affirm the CEQA determination, and to make the appropriate findings.

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 15, Supervisor Wong. Wong, I. Supervisor Chan? Chan, I. Supervisor Chen? Chen, I. Supervisor Dorsey? Dorsey, I, supervisor Fielder, Fielder, I, supervisor Mahmood, Mahmood, I, supervisor Mandelman, supervisor Melgar, supervisor Sauter, I, supervisor Cheryl, aye, and Supervisor Walton, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, please call item 16.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 16, ordinance to amend the administrative code to expand the boundaries of the Castro Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer cultural district to include the Dubose Triangle neighborhood to affirm the secret determination and to make the appropriate findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Let's take the same house same call without objection the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk please call item 17.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 17 this is a motion to appoint Lashantay Woods to our to the our city our home oversight committee term ending 04/22/2027.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Again, same house, same call. Without objection, the motion is approved. Please call item 18.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 18, this is a motion to appoint Joseph San Gerrardi to the sunshine ordinance task force term ending 04/27/2026.

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 18, supervisor Wong. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan? Chan, no, Supervisor Chan Chan, I, Supervisor Dorsey, Dorsey, I, Supervisor Fielder, Fielder, Supervisor Mahmood, Makhmood, I, Supervisor Mandelman, I, Supervisor Melgar, Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Supervisor Sherrill? Aye. Cheryl, aye. And Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. There are nine ayes and two noes with Supervisors Chan and Fielder voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The motion is approved. Madam clerk, think we have committee reports.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Yes, we have three. Items thirty one and thirty two were considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on Monday, 02/09/2026, and were recommended as committee reports. For item 31, this ordinance amends the planning code to authorize movie theaters that also operate as bona fide eating places to offer entertainment, cultural, artistic, dramatic, musical, or leisure activities, performance or exhibitions, and permit on-site wine, beer, and or liquor, and to make conforming changes in the planning code definitions of bar and bona fide eating places uses to permit certain movie theaters in the Upper Fillmore neighborhood commercial district to sell wine and or beer without being subject to a non residential use size limit otherwise applicable in the district and to affirm the secret determination and to make the appropriate findings.

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On item 31 supervisor Wong. Wong I, supervisor Chan. Chan I, supervisor Chan? Chan I, supervisor Dorsey? Dorsey, I, supervisor Fielder? Fielder, I, supervisor Mahmood? Mahmood, I, supervisor Mandelman?

[Nick Menard, Budget and Legislative Analyst]: I.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Mandelman, I, supervisor Melgar, Melgar aye Supervisor Sauter aye Supervisor Cheryl aye and Supervisor Walton aye Walton aye there are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk please call it 32.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 32 was recommended as amended but it' bearing the same title this is a resolution to declare the intention of the board of supervisors to order the vacation of the designation of portions of Christmas Tree Point Road and the eastern alignment of Twin Peaks Blvd as public right of way for roadway and sidewalk purposes and to order the redesignation of Eastern Twin Peaks Blvd as public right of way for recreation and park purposes to facilitate the development of the Twin Peaks Promenade project and to set a hearing date for the Board of Supervisors to sit as a committee of the whole for all persons interested in the proposed vacation of said street areas.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Madam Clerk you want me to do what do you want me to do about this title?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you Mr. President. At committee this item was amended in the legal text of the resolution. The title itself did not get amended to include March 17 for a 3PM special order. We would appreciate that amendment.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: So you would like that amendment, and we can take that without objection? All right. And, uh-oh, there's consultation. Do Just you want to motion a

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: two names. Your

[Cammy Blackstone, AT&T]: name and another.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Moved by Melgar. Seconded by Walton.

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

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: so On '32, as amended.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: On '32, as amended, I think we can take that. Same house, same call, without objection. The resolution, as amended, is adopted.

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Madam clerk please call item 33.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 33 was considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on Monday February 9 and was forwarded as a committee report. This is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to prohibit the use of city property without the city' authorization except for uses traditionally available to the public without authorization to prohibit any city official or employee from authorizing the use of city property if that use would disrupt city operations or discourage access to city services unless the use furthers a city purpose to state that civil immigration enforcement is not a city purpose and to authorize the city attorney to bring a cause of action against anyone that uses city property for an unlawful or unauthorized purpose.

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

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Thank you, President. I'm proud to bring this Item 33 forward. I want to start by thanking the partners who made this work possible co author, Supervisor Chen, the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, SF Rising, Chinese for Affirmative Action, the San Francisco Latino Parity and Equity Coalition, the Arab Resource and Organizing Center, and our labor and community advocates. Their expertise made this legislation possible and kept it grounded in the reality that families are facing today. At its core, the ordinance is simple. City property should be used for city purposes, and our public buildings must be safe, welcoming, and accessible to the people they're meant to serve. We know what happens when immigration enforcement shows up at or near public facilities. People disappear from services. Appointments are canceled. Kids miss school. Families stop applying for benefits. Witnesses don't report crimes. When fear drives people away, the city cannot do its job. Immigration enforcement may be federal policy, but the fallout is local, playing out in our clinics, our classrooms, and our communities. In San Francisco, that chilling effect threatens public health, public safety, and economic stability. We've spent years rebuilding trust in city services, and this legislation is about protecting that trust. This model has also sparked regional alignment across the Bay Area, with Santa Clara County, San Jose, Oakland, and Richmond taking similar steps. That alignment matters because fear doesn't stop at our city's borders, and access to services shouldn't depend on which side of a county line someone lives on. Accordingly, this ordinance sets clear guardrails. Number one, it designates that city property must serve a city purpose. Number two, it designates that assisting federal civil immigration enforcement is not a city purpose, and staff that are potentially collaborative can face disciplinary action. It designates, three, that use that disrupts city services or deters residents is not allowed. And four, authorize the city attorney to act when our facilities are being misused. This doesn't regulate the federal government, but it does govern how we manage our own buildings, which is our responsibility as a city under the tenth amendment. Finally, I'd like to thank our coauthor again, Supervisor Chen, and our cosponsors, Supervisor Melgar, Sauter, Fielder, Walton, and Mandelman. And a special thank you to our drafting attorneys, drafting Deputy City Attorney, Jayna Clark, Jessica Gutierrez Garcia, and my Legislative Director, Sam Logan, whose hard work and expertise turned this policy into reality. And, colleagues, I humbly ask for your support.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. Thank you, Supervisor Mahmood. I think we can take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, let's go to roll call.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: First member to introduce new business is Supervisor Wong.

[Speaker 3.0]: Colleagues, today I'm introducing a resolution on emergency preparedness and the restoration of San Francisco's outdoor public warning system. San Francisco faces real risks from earthquakes, tsunamis, extreme weather, and power outages. Emergency preparedness means having systems that work under those conditions. Right now, we do not. Our outdoor warning sirens, approximately 119 across the city, have been offline since 2019. For more than six years, San Francisco has lacked a functioning outdoor warning system to supplement cell phone alerts during major emergencies. We have seen the consequences. In December 2024, a tsunami warning required first responders to drive along Ocean Beach using loudspeakers to warn residents. In December 2025, a widespread power outage left many residents without access to emergency alerts or the ability to contact 911. These events make one thing clear. Emergency preparedness depends on redundancy. Cell phone alerts are important, but they have limits. Phones lose power, networks fail, and alerts do not reliably reach people who are sleeping outdoors, visiting the city, elderly, unhoused, or without smartphones. Outdoor warning systems exist to fill those gaps. This resolution calls on the city to take a practical and phased approach by identifying funding to restore sirens, starting in tsunami evacuation zones in coastal areas and by pursuing state and federal resources to support that work. This is not about creating something new. It is about restoring a proven public safety tool and closing a known gap in our emergency preparedness before the next disaster. I respectfully ask for your support estimate. Thank you.

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

[Chyanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Today, I am introducing a resolution to initiate the landmark process for Engine Company Number thirty three located in the Lakeview neighborhood in District 11. This firehouse was constructed in 1896, and it's among the oldest standing firehouses in San Francisco. Engine company number thirty three was the last horse drawn unit in San Francisco fire department, not converting to using motorized apparatus until 1921. I want to thank the planning department for their work in preparing this landmark. And I'm pleased to get your support for the cultural and historical heritage in my district. Thank you. Thank you.

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

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I'm introducing a resolution to add a commemorative street renaming of Helen Walton Way to Julian Avenue, the home of the Friendship House Association of American Indians. Helen Walton founded the Friendship House in 1963 and transformed it into nationally recognized treatment facility that it is today. The Friendship House was one of the first programs in the country to integrate traditional native healing practices with evidence based treatment, as Helen deeply understood the need for native people struggling with substance use disorder to have a place to reconnect with their culture and join a community of other natives looking for a place to heal and call home. Helen was a proud Dine woman who dedicated her life to the healing, empowerment, and visibility of indigenous people in San Francisco and across the nation. We don't have many resolutions before us to honor native peoples or native women, for that matter, in this chamber. And I am proud to sponsor this resolution on behalf of Helen Waukesoo, her family, and the Friendship House, and would welcome your support. The rest I submit.

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

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Colleagues, today I'm introducing a hearing to examine how our city prevents and responds to youth violence and how our departments coordinate when young people and families are impacted by serious incidents. Before anything else, I want to acknowledge the young people and families in our city who have been directly affected by violence. In the Western edition, just a few weeks ago, a shooting involving several juveniles resulted in the loss of a young woman's life. Our hearts are with her family, friends, and the broader community that is still grieving. Last fall in the Tenderloin, another shooting involving a young resident deeply impacted that neighborhood as well. These are painful moments for our communities, and they stay with people long after the headlines fade. When incidents like these happen, it becomes clear that it is not just a public safety issue, it is a public health issue, a youth development issue, and a family support issue. And it requires more than one department to respond effectively and in coordination. This hearing is, according to not about just any one case. It's about making sure we're doing everything we can as a city to prevent violence before it happens and to support young people and families when it does. I want us to understand how departments communicate and coordinate in real time, how prevention and intervention programs are working together, where gaps or duplication may exist, and whether our funding and staffing matches the needs we're seeing in our neighborhoods. We've asked the Office of Victims' Right Victim and Witness Rights, Juvenile Probation, the Police Department, including the Street Violence Response Team, the Department of Public Health, including the Street Violence Intervention Program, the Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families, and the School Violence Interrupters, and the San Francisco Unified School District to join us because these agencies all touch the same young people and families. For this work to be effective, they can't operate in silos. They misfunction as one coordinated system of support. Through this hearing, I hope we can better understand how we support victims and families after violence occurs, how we identify and intervene with youth before harm happens, how our violence interrupters and our outreach teams collaborate across departments, and what outcomes we're tracking, and what additional resources or policy adjustments may be needed. Ultimately, the goal is simple. Fewer young people exposed to violence, more young people supported with appropriate services, and a city response that is proactive, coordinated, and grounded in prevention. I look forward to a constructive conversation and to working with our partners to strengthen this work. Second colleagues, today, I want to introduce an in memoriam celebrate the life of Johnny May Baker, a longtime San Franciscan and a shining example of what it means to live in community. Johnny was born in 02/06/1948 in Mooringsport, Louisiana, and relocated to San Francisco at the age of 13. Like so many black families who helped shape this city, she made San Francisco her home and built a life grounded in family and service. She attended Benjamin Franklin Junior High, Pelton Junior High, and Mission High School, where she formed friendships that would last a lifetime. In the early '90s, Johnny moved her family to the Western edition, where she became deeply woven into the social and spiritual life of the neighborhood. She joined civic groups, social gatherings, and faith based organizations. And everywhere she went, her welcoming smile and playful sense of humor endeared her to all. Johnny understood that community is built through relationships. Up until the end of her life, she maintained her kindness, grace, and compassion, humor, and abiding love for her family and friends. As the oldest of five siblings, she led with equal parts conviction and compassion from a young age. Johnny forged deep and supportive relationships through community and faith based organizations across District 5, including the Rafiki Coalition for Health and Wellness, the Booker T. Washington Community Service Center, the African American Art and Culture Complex, and her church community. She was a consistent and dependable presence and someone you could always call for an encouraging word. She loved gathering with others. Johnny was an original member of A New Beginning, a book club founded in 1999 with friends Jean Kippi Hogg and Melanie Moore. What began as a weekly book discussion grew into shared meals, outings, and lasting sisterhood, with food always at the center. She was also a beloved member of the Friday Faith Fellowship, hosted every first Friday by her cousin, Janie White, where her sisters in Christ gathered for food, conversation, and biblical teaching. Johnny was especially known for her gift at biblical trivia. In recent years, the Booker t Washington Community Service Center became a second home for her, where she found connection and support through senior wellness programs and community gatherings. Professionally, Johnny served the people of California as a legal secretary at the state attorney general's office, working with dedication and pride until her retirement in 2010. She brought the same warmth and integrity to her work that she brought into her community. Johnny had a rare gift for making people feel seen and appreciated. She never forgot a birthday, always showed up for celebrations, and offered help through acts of service. She was especially proud of her children, Erica Baker Brooks and Dwight Baker. To so many, Johnny was more than a friend. She was a shelter, a guide, a steady source of strength, a favorite auntie, and someone whose love and kindness brought out the best in everyone. Johnny loved her community, and her community loved her. Today, we honor Johnny May Baker not only for who she was, but for what she represents, a legacy of compassion and deep rooted care in District 5. May her memory continue to be a blessing, and may her legacy live on through the countless lives she has touched. The rest I submit.

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, Madam Clerk. We have a few items today, folks. Two hearings, a drafting request, a resolution. Two resolutions. All right. First, I am requesting a hearing on the report and recommendations of the Proposition E Commission Streamlining Task Force. I'm also submitting a drafting request for the city attorney to begin working on a charter amendment for consideration by this board to implement all or much more likely some of the task force's proposed charter changes. On February 1, the task force released its final report. That report reflects months of work by task force members and staff examining how San Francisco's board and commissions operate and how they could be restructured to best serve the public. Proposition E, approved by San Francisco voters in November 2024, established the task force and charged it with reviewing and recommending potential changes to the city's more than 150 boards and commissions. Task force members were appointed by the mayor, the president of the board of supervisors, the city administrator, the city attorney, and the controller. The task force's mandate was to identify opportunities to modify, consolidate, or eliminate public bodies to improve the administration of city government while preserving meaningful opportunities for public engagement. Over the course of 2025, the task force, with extensive support from staff in the city administrator's office, conducted a detailed review of each public body, one by one. To date, they have held 23 public meetings and considered more than 1,200 pieces of written and verbal public comment. They have made four primary recommendations. First, they recommend strengthening public engagement by consolidating boards, commissions, and bodies. Their proposal would reduce the overall number of body of such bodies to approximately 88 with clearer missions and more focused responsibilities. Second, they recommend moving certain advisory or non decision making bodies from the charter to the administrative code to allow the city greater flexibility to make adjustments over time without requiring costly and time intensive charter amendments, while still preserving the work and purpose of those bodies. Third, they recommend updating commission responsibilities to clarify lines of authority, improve accountability, and ensure each commission is equipped to carry out its intended role effectively. And fourth, they recommend establishing more standardized structures and membership guidelines across commissions to and other bodies to improve transparency and consistency in how they operate. Under the terms of Proposition E, this board, Us, is required to hold a hearing on the recommendations of the task force prior to April 1. Hence, this hearing request. By 03/01/2026, the task force will propose legislation to implement its recommendations or those of its recommendations that involve changes to the admin code. Those will be captured in an ordinance that will be placed directly on our agenda and will take effect within ninety days unless vetoed by two thirds of this board. However, the task force does not have the authority to make changes to the charter or to place proposed changes before the voters. To the extent that the task force has recommended charter changes, those changes can only be advanced either by action of this board or through signature gathering efforts outside City Hall. Accordingly, I am asking, I am submitting to the city attorney that's charter drafting request to begin a board led process to review the task force's proposed charter changes and to develop a potential proposal for voter consideration in November. At risk of repeating myself, and because I know this is of interest and concern to many, the board is not required to put forward a charter amendment that mirrors the recommendations contained in the task force report. The task force has proposed, and will discuss at its meeting tomorrow, a draft charter amendment to implement its recommendations. We can consider that draft charter amendment as we look at any charter amendment we might want to put before the voters here. But, I do want to thank the task force for all of their work and assure them that we are going to seriously and thoughtfully consider what they have done. My office is going work with the city attorney to take an initial pass at reviewing the task force's report, and beginning to work with stakeholders to translate those concepts into potential legislative language. And I fully expect that any such charter amendment will evolve, will evolve significantly through public input, stakeholder engagement, and of course, collaboration with you all. I would also note that there is likely to be some overlap, maybe significant overlap, between this work and some of the topics currently under consideration by the Charter Reform Working Group assembled by the mayor and myself, on which supervisors Mahmood and Chan have been serving. Thank you for your service. As we move forward, it will likely make sense the charter amendment I'm requesting today to be informed by the deliberations of that group. I want to again express sincere gratitude to the members of the Commission Streamlining Task Force, and especially our representative, Ed Harrington, for their extraordinary dedication and seriousness of purpose. I also want to thank City Administrator Carmen Chyanne and her team, especially Rachel Alonzo for all of their work. And finally, I want to thank the many commissioners, advocates, community organizations and members of the public who've participated and shared their perspectives so far. That input is going to be critical to ensuring that any reforms we consider here are thoughtful, balanced, and reflective of the values of San Francisco. And I want to thank my legislative aide, Melanie Mathewson, who's been doing amazing work, both tracking the work of the streamlining task force and facilitating the work of the charter working group. I look forward to engaging with you all and the public as we move forward. And that is my first item. Secondly, today, I am introducing a request for a hearing on the San Francisco Environment Department's budget. Every day, we are confronted with new and worrying evidence of the federal government's abandonment of environmental protection as a policy priority. Since last January, the administration has rolled back nearly 70 rules that protect our ecosystems and climate. San Francisco has long been a sustainability leader and our leadership in this area is today more important than ever. During the board's, this board's budget deliberations last June, I expressed concern over the cuts to the Department of the Environment that were, that the mayor and we included in that budget. Specifically, I was worried that by the second year of that budget, that is the twenty twenty six-twenty twenty seven fiscal year, that will be the first year of next year's two, of the two year budget we consider this June, the $2,100,000 in cuts to that department would require the elimination of 11 positions and the layoff of as many as seven people. As I understand it, those layoffs will essentially end San Francisco's environmental policy work in the areas of climate and building decarbonization and healthy ecosystems, including eliminating coordination and tracking of the city's climate action plan across departments and partners, eliminating emissions tracking and climate modeling, eliminating support for the climate equity hub and low income electrification support, and eliminating the department's biodiversity work around green space expansion, habitat restoration, and community engagement. The cuts will also lead to the elimination of the department's transportation program work, including work on implementation of the commercial garage EV charging ordinance, other work to advance the city's EV charging policies, including curbside charging, and work on urban freight decarbonization. At this hearing, I'm going be asking the Department of the Environment and the Mayor's Office to report on the impact these cuts will have on San Francisco's achievement of the sustainability goals we have set and how they plan for San Francisco to remain a climate leader in the absence of the people who do that work. I want to thank the Climate Emergency Coalition for their partnership on so many climate priorities, and their advocacy around preserving San Francisco's investments in sustainability, and I want to thank Sophie Marie in my office for her work on this hearing request. Next, I'm introducing resolution urging support for Assembly Bill twelve sixty five, authored by Assembly Member Matt Haney, which seeks to extend and strengthen California's historic tax credit program. As we all know, California suffers from an acute housing sort shortage. The state has set an ambitious goal of building 2,500,000 new homes by 2030, and we are not on track to meet it. Our state is also home to more than 300,000 historic buildings, many of them vacant or underused. And although property owners may want to transform these resources into vibrant and attractive and usable spaces, the cost of restoring and converting them can be prohibitive, requiring specialized labor, custom materials, and structural upgrades that most property owners cannot afford without help. The existing historic tax credit program was a step in the right direction, but its first come, first serve structure has failed to deliver equitable results. Of the $40,000,000 allocated for large projects last year, only two projects, including San Francisco's Hearst Building, received funding simply because they hit submit seconds before other, before dozens of other worthy applicants. Meanwhile, projects like the Castro Theater, the Huntington Hotel, and the Taylor Hotel were left without support. AB twelve sixty five could help fix this broken system. It extends the historic tax credit for five years and introduces critical reforms. A $5,000,000 per project cap, so more buildings could be assisted, A merit based scoring system replacing the race to the button approach, and removal of the arbitrary $50,000,000 cap allowing the program to meet real demand. This policy change leverages existing assets to create housing, drive economic development, and preserve the character of our neighborhoods. Over the last five years, projects using the historic tax credit have created 10,000 skilled jobs and generated $55,000,000 in state and local taxes. Modifying the program will only provide additional benefits for our workforce and funding for state and local projects. Supporting AB twelve sixty five will allow us to preserve our architectural heritage while simultaneously advancing our housing goals, and I am going to hope that you will support this resolution and the bill itself as we move forward. And lastly, colleagues, actually, you know what? That's not something I'm doing today. So the rest I will submit.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you, Mr. President. Supervisor Melgar. Submit. Thank you. Supervisor Sauter. Submit. Thank you. Supervisor Sherrill. Submit. Thank you. And Supervisor Walton. Submit. Thank you. Mr. President, seeing no names on the roster, that concludes the introduction of new business.

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

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: All right, for those of you in the chamber who would like to provide general public comment, this is your opportunity. If you would line up on the right hand side of the chamber, you may speak to the minutes as presented, items 36 through 41 on the adoption without committee reference or other general matters that are not on the published agenda but must be within the boards subject matter jurisdiction. If you would come up to the podium take a look at the podium once you do come up there is a timer The soft bell will let you know you have thirty seconds to wrap up your comments. And then the final bell will ring. We hate to interrupt you, but please keep your comments to two minutes. I just want to welcome our first speaker. Welcome.

[Unidentified SFUSD educator]: Please excuse my voice. Being out on a picking line. I am a public educator with San Francisco Unified School District. I want to acknowledge a few board members who have shown public solidarity with SF educators. I understand that teacher strike strike is not on today's agenda, but I'm here because public education should always be on the board's agenda. I also understand teachers being on strike is not just a contract issue, it's a city issue. When schools are underfunded, understaffed, and unsafe, the whole city is responsible. I'm coming to the board of supervisors because San Francisco can't keep claiming it it values kids without backing it up. Not all children have the ability to attend private schools. It deeply saddens me that this is one of the wealthiest cities in the world, and public educators are having to fight for the bare minimum. Fair wages, adequate staffing, resources for our babies, and health care. Health care is not a lux luxury. It's a human right. Every contract creates a bond of trust. And when those bonds are repeatedly broken, accountability becomes necessary. When educators are supported, they empower, they inspire, they stabilize entire communities. I truly believe if we invested in education the way we invest in policing and infrastructures, we would not need as much policing. When people have what they need, there is no excuse or no incentives for crimes. The necessities, educations are fighting for are not negotiable. They should be guaranteed human rights. As public officials sworn to serve the public interest, I'm asking the board to publicly commit funds to stabilize educators' wages and health cares. Just as you do repairs for peers like that was on an item last week's agenda. Our children can't wait. Our educators won't wait.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you so much for your comments. I'll just ask no applause. We appreciate your support. But there's a board rule that does not authorize any audible sounds of support or anything against. But you're welcome to signal as such. Thank you for your cooperation. Welcome to our next speaker.

[Unidentified public commenter (fentanyl crisis)]: Thank you. Good afternoon, board of Supervisors. San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the world, if not the most beautiful city in the world. And, every day, thousands of tourists of all races and religions from all around the world come to our city to see her many world wonders. Just last week was the Super Bowl and we saw even more people. And much similar to that, the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference, our city was cleaned up and the downtown area was sparkling clean. The less fortunate addicts, criminals were hoarded into the surrounding neighborhoods. And I I, you know, I implore you to do something about the humanitarian crisis. It's nice we have protests for everything else underneath the sun. I do agree. Our education system does need a top to bottom reform. I'd like to see people protesting for the five thousand people who have died from fentanyl on the streets of San Francisco between the years 2,019 and 2026. This is an absolute fentanyl genocide. Fentanyl is a form of chemical warfare on the American people. It comes from China across the southern border through the Port Of Oakland and to our community. Fentanyl is showing up on playgrounds and in schools. You know, gotta say, I don't necessarily approve of any law enforcement pointing their firearms at elderlies, women, children. With that said, I do believe, you know, fentanyl dealers should be deported from our community. If they're here in our city, exploiting our sanctuary city, taking advantage of our community, they should be deported. Walking around downtown today, I saw countless people left exposed to the elements, on the sidewalk. And I'd like to see some of our resources go to our San Francisco brothers and sisters on the streets. Seems like you guys prioritize illegal immigrants before you do citizens, and it's heartbreaking. Thank you.

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

[Richard Peterson]: Good evening, President Mandelman, and Board of Supervisors. My name is Richard Peterson. I'm not here to talk about parcel taxes today. I'm here to talk about the ordinance that San Francisco has for anti styrofoam, which seems to be working quite well in the food industry. And, we are moving to bags and the like. But, major of styrofoam contributors is expanded styrofoam that is in hot tub covers. And, those after a year, absorb water and are discarded. And, one cover probably equals thousands of cups. And, I have I represented the owner of Airframe Spar Cover who was a client of mine years ago, and he has developed a spa cover that does not use styrofoam or expanded styrofoam, And, it is called the airframe cover. It uses canvas and aluminum framing and is hollow. Just like many of the modern surfboards are becoming hollow. They're not using styrofoam in the cores anymore. So, I have some literature that I can have the clerk hand out. I have 12 copies, so it's one for the clerk and the rest for the

[Performer portraying La Frida (Frida Kahlo) persona]: Thank board

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

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

[Susana Rojas]: Good evening, my name is Susana Rojas. I am the executive director of Latino Cultural District, and I am here tonight to thank Supervisor Fielder and Supervisor Melgar for supporting and introducing a resolution to support our building to remain a cultural hub. As you heard, the gentleman before us, people who are brown and who are of a culture are now labeled illegal and criminals just by for existing. Recognizing and sustaining spaces where culture can be cultivated, where we can express our culture and elevate our history and the contributions to this city and the world are even more important today, where hate is so much prevalent. So, we thank you for that, and we look forward to working with the Board of Supervisors, with the Arts Commission, and with the mayor city to make sure that not only we keep this building reliable and a hub for art, but also that we can bring back MCCLA to the wonderful organization that it once was. Thank you.

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

[Emily Pimentel]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Emily Pimentel, and I'm a longtime resident of San Francisco. And I'm here today to ask for your support for the resolution to protect the cultural infrastructure of the Mission Cultural Center. In my time in San Francisco, I've been to the Mission Cultural Center many times, along with my daughter, with friends, and others. And this has been an important part of our city. And I think at this time, it's especially important to provide support to these kinds of institutions. And in this case, it's really about protecting the building, the infrastructure. The building at 2868 Mission Street is not just a building. It's been a living cultural institution for visual arts and murals and printmaking. I know of artists, Ali Bloom, you know, just to name a few that I've known personally over the years that have used and been at this center and supported it for many years. One of the things that I think is also incredibly important is at a time when these institutions are struggling, it's important to also protect the archives and cultural assets that belong to the community. The historical archives are housed at 2868 Mission, and these are not just records. These are part of the community memory, proof of Latino cultural contributions and inheritance. I also say that these buildings could also serve as climate resilience centers,

[Josh Pollack, Planning Department staff]: so

[Emily Pimentel]: I think that's something to consider as well for these. Thank you very much.

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

[Nelly Reyes]: Hi, my name is Nelly Reyes. I have lived in San Francisco for forty years after living in New York. And, I love San Francisco because of all the cultural communities that they have from all over the world. The Mission Cultural Center has been a very important part of my life, my children's life. My daughter, when she graduated from high school, she participated in the show Solo Mujeres, which the Mission Cultural Center was a pioneer on that. The day of the death, what would be San Francisco without all those artists? The Frida Kahlo that we brought is part of San Francisco and he say, I urge you to please support and continue with the Mission Cultural Center. The culture, it's very, very important especially in these times when they are discriminating. The culture give us strength. The art give us strength. So, thank you very much, and I hope you will adopt this resolution.

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

[Clayton John Leander]: Supervisors. My name is Clayton John Leander. I am a nonprofit management consultant, and I'm also a member of the San Francisco Puerto Rican club, which has been in existence in this city since 1912, one hundred and fourteen years now, probably the oldest one of

[Speaker 16.0]: the

[Clayton John Leander]: oldest Latino organizations in this city. We are here to support the resolution proposed by Supervisor Fielder to preserve the building over on Mission Street known as the Mission Cultural Center. It is a vital anchor institution in this city. As many of you have seen over the Super Bowl weekend, there was a lot of excitement and commerce generated for the city, but at the heart of the games was celebration of Latino culture and as as a representative also of the Latino community, we we see that all of the colors of everybody in the community is included. We would be remiss not to take into consideration there's been some controversy in the press and rumors about the organization that was occupying the center known as Mission Cultural Center of Latino Arts. Having worked with other nonprofit organizations across the state and the country, indeed nonprofit organizations go through cycles where they need assistance. I was very impressed by the public meetings to try to repair and bring together. So, however this process moves forward, the Puerto Rican club stands ready to participate. Lastly, I would just put in one note that whatever happens with this resolution, it also must be harmonized with the forthcoming recommendations of the streamlining task force since the building of the Mission Cultural Center is under the jurisdiction of the Arts Commission, and that has to be with Stout. Thank you.

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

[Nancy Pili Hernandez]: Hello, supervisors. My name is Nancy Pili Hernandez. I'm here to speak about the closure of Mission Cultural Center, but first, I wanna acknowledge that today is day two of the UESF strike, so that means 50,000 SF students were out of school today. I did see some of you guys joining the picket line. Raise your hand if you joined the picket line. I saw you. I saw you. I saw you. I saw you. Thank you. So shout out to you guys. Those who did not make it to a picket line, I would say you are probably failing the 6,500 educators who are out of school right now. I it was very crazy for me to sit here today as organizations and parents scrambled to provide childcare and lunches all over the city, and I watched you guys allocate $14,000,000 to the sheriffs to babysit 26 drunk and or high people. They will have seven adults present in those rooms where teachers are fighting for smaller class sizes and have nowhere near that type of resources. That 14,000,000 is, like, half of the amount needed to pay for the health care coverage for the families of all of the educators. So, literally, you guys just gave the sheriffs half of the money that the teachers need to pay for their health care. In a place where it costs a thousand dollars per bedroom, a thousand dollars per family to cover health care is crazy and unreasonable. And you guys hooked up this luxury hotel last week with, like, that amount of money or more. So I feel like, first of all, in solidarity with the teachers, the city needs to step up and support public education. And then at the same time, I wanna say that we were in a garden today in the rain taking care of kids because Mission Cultural Center is closed. Mission Cultural Center should be the first place that we open as a strike school because we can print posters. We have dance places. We have stages. We can practice spending time in small groups with young people because that's what Mission Cultural Center is built for. Right now that that place is closed, we are hosting strike schools outside in public gardens and in farms. And all the

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Thank you for your comments. Thank you for your comments. The speaker's time has concluded. Thank you. Let's hear from our next speaker. Welcome. We are setting the timer for two minutes, everyone.

[Daniela Oropesa]: Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is Daniela Oropesa, and I'm here as a staff member of Calleventi Cuatro, the Latino Cultural District. I'm here as a dancer. I'm here as someone that's performed in Carnaval. I have trained at Mission Cultural Center with people behind me and people behind here as well. I'm not gonna say any names, but they're fabulous. I've loved being in community with people. And one thing that I do wanna say is that Latino arts is not just for consumption on the big screen during a halftime show at the Super Bowl. It is not for consumption when you wanna go out and visit a local business and put on some cute earrings. It is it is within our people. It is within our generations. And Mission Cultural Center has really fueled and paved the way for so many generations to grow up and be prideful of their culture and be able to cultivate resilience and resistance in a society that is so heavily rooted in the silencing of so many of these communities that have been marginalized historically and currently in a new extreme way that we have not seen covered in the media at least. So I just wanted to let you all know that I'm here not only as a community member but someone that has really benefited from the Mission Cultural Center personally, whether it's within dance classes, in galleries that I've been a part of, in galleries that I've assisted in curation, and in the youth that I help foster relationships with from my dance sisters and all of my mentors. And the loss of this space would be really detrimental to many youth, whether you're in the Mission, whether you're in San Francisco, when you're in the Greater Bay Area. We have people that travel to the Mission Cultural Center from San Jose, from Sausalito, from San Rafael. And it is not just for San Francisco, it's for the Greater Bay Area and for the generations to come. So, really hope that you all prioritize not only the people's voices that are speaking in this room, but the generations to come and the generations that have already passed that have been impacted by this longlifting legacy that needs to continue. So, you so much.

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

[Francisco Herrera]: I'll start by seconding everything that Nancy Pili just said. Dear members of the board, My name is Francisco Herrera, and today I'm representing Nuevo Sol Day Labor and Domestic Workers Center and Cultural Foundation in the mission to ask that you join us in protecting our cultural infrastructure at 2 Mission Street. For over half a century, this space has enriched our lives, represented our story, heritage, cultural traditions, and artistic excellence that represents all the countries that make up this continent known as America, Turtle Island, and specifically this part of Ohlone, a stewarded territory, Yalamu. My children have studied and presented their work at this property. Our day labors and domestic workers membership organized in that space since 1989 through the arts, planning meetings, community celebrations, and collaborations in the community. From the first baptism of our dear brother Ariel Vargas conducted at this life giving space in 1971, through last year's efforts by Nuevo Sol meetings and cultural events, as well as Caminante Cultural Foundation training sessions where people learn to translate their experience into poetry, song, dance, film, the cultural importance of this building must be protected. While seismic while seismic retrofit is needed, this resolution assures that that retrofitted building remains dedicated to Latino arts and culture when especially this time when we have to organize, heal, and respond to the scapegoating and ICE terrorism our community is presently enduring. Resilience is our goal, and resilience requires space, access, and continuity. Please support this resolution. Gracias.

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

[Roberto Ariel Vargas]: Thank you. Good evening, supervisors and staff. My name is Roberto Ariel Vargas. And I'm a cultural worker in San Francisco, San Francisco native. And on the board of Instituto Familiar de la Raza. And, Instituto stands in support of the Mission Cultural Center as a vital hub for culture, for families to come together, and children to learn. It is as folks have said, a vital resource for people wanting to preserve our culture. It's also a vital resource for the surrounding businesses. And what folks haven't mentioned yet is the health benefits. I work in public health and we know that there are certainly public health benefits when community has a place to come together, to exercise, to dance, to be together in social support. And so I wanna add that. Fifty years ago, the community came together to found this organization. And, just a couple weeks ago, community came together again to stand in support of this organization. Yes. It is challenged. And we know that arts organizations across the city are challenged. Cultural centers across the city are challenged. And so I'd like to encourage our city leaders to stand with the arts commission and take a look at the the infrastructure that supports cultural centers, the policies that support cultural centers that exclude cultural centers from being able to apply for other resources, other city resources outside of what is designated for cultural centers. We know that there are other ways that people are taking care of, for example, child care, after school programming, and health benefits. And so, the center should be eligible for applying for those kinds of resources as well. Thank you.

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

[Adolfo Velasquez]: Good evening supervisors. My name is Adolfo Velasquez, born and raised here in San Francisco in the Mission District. I have visited Tocqueville Center throughout my sixty six years being here. Taking many classes, I know many people that have taken classes. The variety of classes that are being offered is such an important institution in the mission that we need to do everything that possible to keep it going. Right? I'm also a recipient of education at San Francisco State where I stand on the shoulders of many of the founding members of the Mission Cultural Center. Part of my responsibility is to carry on their legacy. So in I'm also in the doctoral program at State where my focus is on native American autistic college students. What I plan to do afterwards, I'll be finished with my degree next year, is to open up a program with with indigenous students in mind, autistic specifically, that would fit nicely at the cultural center. Knowing however, it's gonna go through the retrofit. But I urge you to pass this resolution, know, it also part of my dissertation looks at the sense of belonging for native American students, but it also transfers to our Latino population. Right? Having an institute keeping an institution as important as a mutual cultural center feeds our sense of belonging here in the city. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk (unidentified)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Jason Wyman]: Hello. My name is Jason Wyman. I am an artist and cultural organizer who works, creates, lives, loves in the Mission District. It's been my home for twenty two years. I've been in San Francisco for over twenty eight. I'm here today to speak on the importance of preserving Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts, yes. And I am also here as a neighbor who truly understands the deep importance of not just NCCLA, but all of the cultural centers that make up a robust ecosystem of programs, regrants, murals, performances, galleries, showcases, festivals, and more. Cultural centers that have enriched me as a neighbor, have taught me as an artist, have nurtured me as a performer, and have shown me what a city's commitment to community based, culturally specific production makes possible. Love, art, power, or that which fuels movements. That is why it is crucial that San Francisco takes steps to secure the future of our cultural centers. I have personally watched the city specifically target cultural centers over the last four years. One way the four centers with physical locations have been targeted is through their buildings. What is happening to MCCLA is structural, and the city controls and literally owns the structure. For now, I urge you to support the resolution to protect MCCLA regardless of any single nonprofit. And I also urge the board of supervisors to expand its view and look at how San Francisco is currently hamstringing its cultural centers through its budgeting, administrative oversight, and retrofitting processes. I'm happy to share and chat more to ensure that our cultural centers do not merely survive, but thrive and continue fueling people centered, culturally specific movements here in San Francisco and beyond. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk (unidentified)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Performer portraying La Frida (Frida Kahlo) persona]: Good evening. My name is Frida Kahlo. My husband Diego and I were remarried here in San Francisco City Hall in 1940. I was hospitalized in Saint Luke's Hospital, and my presence have continued to inspire and influence artists of the past and the present. I'm here today to fight for equity and MCCLA's significant contribution to the vital is vital to the city's identity, tourism, and local economy. We have served 8,000 diverse people a month around and around a 100,000 people a year. We have been neglected and underfunded for the last forty eight years and while we are thankful we're finally undergoing a retrofit, I am disgusted that with all the empty buildings available that the Arts Commission and the city board supervisors has not given us a place to continue our programming during the retrofit. I want a written lease that explicitly states that and assures MCCLA will return to the building and that we will not be displaced or evicted. I said eviction because it is a traumatic language that is used in our lease. I urge you all to keep us alive and continue to serve our our community. I have given tours at the center, led art workshop for thousands of San Francisco Unified School District, and helped archive around our 10,000 print collections which tells the history of San Francisco seen through the eyes of the prints. And during my tenure here at MCCLA, I was one of the people who was affected by the layoffs and for a city with around 342,000 residents with a net worth of $1,000,000,000, practically one in that's just one in four San Franciscans, ranking second richest in the world, including hundreds of billionaires, it is a cockamamie catastrophic and absolute failure with leadership fighting over Trump change. Please provide MCCLA with more funding and help us save our culture. Thank

[Deputy Clerk (unidentified)]: you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Laura Llano]: Good afternoon, supervisors and community here. My name is Laura Llano. I'm a San Francisco native. I'm a retired career SFUSD teacher, standing here in my UASF t shirt in solidarity with the striking educators outside, also standing in solidarity with the Kaiser healthcare workers currently on strike. I want to talk just to make some points about Mission Cultural Center. First of all, Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts saves lives. It saves lives by giving community a place to gather, by saving community memory and achievements. That is the most important thing that I can say here today. I have witnessed Mission Cultural Center saving lives because I taught for ten years at Sorry, I'm kinda nervous. I taught for ten years at Horace Mann, which is just one block away, and so many of my students went to Mission Cultural Center and attended programs. They danced. They made art. They communed. They learned their culture. They learned other cultures. It was a critical, critical resource, and it's heartbreaking that it's closed. Mission Cultural Center is a cultural hub. It's a dynamic center for creating and disseminating and storing cultural and community contributions, value, wisdom, worth, history, and experiences. The archives are priceless and bear witness con to contributions of generations of Latino community, the mission community in particular, and in general, generations of activism, cultural achievements, and wisdom. They must be protected and preserved at all costs. The building must be reserved for Mission Cultural Center, and the retrofit must preserve, not destroy, the culture. Please support the resolutions to ensure the community stability in these unpredictable and unstable times. Thank you very much.

[Deputy Clerk (unidentified)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Sylvia Sherman]: Hello, good afternoon. I'm Sylvia Sherman. I'm the program director at the Community Music Center. We've been in the Mission District for over a hundred years teaching music education, and we hope that you'll do everything in your power to support Mission Cultural Center at this turning point in the in the center's history so that it can continue to be a cherished space for the next generation of community members, neighbors, artists, and cultural organizers. You've heard many powerful stories and testimonies to the importance of Mission Cultural Center. I can share just one way in our community that it's made a huge difference in the lives of young people for over ten years one of our programs the Mission District young musicians program which is a tuition free program for youngsters to learn and perform latin music we didn't have the space at c m c so we partnered with m c c l a and were able to have weekly practices at the center and this was important not just because it was spaced but because the youth were able to be in an environment that was immersive, that they were in a space where they could see their own history on the walls through the visual art, where they could perform and participate in, various important cultural celebrations whether it was Cinco de Mayo or Dia de los Muertos and our students told us how important that was for them so they were not just learning music learning music maybe that they heard at home or in their family celebrations but they started to understand they were part of a cultural legacy that they were part of passing on cultural traditions as they saw amongst the walls of mission cultural center you've heard it from the the sister from from Laura from Frieda about how important it is for so many other students and teachers and artists in our community we hope that you will do everything in your power to support mission cultural center going forward thank you

[Deputy Clerk (unidentified)]: thank you for your comments next speaker

[Renee Ananda]: evening. I'm Renee Ananda. Raised in San Francisco, grew up in the Mission District. I benefited greatly from the wide range of programs, classes, and cultural events that were offered by the Mission Cultural Center. It's a unifying artistry that combined not only just the Latino aspects of our country, but also the Afro Caribbean content. Shows the connection, and it was really a safe place for me having that heritage, being able to go to the Mission Cultural Center and seeing the connection. It was there in my youth. I have a daughter. She's gone there as well. And as a planner, having that profession as a background, I think it's excellent that the resolution looks into the future, not just for now, and making sure that this continues into multi generations. So I commend the supervisors for making this resolution. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk (unidentified)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Jay Wagner]: Good evening board of supervisors and staff. My name is Marcus Lopez. I'm a resident of San Francisco for fifty six years and I'm here to support the Mission Culture Center. I grew up in the Mission, went to school in the Mission and I developed my music career in the Mission and it has seen me grow and develop into, you know, what I am today. And, I play many places on the mission, especially at the Music Cultural Center, which is an important tool for the community and our youth. I see many, many important art and visuals, theater, music. And, I think by eliminating this place, will be a horrendous blow to our community and mainly to our youth because by getting the youth involved in music, you know, you keep them out of the streets, you know, give them a good education. Maybe you can make music as a career in your elderly age like I have doing it and be productive for the for the our culture and our community. Thank you very much.

[Deputy Clerk (unidentified)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Unidentified public commenter (male; 'Highest law of the land')]: Board of supervisor and mayor office of San Francisco. The title of this speech is the highest law of the land. It was a monumentous occasion that I remember and pass it to the kids all around the world. On February 2019, I sat in front of the Buddhist Monk Society of San Diego. Six months earlier, they lend a voice along with Jasmine Lee, miss Chinatown Universal 2018 to support Maggie to recognize her in the voice land of the Buddhist monk. Maggie Wong was sent to Hong Kong to compete for the title, miss Chinese international host by TVB. As I sat exhausted from making rounds of sponsorship, the Buddhist monk teacher spoke. He spoke a variety of issues, including self confidence, family, self control. However, I was flabbergasted by the four simple words that he uttered at the very end of the speech. He said, In translation, you have to speak real hard. Valentine's is coming in four days. With that, I must say my fiance, pen name, IU pop star of South Korea. I will sleep directly as ambassador of Gucci who happens at a retail store next to Maiden Lane in Union Square. I say, I love you. I will thank you for the tweety bird that you made. As Bugs Bunny of and Sylvester of Six Flags, I thank you. I cannot wait to meet you on your birthday along with BTS and the counselor of Stanford. With that, my work, the party's over for me. There'll be hard work ahead of me as well as the board of supervisor. I'm here to the last chief software architect of x AI. I'm here to div deliver worldwide constitution for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. I'm here to provide a broad support for music for music industry if you look at it super bowl the street lights that's on the super bowl for previous two years my software to to be will support that thank you

[Deputy Clerk (unidentified)]: thank you for your comments let's get the next speaker

[Isabel Paraza]: Good evening, Board of Supervisors. My name is Isabel Paraza. I was a volunteer at Mission Cultural Center from 1991 through 2022 in every capacity you can think of, including three stints on the board of directors. My last stint was ended in 2022. During that time, gave as much time as I could as a single mom, a working mother, a thirty five year employee of the California Attorney General's Office. Thank you, Chyanne Baker, and thank you, by the way, for saying all those wonderful things about her. But it was important to me and to many other parents and families in the mission to have a place where we could take our children that was a safe space, where they felt appreciated for their backgrounds, their skills. It was a place to develop, as painters, as musicians. They provided, teachers an inspiration where our schools were lacking. My son was able to receive wonderful music training that was not available at the School of the Arts where he later was a student. They finally initiated a world music program, but most of what they were teaching did not reflect his background. That has changed. There were many other school programs that also were supplemented by what was offered at the Mission Cultural Center. It wasn't just at the center that classes were offered where skills were developed. We also did outreach to North Beach, participating in Art in the Alley with our youth programming, with our dancers, our musicians, many other places where we provided, arts and crafts and exposed the kids in the mission to many other neighborhoods, and all the beautiful things that we added to the city of San Francisco. I hope that the City of San Francisco commits to maintaining this

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

[Speaker 16.0]: Hello. Thank you. I'm Darren Owing, Executive Director of Livable City. We produce Sunday Streets. I'm here to talk about the Department of Public Health's proposal to eliminate $215,000 in funding for Sunday Streets. That's our entire grant for Sunday streets and we're not unsympathetic to the need to cut funding and I did let DPH know ahead of time that a little less money we can survive. I do question the wisdom of saving 215,000 at the cost of wiping out Sunday streets completely okay and let me be clear that we don' t depend completely on the city I personally match every dollar I raise matching dollars for every city dollar from sponsors from donors and my friends so we' not like only dependent on the city but it' an eighteen year tradition and I would think that the city could find a way to cut our budget but give us something so I got a running chance. Right now I've got sponsors saying well daren what do we do you know what if what do we do if you can't do all the events how do we do the refunds it's a this is wasting my time I need to be building this program. I also want to point out that this program is a platform this event is a platform for other events. The Salvadoran Soul in Cointreau, the indigenous, barter and beats, the butcher town jazz festival, all take place in Sunday streets. Thank you.

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

[Nancy (Mission merchant), performing as La Catrina]: Madams en monsieur, allow me to introduce myself. I am the Katrina. I was created by Guadalupe Posada during the Victorian era, but I was really made a star by Diego Rivera, who cemented my iconic status in Mexican culture with his mural, Sunday Stroll in the Alameda. You can call me an angel of death of sorts with a whimsical flair so as to remove the fear. I am a blend of the Aztec cosmo vision of the afterlife called Mytlan that embraces the beauty and elegant morbidity of Mexican culture blended with our European traditions. In short, I am the one that comes for you when it's your time to take your journey. I came to the terrestrial realm because I got a telegram in the cosmos that the Mission Cultural Center is in crisis. This iconic community institution for fifty years has been the heart and the pillar of the burial Latino community and beyond, bridging north and south. It has always been a portal for me and my entourage to join the skeleton fiesta where everyone's ancestors are invited. But enough about me. I would like to introduce you to a friend of mine. My name is Nancy Chyanne Chennai. I am a mission resident and small business owner. I have owned a legacy cultural store for thirty years. And I am here today to thank you in advance for your support for saving the Mission Cultural Center. We are 150% committed and determined. Our community, in spite of the political landscape, is not shy of incredible obstacles. We are committed to combining resources, our talent, our intelligence to make this happen. I want to thank you in advance and invite you to join the fun. Gracias.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Nice to see you, Nancy. I thought that was you. Welcome to our next speaker.

[Angela Tam, Asian Women’s Shelter]: Good evening, Board of Supervisors. My name is Angela Tam, and I'm the Youth Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Coordinator at Asian Women's Shelter. I want to thank Board of Supervisors Walton, Chan, Melgar, Sauter, Mandelman, Mahmood, Wong, Fielder, and Dorsey for sponsoring the resolution to recognize February as Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month to in collaboration with Black Woman Revolt Against Violence and San Francisco Youth Commission. When we hear domestic violence, we often think of only adults experiencing unhealthy and abusive relationships and youth, but youth also experience unhealthy, toxic, and abusive relationships. It's important as adults to support the continuation of raising awareness and education for our young people to have healthy relationships. I also want to uplift and recognize this year's the ten year anniversary of the passing of the California Healthy Youth Act, which mandates all public middle and high school students learn about healthy relationships, consent, and how to recognize recognize dating violence and domestic violence. Thank you.

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

[Taylor (Youth Prevention Coordinator, Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence)]: Hello. My name is Taylor. I'm the Youth TV Prevention Coordinator of Black Warm Revolt Against Domestic Violence. I wanted to start off by echoing Angeline in thanking all of you who joined the youth commissioners in recognizing that dating violence affects their classmates' ability to be safe, to show up as students, friends, and themselves. I also wanted to echo earlier calls for a hearing on community violence, especially its impact on those who are 12 to 14. Dating violence and sexual violence prevention are a part of this effort. Not being able to end a relationship, know how to ask for consent, love without ownership, accept rejection, and recognize dating violence are safety issues. Regarding community violence, teen dating violence is correlated with fights, sometimes gun violence, and incidents on and off SFUSD campuses. It will perpetuate as long as our youth lack the resources to reflect on their lived experiences and the hope for their futures. This fear and loss is felt heavily in our high school students, especially at joyous occasions or even at joyous occasions like Burton High School's BSU Black Leadership Summit this past Friday. No youth should fear for their safety in a relationship or feel the need to avenge a friend or a loved one. We look forward to working alongside you all, SFUSD, the Youth Commission, our Chippy Clinics, fellow nonprofits, the Cooperative Restraining Order Clinic, and MoveR to make sure we respond to youth violence when it occurs with services that include minors, and empower our youth and community members with the tools and safe spaces to prevent it. Thank you.

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

[Dr. Pamela Tate, Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence]: Good evening and thank you for having us. I am Doctor. Pamela Tate of Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence. I wanted to just thank everyone for, the resolution for the third year and moving forward with that. Taylor and Angeline spoke very well on that, and so I just wanted to say thank you. I also wanted to speak up on the MCL. They are the heart of San Francisco. I'm looking at Myrna, and my daughter participated with them, my son actually both sons. So all three of my children participated with them and really got exposure to art so much so that my daughter went on to SODA and actually was part of the world music program. I just heard someone mention. She does Latino drumming world music. She does African drumming. She does taiko. And so all of that started at MCL. It is an important part of San Francisco exposure to the arts, and I pray and hope that you all will find money to support and keep it open. Thank you.

[Deputy Clerk (unidentified)]: Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

[Adolfo Velasquez]: Hello. With respect to the Mission Cultural Center, the building known as the Mission Cultural Center on Mission Street, thank you all for all of your support. Those of you who have already expressed support, supervisors Fielder, Melgar, Walton, and Chan, thank you so much. For everybody else, congratulations on your opportunity to keeping the ball rolling. If you've already been there, you need no swing. And if you haven't, well, I advise you to do yourselves a service and make it an opportunity that you can still enjoy going forward. Thank you so much.

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

[Chyanne Chang, Director, San Francisco Youth Commission]: Good evening supervisors. My name is Chyanne and I serve as a commission staff for the San Francisco Youth Commission. Today, I want to speak on item 41 and express my gratitude to the board for working with us, the Youth Commission, San Francisco Asian Women's Shelter, and Black Women's Revolt Against Domestic Violence in bringing awareness to teen dating violence. We aim to build an environment and culture for young people to have healthy relationships and to recognize the signs of domestic violence and abuse, whether it's physical or digital. Young people deserve to have safe, healthy, and communicative relationships. And that's why we appreciate the work and education that that Black Woman Revolt and SFAWS provide to young people in schools and the community. Education and prevention start at a young age, and we need all hands on deck to support the people on the ground doing the work and raising awareness among our students. Thank you, Supervisor Walton, for introducing this resolution, And thank you to all of the co sponsors, President Mandelman and Supervisors Melgar, Chan, Sauter, Mahmood, Wong, Fielder, Dorsey, and Sherrill. And I urge you to support this resolution. Thank you.

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

[Carol Ann Meyer]: Good evening, supervisors. My name is Carol Ann Meyer. I have been taking classes at Mission Cultural Center since the '80s, and volunteering there for about the last twenty years. And, I've come to you with a proposal tonight. I know it's all about the money. We need money to fund Mission Cultural. We need money to fund other cultural centers and do the retrofitting. So, here's my proposal. We know that mayor Lurie is an incredible negotiator, and we know one of the world's biggest entertainers, Mexican American entertainers, comes from the Mission District. Do I have to mention his name? Carlos Santana. So I think it would be great if the mayor and Carlos Santana could have a little discussion maybe about a concert that could benefit, excuse me, benefit Mission Cultural and some of the other cultural centers in San Francisco. So, thank you very much. That's my proposal. Thank you.

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right, public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, let's go to our four without committee reference agenda, items 36 through 41.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Items 36 through 41 were introduced for adoption 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 reading to go to committee.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: So many people in the queue. Supervisor Chen.

[Chyanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Thank you. Board President, can I request to act as a cosponsor for item number 41? Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. Supervisor Sherrill. I would love to

[Stephen Sherrill, Supervisor (District 2)]: be added as a cosponsor to item 40 Ruth Asawa Day, please.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Okay. Noted.

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

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: I'd like to cosponsor item 36.

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

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Please sever item 41.

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

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Please sever item 39, and I'd also like to be cosponsor of item 40. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. And I would like to sever item 40. And so, on the remaining balance of the items, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: On items 36 through 38, Supervisor Wong. Wong, I. Supervisor Chan?

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

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the resolutions are adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 39.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 39, this is a resolution to declare a commitment by the Board of Supervisors and the City and County of San Francisco to protect and preserve the long term future for a Center for Latino Arts and Culture in the Mission at 2868 Mission Street.

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. First, I want to say thank you, Supervisor Fielder, for your leadership on this and your staff's work to address the situation. Thank you to all my community people and my for being here to talk about this really important issue. You know, folks think that the problem at Mission Cultural Center is that there's a lack of funding. And while that is true right now, the organization that runs the Mission Cultural Center is out of compliance and in debt. This has been coming for years. And I just want to center the story as to what the city did in our failure in causing the situation that we have today, which may result in a loss of a fundamental part of the soul of the community. So many years ago, when we knew that the building needed retrofitting, a building that is owned by the city and taken care of by the organization for the purpose of serving the community through the arts, just like other buildings in San Francisco that is in our charter, from a section dating back to 1972, the African American Arts and Culture Center, the Bayview Opera House, and others. So it spells out the relationship between the city and the cultural centers. All of these are in underserved communities, and communities for which the connection to arts and culture is deeply important to our identity and soul. When we found out that the building needed seismic retrofitting, the arts commission, the department that is in charge of providing the funding for these organizations, basically said, oh yeah, we're going to do this, provided no timeline, no plan, no technical assistance, didn't even say a date when the work was going to start, and basically left the organization to fend on its own. So former supervisor Ronan and I, for years, called for a plan and support from the city of this very important culture and institution, and just some dignity and respect for the community that was facing this inevitable thing that it needed to be retrofitted. Former supervisor Ronan put an add back into the budget to help the organization. But, again, it was reluctant from the department as to the help that was provided. So, here we are. All these years later, two years ago, I attended a meeting at the Mission Cultural Center where Arts Commission staff, in front of 200 people in the community, with such total disrespect, could not say that the community could come back into the center after it was retrofitted and hid behind, you know, oh, the lack of clarity in the language. That didn't need to happen. You know, so when I said last week that, you know, had this been the ballet or the opera, this wouldn't have happened. I stand by that 100%. I think that we need to treat the citizens of San Francisco with respect, with dignity, with transparency, with clarity. And we can do that now. And I know that under Supervisor Fielder's leadership, that will happen. And that I ask for the new leadership at the mayor's office to lead the way, to make the commitments to the community, to make sure that this building serves the functions that the voters of San Francisco committed to when we put that in the charter, and that it continues to provide the space for love, community, arts, and culture that are necessary for the mission community. Really, people come from all over the Bay Area in the country to the Mission Cultural Center. And while the funding that the city provides was essential for the organization, it wasn't the only funding that the organization had. Because the building actually generating a significant amount of income in rents, in art showings, in economic activity. It provided livelihood for artists for generations, and that needs to continue to happen. So even though, you know, there is some funding that is necessary from the city, what is essential is the land, access to the building, that place in the community at the corner of 25th And Mission because it is such an important part of our culture, of our neighborhood. And, I hope that we all do the right thing. Thank you again, Supervisor Fielder, for your leadership. And I think that it is a strong message to send to the community that we can do it. Thank you.

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

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: I just wanted to thank Supervisor Melgar for all those remarks. As an active participant in Myrna and your family and so many dozens of people here, it is a priceless, priceless place of really future making for the mission, as many people have said, San Francisco and beyond Bay Area. And there were suggestions here about how to get other people with other kinds of capital involved. And we do have a liaison from the mayor's office in the room. And so I would love to talk to the mayor's office about how we can put our collective minds and power together at this board and also take up the suggestion in public comment around ensuring that any restructuring around the Arts Commission also includes deep commitments to cultural institutions. And that also means the respect that they're deserved. And therefore, also the staff and leadership that also see that. And so I look forward to future conversations with the mayor's office and and my colleagues about that. And I want to appreciate everyone who came out today in support of this.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. And with that, we can take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 40.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 40, resolution to recognize 02/12/2026, as Ruth Asawade, in honor of her work as an artist and advocate for arts education in the city and county of San Francisco.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Colleagues, this resolution would recognize 02/12/2026, as Ruth Asawa Day in the city and county of San Francisco. Ruth Asawa was Ruth Asawa was one of the most admired artists, educators, and civic leaders of the twentieth century. Born in 1926 in Norwalk, California, she went on to build a six decade career that spanned drawing, painting, printmaking, bronze casting, public art, and of course, the iconic louped wire sculptures that made her world renowned. While she was based in San Francisco, her influence extended far beyond our city. Her work is celebrated around the world, and today, it is featured in the largest exhibition ever dedicated to a woman artist at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. But San Francisco was her home, and her legacy is deeply woven into the fabric of our city from fountains and murals to sculptures that remain publicly accessible to this day to our very own Ruth Asawa School of the Arts. Ruth Asawa's life story is also a story of resilience. She was the fourth of seven children born to Japanese immigrant farmers, and at just 16 years old, she was forcibly removed from her home and incarcerated by the United States government during World War II. Even under those harsh conditions, she found ways to create by taking art lessons from fellow detainees. After the war, despite facing discrimination that blocked her from becoming a student teacher, she continued her education at Black Mountain College where she studied alongside leading artists and developed the values that would shape her lifelong advocacy for accessible arts education. That commitment defined so much of her work here in San Francisco. In 1968, she founded the Alvarado School Arts Workshop, bringing professional artists and parents into public schools to teach children through hands on art making. At its height, the program reached more than 50 schools and became a national model for arts education and public service programs across the country. Asawa also served on San Francisco's Arts Commission, the California Arts Council, the National Endowment for the Arts, and as a trustee of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, and she played a key role in founding San Francisco's Public Arts High School, which proudly bears her name today, the Ruth Asawa San Francisco School of the Arts. In 2022, she was posthumously awarded the National Medal of Arts, honoring not only her groundbreaking modernist work, but also her belief that creativity should be accessible to all. San Francisco first declared February 12 as Ruth Asawa Day in 1982, and it seems especially appropriate to renew that recognition in this year that is the one hundredth anniversary of her birth. Colleagues, I ask for your support for this resolution today so that we can officially recognize 02/12/2026 as Ruth Asawa Day in San Francisco. Thank you, Supervisor Sherrill, your co sponsorship. And with that, can take this item, same house, same call, without objection. The resolution is adopted. And, Madam Clerk, please call item 41.

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Item 41 is a resolution to recognize the month of February 2026 as Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month in the city and county of San Francisco.

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

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you President Mandelman. I just wanted to say thank you so much to all of my colleagues for their sponsorship, and also want to thank everyone who came out to speak this evening. I know it's pretty late, but this is important, and I just appreciate everyone's support. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: All right. And we will take this one. Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. 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)]: Can you please read the in memoriams?

[Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board]: Today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individual on behalf of supervisor Mahmood for the late miss Johnny May baker.

[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)]: And we are adjourned.