Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the November 18th, 2025 regular meeting of the

San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Thank you, Mr. President. Supervisor Chan.

Present.

Chan, present. Supervisor Chen.

Chen, present. Supervisor Dorsey.

Present.

Dorsey, present. Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, present. Supervisor Mahmoud.

Mahmoud, present. Supervisor Mandelman.

Present.

Mandelman, present. Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, present. Supervisor Sauter. Sauter, present. Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl, present. Supervisor Walton. Walton, present.

Mr. President, ten members are present.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramutosh 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 Ramitusha

Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of

this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory.

As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland.

We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the

Ramitusha Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

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,

and to God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.

On behalf of the board, I want to acknowledge the staff at SFGovTV,

and today that's especially Eugene Labadia,

who record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online.

Madam Clerk, let's go to our 2 p.m. special order.

Yes, the special order at 2 p.m. is the appearance at today's meeting

by the Honorable Mayor Daniel Lurie,

present to engage in a formal policy discussion with eligible board members,

being one through four.

Prior to the discussion, the mayor may address the board for up to five minutes.

Welcome, Mr. Mayor.

There were no topics submitted for today, so we have the opportunity to hear from you for up to five minutes.

Thank you, Board President. Good afternoon, everyone.

I want to start by thanking the Board of Supervisors and the Land Use Committee as we continue to advance the family zoning plan.

We want to make sure this is a city where police officers, nurses, and teachers can afford to raise their children and grandchildren.

My office has been working closely with all of you to ensure that San Franciscans decide what gets built in San Francisco.

As we work to build a city that supports families, we received encouraging news on another front.

In October, we recorded the lowest number of overdose deaths since the city started tracking in 2020.

It's the second month in a row with fewer than 40 overdose deaths.

Now, that is progress, but one death is one too many.

We have all seen people struggling on our streets and in our neighborhoods.

That's why we are bringing a new level of coordination to our public safety and public health strategies, disrupting open-air drug markets and connecting people to treatment faster.

I am proud of the work that we have done together over the past 11 months to confront this crisis with a shared sense of urgency and purpose.

And as we look to next year, we are working to stand up a new center with the support of Supervisor Dorsey that will help us continue to move that work forward.

Now, I'm going to close with this.

I am continuing to learn and grow as a mayor.

And as I've said, and as I said last week to San Franciscans, after Supervisor Alcaraz stepped down, I wish I had done more to help her succeed.

It was not the first time that I've gotten something wrong, and it won't be the last.

But I will continue to get better at this job every single day.

I'm determined to appoint a District 4 supervisor who truly represents the sunset and will be the colleague and partner that you all deserve.

I want to thank those of you on the board who have reached out to offer feedback and support throughout this process.

Your jobs are not easy, and I am committed to getting this right.

So thank you, and I'll let you get back to your meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right.

And with that, this matter has been discussed and is now filed.

Madam Clerk, let's go to our consent agenda, items 1 through 20.

Communications, Mr. President.

Oh, you are correct.

Thank you.

Let's go back to communications.

Thank you.

I'll just follow up from the mayor.

On November 13th, last Thursday, we received a memo from Bea Alcaraz resigning her District 4 seat

here at the Board of Supervisors, leaving a vacancy in the District 4 office,

and will remain vacant until the mayor makes his appointment.

And so the vote threshold will be either 6 of 11, despite the vacancy,

or unless the charter or other administrative code requires a higher vote threshold.

And then I have two routine communications to make.

The first is that the Board of Supervisors welcomes your attendance here in the Board's Legislative Chamber,

room 250, second floor in City Hall.

When you cannot be here, we are streaming live on SFGOV-TV's Channel 26

or at www.sfgovtv.org.

If you have public comment you'd like to submit in either writing,

you can send it to bos at sfgov.org or the U.S. Postal Service, San Francisco Board of Supervisors,

the number one Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

If you need to make a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disability Act

or if you need to request language assistance, you should call the clerk's office at least two business days in advance

by calling 415-554-5184.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Let's go to approval of our meeting minutes.

Yes, we have approval of the October 7th, 2025 board meeting minutes.

And can I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented?

Moved by Cheryl, seconded by Walton.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

On the minutes as presented,

Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sotter.

Aye.

Sotter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

And Supervisor Chen.

Chen, aye.

There are 10 ayes.

Without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented.

Madam Clerk, let's now go to our consent agenda, items 1 through 20.

Items 1 through 20 are on consent.

These items are considered to be routine.

If a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately.

And I don't see anyone on the roster, so Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

On items 1 through 20, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

And Supervisor Chen.

Chen, aye. There are 10 ayes.

Without objection, these ordinances are passed on first reading and finally passed.

Madam Clerk, let's go to unfinished business. Please call item 21.

Item 21, this is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require the Arts Commission

to develop and administer a certification process to identify artists in San Francisco

who may be eligible for affordable housing for artists.

And I think we can take this item, same house, same call.

Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call item 22.

Item 22, this is an ordinance to exempt the health service system's life and long-term disability insurance services contract

from the requirements of Article 111, the minimum compensation,

and Article 121, the Health Care Accountability Act of the Labor and Employment Code.

Again, same House, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call Item 23.

Item 23, this is an ordinance to amend the Administrative Code to create the Small Business Rezoning Construction Relief Program

to provide financial support, including grants and loans to businesses impacted by construction relating to the City's Residential Rezoning Program

adopted in 2025 through 26, to establish the Small Business Rezoning Construction Relief Fund,

to receive monies for the program, to designate the Office of Small Business and Office of Economic

and Workforce Development, to administer the fund and the program, and to promulgate rules and

regulations in furtherance of the program, and to amend the Business and Tax Regulations Code

to allow taxpayers to designate a portion of their gross receipts taxes for deposit into the fund.

Same House, same call.

Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call Item 24.

Item 24, this is an ordinance to appropriate $3.5 million from the General Reserve

to the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development

to expand access to existing coordinated services

for immigration, legal defense, and community response services

to the immigrant community in fiscal year 25 through 2026.

same house same call without objection the ordinance is passed on first reading

madam clerk please call item 25 item 25 this is a resolution to approve the

fourth amendment between the city and lystek international limited for class

a biosolids management services for an increased amount of twenty point seven

million and a total amount of approximately thirty six point six seven

million to extend the term by two years from June 30th, 2027 for a total term of July 1st, 2022

through June 30th, 2029. Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 26. Item 26, resolution to authorize the Sheriff's Office

to enter into a contract with Aramark Correctional Services, Inc. for jail food services for a total

contract amount of 22 million and a term of five years with two one-year options

to renew same house same call without objection the resolution is adopted

madam clerk please call item 27 item 27 this is a resolution to approve the

third amendment to the airport advertising lease number 12-0 to 31

between Clear Channel Outdoor LLC doing business as Clear Channel Airports

for the addition of premises solely for the promotion of large sporting events

and to establish a new rent structure for those locations.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 28.

Item 28, this is a resolution to retroactively authorize the police department

to accept and expend an approximate $654,000 grant from the Board of State and Community Corrections

for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant equipment and training program

to procure equipment and services for the criminology laboratory

with the project period beginning on October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 29.

Item 29.

This is a resolution to authorize the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development

to execute a standard agreement with California Department of Housing and Community Development

under the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program Catalytic Qualifying Infill Area

for a total award of $45 million.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 30.

Item 30, resolution to approve for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,

Section 147 sub F, of the issuance and sale of revenue obligations by the California Enterprise Development Authority

in an aggregate principal amount of $5 million to refinance the cost of acquisition, rehabilitation, improvement,

installation, and equipping of a portion of administrative facilities owned and operated by Mission Economic Development Agency.

Same House, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 31.

Item 31.

This item was referred without recommendation from the Budget and Finance Committee.

It's a resolution to approve a commercial lease agreement between the City and San Francisco C&C,

doing business as Mel's drive-in for the retail space located at 801 Mission Street in the 5th and Mission Garage

for an initial five-year term that will result in an estimated approximate $1.9 million in revenue

and one five-year option to extend the lease.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Colleagues, as you know, your budget committee colleagues,

under the capable leadership of our chair, Connie Chan,

occasionally refer items out of that committee without our recommendation.

That's not necessarily to embarrass city departments,

but typically to flag issues that merit the full board's awareness before the vote.

And that is the case today with item 31.

I won't speak for my budget committee colleagues,

but I will say I don't have any issues with the proposed lease

for this business in my district per se.

However, in the process of bringing this lease to the board,

the BLA identified internal control weaknesses

in MTA's lease management practices.

These include issues with lease documentation,

solicitation processes, and the sufficiency of written policies.

These issues are largely attributable to executive directors' directives from the COVID lockdown,

when then-Mayor Breed ordered rent abatements where possible to city tenants whose businesses were adversely impacted by that emergency.

For SFMTA, there were about 25 retail leases that were verbally amended from fixed rent terms to rents based on 8% of gross sales.

Unfortunately, none of those amendments was documented.

SFMTA has a plan to address all of these deficiencies in accordance with the BLA's recommendation.

It's my understanding that there are about 25 leases that MTA verbally amended.

Only two of these require board approval, and that is today's lease with Mel's in my district

and another lease with TADS Incorporated in Supervisor Sauter's district that we can expect to see in January.

MTA has agreed to work with the city attorney on the remaining leases not subject to board approval,

and these will be finalized by the end of the first quarter of 2026.

According to the BLA, the rental adjustment to 8% of gross sales appears to have been reasonable

as compared to similar restaurant leases at the airport and port,

so the deficiencies in this item are not financial but rather procedural.

Keziah Tang, MTA's real estate division manager,

who started this past summer, assured us that she is fully committed

to modernizing the division's policies, procedures, and practices

so we don't have issues like this before us in the future.

That's it.

All right.

Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey.

I don't think anyone needs a roll call for this.

I'm not seeing.

Okay. Then we will take item 31, same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call items 32 and 33 together.

Items 32 and 33 are two ordinances that pertain to the SF Gateway Project.

Item 32, this ordinance amends the planning code and the zoning map to establish the San

Francisco Gateway Special Use District, generally bounded by Kirkwood Avenue to the northeast,

Rankin Street to the southeast, McKinnon Avenue to the southwest, and Tolland Street

to the Northwest and to make the appropriate findings.

Item 33, this ordinance approves the development agreement

between the city and county and Prologis for the development

of an approximate 17.1-acre site located at Tolland Street

at Kirkwood Avenue with two multi-story production,

distribution, and repair buildings in a core industrial area

for retail uses, rooftop solar array,

ground floor, maker space, and streets built to city standard and to make the appropriate

findings.

And let's take these items.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the ordinances are passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call item 34.

Item 34.

This ordinance amends the planning code to define legacy businesses and to require conditional

use authorization prior to replacing a legacy business with a new non-residential use in

certain neighborhood commercial, named neighborhood commercial, and neighborhood commercial transit

districts, and in the Chinatown mixed-use districts, to amend the administrative code

to allow a business that has been operating for 15 years to qualify as a legacy business,

to affirm the CEQA determination, and to make the appropriate findings.

Pursuant to Charter Section 4.105, this matter requires a vote of two-thirds or eight votes

of the entire membership of the board to reverse the disapproval of a planning commission and

approve this ordinance for passage. Supervisor Chan. Thank you, President Mandelman. Colleagues,

the ordinance before you today recognizes that legacy and long-time businesses are not just

business entities. They are cultural assets and are recognized as contributors to the neighborhoods

that pave the way for other small businesses to thrive.

Small businesses can no longer rely on goodwill negotiation

traditionally afforded by individual or family property owners.

They are facing increasing pressure from corporate landlords and developers

who only seek to capitalize on speculative markets.

This ordinance perfectly encastilates the goals of a number of policy

under the city's commerce and industry elements objective.

It enhances the city's social, cultural, and economic vitality

and boosts employment opportunities.

The commerce and industry elements objective 3.1 even explicitly states that

one employment sector that often serves to be a source of employment opportunity

to minorities and low-skilled workers is the small business sector.

However, small newly formed businesses suffer from a high percentage of business failures.

Therefore, protection of existing small businesses, particularly those that have been operating for more than a decade, deserves protection,

not only for the business but also for the preservation of jobs for minorities and economically disadvantaged communities.

That is why this legislation includes exemption for micro and small businesses from the conditional use authorization process and exempt storefronts that are and have been vacant for three years or more.

This is to ensure we're adding protection without adding more barriers to new small business owners.

If we cannot protect the existing small business, how can we give confidence to new entrepreneurs that they too can thrive in San Francisco?

Before the vote, I would like to also make the motion to introduce amendments and make amendments to this legislation.

They are non-substantive to exempt legacy business from the conditional use authorization process, along with small business.

And that is on page 9, colleagues, and line 17 to 18, inserting the definition into planning code.

And again, on page 10, line 11, inserting the term legacy business or qualifies as a small business.

And on page 11, line 7, again, inserting legacy business.

Colleagues, it's a long journey to be here.

We have gotten feedback from our Small Business Commission, and it's a reason why that this legislation is different than the one that was passed unanimously last year as a conditional use authorization for interim zoning control for 18 months, authored by former Board President Aaron Peskin.

and that now we are turning this into permanent for a conditional use authorization

in the event a legacy business is displaced.

The difference between that legislation and this is that we're providing exemption.

Small business and legacy business will not need to go through the CU

should they move into that space, both current, meaning the existing space,

or a new developed space.

All which is to say is really with a simple goal, how can we protect our small business when they face displacement and still not compromising and making sure that any empty storefronts, both existing and the new one, can still be a welcoming space for small business, including legacy business.

I hope to offer support, colleagues, and thank you.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, President. I voted against this ordinance at the Land Use Committee a few weeks ago,

and while I appreciate the new amendments and I'll be voting in support of the amendments,

I'll still be voting no on the overall ordinance here at the full board due to, from my perspective,

not addressing the concerns fully that were raised by the Planning Department and the Small Business Commission.

But firstly, I am a supporter of the Legacy Business Program.

I cherish the small businesses that have long been in the fabric of our neighborhoods,

like SoCo Hardware in Japantown or Gamescape on Divisadero.

It's a win-win that provides marketing, grant opportunities, and assistance to long-running

businesses to help keep them going and to keep our neighborhoods and storefronts vibrant.

But it is for that reason that I am opposed to this legislation.

This entire year as a board and in the mayor's office as well, we've been focused on

cutting red tape, permit SF, good governance, removing obstacles for businesses to fill

vacant storefronts. Oftentimes, those vacant storefronts need to be filled by grocery stores

and pharmacies, and that is something that we are trying to do all over the city at this time.

But by requiring a conditional use authorization to fill a space that was formerly held by a legacy

business, it creates negative incentives to block new legacy business destinations, or

even worse, incentivize landlords to kick out a business once they approach their 30-year

threshold or 15 years under threat of displacement under this ordinance.

This item is meant to protect and is well intended in protecting legacy businesses,

but the legislation in and of itself does not distinguish between a business that is

being kicked out due to displacement by the landlord or through their own volition.

And it stands to in turn threaten their potential to maintain or apply for a legacy business

in that context.

We heard at the committee from the planning department that it has already created issues

in the areas where this policy is in place as an interim zoning control, where a business

was asked to leave the program so as to not make it more difficult for the landlord.

Our constituents want us to make government work better for them,

and it's clear to me that this legislation is not working in that direction.

And I'm not alone.

It's rare for any item, let alone one that is focused on small business,

to be opposed by the Small Business Commission,

opposed by the Planning Commission,

and opposed by the Council of District Merchants Association.

There's a carve-out in this legislation for small businesses

that, again, while well-intended, would prevent them from needing a conditional use authorization.

But the Planning Department told us as well in committee that this would be something

that they would have a hard time implementing.

The Planning Commission also noted that this is not a typical use of conditional use authorization,

which is intended to help regulate land use, not property owners.

The Planning Commission would have no grounds to deny a conditional use authorization to a new business,

and yet they would still have to jump through hoops to fill a vacant storefront.

There are already formula retail restrictions on these areas where this ordinance would apply,

so this does nothing to prevent chain stores from opening in the neighborhood.

This legislation, again, while well-intended, will have the opposite effect of its intent

with respect to legacy businesses and instead put a strain on those incentives.

It creates a process for new and expanded businesses and keeps storefronts vacant

as the net effect in the city's neighborhood commercial districts.

It's not good government, and for that reason, I'll be voting no.

Before I call on Supervisor Sauter, the clerk has pointed out to me that Supervisor Chan made a motion.

Is there a second? Seconded by Walton, and we will continue.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, President Manelman.

I appreciate the intention of this ordinance,

and I know that we all share a commitment for legacy businesses and small businesses.

I'm concerned that this will work as intended in some cases,

but in just as many cases, if not more, it will have unintended consequences.

And that is not something that is just my thought or my opinion.

It is something that has been flagged and shared by the planning commission's recommendation

to not approve this, by the Small Business Commission's recommendation to not approve

this, and by the largest citywide organization of merchants, the San Francisco Council of

District Merchants.

I see a lot of other options that would be more clear and would be more impactful for

us to support legacy businesses and small businesses.

So for those reasons, I will not be supporting this piece of legislation today.

Supervisor Cheryl.

I won't go into the detail and repeat what my colleague, Supervisor Mahmood and Sauter mentioned,

but by and large, I agree with everything that they said.

And what troubles me most here is that we are erecting barriers without certainty

that this would actually benefit our legacy and our small businesses.

We've seen examples where a conditional use requirement is already in place

for spaces formerly filled with legacy businesses, and displacement still occurred.

We've heard directly from the Small Business Commission and the Planning Commission, who both voted to reject this ordinance,

that the Planning Department will have trouble adjudicating who is a small business to fill these vacancies.

And, you know, we've seen examples of legacy business who have delisted themselves from the registry

because this requirement would worsen the business's relationship with their landlord.

I think we should be promoting small businesses.

I think we should be encouraging small businesses to become legacy businesses.

and anything that creates potential disincentives around that, whether intended or unintended,

or something we must prevent.

And so I think I will be voting against this measure,

and I will be standing up for our small businesses

and supporting our thriving neighborhood merchant corridors as such.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you.

I want to clarify a couple of things.

I think that it would be misleading to think that, first and foremost, I think Small Business Commission, while did not recommend this legislation,

this is before we taking the feedback about how this could be a barrier for small business.

And since then, we then, with their feedback, to add the exemption.

And that's really the clear difference than the one that previously proposed.

and we've taken that feedback to exempt small business and micro business

and now even the legacy business for them to move into the existing or new vacant storefront.

I don't think that is – it's also misleading to think that somehow the Planning Commission,

while voted against it, that it was unanimous.

It was a 4-2 with Commissioner Gilbert Williams absent against this legislation.

I think that let me also put this in a context about how this is in a context of the upzoning legislation that's going to come before us in December to really think about what are the mechanism that we can provide to protect the existing legacy business and small business.

What I do think that it is our responsibility to utilize every legislative tools in our toolbox to protect our small business.

To date, other than Supervisor Malgar's legislation to provide a relief fund, and we still need to work on a mechanism for the funding source,

we have not done much to protect our small business.

I believe we need to do a lot more than what is before us today

and should this not be approved

I think it's a missed opportunity given what we have to face

very soon in December

there are small businesses that are already facing

difficulty and being

really pushed out by formula retail

and for me as a district supervisor for the Richmond

I've already seen some of our small business including

legacy business facing those challenges so

I'm not going to belay my point but I'm going to make the motion to amend

which thank you so much to the second by Supervisor Walton

and I do wish at least we have that vote

to be able to amend this legislation and then before we cast

our final vote. Thank you. Supervisor Fielder. I'll just keep it short. It has worked in my

district, and I will be supporting this. Supervisor Cheryl. I just want to note that I do think this

board has done a lot to support small businesses, and I think there's a difference between protecting

and supporting. And when we talk to the small businesses in my district, the number one thing

they're struggling with is foot traffic and customers. We need more customers. They need

more revenue. We need to support them to be creative. We need to support our neighborhood

merchant corridors to have no vacancies, to be absolutely thriving. We need to make it easier to

do business here in San Francisco. There's no question that formula retail stores in certain

corridors can drive up costs. That is true. But this legislation doesn't touch on that. Formula

retail already has to go through conditional use applications. There are already protections in

place there, and this would be duplicative in many ways. I think we need to stay focused on the fact

that the number one problem that our small businesses are facing here in San Francisco

is a lack of customers. Sales tax receipts are down in every single neighborhood in San Francisco

other than Mission Bay from pre-COVID. That's sales tax receipts. That means business is down

and costs are up. We have to make sure they're getting more customers. We have to increase

vibrancy, and we have to support them in every way to do this. Protections that could cause

unintended consequences, and I do think it's unintended. I don't think anybody's trying to

hurt anybody here. So I wouldn't say that. But we have to create more vibrancy, more customers,

more excitement here in San Francisco. Supervisor Chan. My apologies, President of Edelman,

and with all due respect to Supervisor Cheryl, I must say that this actually came from,

You know, based on, in fact, in your district, like Mediterranean and other Japanese restaurants, that's been a legacy business 30, 40 years on Fillmore and was actually bought up by Bionair on the block and create a lot of anxiety.

And in fact, because of the interim zoning control of this very same legislation, CU, that one of them get to stay and be able to have the leverage to negotiate.

And it's been a great business on the block for a long time.

And in fact, they now have a second shop somewhere else in the city.

So it has proven that it worked.

There's nothing here to stop small business to move into the storefront.

And you still also have formula retail can come in.

In fact, many formula retail has the resources and the leverage, whether it's 1CU or 2CU.

But again, I think there's very little tool at this moment and mechanism to protect small business and legacy business.

and there's nothing to stop the food traffic or small business to fill up the storefront.

Thank you.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

I just want to center, I'm supporting this ordinance,

but what I want to center is there has been a lot of gaps in between protections and support.

So our small business is definitely a value to San Francisco,

But when we look at the bigger context of everything that we are trying to do in our city currently, I think this legislation just provides an additional layer of protection to our legacy business.

We are talking about legacy business, a business that is invested in our neighborhood for how many years?

How many years do you have to operate as a business to qualify to be a legacy business?

So I think this is the value, the story, what neighborhood like District 11, if we can have a legacy business that it's continued to operate after 50 years, we totally 100% cherish it.

And in anything that we can do, as minimal as a CU to make sure that we protect those businesses, I'm all for it.

And I think this is what makes my neighborhood, this is what makes San Francisco special.

So I am going to support this legislation.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues, we have a motion from Supervisor Chan, seconded by Supervisor Walton.

Can we take that motion to amend without objection?

Without objection, the motion passes.

And then, Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on the amended ordinance?

On item 34, as amended, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, no.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder aye. Supervisor Mahmood. Mahmood no. Supervisor Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman aye.

Supervisor Melgar. Aye. Melgar aye. Supervisor Sauter. Sauter no. Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl no. Supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton aye. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chan aye. And Supervisor

Chen. Chen aye. There are six ayes and four no's. With Supervisors Dorsey, Mahmood, Sauter,

and Cheryl voting no. And the ordinance fails. All right let's go to our 2 30

special order. Yes at 2 30 it is time for the recognition of commendations for

meritorious service to the city and county of San Francisco. And first up

District 9, Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you so much, President Manelman.

I'd like to invite to the podium the Executive Director,

one of the co-founders of the American Indian Culture District,

Shereya Souza.

Please give it up.

It is an honor during Native American Heritage Month

to recognize a powerful woman leader in the American Indian community.

What makes her accomplishment even more extraordinary is that she successfully organized community members, advanced legislation, and laid the foundation for a transformative culture institution at a time when the world was shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic, when traditional outreach was nearly impossible.

Her determination, creativity, and unwavering commitment ensured that San Francisco's first ever American Indian cultural district not only came to life, but did so in one of the most challenging moments in our city's history.

As a proud member of the Taos Pueblo, Ute, and Kiowa peoples, Shereya has dedicated her life to uplifting American Indian communities and ensuring that Native voices are heard, respected, and represented.

She's been a champion for fair and equitable resource distribution for Native peoples,

pushing institutions to recognize the long-overlooked needs and contributions of our communities in our city,

including ensuring that we are rightfully counted.

She worked closely with the city to correct years of undercounting that once reported us as only 0.3%

and then 1.1% of the city's population.

After the 2020 redistricting data was reviewed in the wake of her advocacy,

the truth emerged. Native people make up 2.1 percent of San Francisco. This includes more than

about 18,000 American Indians who identify as Native along with another race and 6,475 who

identify as Native alone. Because of her commitment, our community is now seen,

acknowledged, and represented with accuracy and respect. She has worked to elevate Native

voices in the tech sector, support Native youth retention, led institutional and nonpartisan

research and guided processes of tribal cultural resource protection, environmental review

and land use mediation.

Her work has helped Native communities navigate tribal consultation, seek recognition as non-federally

recognized tribes and identify most likely descendants in the sacred task of repatriating

Native American ancestors.

Through her leadership, she has increased Native visibility and political representation,

advanced public art and placemaking through initiatives like Indigenize SF, and helped

establish formal land acknowledgments like the one we say at this board every board meeting.

She has expanded community center programs like the cultural gardening at Black Point,

supported historical truth-telling through projects like the Indigenize SF Mapping Genocide

project and advocated for essential community infrastructure, including the Village Housing

Vision. By serving on numerous city advisory groups and building strong coalitions of elders,

youth, two-spirit leaders, and cultural organizations, Sherea has helped create a

recognized and thriving cultural district that preserves heritage, strengthens community,

and ensures that Indigenous voices are deeply embedded in the future of San Francisco.

What makes Sherea's leadership so remarkable is not just the breadth of her work, but also the spirit behind it.

She leads with clarity, with courage, and with a profound sense of responsibility to her ancestors and future generations.

She reminds us that cultural preservation is not only about honoring the past, but about building a just and thriving future.

Thank you, Sherea, for your unwavering dedication, your extraordinary leadership, and your lifelong commitment to uplifting our people and cultures.

Before you go ahead, my colleagues want to sing your praises as well.

Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you so much.

First, thank you, Supervisor Fielder, for recognizing Sherea's awesomeness.

I have had the great pleasure of working with Shereya on a couple things and have long admired her particular combination of grace, elegance, and fierceness.

The passion that she brings to uplifting the community, her leadership in truth and healing for the community,

and also her stick-to-itiveness in making sure that grant dollars end up with the community.

I have so much admiration for you, Shereya, how you are shining a light and leading the path for others.

It is so important to have role models and people who shine as bright as you with such intelligence and grace.

So I am so glad that you're here with us leading this work in San Francisco and will always support your efforts.

and I just so admire you and I'm glad that we are doing this commendation. Thank you so much,

Supervisor Fielder. Supervisor Cheryl. Shreya, first of all, thank you for being you and for

being the leader that you are. You make our city better every day and Supervisor Fielder, thank you

so much for recognizing a leader like Shreya. Supervisors Melgar and Fielder spoke a lot about

your leadership across the city. But I just want to say leadership acts out in big ways across

great communities, but also in little ways. And the community at Fort Mason, where you are based

each and every day, loves you. And I just want to thank you for being such a wonderful part of

District 2. And when the neighbors speak out about how much joy and community you've brought

to even just a few offices around you, I think that deserves just as much celebration as your

leadership across our larger community and I think it speaks volumes about who

you are in the organization that you built in the movement that you're

leading so thank you so much and I just would like to echo the comments of my

colleagues and as the district 8 supervisor who gets to have a little bit

of the cultural district in district 8 it's been a great privilege to be able

to work with you in the cultural district these last however many years

So congratulations, well deserved, and thank you, Supervisor Fielder.

I don't know how this thing works, but I'll do the Pueblo height thing.

Thank you so much, Supervisor Fielder.

It's an honor to have another Native American woman supervisor sitting up there and giving this commendation.

I am truly grateful to see you sitting up there and acting as an example of what can be for our young people and for myself, even though I won't be sitting up there.

And Supervisor Melgar for authoring the resolution on truth and healing reparations advisory committee was really strong and really powerful.

And I hope we continue to back that and carry that on.

And all you've done to bring forth Native American commendations last year and honoring Mary and just including the Native community, truly appreciate working and bringing us out at Twin Peaks.

you know, to run projects out there with our stewardship program.

And thank you, Supervisor Cheryl, for acknowledging my work as well.

I just wanted to say, as Jackie kind of centered,

it wasn't easy starting off and doing the work that we did.

You know, a lot of people asked in five years and a lot of our community members,

and it's such an honor to sit here today with many of the leaders and the elders

that actually guided the work that we do and the reason why we have this cultural district.

We started in the pandemic.

I remember sitting up, I had gotten here, I worked for Native American Heritage Commission for almost five years working on tribal cultural resources and human remains.

And when I came to the city, I thought, oh my gosh, I'm just going to work in tech.

And I went to Twitter and started the first indigenous group there and started the first Native hashtag emoji, eagle feather emoji,

and brought in April and Morningstar to do the first ever Native American panel that went off at Twitter.

So I think it was kind of calling me back.

And I had met April through the cultural center.

I said, no, no, no, I'll just volunteer.

And she goes, no, come on, sis, come work with us,

and stood by my side, side by side,

along with Debbie, Mary Jean,

and a lot of our other community members

in order to build the American Indian Cultural District.

But this hasn't been an easy feat.

We didn't start out like my sister's Japantown

or Kaya Cultural District,

where we'd been around for 27 years.

We had to start out a lot of our work,

like the supervisor shared,

just proving that we weren't 0.2% of the population,

you know, that we had to use Native-led data

to identify over 18,000 American Indians.

We had to identify in the housing element

for the very first time in five years

that American Indians were the third,

this is the third largest relocation city,

San Francisco is.

And if you were to rehouse all American Indians

that are unhoused at the time we did the data,

you would increase our population by 10%.

We have the third largest unsolved

missing murdered indigenous cases people

in the United States, right?

We are right here on Yulamu, on Ramatishaloni land,

and there are still sources that believe

that American Indians aren't alive.

So a lot of that early work, this getting to this point was six-yard weeks.

It was being beat down.

It was being humbled.

It wasn't easy.

And facing over 250K budget cuts and working this year with two staff currently on a budget of less than $700,000 to do what we do

has been a kick in the gut to the work and the progress that we've made.

So this work has not been easy, right?

And where we got has not been easy.

And we spent the first five years, I just want to say thank goodness to the community members and the leaders here in this room.

The first five years we spent doing the Native American Heritage Month resolution, as was noted with the Board of Supervisors,

working with the Human Rights Commission on the first ever land acknowledgement resolution,

and now it's gone throughout the city as well in leadership with the Association of Ruma Tushaloni.

Worked with Supervisor Melgar on the Truth and Healing Reparations Advisory Committee Initiative.

What is that?

The idea is to develop a committee that creates a 10-year comprehensive plan to address the inequities that exist within the American Indian community within San Francisco.

We also worked on a health disparities resolution with all of the health orgs, the Cultural Center, Friendship House, Native American Health Center, Indigenous Justice, many, many others on our Leadership Council, as well as two cultural districts expansions.

And more recently, thank you for the supervisors that were able to join us.

we were nominated as semi-finalists for state recognition for the California Arts Council program.

So in five years, a lot of that work that we have done has been around recognition

and just being, you know, having to say again, we're still here as American Indians and fight that fight.

So the last things I just wanted to share is our Indigenize US program we've been running

with the American Indian Cultural Center, our Mapping Genocide Project,

which we're excited to kick off our gala with the San Francisco Arts Commission tomorrow, November 19th,

19th to bring awareness to the San Francisco Arts Commission on that work. And also our

community land stewards program. We have a lot of our stewards here. We've been stewarding Blackpoint

for nearly five years now, as well as other areas such as the Presidio throughout the city,

and doing the community ambassadors food program, as well as our American Indian Cultural District

Young Leaders Council. And that's just some of the achievements that some of my leadership members

here have been able to come together and do in the last five years. And I just wanted to do a

quick special thank you to April McGill, who's in here, who's the executive director of the American

Indian Cultural Center, for believing me and being crazy enough to, I say crazy, to trust me to be

here. Because when I came here in 2019, and I first sat in these chambers, and I came with her

meeting after meeting, she sat up here protesting and protesting. And I said, April, where's everybody?

And she never missed a meeting, and she never, you know, missed an opportunity to hold people

accountable. And she stood as a role model for me and why I'm able to do that today. And I also want

to thank Julia, who is from the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. In 2019, when we

started, it was the pandemic. And everybody said, no, don't. You don't have a chance. We even had a

supervisor up here who was Native who said, don't do it. It's not likely. I don't think there's many

other things that are happening in this city right now. And I don't think you stand a chance. But you

should try next year when it comes out and things are in better position. I called Julia. She said,

diagnosis, you need this. Your people need this. You deserve this. And even though we lined up 36

people on the line, and it was the very first day of the Board of Supervisors meeting in the pandemic,

they said nobody was on the line because they didn't even know how to use the phone during

that time. But somehow, by the grace of Creator, it passed, and also the hard work of people.

And thank you also to Mary Travis Allen, my Leadership Council President, who even through

times when she didn't think I listened to her or agreed, she stood by my side and guided me to do

things in the right way. Thank you, Mary, wherever you are. And also to Mary Jean Robertson, KPO

Native Voices of 50 years, who came together and put the map together for the American Indian

Cultural District. And I know right now she's saying, talk slower so I can hear you. Slow it

down. But I'm trying to go fast here so I can get you all in there. And Debbie as well. Debbie has

been coming out and reaching out to our community and actually put together the information when I

came in in 2019 that created the legislation for the American Indian Cultural District. And no

matter what, she always makes sure that all these community members show up to all of our event.

And last but not least, the last few I'd like to recognize are Greg Castor, our Association

of Matrici-Loney Relative, and the ARO for allowing us to do this in a good way. It is very

odd to have an American Indian Cultural District on Native American land and not do it in a good

way in partnership. And last but not least, I just want to recognize all of my AICD Leadership

Council members. I will not read, well, I don't know what my time is, but I will not read all of

their names, but I could not do that without all 15 of them, including folks from the Cultural

Conservancy, Bay Area American Indian Two Spirits, American Indian Cultural Center. We have Crystal

Wapapa from Wapapa's Kitchen. We have Native American Health Center, Association of Matushaloni,

San Francisco USD Indian Education Program, Friendship House Association of American Indians.

We have our Young Leaders Council. We have our elected elder chair, our Two-Spirit

and an LGBTQ chair and our elder elected chair.

And so I could not do it without all of those people.

And I just thank you very much for coming together.

And last but not least, I don't know if all of you know this and what we've achieved.

I have two staff.

They've been here five months, and they're complete rock stars.

And I really hope I can get the support of the Board of Supervisors to grow it to a third

because we can't continue to do what we do and make this work happen without that support.

One of my staff today couldn't even be here because she was just overwhelmed by the amount of stuff that she had.

She had to leave and go home.

And so it's really sad to see that happen and that we have to come together and beg you all in Native land to give that support.

But I really hope you consider that when you look at funding for a cultural district.

So thank you to each and every one of these elders and leaders here today that have backed us for the support in order to be here.

And we are excited and honored that we have this level of support for Native American Heritage Month.

So thank you.

Looks like there's a photo going on in the rotunda, I'm guessing.

All right, so we're going to let cultural district folks maybe work their way out and

then we'll call our next honoree.

All right.

And for folks who may be here for our 3 p.m. special order,

we got a lot of commendations to get through,

so it's going to be a little while.

District 10 Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President Mandelman. I would like to call up Phil Andrade.

There he is.

Colleagues, today I am honored to recognize a true San Francisco institution, one that has fed generations,

brought neighbors together, and helped shape the culture and character of our city for half a century.

We are here to celebrate Goat Hill Pizza on its 50th anniversary.

Goat Hill Pizza opened its doors in 1975 in Potrille Hill, long before many of the changes we've seen across the city.

But through every shift and challenge, Gold Hill has remained a constant, a place rooted in community, tradition, and the San Francisco we all know and love.

For 50 years, Gold Hill Pizza has been more than a restaurant.

It has been a gathering place, a family spot, a neighborhood staple that has welcomed longtime residents, new families, and visitors with that unmistakable sourdough crust that only San Francisco can claim.

But what makes Goat Hill special isn't just the food.

It's the commitment to community, from supporting local schools and nonprofits, to showing up for neighborhood events.

Goat Hill Pizza has always given back to the people who have kept them thriving.

Their work reflects the values that make our neighborhoods strong with connection, consistency, and care.

Small businesses like Goat Hill Pizza are the heart of San Francisco.

They hold our stories, anchor our neighborhoods, and remind us what community truly looks like.

Reaching 50 years and still being family-friendly, community-centered, and proudly local is an incredible achievement.

So today, I want to extend our deepest appreciation and congratulate Goat Hill Pizza on this milestone anniversary.

Thank you for your dedication, for your service, and for continuing to represent what makes San Francisco so special.

Here's to 50 years of sourdough, service, and community, and many more to come.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. President, Supervisor Walton, members.

Well, thank you for this honor and recognition.

As you know, we are a legacy business, and we thank you also for the creation of that program,

which has been a great help to us in serving the community and being recognized by our community.

I want to introduce to you my partners who are with me, Joel Lipsky, Michael Monley, and Debbie Heisentreit.

We are, in some form or another, the same five people that started the restaurant 50 years ago, and we're just thrilled to have been able to be of service and use to the city and county of San Francisco.

We thank, of course, the board, and we thank Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, who came last week to honor us during Petraro Hill History Night, which some of you may have heard about at Pier 70, a new area for growth in San Francisco.

and we were honored there by the Petrero Hill Archive Project for our 50 years,

and Speaker Amarita and her husband came to celebrate with us,

and for that we were most grateful and honored.

We are grateful also to our partners in the Petrero Hill neighborhood in business,

the merchant community, which as a community is supportive of each other

through our Petraro Dogpatch Merchant Organization,

which enables us to work together to support business

in the Dogpatch Petraro Hill community.

Furthermore, I'd like to thank the staff of Goat Hill Pizza

for all of the incredible work they've done

over the 50 years of our existence.

And probably, and most importantly,

I want to thank the community of Petraro Hill Dogpatch

and the rest of San Francisco who has supported us throughout our 50 years.

And in 2012, we moved into West Portal for a second branch of our operation,

and we thank the West Portal community for the support it's given us since that time.

Thank you, Supervisor Milker.

So with that, thank you.

That's all I can say.

We're happy to be here and grateful to you for your support of small business and legacy business.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, District 11, Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

And may I have Mr. Zazi come to the podium, please?

Thank you.

Ken Zazi is a novel diner from New Mexico.

He is a District 11 resident and city employee at San Francisco, SFO, San Francisco Airport Museum.

He grew up in Farmington, a border town of the reservation,

where his parents were born and raised traditional.

On the Navajo reservation, they decided to raise their children non-traditional

because of their boarding school experience.

Before moving to San Francisco,

Ken worked at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.

and the National Museum of American Indian in New York City.

Since 1998, he has worked at SFO Museum,

managing known objects for exhibitions throughout the airport terminals.

In 2005, he became the registrar for the aviation collections,

utilizing his vast knowledge of aviation history

and airline corporate identity to catalog and preserve SFO Museum's collection for over 280,000 objects,

spanning the development of commercial aviation across the Pacific Rim and beyond.

In community, Ken has supported the American Indian Cultural Center, Friendship House, and the Native American Health Center.

He participated in the removal of the Pioneer Monument and attended the sunrise ceremonies on Alcatraz in remembrance of the occupations of Alcatraz and in solidarity with the murdered and missing indigenous women.

at SFO, his spearheaded efforts to recognize and celebrate the contributions of Native and

Indigenous community to an employee resources group event with SFO's land recognition ceremony

of the Rumor Tissue Ohlone. It is my great honor today to recognize Ken Yazzie's long-standing

commitment and dedication towards honoring the legacy of Native Americans in the San Francisco

Bay Area throughout preserving culture, volunteering, and your generous support in cultural events.

Thank you.

And before you speak, Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

I just quickly wanted to thank you for all of your service and thank you for making our

American Indian community proud through your many contributions. Thank you so much. Congratulations.

Thank you.

My name is Ken, yes. And, you know, when I moved here in San Francisco back in 98, I had no idea

what was all entailed for me to be part of, especially working at SFO.

And first of all, I was very, very honored and privileged

that I was setting foot on a really vast building at that time.

And so I want to say thank you, Supervisor Ken.

I really appreciate you nominating me and also the community

that you hear clapping because we natives are still here in San Francisco and in California.

And we stand for who we are.

And it doesn't matter if we were brought up traditionally or non-traditional, we're still here.

And, you know, it was hard for me to, growing up, it was really hard for me to see how the native was brought,

the Native person was seen, especially as a little kid, because the TV was my babysitter.

And so I saw the Native as the savage, the alcoholic, the sidekick, you know, always the

second place kind of stance, you know, all these characters. And so now being this individual here

standing in front of you. I am Navajo and San Francisco of all places is the

only place that I had to stand that the question was are you 100%? I'm from New

Mexico. I graduated from University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado. I

transferred over to an internship in Washington DC. Then I went up to New York

city. Of all the different places I came from lived at that time in my young life, when I said

I was Navajo, they said, oh, okay, great. That's great. Thank you for coming. It's great to be with

you kind of thing. But here in San Francisco, not all the time though, I was mistaken as Asian.

and it was really hard. I mean, because everyone thought I was Filipino and I spoke that I was

too friendly. I opened doors for the ladies. I said, please. I said, thank you. And it's like,

you know, when I heard that, are you a hundred percent? It really bothered me.

And every once in a while I get that question again, are you a hundred percent? And now my

answer is I used to be 100% because now I have two knee replacements and I have some crowns so I'm

like 88.9% so at any rate I really but I'm still Navajo I just want to say thank you for the museum

SFO Museum because I've learned so much from being involved in the collection of the museum I don't

know, I wish the mayor was still here. I wanted to invite him to see the back rooms. Everyone's

seen the front, the forefront, the, you know, in the international terminal. But if you go into

the back room and see where we do our work, where the, you know, how we put these exhibits up in all

the different areas of the airport, and where I work in the permanent collection of airlines,

who would think a native working in the airline area of history and being and just like I'm a

little kid in a candy store I mean it's like oh wow that's Pan Am that's TWA that's United you

know that Air Cal oh my gosh we you know gotta have that you know and so with this and I really

love airlines. And I am now in search of natives who are and who used to work for airlines. TWA,

United, you know, AirCal, on and so forth. But it's like, we are still

a population that is in progress of wanting to continue our heritage.

And I would like to be part of that and to continue that.

And it's really great to be part of all the different areas where I can support.

And I encourage each and every one of us to support these areas because it is needed.

because the American Indian Culture Center needs to continue here in San Francisco.

And I want to just encourage you to look in these areas

and to discuss amongst yourselves and your area, your families, your friends.

Hey, there's some Indians here.

There's some Navajos here.

You know, this land that we used to live on, it wasn't ours.

That history needs to be said over and over and over.

So again, I do appreciate this time that I can express my...

I'm just really grateful to be here.

And thank you again for the awesome lunch.

It was really good to be around in a small room with other natives.

Like, yeah, you know.

So it's really cool.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

District 2, Supervisor Cheryl.

Oops, excuse me.

Colleagues, today I am honored to commend Mary Ann Spencer Harvey in celebration of Native American Heritage Month.

Mary Ann, would you please come forward to the podium?

Thank you.

And not only because earlier we talked about our shared backyard of the Presidio, but the way that you spoke about the Presidio as your backyard, as our backyard, I thought really spoke volumes about your view on the world, your view on community, and your view on stewardship for all of us.

Now, for those who haven't had the pleasure of meeting Marianne,

she's a proud elder in the Native American community here in San Francisco.

She takes great pride in her Dine heritage and membership in the Navajo Nation.

Raised in Arizona, close to her roots, her father was a silversmith and her mother a dietician.

Being raised so close to the Navajo Nation,

her upbringing shaped her strong sense of cultural responsibility and care for others.

And now she brings her heritage into her service as an elder, community volunteer.

culture bearer. Since moving to San Francisco, Mary Ann has been a compassionate neighbor

and an active volunteer with the American Indian Cultural District's Culture and Land

Stewardship Program, which originated at Black Point Historic Garden. For those who don't know,

the Black Point Garden, as Shreya mentioned, is a one-acre hillside that connects the aquatic

park with Fort Mason, and it's one of the many areas of special cultural and historical significance

for the Native community in Fort Mason.

Mary Ann has been a dedicated steward of this garden,

helping weed, prune, and plant the garden

with a mix of Native species and horticultural species.

But beyond just her volunteering,

Mary Ann is also known for her compassion

for fellow seniors and neighbors,

often conversing with those in her neighborhood,

offering support, and building connections

rooted in the Navajo value of caring for all people.

Mary Ann's story reflects the broader Native history

of our city.

The lands we stand on are the homelands of the Ramatushaloni, and sites throughout District 2, including Fort Mason and the GGNRA, carry the history, knowledge, and stewardship of Native peoples who have lived in this region for thousands of years.

I'm extremely grateful that the American Indian Cultural District is headquartered in District 2,

and I especially enjoy touring their offices to see the work that leaders like Shreya and others and her team

do to strengthen visibility, cultural programming, and community support for Native peoples citywide.

Mary Ann's service exemplifies this work, helps keep Native history visible and honored

in our city where indigenous peoples have lived, cared for the land, and shaped the region for thousands of years.

So today, Marianne, we recognize you for your stewardship, for your cultural leadership,

for your dedication to community.

So thank you for serving our community, and congratulations.

And I invite you to say a few words. Thank you.

I'm dumbfounded.

But I'm sorry.

Hold on one second.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thanks, President Manelman.

Thank you so much, Supervisor Cheryl, for this well-deserved commendation.

And Marianne, thank you so much for continuing to steward Black Point.

And especially for my generation, for future generations, this kind of stewardship continues

continues to support the legacy of our peoples.

And I just want to thank you for making that possible

for all San Francisco natives.

Thank you so much, and congratulations.

Thank you so much.

You're so overwhelmed right now, except for one thing.

And my friend knows this about, we have always been known as the first people.

That's our way. We're a community. No person is first.

The San Francisco Library has always been, in the past, first people when they've got their newsletter out about us.

First people.

This year, it changed to first person.

When I saw that, I was so insulted.

I don't even go to the library anymore.

It's not the way we are.

We are not first person.

We are first people.

And my friend and I, we spoke to them about it at Alcatraz,

and it was to a blank wall.

So we need to change that to make it clear to everyone.

Because it's defending the elders.

We've been here for a long while.

We've taught our young people.

We're a whole people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

District 1, Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

I would like to invite my neighbor, Julie Fisher, and SEIU 2015 members to the podium.

Colleagues, today I am commending SEIU 2015, the in-home supportive service providers.

November is National Family Caregivers Month, and we're declaring today, November 18,

in-home supportive service providers day in San Francisco.

In-home supportive service, IHSS providers, play a vital role in supporting seniors and people with disabilities in San Francisco and greater Bay Area, as well as California and across this country.

Our in-home supportive service providers ensuring that our loved ones can live with dignity and independence in the comfort of their own homes.

The providers and workers devote their time, compassion, and expertise to assist those in need with a spectrum of support from essential daily activities to critical and intimate care service.

The diligent work of in-home caregivers, the majority of whom are women and women of color and immigrants often goes unnoticed.

Along with the financial struggles they and their families endure to provide this essential service and care to those in need, we are just so grateful for them.

It is amazing just how great they are.

I am just in awe of how resilient and amazing and committed they are, not just to care for our loved ones, but also our community.

And oftentimes you see SEIU 2015 members everywhere in a lot of community events supporting our community members, not just at their homes, but also communities all across San Francisco.

If I may, I want to just say a few words in Chinese as well.

But you are not only helping our families in their homes, but also in our community.

The SEIU 2015 is also helping our community service.

Thank you.

And before you speak, Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen for uplifting SEIU 2015.

Thank you.

They are my family members.

They watch me grow up.

Especially I want to shout out to Mei Chen.

Mei is definitely a community leader for San Francisco.

In our community, you voluntarily participated a lot of the meeting,

not only for SEIU 2015, but it's also very active in the community

and paving back and making sure that our community continues to be strong.

And I don't want to take more time, but I just want to say home care saves lives.

Thank you.

And I want to also say that home care provides dignity in our community, especially for the loved ones that we all care and the ones that you care.

I also want to say a lot to the workers.

And I think that's a say in Chinese, which I'm going to do it.

It's the word that you do, we cannot use money to measure.

So this is why I'm so proud that I am your champion in fighting to make sure that not only we have, we provide quality care, but we also provide quality jobs.

To help the pandemic with the pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic

and I will just add thanks to the members of

SEIU 2015 for all you do to care for our most vulnerable folks, and congratulations, and

thank you, Supervisor Chan, for this commendation.

Dear esteemed colleagues and supervisors, I want to express my deepest gratitude for

the opportunity to serve in the IHSS program.

Working with you and for the people who trust our services has been an immense honor and

privilege.

day we strive to provide the best care and attention to those who need it most. I greatly

appreciate the trust placed in each of us and I sincerely value the dedication of each person

involved in this noble work. Together we make a significant difference in the lives of those we

serve. Thank you for your continued support and for being a fundamental part of this invaluable work.

Thank you.

To deal with the pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic

To the pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic pandemic

It's Johnny Rodriguez in the chamber.

Come on up.

Colleagues, it is my honor today to present from District 8 a special commendation to Johnny Rodriguez.

Johnny has improved countless lives through his work with the San Francisco Community Health Center

and is an outspoken advocate for indigenous and LGBTQ plus communities.

Currently, he works as the clinical program manager for the San Francisco Community Health Center,

where he uses his ancestral medicine to help community members along their healing journeys.

Through talking circles, ceremonies, community gatherings, and a decolonized approach to mental health,

Johnny is committed to creating spaces for healing, justice, and connection.

Outside of his work at SFCHC, Johnny works with organizations that lift up indigenous and queer people in San Francisco,

including the annual Bay Area American Indian Two Spirits Pow Wow,

one of the largest gatherings of two-spirit and indigiqueer people in the country.

The Bay Area Mexica Queer, Trans, and Two-Spirit Collective,

a collective that works to create welcoming spaces for queer and trans people in the Mexica or Aztec traditions,

and the Indigenous Peoples Community Church.

Recently, Johnny was elected to serve on the board of the Leather and LGBTQ Cultural District.

Johnny identifies as a two-spirit elder in training.

His ancestral roots come from the Nahuatl-speaking people of northern Mexico and southern Texas.

While working toward a Master of Social Work at California State University, Long Beach,

Johnny worked closely with students and youth communities, providing guidance and mentorship.

After graduating, Johnny continued to work as a community organizer for Khmer Girls in Action

and as a youth services manager for the SFLGBT Center.

Those who have worked with Johnny praise his ability to connect with others and work ethic,

and describe Johnny as an extraordinary advocate and an invaluable asset to his communities.

With immense gratitude and appreciation, we thank you, Johnny, for your service to our city.

And now the floor is yours.

Thank you.

I always like to start with giving deep gratitude to the ancestors and guardians of this place,

the Ramatish Shaloni. Thank you, President Mandelman and the rest of the board for this

opportunity. And thank you for Lance Toma, my boss, my CEO, who said my name and allowed me to

be here today. I wanted to share sort of the teaching. It's a really nice bio. I was like,

oh wow, I forgot about some of those things. But one of the teachings that I learned early on and

that I carry with me is that when the community needs you, you show up. And so throughout my life,

since I was a teenager probably.

Anytime I heard people needed help,

they needed food, they needed guidance,

I was there.

And I continue that teaching today

with all of the things that Madeline listed today.

It's a lot of stuff.

But I do it because I care about the community,

because I care about the city.

San Francisco is a city I love,

and I'm here to do the work,

to care for people when they need it.

And as long as I'm capable,

I will continue living that teaching

of taking care of people when they need it.

I also want to say, just to give recognition that throughout history, queer, trans, and

two-spirit people have led all of our communities.

So we always want to make space to honor them, honor those ancestors and transcestors who

have led the way for us in the past and even currently today.

And the last thing I want to say is to all my relations, Lazo Kamati, Mayoli Katzin,

thank you, and may your heart be present.

Thank you.

To the next question question question question question question question question question

question question question question question question question question question question

to do that and honor honor those amazing folks now we should get to our 3 p.m.

special order madam clerk

yeah 3 3 p.m. special yes the first 3 p.m. special order the Board of

Supervisors has convened a committee of the whole approval from rescheduled

September 22nd, 2020 through November 18th, 2025.

Item 37, this is a hearing of the Board of Supervisors convening a committee of the whole

for the members of the board to hear and receive updates on the progress and implementation

status of the United States Department of Justice recommendations pertaining to reforms

within the police department.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President, Madam, and colleagues.

This is the last time we will ask for continuance on this item, and we ask that we continue this item to December 2nd.

All right.

There's a motion to continue this hearing to December 2nd.

Is there a second?

Second by Fielder.

Before we can act on that motion, we need to take public comment on the continuance.

If anyone wants to talk about the continuance, this is not general public comment.

If anybody wants to talk about the continuance, come forward.

And if not, public comment on the continuance is closed.

And colleagues, as I said, we have a motion to continue this hearing

to the December 2nd, 2025 Board of Supervisors meeting.

Can we take that motion without objection?

I'm going to say that we can.

We need a roll call, Mr. President.

We need a roll call?

Yeah.

All right, let's do a roll call.

On the motion to continue, Item 37, 2 December 2nd, Supervisor Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

And Supervisor Chen.

Chan, aye.

There are 10 ayes.

Without objection, this hearing is continued to December 2, 2025.

Madam Clerk, let's go to our next 3 p.m. special order.

Please call Items 38 through 41 together.

Items 38 through 41 comprise a public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration

under the California Environmental Quality Act for the proposed project at 570 Market Street.

Item 39 affirms the approval by the Planning Commission under the CEQA for the proposed project.

Item 40, this conditionally reverses the approval of the Planning Commission.

And item 41 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings, reversing the approval.

All right.

So, colleagues, we have before us, as the clerk indicated,

an appeal of the final mitigated negative declaration for the proposed project at 570 Market Street.

After the hearing, the board will vote on whether to affirm or conditionally reverse the Planning Commission's approval.

We have two appellants for this project, and so unless there's an objection going forward in this way, we'll divide the presentation time between them.

And we will proceed as follows, up to five minutes for each appellant for a total of 10 minutes, then public comment in support of the appeal, two minutes per speaker,

then up to 10 minutes for a presentation from the city departments then up to 10

minutes for the project sponsor then back to public comment with two minutes

per speaker in opposition to the appeal and finally up to two minutes for each

appellant to make a rebuttal for a total of four minutes if anyone objects let me

know if we don't we will proceed with the public hearing which is now open and

before we before we hear from the from the appellant appellants Supervisor

Sautter yes thank you President Manelman I want to begin by thanking the planning

department the project sponsors and the appellants for all your work on this

appeal. It is in my district in District 3 by just a few feet on the north side of Market.

And since this appeal was filed, my office and I have met with the project sponsors of 570 Market,

appellants from 44 Montgomery, and the planning department on this matter. So I want us to be

sure that we're clear about the question before us today, which is not about the project's design

or merits, which will be considered at later stages. But today the question before us rather

is simply if the environmental review that has been done is adequate.

And so with that very brief introduction, I'd be happy to turn it back to you, President

Mandelman, to begin our proceedings.

Thank you, Supervisor Sautter.

So we're going to invite each of the appellants to come forward and present their case, each

having five minutes.

And I believe we're going to start with representatives for BCAL 44 Montgomery Property, LLC, Brian

Flynn.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman, honorable supervisors.

My name is Brian Flynn.

I'm a CEQA attorney with the law firm Loza Drury here this afternoon on behalf of the

appellant B. Cal 44 Montgomery property, who are the owners of 44 Montgomery Street.

44 Montgomery's position in this appeal is that the project's mitigated negative declaration,

which is one of the lowest tiers of CEQA review, was improper and that a full environmental

impact report is required for this project.

CEQA has a strong preference for the preparation of an EIR over an MND.

This is reflected in what is known as the fair argument standard.

Under the fair argument standard, you need to prepare an EIR if there is any substantial

evidence in the record that the project may have a significant impact.

And importantly, if there's evidence of significant impacts, you need to prepare an EIR

even if there's contrary evidence on the other side.

So as a supervisor Soder pointed out, the limited question in front of the board is not,

you're not being asked to take a position on the project, but only on whether this project meets

the low CEQA threshold for preparation of an EIR.

And evidence that has been provided by 44 Montgomery and the other appellant

affirmatively establish that this project may result in significant impacts.

In the limited time I have, I can't go into every impact in detail,

but I'd like to give a summary.

For noise impacts, we've submitted written comments

that included an expert review of this project and MND.

One of the main issues they found with this MND

is that the MND assumed that sound would attenuate

over distance at a rate of 6 decibels.

Our expert pointed out that does not accurately reflect the conditions in the financial district

where you have lots of tall buildings reflecting sound and creating canyon-like environments.

Our expert concluded that a three-decibel rate was more proper and accurate

and that that would result in significant noise impacts at the nearest residences on Bush Street.

And the planning department and the applicant have tried and will try to refute that expert tonight,

but the board's job here is not to weigh conflicting evidence.

Under that fair argument standard, our expert has provided credible evidence of possible significant impacts,

so an EIR is required even if someone else disagrees.

Our noise expert also found that the MND only analyzed absolute noise thresholds

for the impacts to 44 Montgomery Street, the Chancery Building, Finance Building, and others.

But in addition to absolute noise thresholds,

SQL requires an analysis of the relative increase in noise over existing ambient levels.

Our expert found that even if you used a conservative 20 decibel increase over ambient temperatures,

that's double what the residential threshold would be,

the project would result in significant noise impacts to 44 Montgomery and others.

Again, under that fair argument standard, the experts provided credible evidence,

and so the EIR is required even if others disagree.

There are also issues with vibration impacts.

I want to preface the discussion with the fact that 44 Montgomery, the Chancery Building,

the Finance Building are all recognized historical resources.

They all directly abut the proposed hotel.

They're as close as a foot away.

The MND concluded that the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce the vibration

impacts to less than significant, but those measures are insufficient to conclude that

the impacts won't be significant.

The measures primarily consist of a series of actions and measures to be taken after

vibration exceedances occur.

In other words, the measures do not actually mitigate the impacts from happening, but only

prescribe what to do after damage has been done.

Again under that fair argument standard, the fact that the MND's own vibration mitigation

for all purposes assumes that the neighboring buildings may be damaged establishes the fair

argument that an EIR is required.

Very briefly, we also submitted evidence from a historical resources expert who concluded

that the impacts of this project would be significant due to its size and massing on

nearby historical resources, including 44 Montgomery, the Chancery Building, and Finance

Building.

We also submitted photos showing commercial congestion on Sutter Street that's only going

to be congested by this hotel, which is going to have all of its commercial deliveries,

drop-offs for hotel guests and employees, would all happen on Sutter Street, not on Market

Street.

So for those reasons, the reasons we've discussed also in our written correspondence that I

didn't have time for, and the reasons you'll hear from the other appellant, 44 Montgomery

is respectfully requesting that the board grant these appeals to ensure that this project

goes through the proper amount of environmental review prior to approval as required by CEQA.

Thank you.

We, I don't see any questions.

So we will now hear from the representative for the second appellant, CPH564LP,

and that is, I thought it was Anna Shemko, but it's not Anna Shemko.

Hello.

It will be.

Okay.

Sorry, good afternoon.

My name is Zach Fady.

We own the Chancery building, which is adjacent to the proposed hotel.

We have a small family business that we built through many years of hard work,

and the economic viability of our building is critical for us.

We have just suffered about five years of extreme economic hardship stemming from COVID and its after effects, and now that we're just coming up for air, the proposed hotel development will unnecessarily damage us and cause us another two or three years of economic hardship, which can be avoided if the project is properly evaluated.

This is not a typical building site with adjacent solid wall, concrete walled buildings.

We have a historic building with 141 windows along and directly fronting the construction area.

Much of the proposed building is 12 inches from our building, and the hotel lot is an average of 45 feet wide,

which is a little more than two car lengths wide. So all construction work will be felt in our building.

Our building does not have mechanical ventilation, and the only way to get fresh air is to open the windows.

windows. The windows are single pane glass so even when they're closed you actually hear a lot of

loud sounds from outside. The MND construction noise estimates, which range between 92 decibels

and 99 decibels, are calculated for sources at a distance of 20 feet. However, about half of the

proposed hotel is one foot from our building and the other half is about seven or eight feet from

our building, so the construction noise levels will exceed the estimated levels.

For context, 92 decibels is equivalent to the sound of a lawnmower at 3 foot distance.

95 decibels is equal to the sound of a jackhammer at 50 foot distance.

And 99 decibels is equal to a car horn at 16 foot distance and causes ear damage after

30 minutes exposure.

These noise levels, which again are the MND calculated levels for 20 foot distances and

which will be exceeded due to the proximity of the work to our building,

will make our building very difficult to work in during periods of construction

and will unnecessarily create a financial disaster for us.

One cannot with a straight face say that two to three years of noise levels

that vary between the noise of a lawnmower, a jackhammer, and a car horn

are not significant enough to justify an EIR study

which would identify and provide mitigation plan for such noise.

It is certain, as verified by experts, that our building will suffer from exposure to excessive noise, vibration, and construction dust,

and we will suffer other damages that our lawyer will cover.

The current CEQA document does not recognize or mitigate such significant impacts, and thus does not meet legal standards.

Please direct that a full EIR be prepared so the environmental and health impacts can be properly examined

and considered and effective mitigation strategies can be evaluated.

Thank you.

Anna Shimko, counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Flynn articulated the legal standard quite well.

The MND acknowledges that the project's vibration impacts will be significant.

That will especially be true to our client's historic building.

The flaw of the MND is the conclusion that the mitigation measure will overcome this significant vibration impact.

Our structural engineer opined that the chancery building's old foundation is extremely sensitive to vibration from construction activity nearby, and there could be catastrophic effects.

That is an expert opinion that must be given weight in this process.

The measure orders periodic inspections to see if damage has occurred, in which case the impact was already significant and unavoidable.

Requiring that damage be fixed later doesn't avoid damage.

The mitigation measure also relies on buffer distances from construction activities.

That's not feasible because the project site itself is narrow at only 40 feet wide

and the project walls would be built as near as one foot to the Chancery building.

So it's not possible to be, for instance, 20 feet away.

away. Finally, the mitigation measure envisions that alternative construction equipment and

techniques can be used if vibration exceeds the threshold. In flagrant violation of established

SQL requirements about performance standards and deferred mitigation measures, the MND

fails entirely to show whether such alternatives actually exist or which equipment or techniques

would comprise those alternatives.

That impact remains significant and unavoidable.

The mitigation measure is inadequate.

There are also impacts with respect to noise, air quality, dust, historic, aesthetic,

all documented in the record that compel the preparation of an EIR in this circumstance.

Thank you.

All right.

I do not see anyone in the queue to ask questions of the appellants.

And so let's open up public comment specifically for those who'd like to speak in support of the appeal and in opposition to the project.

Madam Clerk, will you call the first speaker if we have any?

Great. If you wouldn't mind coming on up to the front if you are here to provide public comment on behalf of the appellant or the appellant's representative.

All right.

Mr. President.

Public comment is now closed.

Now we're going to have 10 minutes for representatives of the city departments.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman and supervisors.

I'm Ryan Shum, senior planner for the proposed 570 Market Street project.

The decision before you is whether to affirm or reverse the Planning Commission's decision to approve the FMND.

As noted, the Planning Commission approved the preliminary MND and rejected the PMND appeals on May 1st.

On October 10th, the same two appellants filed separate appeals of the FMND.

The department clearly reviewed all materials submitted by the appellants,

and they do not alter our conclusion that an MND is the appropriate level of environmental review.

The project would replace two existing two-story commercial buildings with a 29-story hotel

and a 4,200-square-foot public open space on the 15th floor.

The new hotel would not include any off-street vehicle parking

and would replace the existing commercial loading zone on Sutter Street with a passenger loading zone.

Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 24 months.

The presentation focuses on the primary topics brought forth by the appellants,

geology and soils, construction noise and vibration, and historic preservation.

The appellants also raised questions regarding construction air quality, freight loading, and shadow,

and the department has addressed these topics in the appeal response.

As I will discuss in this presentation, the appellants have not met the legal burden of proof

to demonstrate that the project could have a significant and unavoidable impact,

and staff respectfully recommends that the board affirm the Planning Commission's decision to approve the FMND.

To begin with, staff would like to respond to one of the main concerns raised by the appellants,

which is that the FMND did not adequately analyze the geotechnical impacts of its construction on nearby buildings.

This contention is incorrect.

For environmental review, the department considers the question of whether construction of a project

could have a substantial adverse effect on soils or geologic features on the project site,

and ultimately whether a project could be feasibly constructed and supported by the underlying site conditions.

With respect to this question, the geotechnical report concluded that the building is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint.

Environmental review takes into account that the project would be required to undergo more detailed review by the building department at a later stage.

This is not a deferral of mitigation or study as claimed by the appellants.

DBI review typically occurs after the CEQA process and project approvals, but before construction permits are issued.

The review includes an assessment of the project's proposed foundation system and its appropriateness for the structure and ground conditions on the site, as well as the potential effects of construction activities, the predicted foundation settlement, and the project's predicted long-term interaction with foundations of existing adjacent and nearby structures.

Additionally, for tall buildings such as the project,

an independent engineering review of the geotechnical and structural design

by a four-person panel of experts would be required.

As such, the project effects on nearby buildings will be evaluated

and will ensure that the building can be safely constructed.

Through this regulatory process, the city ensures that significant impacts

related to geology and soils do not occur,

and therefore separate CEQA mitigation is not required.

CEQA review is based on architectural-level plans, which illustrate the proposed project elements and assess feasibility,

but do not include the detailed structural information found in permit-level or construction-level plans.

It's important to note that permit-level plans are not expected nor required for environmental review.

After environmental review is completed and once a project is approved,

qualified staff and other city departments will conduct detailed technical review,

and the project will be required to update its construction documents as needed to ensure compliance with state and local building code.

This review is mandatory and project sponsors must comply.

The appellants have not demonstrated how a significant impact could occur with the project's required compliance with the DBI process and state and local code.

With respect to the construction noise, the appellants contend that the construction noise analysis was improperly calculated.

But, as detailed in the department's appeal response, the appellant's analysis is inaccurate and misleading because it conflates two different methodologies and does not follow the general assessment methodologies that the appellant's claim should be utilized.

Commercial offices are not considered sensitive receptors unless the commercial receptor is exposed to noise levels of 100 decibels or higher.

The FMND noise analysis confirmed that this would not be the case.

The FMND properly assessed the project's construction noise impacts in accordance with the city's evaluation guidelines

And the department's analysis uses the correct noise attenuation factor and equipment usage factor

The appellants also contend that the presence of mid- to high-rise buildings downtown would lead to a canyoning effect

For sounds such that construction noise could be focused, reflected, or amplified

Based in part on this notion, the appellants contend that the noise analysis should use even more conservative

noise attenuation factor that differs from the general FTA methodology.

However, as shown in this figure, with the red being the project site and the yellow being

the sensitive receptor, the nearby buildings are oriented in such a way that construction

noise from the project site would likely be reflected away from the nearest sensitive

receptor and is unlikely to be amplified.

The appellants also do not provide detailed calculations to support this contention, and

such a calculation would require accounting for numerous variables, including the composition

of nearby building materials, the location of the construction sound source relative to the

receptor, the angle of nearby buildings that could reflect sound, and more. Therefore, the appellants

contention is speculative and does not support a fair argument. The appellants also contend that

the project would result in significant construction vibration impacts to nearby structures, but did

not provide any specific evidence to support this assertion. Consistent with CEQA, we conservatively

analyzed the project's impacts and determined that the project could have a significant impact,

but that mitigation would reduce the risk to a less than significant level. This conclusion is

based upon substantial evidence. As described in the FMND, the vibration mitigation would require

a project-specific vibration management and monitoring plan to employ all feasible means

to avoid damage to nearby structures,

including procedures to actively monitor vibration levels

at the construction site.

It's important to note that contrary to the appellant's assertion,

the Caltrans vibration standards are guidelines

for assessing potential vibration damage

and not bright-line thresholds.

This is because all buildings are constructed slightly differently

and are supported by different underlying soil conditions

and surroundings.

As a result, construction vibration interacts with buildings

to varying degrees, and there is no bright-line threshold

above which vibration impacts are certain to occur.

Therefore, the appellant's contention that any exceedance

of the threshold would result in a significant impact is incorrect.

Furthermore, the appellant's contention

that catastrophic irreparable damage could occur,

even with stop work provisions required

by the vibration monitoring plan, is speculative,

and the appellants have not met the legal burden of proof

of providing substantial evidence to support a fair argument

that the vibration mitigation measure would be inadequate.

Lastly, we would like to briefly touch on historic preservation.

The department's preservation analysis was based on the subject building's historic resource evaluation response,

which identified all adjacent and nearby historic resources, including the Chancery Building and 44 Montgomery Street.

These buildings were accounted for in the preservation analysis.

The HRE also clearly concluded that the property is not part of a designated or eligible historic district, noting,

the subject property does not appear to be part of a significant concentration of historically or architecturally unified buildings,

such that it would rise to a level of an eligible historic district.

Finally, the project's construction would not demolish or materially impair the character-defining features on adjacent properties,

such that their historic status could be altered.

Thus, no significant impact related to historic resources would occur.

In conclusion, the FMND fully supports the findings that the project would not result in significant impacts

that could not be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures.

These findings are based on substantial evidence in the record,

and the appellants have not provided substantial evidence based on facts to support a fair argument to require the preparation of an EIR.

Additional studies would not yield different results from what has already been disclosed in the FMND,

and the EIR process would not alter the MND conclusions,

nor provide any meaningful analysis beyond what was already conducted in the MND.

For these reasons, the department respectfully recommends that the board affirms the Planning Commission's decision to approve the FMND.

Thank you very much for your attention.

I'm joined by my colleagues, Chelsea Fordham and Tanya Schoener.

We're available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

I do not see any questions from my colleagues.

So now we'll go to the project sponsor for up to 10 minutes.

Good afternoon.

I'm Melinda Sarajapour, Ruben Junius and Rose.

I'm here on behalf of the project sponsor, Frontier Development Group.

The Planning Department has provided a thorough technical response to Appellant's concerns,

why the project has no potential for significant environmental impacts.

Starting off, it's important to understand the standard of review on appeal of MND.

The key question is whether appellants have provided substantial evidence of a fair argument

that the project may have a significant impact.

CEQA is very clear that not all information rises to the level of substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence must be supported by facts in the record, argument, speculation

about potential impacts, inaccurate or erroneous information is not substantial evidence.

Simply providing consultant opinions that are based on speculation or that contain inaccurate

or misleading information does not meet this standard.

Further, the Commission must give the City the benefit of the doubt on any legitimate

disputed issues of credibility in the evidence presented.

Appellants have not met this standard.

Their appeal letters and supporting documents touch on a broad range of topics, essentially

raising every possible concern to see if anything will stick.

but they do not provide substantial evidence under CEQA.

Instead, their materials are filled with conjecture,

opinia, erroneous or misleading statements,

and speculation unsupported by fact.

This is not enough to overturn the MND.

By contrast, the MND is supported by substantial evidence.

It's a 130-page document with addenda containing detailed technical studies

prepared by qualified independent consultants

applying established review standards

and subject to thorough review by department staff.

Planning's response to this appeal has walked through each of appellants' concerns in detail

and explained why their comments in supporting materials do not contain substantial evidence.

We have provided similar information in our brief.

Appellants' concerns were also raised in their initial appeals to this MD&D to the Planning Commission in April

and were appropriately rejected at that time.

Now I'll touch base on just a few of the topics that were raised.

First, appellants speculate that the project could have geotechnical impacts related to soil settlement,

dewatering, or liquefaction. These claims have no factual basis. The MND appropriately analyzes

the potential for impacts to soil or geologic features and whether a project could be feasibly

constructed based on a preliminary geotechnical investigation report. This document was prepared

by a licensed consultant, in this case Langan, that has more than five decades of expertise and

experience in the field. In determining that no significant impact could occur, the MND also

properly accounts for the existence of stringent local and state building code requirements

and pre-construction review processes for foundation and structural design.

Among other things, these standards require independent structural and geotechnical design

level review by qualified professionals based on construction level drawings and calculations

that are developed during building permit review.

The project must implement these requirements as a matter of law.

CEQA is clear that local agencies may rely on compliance with state and local building

code requirements like these in determining potential for impact.

So the MND is consistent with both the city's standard process for structural review and

CEQA standards.

Appellants provide no substantial evidence that an impact may occur at this particular

site despite these well-established requirements.

Secondly, appellants claim without support that the project may result in construction

noise impacts.

They provide multiple letters from their private consultant, Wilson Erick, attacking the MND

noise analysis.

However, these materials contain inaccurate and misleading information that does not rise to the level of substantial evidence.

As discussed by staff, Wilson-Ering claims, among other things, that the MND should have applied a usage factor of one under the FTA general assessment methodology.

However, a supplemental analysis prepared by the project's noise consultant shows that even with the requested usage factor applied, the project still would not result in a significant impact.

So that concern is meritless.

Wilson-Erik also attempts to cherry-pick between review standards applied in different FTA assessment methodologies,

while ignoring other nuanced factors.

They speculate that if only specific, highly conservative review criteria were applied in a vacuum,

the project might then exceed noise thresholds.

This is an improper methodology designed to generate an unrealistic forecast of impacts

and simply does not rise to the level of substantial evidence under CEQA.

Similarly, appellants provide no substantial evidence to support their claims

that the project could result in significant vibration impacts, despite applied mitigations.

The MND finds that neighboring buildings could be affected by construction vibration,

but applies appropriate site-specific monitoring and vibration measures

that would reduce that impact to less than significant.

The vibration mitigations adopted are standards that have been applied

for other similarly situated sites near historic resources across the city successfully.

Among other items, the vibration mitigation requires a pre-construction survey

to document the condition of adjacent buildings, preparation of a monitoring plan by a qualified consultant

that will be subject to staff review and approval, establishing maximum allowable vibration thresholds

and methods for vibration monitoring, submittal of monthly reports of any vibration exceedance

and actions to reduce vibration should that occur, and periodic inspections throughout construction

with any required remediations overseen by a qualified preservation professional.

Appellants provide no substantial evidence that significant vibration impacts could occur

despite these detailed measures.

Further, appellants' claims that the MND improperly defers vibration mitigation are incorrect.

CEQA expressly allows details of project mitigation to be developed after approval

when it is impractical or infeasible to include them during environmental review,

as long as the MND commits itself to mitigation actions,

adopts performance standards they will achieve,

and identifies the types of potential accidents that can be feasibly achieved by those standards.

The project's mitigation meets those criteria.

Appellants also argue that the project could have significant impacts on historic resources.

They provide a letter from Katie Petring Consulting claiming that the MND did not accurately describe nearby resources

and failed to analyze a theoretical historical district in the same block.

Both claims are incorrect.

The MND in supporting materials thoroughly describe nearby resources and include a finding that buildings on the subject block would not qualify as a historic district.

Appellants provide no evidence suggesting otherwise.

The MND does provide substantial evidence that no impact to historic resources would occur, including detailed analysis related to geology, noise, and vibration.

Overall, appellants have not met their burden to overturn the MND because they provide no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant impacts

We ask that the Commission uphold the MND. Thank you.

All right. I do not see comments or questions from colleagues.

And so we will now open public comment to speakers in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project who will have two minutes each.

Madam Clerk.

Welcome to our first speaker.

Good afternoon, President and members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Jesus Mendoza, and I am a field representative for the NorCal Carpenters Union.

I am speaking today on behalf of the working men and women who have for over 100 years built and maintained this beautiful city.

I am here in opposition to the appeal and in full support of the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed 570 Market Street hotel development.

For labor, this project represents more than construction.

It represents steady, middle-class jobs that allow our members to build the communities they serve.

Every major project like this keeps hundreds of skilled union workers employed during a time when we do not see significant construction activity in San Francisco.

Keep in mind that a commitment to use a union general contractor creates opportunity for families sustaining careers that help stabilize San Francisco's economy at a time when the downtown core urgently needs investment.

The Planning Commission did its due diligence.

The environmental review was thorough, transparent, and grounded in substantial evidence.

The final M&D identifies, impacts, and requires mitigation measures that our members are fully prepared to meet.

The appeal does not present new information or any evidence of significant unaddressed environmental impacts.

What it would do is introduce unnecessary delays, threaten jobs, and undermine confidence in a fair and predictable sequel process.

San Francisco cannot afford to stall responsible development that both protects the environment and puts people to work.

That's why I respectfully urge you to affirm the approval of the final M&D.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, and thank you for standing with working people.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And it's a pleasure to be in front of the staff and the distinguished members of the full Board of Supervisors.

My name is Rudy Gonzalez from the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

I represent 27 locals here in the city.

And I wish I could, because I rarely take a pass at tugging at your heartstrings.

I wish I could make this about union or non-union or high-road jobs or low-road jobs.

But this is, as Supervisor Sader said, a very technical but important step in the process as it relates to whether or not you believe that there's substantial evidence here and if an EIR is going to be the result of that.

So first, under CEQA, the appellants have to provide you with substantial evidence showing that the project may cause a significant environmental impact.

We don't believe they've met that burden respectfully.

The planning department's analysis is thorough.

It uses accepted technical standards and clearly demonstrated that with mitigation,

with mitigation, that this project will not result in significant impacts.

I'm going to touch on a couple little spots here.

On the geology and construction impacts, I think that's been raised significantly.

The department relied on a qualified geotech study,

required compliance with strict building codes here in the city, and monitoring.

The appellant's claims about catastrophic settlement or damage are speculative and, importantly, not supported by the project's specific evidence,

although they're reasonable considerations for anyone to have on a neighboring project.

I also want to touch on loading, transportation, and shadows.

Those are matters that typically come before this body.

The department correctly found that no significant impacts were present.

The appellants offered no contrary data on those points, only photos and somewhat generalized concerns.

across every single topic raised by the appellants.

The pattern's the same.

The department has provided evidence and mitigation,

and the appellants provide speculation.

CEQA does not require an EIR based on speculation for all these reasons,

and because the project has been responsibly reviewed with enforceable mitigation,

I respectfully request you affirm the Planning Commission's adoption

of the mitigated negative declaration and deny the appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Supervisors.

My name is Anand Singh here representing Unite Here Local 2, the hotel workers' union in the city.

I'm not going to repeat a lot of what was just said.

I'm in agreement with my siblings in labor and Rudy Gonzalez, who just spoke about,

this is not tugging at your heartstrings.

We can do that, and that's important for us and our members.

But on the specific merits of the appeal, we're urging you to reject the appeal

and support the Planning Department's final mitigated negative declaration.

We do not believe the appellants have provided the substantial evidence

that CEQA requires to show this project could cause significant environmental impacts.

And in really every category, and Rudy just went through a number of them,

the Department's findings are grounded in evidence, and the appeal is not.

So we urge you strongly to affirm the FMND and deny the appeal.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

All right, are there any other members of the public who would like to provide public

comment on behalf of the appellant, excuse me, on behalf of the project sponsor against

the appellant?

All right, Mr. President.

All right, public comment is now closed.

So last, we're going to invite the appellants to present a rebuttal argument.

Each of them will get two minutes, and we'll start with Mr. Flynn.

Thank you, Brian Flynn, again for 44 Montgomery.

I really think we just need backing up in what I started this hearing with was talking about this standard, this fair argument standard, where if you've got expert evidence in the record saying that there may be a significant impact, it is not the board's job to be weighing that against contrary evidence or against what other experts think.

And if you go through the presentation by staff and the applicant, a lot of that is just trying to throw our experts under the bus.

They're trying to say our experts are inaccurate and therefore speculative and you shouldn't follow them.

That is a disagreement about how methodology was done, a difference in how calculations were done based on the conditions for this project.

Again, according to the planning department,

it is completely reasonable to assume that sound is going to attenuate

like it does in an open field on Market Street in the financial district.

That is not a reasonable assumption, but that's not the point here.

We're not just trying to take down the planning department's experts.

The point is that we have experts in the record.

We have experts on noise.

We have experts on historical resources.

The other appellant has experts on geotechnical risks,

and these are credentialed experts.

I don't think their expertise is being called into question in any way.

They have done their own review.

They have decided that this project may result in significant impacts,

so therefore an MND is not the proper level of SQL review for this project,

and it has to go through the EIR process.

Very quickly, planning had insinuated that an EIR will just produce the same results here.

That's not the point.

it is a procedural violation of CEQA to proceed with an MND when you should have done an EIR.

The EIR gives heightened comment protections and also gives more protections to the city

when they make their decision that you can then defer to your experts

and not pay attention to our experts.

On this MND, our experts have established this impact, so an EIR is required.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And now from the second appellant.

Good afternoon.

Anna Shimko for the appellant.

We also have submitted credible evidence from two experts,

one noise and vibration and one structural engineer

opining the project may have significant impacts.

Therefore, an EIR is legally required.

It's not your job to judge which expert is right.

As to vibration, while the planning department responded

responded that real-time vibration monitoring can address the issue,

the mitigation measure itself does not specifically require that, and it should do so.

The mitigation measure is simply flawed.

It anticipates significant and unavoidable impacts in damage from construction.

It establishes maximum levels of vibration, but then it's only honored in the breach,

and thus impacts will occur.

And there's no evidence that there are means to achieve the stated performance standard.

On construction noise, the MND states that construction noise 20 feet away would be up to 99 dBA.

This exceeds both federal and state agency health standards,

where workers are required to wear hearing protection when noise is over an 85 dBA level.

As noted, the planning department stated that an EIR process would not show any different results.

That may and may not be true.

However, we would get rid of the fiction that a mitigated negative declaration is forced to maintain,

that there are no significant unavoidable impacts, that the decision makers need to balance and weigh

and decide whether approving the project is worthy of overcoming those impacts.

We hope that you will order that an EIR be prepared, and we thank you for listening.

All right.

And with that, this public hearing has been held and is now filed.

Supervisor Slaughter.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

and I want to thank everyone who participated and for my colleagues as well.

I want to maybe summarize what I've heard and then I'll make a motion.

As we've seen in the past hour, the planning department has explained

that they've prepared a mitigated negative declaration, an MND as you've heard it referred to.

It's a 130-page document in this case, which identified mitigation measures that reduce all potential impacts to levels below the level of significance.

For example, reducing any noise, vibration, air quality, cultural resource impacts.

Planning Department also identified regulatory requirements that would apply and would ensure that there are no impacts, for example, those related to geology and soils.

This review has been done over several years, and the project in this case was first proposed six years ago in 2019.

From what I've learned, I believe that the appellants have not met their burden under CEQA to show that there may be any impacts not already adequately addressed through the MND.

They have not satisfied the fair argument standard because their arguments are speculative.

They are not based on substantial evidence, which need to be based on facts.

The appellants may disagree with the department's findings, but their arguments are not supported

by substantial evidence in this case.

Earlier this year, I think it's important to note the project's MND was also appealed

to the Planning Commission, where that appeal was denied.

Given all this, I believe the MND is adequate, well done, and this project does not warrant

further environmental review.

With that in mind, I would like to make a motion, and that motion would be to approve

item 39, affirming the Planning Commission's approval of the final mitigated negative declaration

and tabling items 40 and 41.

All right.

Is there a second for that motion?

Seconded by Mahmoud.

And if there's no further discussion, we will vote on the motion made by Supervisor

Sauter, seconded by Supervisor Mahmood to affirm the final mitigated negative declaration,

approving item number 39 and tabling items number 40 and 41.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

On the motion to approve item 39 and table 40 and 41, Supervisor Dorsey?

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmood. Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelman. Aye.

Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter. Aye. Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Sheryl. Aye. Sheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Chan.

Aye. Chan, aye. And Supervisor Chen. Chen, aye. There are ten ayes.

Without objection, item number 39 is approved. Items 40 and 41 are tabled.

And that concludes our 3 p.m. Special our second 3 p.m. Special order and now

We will go back

To I believe madam clerk item 35

Item 35 this is a motion to appoint Barbara Ellen Walden residency requirement waived and Monique Guidry to the early childhood

Community Oversight and Advisory Committee. Terms ending October 8, 2027.

Please call the roll.

On item 35, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. And Supervisor Chen? Aye.

There are 10 ayes. Without objection, the motion is approved. Madam Clerk, please call item number 36.

Item 36, this is a motion to appoint Chanel Williams, Julia D'Antonio, and William Lemon

to the Our City, Our Home Oversight Committee. Terms ending April 22, 2027.

Supervisor Fielder. Thank you, President Manelman.

Colleagues, I have the utmost respect for Mr. William Lemon, who has been nominated for seat 8.

I have personally benefited from his leadership at the Castro Country Club as someone who's taken part in ACA meetings the past few years,

as I have family that continue to reckon with addiction and dysfunctional family issues.

However, I'd like to have a vote on this seat separate from the rest of the seats and express my concern about what it means.

This seat requires someone with experience in homelessness or mental health advocacy.

And his vote today will unseat a longtime homelessness advocate here in San Francisco.

Jennifer Friedenbach has committed the last 34 years to ending mass homelessness by addressing structural causes.

Her work has been developing consensus on solutions on the homeless crisis centered on the experience and expertise of those who have survived or are still living without housing.

She has developed historic data-driven policies with policymakers across the political spectrum, including writing and passing the original Our City, Our Home measure, which established this very committee.

And I'm deeply concerned that her removal is retaliation for her outspoken support of the empirically proven housing first model that this measure supports by taxing the wealthiest corporations in the city.

Across 26 rigorous studies, doing housing first decreased homelessness by 88%.

Our City, Our Home funded programs have added and sustained more than 5,298 total units of capacity since the fund's inception in fiscal year 21, with a net 807 units of capacity added in fiscal year 24.

Between 2023 and 2024, over 97% of supportive housing residents retained their housing.

As the city continued implementation of new programming since the launch of the fund,

the number of households served has grown year over year.

18,500 people served in 2022, 27,000 in 2023, and 37,500 in 2024.

Her removal portends further undermining of the Our City, Our Home measure,

which has been the foremost effective solution for getting people permanently off the streets and into housing.

Her application to be reappointed came with several letters and emails of support from experts in this city's homeless advocacy network.

It is baffling to me that one of the main advocates behind this measure that created this body is being removed.

her removal is very concerning for anyone invested in truly solving homelessness rather than moving

people from one block to another so with that all I'm asking for is a vote to specifically vote on

seat eight so I will move to divide the question I think it's the sole right of any member to to

divide a question so I don't think we need to vote on that I think we can and if further comments are

on specifically on Lemmon's appointment perhaps we ought to take

Williams and D'Antonio first and then we can discuss. Mr. President I would

suggest you take the divided portion first because whether it wins or loses

what we do is we fold it back into the remainder of the item.

Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. So we, all right.

So we will continue to discuss, um, uh, supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, president Mandelman. Um,

I am incredibly proud to support Billy lemon's appointment to the our city,

our home oversight committee. Uh,

he is an extraordinary leader from the LGBTQ plus community as well as from our

recovery community. And for reasons I'll explain,

I think his perspective and his voice are desperately needed in our city right now.

Mr. Lemon leads an institution that has played and continues to play a foundational role

in my own recovery journey, and it's no exaggeration for me to say that the Castro Country Club

he leads has helped to save my life.

And I know I am among hundreds and perhaps thousands of others in this city who feel

that way.

I have seen the saving grace this institution extends to those struggling with addiction

and alcoholism, including those who are homeless, and that is precisely because of the inclusive,

welcoming, and collaborative approach that Billy Lemon employs in his leadership of the

Castro Country Club. Mr. Lemon led this institution out of its darkest days of near closure some 15

years ago to become a thriving sober community space that I believe should be a model for more

recovery community spaces like it citywide in the future. The seat being contested here is for an

individual with experience advocating on homelessness or mental health issues and there is no mental

health issue facing our city today not one more consequential or more impactful than substance

use disorders and alcohol use disorders at a moment when we are finally beginning to make

real progress on drug-free and recovery oriented housing options at the state level and at the

local level billy lemon's perspective and voice are needed on this committee he is a remarkable

leader, and he brings exactly the experience and expertise our city needs on homelessness and

mental health services right now. As I said at the rules committee hearing where this item was

considered, sometimes there are appointments we make to boards and advisory bodies that reflect

needed directional change in the city rather than a rejection of any individual.

The appointments, this is, this I think is an appointment that says more about the city

and where it needs to go than the caliber of rival applicants

who are also vying for the position.

And I think that's the case here.

So I hope Billy Lemon will earn this board support for this position.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

I think this is absolutely a very tough one

as I looked at the very qualified individuals here.

But I also concur the sentiment expressed by Supervisor Fielder

Jenny Fiedenbach has done a lot of work

and really know our city

our home measure itself really

had a clear understanding what it's about

if it weren't through the conversation during budget process

having those in-depth conversations prior to the

budget process with her really helped at least me

as an individual really have a better understanding of the measure and really how do we want to

fund different types of project and programming that is really meeting housing first policy,

which I am a firm believer of. So with that, but this is also a tough one. I want to also commend

you know Bill Lemon for his commitment to willing to serve this is by the way a volunteer position

it is not paid and in fact spend individuals willing who are willing to serve spend a lot of

their time to help solve a really critical problem that our city been facing for a long time so I

I just, again, want to express my gratitude to all the appointees that are moving forward

and recommended by the Rules Committee.

Thank you so much for throwing your hat in the ring.

But at the same time, today I will be supportive of at least the first round of what Supervisor

has proposed. But I want to commend everyone that is appointed today, or as appointee,

being recommended today. Thank you so much for your service and willingness to serve. Thank you.

Supervisor Chen. Thank you, President Mendelman. I would like to echo what Supervisor Chen just

share. I think the city of San Francisco is so lucky that we have very experienced expertise

in the area and also very compassionate people willing to continue to serve San Francisco.

I look forward to meeting Mr. Lemon, but I actually also had the opportunity with the budget process

having Jenny coming into my office multiple times and during the process to come and

educate me about the expertise and the needs of this community was very helpful and informative

for me to make the decision. So it's a hard one, but I also want to say I would appreciate

the willingness to continue to serve San Francisco. And I also believe that Jenny,

with 30 years of services in homelessness

and advocating for this community.

And my very own, as a new supervisor,

very limited interaction with her,

it's very qualified.

And I will be supporting her too.

Thanks.

Supervisor Cheryl.

I just want to express my support for Billy Lemon

and my conversations with him and with others.

it's just exceedingly clear that he has a strong history of advocacy and his work in recovery for

substance use disorder for mental health is incredibly important to the future. When we

look at our city right now, estimates range upwards of 80 percent of the individuals on

our streets today are suffering from some combination of substance use disorder and

and mental health challenges.

And Billy Lemmon's history of advocacy, of work,

and success in that work, I think,

provides us with hope for the future

and is someone who I am excited to be able to support

in this incredibly difficult work.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

I was hoping for some clarification on what the vote,

because we've already divided the questions.

vote at hand is about Billy Lemon not of any other candidate correct?

First vote will be on Mr. Lemon. And it's to approve them to the Commission?

Okay. Thank you Supervisor Mahmood.

I promised Supervisor Walton I wouldn't add too much. I do just want to say about

about Billy Lemon that after the committee hearing on this,

he'd called me because he was concerned.

I think there are people who very much want to make a change

on this body and I'm one of those folks,

but he wanted it to be clear that he is not a partisan

and that he, and one of the things that I think

is so great about him is his interest and willingness

in working with lots of different kinds of people

who may not agree about the things that we fight about

in this building and outside the building.

With that, Madam Clerk, could you call the roll on Mr. Lemon's appointment?

On the divided portion, represented by William Lemon on...

Hold up.

Quick question.

A yes is we are supporting, or I just want to know what yes or no means.

Yes is he goes on.

No is he does not.

Yes.

On the divided portion, represented by William Lemon, seat 8, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, no.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, no.

Supervisor Chen.

Aye.

Chan no. There are six eyes and four no's with supervisors Fielder, Walton, Chan and

Chen voting no.

Walton was an aye.

Okay, my apologies, Supervisor Walton. There are seven eyes and three no's with

Supervisors Fielder, Chan and Chen voting no.

The motion to approve Mr. Lemon is approved. And now we take the rest. Is that right?

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll on the remainder of the divided question?

On the remainder, this is represented by Chanel Williams for seat two and Julia D'Antonio for seat six.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Sherrill.

Aye.

Sherrill, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Walton aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan aye. And Supervisor Chen?

Chen aye. There are 10 ayes. Without objection, the motion is approved.

Madam Clerk, let's go to committee reports. Yes, we have our committee reports today.

Items 42 and 43 were considered by the Rules Committee at a regular meeting on Monday, November 17th.

We're recommended as committee reports item 42 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code

to create the Fillmore entertainment zone on Fillmore Street between Sutter and McAllister streets and

O'Farrell Street between Steiner and Fillmore streets and to affirm the secret determination and

I think we can take this item same house same call without objection the ordinance is passed on first reading

Madam Clerk, please call item 43.

Item 43 was recommended as amended with a new title.

To confirm the appointee, item 43 confirms the controller's appointment of Alexandra Shepard as Inspector General for an indefinite term.

And again, same House, same call. Without objection, the motion is approved.

And Madam Clerk, let's go to roll call for introductions.

First member up to introduce new business is Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey. Submit, thank you. Supervisor Fielder. Submit, thank you. Supervisor Mahmoud.

Colleagues, today I would like to introduce an in memoriam to honor the life of Alice Wong,

a giant in the disability justice community and a prolific writer whose work continues to impact

the lives of millions. Alice passed away last week on November 14th at UCSF. She was only 51,

and though her life was shaped by a progressive neuromuscular condition,

she pushed past every limit anyone ever placed on her.

When doctors told her as a young girl that she may not live to 18,

she did what she always did.

She proved them wrong and built a life full of purpose.

She was born in Indianapolis to immigrant parents from Hong Kong

and she carried her heritage with her

when she came to San Francisco for graduate school at UCSF.

The city became her home, and she poured herself into the fight for inclusivity and justice.

Alice's advocacy led her to found the Disability Visibility Project, which started as a grassroots effort to collect stories within the disability community and grew into a national force.

She shifted culture by insisting that disabled people tell their own stories and be centered in every conversation about policy and identity.

Through her books, including her 2022 memoir, Year of the Tiger, she gave the world a clearer picture of disability, one that is multifaceted and deeply human.

She fought for access in every sense of the word.

She seized national attention through her unwavering support of human rights and liberation of Palestinians through Crips for eSims for Gaza,

enlisted the support of community through Access is Love,

and remained steadfast in assisting representation across platforms,

the same platforms that opened doors for disabled writers, such as herself.

Alice understood that in using her voice,

she could uplift and set the example for others who felt voiceless.

This is the type of leader that she was.

Her life's work won national recognition,

including being named a 2023 MacArthur Genius Fellow,

but anyone who knew her will tell you that the public accolades were only footnotes in her saga.

Alice built relationships. She mentored young activists.

She supported inclusive spaces so joy and humor could thrive.

She believed deeply in the bonds we create with each other,

which she herself described as a web of connective tissue that keeps our ancestors alive among us.

During my last visit with her

We talked about pedestrian safety

And raised crosswalks

We ranked our favorite Star Wars films

And shared our favorite characters

We nerded out

Even though I didn't meet her

Until earlier this year

She repeatedly encouraged me to seek support

In my autistic community here in San Francisco

I see now that

That wasn't a simple recommendation

To fill a small talk

But an extension of her greater life's mission

to always be connecting others.

I will deeply miss our conversations.

Today, we feel the weight of her loss,

not just as a city, but as a community of individuals

who are moved by her profoundness, by her humor,

and by her stubborn belief in the innate goodness of humankind.

Her legacy lives on in the movement she ignited,

the voices she spotlight, the leaders she mentored,

and the world she insisted we could create together,

world I hope colleagues we can work toward in her honor. Alice, thank you for everything you gave

this city. We honor you by continuing the fight you led, by telling the stories you insisted had

to be told, and by seeking a future that is accessible to all. We'll honor you by building

friendship and remembering, no matter the challenges, that we're all connected. And this

time I'd like to uplift Alice's final words to the public in this chamber. Alice wrote,

Hi, everyone. It looks like I ran out of time. I have so many dreams that I wanted to fulfill

and plans to create new stories for you. There are a few in progress that might come to fruition

in a few years if things work out. I did not ever imagine I would live to this age and end up a

writer, editor, activist, and more. As a kid riddled with insecurity and internalized ableism,

I could not see a path forward. It was thanks to friendships and some great teachers who believed

in me that I was able to fight my way out of miserable situations into a place where I finally

felt comfortable in my own skin. We need more stories about us and our culture. You all, we all,

deserve the everything and more in such a hostile, ableist environment. Our wisdom is incisive and

unflinching. I'm honored to be your ancestor and believe disabled oracles like us will light the

ways to the future. Don't let the bastards grind you down. I love you all. Rest in power, Alice,

and may the force be with you. The rest I submit. Thank you, Supervisor Mandelman.

Supervisor Mandelman. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, I'm asking that we adjourn today's

meeting in memory of Mary Kay Angardio, who died October 13th at the age of 76 after a brief and

courageous battle with pancreatic cancer. Mary Kay was born in Saginaw, Michigan in 1948. She had a

difficult childhood, losing her father at the age of 12 and watching her mother navigate life as a

widowed parent with limited education and resources. These early experiences shaped Mary Kay's

resilience, independence, and deep compassion for others. She sought adventure wherever she could.

As a young woman, she took a job with Delta Airlines, allowing her to travel to New York City,

San Francisco, and the Bahamas, often taking day trips just for the joy of seeing the world.

In the early 1970s, Mary Kay became a single mom to our former colleague,

Joellen Gardia. The 1970s was the era of women's liberation and the fight to ratify the Equal

Rights Amendment. Mary Kay and her mother embodied the movement's spirit quietly but powerfully as

they raised Joel. Mary Kay supported the family by cleaning homes and office buildings, often

bringing along her son and her mother to help her clean. When Joel was 10 and old enough to stay

home alone, Mary Kay returned to school with the goal of using her education to serve vulnerable

communities. She attended night classes at the community college, one class at a time, and after

11 years earned her bachelor's degree. She went on to work for 25 years as a licensed social worker

for seniors with mental health conditions,

known for taking her clients on small but meaningful outings

from trips to the zoo to lunch at the local Taco Bell.

Mary Kay was the only member of a large, extended Italian Catholic family

to convert to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Not an easy choice.

But she spent 50 years knocking on doors to spread her faith.

When she wasn't able to walk door to door anymore, she wrote letters.

There were unsent letters in her purse when she died.

Yet having a gay son meant her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness

required difficult choices.

Mary Kay balanced her religious convictions

with deep love for her family.

She welcomed her son's husband, Lionel,

into her life and home,

and in her final days expressed her love

and gratitude to both of them.

After retiring, Mary Kay moved from Michigan

to Vacaville, California,

to be closer to Joel and Lionel.

She loved exploring California on road trips with friends.

She also loved Shakespeare, sunsets,

mountains, dogs, and cooking for others.

Her lasagna, oatmeal scotchy cookies,

which I think some of us may have had, and crock-pot stews were fan favorites.

Mary Kay died peacefully, surrounded by love, with her son holding her hand.

We send our condolences to Joel and his husband, Lionel.

Rest in peace, Mary Kay and Guardio. May your memory be a blessing. The rest I submit.

Thank you, Mr. President. Would you like me at our office to prepare that on behalf of the entire Board of Supervisors?

Yes, we'll do that without objection.

Supervisor Milgar.

Submit, thank you. Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you.

Colleagues, today I initiated a drafting request with the City Attorney's Office for a series

of legislation that will comprise the San Francisco Clean Streets Act.

This legislative package will result in cleaner streets by updating the Public Works Code

to improve how our departments deliver services.

It will also strengthen accountability measures to make sure our dollars are being used as

efficiently as possible.

We're bringing forward this series of changes directly informed by talks with merchants,

neighbors, public works staff, all of whom are committed to stemming illegal dumping,

minimizing confusion for ratepayers, and maintaining cleaner streets.

Through this legislative framework, we will pursue a number of code changes, and these

changes may include creating a tiered enforcement response so that we free up DPW enforcement

resources for the most serious issues.

This would allow us, for example, to prioritize illegal dumping enforcement over writing up a ticket for a neighbor who forgets to bring their bin in by 6 p.m.

Being smarter about enforcement for repeat offenders who illegally dump trash on our streets by introducing tiered fines and establishing the authority to deny or suspend business registration permits and licenses for unpaid fines.

requiring locked trash cans for repeat violations so that we cut down on scavenging and overturned

bins. And in a small but illuminating example, we will clarify the language we use in public

works code to be friendlier for everyday users. For example, does anyone know what the word

pretressible means? And I didn't know this either, but our public works code has rules about this

type of waste that we expect everyone to follow. So we'll clarify that what it means in our public

works code, like every other, nearly every other city does, so that everyday users can know what

it actually means. For those wondering, potreciable is a waste category that includes organic matter

that decays quickly, such as food scraps, spoiled food, leafs, grass clippings, animal carcasses,

and use diapers. Finally, we will require a comprehensive citywide evaluation of street

cleaning routes every 10 years. This was a recommendation of the recent BLA in the October

29th performance audit of the management of street cleaning. And this report found that mechanical

street sweeping in San Francisco is not evaluated on a regular basis to determine optimized route

scheduling, frequency, and labor needs. Excuse me, to determine route scheduling, frequency,

or labor needs. And these routes have not been fundamentally changed since last optimization

efforts took place way back in September 2008. And we certainly feel the pain of this in District

3, where most of Russian Hill, Knob Hill, and North Beach do not have regular street sweeping,

practically the only neighborhoods in this entire city without that service. Neighborhoods who

Neighbors who want that service, which is of course a fair expectation, are constantly being told they cannot have it because of objections that arose to it in the 1980s.

So it is my hope that this new requirement of a regular comprehensive citywide evaluation of street cleaning routes will make sure it is not another 50 years before we expand street sweeping again.

I'm proud of the work that our office has done beginning this year to deliver cleaner streets.

We've secured new trash cans in Knob Hill and Russian Hill.

We restored critical power washing programs in Chinatown,

helped businesses adopt locked trash cans,

held merchant forums on illegal dumping,

and we have many more initiatives on the way.

By pursuing a number of the new reforms that I mentioned in our Clean Streets Act,

we are doubling down on our work to make sure that San Francisco's streets,

sidewalks, and public spaces continue to be cleaner for all.

This work is critical every day for our residents and small business owners, and I think it takes on another level of importance in the year ahead as we welcome visitors for the Super Bowl, the World Cup festivities, and many more activities.

And the rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Submit thank you, Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, I have an in-memoriam and a hearing announcement.

First, I want to honor and celebrate the life of Reginald Reggie Cummings,

a son, a father, a brother, a cousin, a friend, and a true pillar of community.

Reggie was born on March 12th in 1965 and grew up in Bayview,

a place he spoke of with deep pride.

He attended Excelsior Elementary, Pelton Middle School, and Lincoln High School, where he formed friendships that would last a lifetime.

To know Reggie was to truly love him.

He wasn't just welcome into people's lives, he was welcome into their families.

He became that dependable presence, that familiar face, that person you knew you could always call.

Reggie loved his community, and his community loved him right back.

You could see it in the way he carried himself and the nostalgia that filled his voice when he talked about growing up here

and the joy he found in the things he loved.

Old school cars, especially anything blue, with his cherished 1967 442 Cutlass Oldsmobile leading the way.

Professionally, Reggie was a dedicated and he was hardworking.

He spent many years at the Moscone Center before beginning his career with Recology in 2007.

He worked with pride, always showing up, always giving his best.

But above all, it was Reggie's presence that made him unforgettable.

He had a smile that could light up any room.

He was genuine, warm, and full of life.

He had a remarkable gift for making people feel seen, valued, and appreciated.

Reggie enjoyed the simple joys that make life rich.

Playing dominoes, attending cookouts and car shows,

cheering at sporting events, traveling and going to concerts.

He loved good food, good music, good times,

and being surrounded by the people who mattered most,

especially little Reggie who meant the world to him.

To so many, Reggie was more than a friend.

He was a brother, a mentor, a steady source of strength, a favorite cousin, and a person

whose kindness stayed with you long after the conversation was over.

Reggie leaves behind a legacy of compassion, generosity, and community, a legacy that will

continue to live on through the countless lives he touched.

Colleagues, today I'm also introducing a hearing concerning why the Mayor's Office,

the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, the Department of Emergency Management,

MTA, and the SF Port are trying to turn Bayview into a containment zone.

I've said this before, District 10 has stepped up time and time again,

but the Mayor's Office and City Departments continue to make unilateral decisions

that overload our neighborhoods. Shelters, safe sleeping sites, vehicle triage centers,

and emergency response facilities are all concentrated in certain areas,

while our city departments are refusing to distribute responsibility across the city.

The Mayor and these named city departments are moving ahead with plans, notifications,

and citing decisions without meaningful engagement from residents or local leadership.

These after-the-fact announcements signal that agencies see District 10 as a default dumping ground

instead of a community-deserving shared governance.

We are calling for a comprehensive report from each department.

The Mayor's Office, the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing,

Department of Emergency Management, MTA, and the San Francisco Port, detailing every shelter bed,

navigation center, safe sleeping site, triage center, vehicle site, community cabin program,

and related service in San Francisco, and particularly in District 10. The public deserves

clear answers of where these services are located, the capacities of each site, and the

criteria used to select their locations by each department. City departments must explain

their decision-making, their communication failures, and what safeguards they will put

in place to prevent further unilateral actions. The people of the city, the people of District

10 deserve honesty respect and a plan that distributes responsibility citywide

rather than treating our community as a containment zone the rest I submit

Thank You Supervisor Walton Supervisor Chan

submit Thank You Supervisor Chen submit Thank You mr. president there are no

more names on the roster that concludes the introduction of new business let's

Let's go to public comment.

All right.

At this time, the board welcomes your general public comment.

Please line up on your right-hand side of the chamber.

You may speak to the mayoral appearance today

or the minutes as presented,

items 46 through 49 on the adoption without committee reference calendar

or other general matters not on the published agenda.

All other agenda content will have been reported out to the board

by an appropriate committee

where the public comment requirement was satisfied.

We are setting the timer for two minutes,

and we'll start with Mr. Ace Washington.

Welcome.

Well, thank you, ladies and gentlemen,

the Board of Supervisors.

It gives me great honor to stand here for y'all.

You may not know it,

and you had all these remediations for people.

Could you shine a light right there on that?

There.

I'm here to say,

do y'all know what happened 46 years ago

right here in the city, in the county of San Francisco.

It brings me to tears.

And they're having a celebration now,

a remembrance at the African American Cultural Center

at 6 o'clock to talk about the same issue that I'm talking.

Oh, hold up.

Yeah, Jim, there he is.

That devil, Jim Jones.

And this city was not responsible

to have something to do with it

because the mayor at that time appointed him

to the Public San Francisco Housing Authority Commission,

in which he took projects in the Fillmore

and took over 900 people to Guyana

and forced them to drink that Kool-Aid.

And I'm appalled that this mayor is not recognizing this.

So from here on out next year,

we should remember all of those black children,

over 300 died.

Do you know how many families

that could have been in our community?

My name is Ace, damn it.

I stand here crying

that those families,

some that I know,

have gone away.

So anyway, I'm here to say I'm Ace on the case,

the field board corridor ambassador.

But I just wanted to bring it to the attention

of the supervisors.

Y'all wasn't around, you're not responsible.

But I want y'all to remember

November the 18th

when a lot of our black families died over in Guyander

over this devil here. My name is Ace. I'm on the case.

Thank you for listening. Thank you.

Thank you, Ace Washington, for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Edgar Ryan Silva

and this comment is in regards to Mayor Lurie's new street vending laws.

As a recent USF graduate and the son of two Filipino-loving immigrants,

I care deeply about ensuring that immigrant vendors have a fair pathway into the legal economy.

I support the city's goal of keeping our streets safe, clean, and free from the resale of stolen retail goods,

but as enforcement increases, we must stay equally committed to fairness for immigrant vendors and impacted communities.

State sidewalk vending laws emphasize supportive, non-punitive approaches,

including outreach, education, and pathways to compliance.

Before escalating enforcement, San Francisco should fully embrace that spirit.

Many recent immigrants face language barriers, documentation challenges,

and financial hardship that make the permitting process far more difficult than it appears.

Immigrant vendors contribute to the culture and economy of neighborhoods

like the Mission and Soma District, and they deserve a clear, accessible pathway into the legal market.

Enforcement alone won't create opportunity, but enforcement paired with real support will.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Board President and members of the Board of Supervisors.

My name is Richard S.T. Peterson.

I am a licensed fortune teller in the city and county of San Francisco.

I foresee a citywide battle between the East and the West, kind of a city civil war.

In the city and county of San Francisco, there will be civil war.

it started East versus West, a downtown scheme to pay from uni, the Bay versus the Beach.

At the center of the division is the thorny issue of parcel taxes.

Without input from home owners, the mayor's scheme to overtax west side property owners

owners to shore up failed east side property speculators.

The first missile was launched by the mayor.

Occasionally,

Oceanside homesteads want a fair deal.

They want a place at the table.

The mayor set the policy and formula for calculation of the amount of parcel taxes due.

We will compare a portion of the Millennium Tower, say Willie Brown's luxurious apartment, with the homestead of a typical bungalow on the west side.

And the big question remains, what are the exemptions and what are...

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Apologize, I can't see very well.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Hello, I'm here to comment about the Transgender Awareness Month resolution that y'all unanimously

sponsored. This is performative. This is hollow and meaningless. I know that for a fact.

Currently, the transgender sanctuary city status of San Francisco is a resolution. It has no teeth.

If you really wanted to do something for the trans community, you can turn it into an ordinance

so we can actually have real protections and get real help and services from San Francisco.

But until that happens, with the rollback in protections and rights and the degraded standard of living

that trans people have been experiencing over this past year,

hence why 9% now of the homeless population is transgender,

I call San Francisco a trap for trans people.

It's not a real sanctuary city.

You could also, if you wanted to help, reinstate transgender cultural competency training for San Francisco city and county employees.

It was a little over a year ago that the board voted to settle against the gift program, which was financially helping very poor trans people, specifically black and Latin trans people.

However, the majority of the board voted against black and Latin and trans people so that they can never get a basic income from San Francisco again.

That's really fucked up. Y'all did real harm. I know this. I know the people you harmed.

I think this whole board should be banned from trans events until you show up with something tangible

instead of some piece of paper that doesn't do anything for trans people

not just the one person I called out last week

you know what else

you just you're failing us

thank you for your comments let's hear from our next speaker please

Board of Supervisors and Mayor of San Francisco, I want to give a Thanksgiving acknowledgement

to the folks at the Presidential Palace, including Director Sharonda Aaron, Kiki, Maryann, Andre

Koi, and Kevin Hunter.

I thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors and members of the public.

My name is Ravina Rahal.

I'm a resident of District 9, Bernal Heights, and I'm also commissioner on the Commission on the Status for Women.

Thank you for taking up the resolution recognizing Sikh awareness and appreciation month in the city and county of San Francisco.

My husband and I are proud Sikh Americans, and we chose to raise our two sons, Reza Singh and Sir Thaj Singh, right here in San Francisco.

They wear their long hair, their patkas, and their turbans with pride.

and in this city, especially in our community in District 9, they feel celebrated, safe, and seen.

That sense of belonging is something we do not take for granted.

San Francisco has always been part of Sikh American history.

Over a century ago, Sikh immigrants entered the U.S. through this city and Angel Island.

They faced discrimination, but they also built strong, resilient communities rooted in equality, service, and resilience.

Also, the Bay Area is the birthplace of the Guther movement, one of the most important

diaspora-led freedom movements of the 20th century.

Today, sick San Franciscans contribute across every sector, healthcare workers, small business

owners, teachers, technologists, cab drivers, artists, and public servants.

The tradition of SEVA, or selfless service, continues through disaster relief efforts,

community food programs, and advocacy for civil rights.

But this recognition matters because sick children are not celebrated everywhere.

Our friends who live only 30 minutes from here have a son my son's age

who is being called a terrorist on a regular basis.

That is a reality for many sick kids across the country,

and it's precisely why your action today is so meaningful.

Thank you for naming this Sick Awareness and Appreciation Month.

Thank you to San Francisco for doing what it does best,

affirming visibility, inclusion, and belonging.

Thank you so much today on behalf of my family

and especially on behalf of Reza and Sertaj.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Dr. Rahal.

Welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Bruneet Kaur, here in support of Item 47,

the resolution to recognize November

as Sick Awareness and Appreciation Month.

I serve as the Senior Manager of State Policy

for the Sikh Coalition, the nation's largest Sikh civil rights organization, and am the

proud daughter of Punjabi Sikh immigrants myself.

San Francisco holds a very special place in our Sikh American history, from the first

Punjabi immigrants who landed on Angel Island over 125 years ago to the late Dr. Narendra

Singh Gapani, a physicist, a Sikh, and a pioneer of fiber optics who helped reshape global

communication.

His brilliance in his contributions to San Francisco and our world is a reminder that

the Sikh contributions in America are vast, historic, and often go untold.

For Sikhs, November carries profound meaning as a month of remembrance and righteous struggle.

This month marks the 350th Shahidi or martyrdom of our ninth Sikh guru, Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib Ji,

nicknamed Shristadishadar, or the shield of the world, who gave his life so that people,

beyond just his own Sikh followers, could freely practice their faith. His sacrifice is one of the

great acts of religious freedom in this world. And for many Sikh families, including survivors

and descendants of the 1984 anti-Sikh genocide, who now call California home, recognition like

this matters deeply.

They affirm that their trauma and their sacrifice

has not been forgotten, that their resilience is honored,

and that this city stands with them

in acknowledging their lived history.

Lastly, this year also marks the 30th or 30 years

since the martyrdom of Sikh human rights activists

by just once in Colorado, who uncovered

the extrajudicial killings and secret cremations

of thousands of individuals by the Indian police

during the 80s and 90s.

In one of his final speeches, just once in Colorado

retold the fable of the very first sunset when humanity trembled as darkness swallowed the earth

and how a single lantern challenged. Thank you for your comments. All right. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Mr. President and members of the board. My name is Depauli Gill, and I'm here on

behalf of the Sikh Coalition, the nation's largest Sikh civil rights organization, and I'm also here

as a San Francisco resident. I'm here to speak in strong support of item 47, the resolution

recognizing SIC awareness and appreciation month in the city of San Francisco. The SIC community

has been part of California's story for more than a century. SICs have contributed to the fabric of

our neighborhoods and small businesses. Today, SICs continue to play an essential role across

our state, especially in fields like transportation where SIC truck drivers keep California's economy

moving. Here in San Francisco, six are business owners, professionals, workers, students, and

neighbors. We are proud to call this city home. Our Gordhvadas serve not only as places of worship,

but as centers of service, offering free meals, mutual aid, and community support to anyone who

needs it, regardless of their background. These values of equality, dignity, and seva, selfless

service, align deeply with the values San Francisco strives to uphold. Given the recent bias

in incidents and misunderstanding about Sikh identity nationwide,

recognitions like this are more important now than ever.

They help ensure that the history, contributions, and lived experiences

of Sikh Americans are seen, understood, and valued.

By adopting this resolution, San Francisco sends a powerful message

that diversity is a strength and that the city stands with communities

who have long contributed to its social and economic fabric.

I urge you to pass this resolution and to continue supporting efforts that uplift and protect all of San Francisco's diverse communities.

Thank you for your time and your leadership, and a special thank you to Supervisor Mahmoud for introducing this resolution.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speakers.

President Mandelman, Supervisors, my name is Kelly Dierman.

I'm the executive director of San Francisco's Department of Disability and Aging Services,

and I'm here with my colleague, Eli Jalardon,

who is the director of San Francisco's Office of Disability and Accessibility.

So we could not let the moment pass without saying something about Alice,

and Supervisor Mahmoud, thank you for your very beautiful words.

We were heartbroken to learn of the passing of disability activist and icon, Alice Wong.

She was so generous with her time and donated her expertise to our agency.

She was on the advisory council for the San Francisco Disability Cultural Center and spoke at the grand opening event.

She also recently donated her time to be a featured guest at San Francisco's Human Services Agency's National Disability Employment Awareness Month.

And that was an event for our employees where she reflected on ableism and creating a more inclusive workplace.

And more than a colleague, she was a mentor and a really good friend to me.

Alice was a force for change.

her work embodied the values, as Supervisor Mahmood pointed out, of Access is Love,

a campaign that she co-created with two other incredible disability activists.

Access is Love continues to inspire us as we work to provide equitable and accessible programs and services

to people with disabilities and older adults of all ages and backgrounds throughout our city,

as well as visitors to our city.

We are overwhelmed by the outpouring of love and disability solidarity that has come out since Alice's passing.

I'm going to say that personally, Alice was an auntie to my children and one of my best friends.

And one of the values that she leaned into deeply was disabled joy.

One of the last conversations I had with Alice was around Holiday Plaza, and she was so excited about the transformation of turning Holiday Plaza into an accessible route, a route that could be celebrated by all, but especially the disability community that did not have access to it.

I want to acknowledge Supervisor Mahmood for your leadership.

Thank you so much for elevating Alice's voice.

Thank you to all the supervisors for commending Alice,

as well as our other honoraries in July.

We are so grateful for her work, for her generosity, and her love.

And may her legacy live on through our actions.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you, Director Dierman.

Let's hear from our next speaker, please.

Hi.

My name is Dr. Teresa Palmer.

I live in District 5.

I'm a geriatrician.

I worked for 15 years at Laguna Honda,

and I've been bombing y'all with e-mails about this issue.

The Board of Supervisors must convene a hearing

on how to prevent transfer out-of-county of San Franciscans

who need skilled nursing facility care, either temporary or ongoing.

In 2022, the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee worked on,

and the full Board of Supervisors passed, Ordinance 7722,

which requires acute care hospitals to report to the public health department

in San Francisco the number of patients transferred to out-of-county skilled nursing facilities.

This was prevented.

The current numbers for 2024 was presented to the Health Commission last July,

and they show that at least 1,500 San Franciscans were sent out-of-county,

away from their loved ones, away from their support systems,

to often substandard nursing homes outside of the county.

At the same time, Laguna Honda Hospital, despite open beds,

is now rejecting or discouraging many qualified applicants

who are being discharged from San Francisco hospitals.

This is a multifaceted problem.

I'm asking for support to hold a hearing.

I'm not quite sure how it works.

It might start with the supervisors at the Public Safety and Neighborhood Service Committee.

Supervisor Dorsey also serves on the Health Service System Board,

where many city retirees are concerned about this

because they may have the quote-unquote wrong insurance to get into Laguna Honda.

Thank you, Teresa Palmer. Thank you, Dr. Palmer.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Thank you, and good afternoon.

My name is Tina Martin, and I actually came here for two purposes,

in addition to honoring Alice Wong.

I wanted to speak about a friend of mine, but she's here to speak for herself.

She dealt with helping a friend and found out that the system was such

that someone who had a home in San Francisco would be sent out of county to a substandard nursing facility.

So that was one of the reasons that I came, but she can speak for herself.

I just want to say that we have some very brave people trying their best to help others of their age,

which is advanced, and we're getting these blocks, and we really do need to have a hearing.

Please do convene a hearing.

And Teresa Palmer is another person I wanted to mention today.

I didn't know I was going to have a chance to meet her,

and she spoke right before I did.

So she's somebody who really knows the system extremely well.

She's a champion for those of us who are getting older and frailer

and care about people who fit that description.

And she could help you choose people to be on this panel

when you have the hearing, when you convene a hearing,

to see how we can manage not to send San Franciscans

from San Francisco to substandard nursing facilities

outside of San Francisco County.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

I'm Janet Fowler.

I am the friend.

When I arrived at my friend's home on August 27th

to take her to an appointment,

I found her unable even to stand.

I called 911 to have her taken to Davies Hospital,

and in spite of the pending holiday,

I felt that she would be safe because she needed care.

She needed acute care.

In the meantime, I learned that Laguna Honda had beds available.

It was perfect since it has all levels of care.

But she was not safe.

She had been transferred to Mission Bernal campus and then promptly dumped at an understaffed home in Oakland.

Blue Shield and Medicare Advantage, our city retiree BS insurance, had a very short list of nursing homes and none in San Francisco.

Two weeks after being dumped in the Oakland nursing home, I found my friend close to death,

severely dehydrated with a thick tongue

covered with white film and full of cracks and bumps.

By her bedside, the water that she had craved

was in a cup that she couldn't reach.

I saw agony in her face.

I insisted that 911 be called

to take her to a hospital with acute care.

Later, I learned about the irreversible damage

that had occurred at the nursing home.

In my interaction with the staff there,

I learned that they were all good people who just didn't understand the part they had played

in what had happened to my friend. We are all like they are. We don't understand the part we are

playing that allows this cruelty to continue. The frail and elderly need to be easily reached and

kept safe by family or friends, and by not fixing this, we, even though we are good people,

are playing a part in the tragic and cruel deaths of our elderly and fragile residents. I think

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you for her attention to this issue.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good evening, Supervisors.

Mark Solomon.

My sister-in-law died from crappy nursing home care and it sucks.

Okay.

James Baldwin said, not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed

until it is faced.

To the board, Supervisor Chan remarked yesterday that one standard citywide for protecting rent

control buildings was divisive.

I'd like to address that.

What's divisive is every year that this board passes a budget that reinforces colonial power relationships.

The east side residential neighborhoods generate more taxes, business, sales, and property than the peripheral neighborhoods,

dollars that are extracted to keep those neighborhoods clean and safe.

We are made to take containment, public swallow, undesirable land uses, drug treatment next to our elementary school, for instance,

which is for the colonial riffraff.

The D9 soup for decades has been a technician for directing funding to a handful of politically connected city funding nonprofits,

the charity nonprofits that are the colonial administrators.

The D9 office for decades has aid and abetted nonprofit racketeering extortion for Plaza 16 and the Cell Space Project,

intimidation, collusion, and rigging.

These are structural problems, not individuals.

The D9 soup was responsive to Meta today when they asked for $5 million for an administrative palace.

Luis Granados makes $363K at Meta.

Sam Moss makes $275K at Mission Housing.

Elberling pulls in $301K, and Shaw makes $270K at Tenderloin Housing.

This is the 2023.

Ms. Friedenbach, for instance, has been an administrator on homelessness.

She succeeded in wedging the voters away from progressives because they've messed it up so much.

I mean, government considers these colonial administrators as stakeholders,

but residents are nowhere to be found in the political calculus.

We are deprived of honest government services with this arrangement.

To Supervisor Chan, better protections on the west and north sides than the east side is what's divisive.

We need to end the divisiveness as to get the colonial jackboot off the neck of the Tenderloin, Bayview, Soma, Mission, and Hunters Point

by treating our neighborhoods as first-class neighborhoods

and making reparations for past harms.

Thank you.

Mr. Warfield, are you coming up to the podium?

Yes.

Peter Warfield, Executive Director, Library Users Association,

PO Box 170544, San Francisco, California, 94117-0544.

San Francisco Public Library is, I think, in some serious trouble with respect to its

service to the public.

It had for decades a mission statement that San Francisco Public Library is dedicated

to free and equal access to information, knowledge, independent learning, and the joys

of reading for its diverse community.

That has been replaced relatively recently with, quote, SFPL connects our diverse communities

to learning opportunities and each other.

Maybe you could explain what that means, but it certainly leaves out free and equal.

More and more the library has been putting barriers to access for the whole range of

vulnerable populations disproportionately, likely disproportionately affecting minorities,

older people, non-native English speakers, poorer people, and the disabled.

More and more virtual meetings instead of in person.

More and more electronic media.

And the library does not, for everything that they have, provide the means,

like a Kindle or a computer that can play a DVD or a CD,

which is access that's needed to deal with the electronic materials

and they used to have VCR players,

they used to have record players, and so on.

More and more, the library, unfortunately,

is unconditionally touting tech,

and now especially AI.

There's a whole program of one city, one book with AI,

almost nothing with regard to specifics

about the terrible downsides affecting,

making serious problems, social impact,

serious draws of electricity water and land thank you for your comments do we

have any other individuals who would like to provide public comment mr.

president all right public comment is now closed and we will go to our for

assignment without committee reference agenda items 46 through 49 were

introduced for adoption but without committee reference a unanimous vote is

required for adoption of a resolution on first reading today alternatively a

member may require a resolution on first reading to go to committee

supervisor Melgar 49 supervisor Mahmoud you 747 please 47 all right so on the

remaining balance the items madam clerk that is 46 and 48 can you please call

the roll. On items 46 and 48, Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmood. Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter. Sauter, aye. Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton. Walton, aye. Supervisor Chan. Chan, aye.

and supervisor chin chin I there are ten eyes without objection the resolutions

are adopted now clerk can you please call item 47 item 47 this is a resolution to

recognize the month of November 2025 as sick awareness and appreciation month in

the city and county of San Francisco supervisor Mahmoud colleagues in 1899

the San Francisco Chronicle reported the arrival of four sick men the first

recorded South Asian pioneers to enter California through San Francisco, marking the beginning of a

vibrant and resilient Sikh American community here on the West Coast. Sikh pioneers worked in lumber

mills and on railroad construction before becoming some of California's most innovative and productive

farmers, helping to transform the state's Central Valley into one of the world's most abundant

agricultural regions. As the fifth largest religion in the world, Sikhism has nearly 30 million

followers, including approximately 375,000 in California alone. Despite this history,

legislation to authorize Sikhs and other South Asian immigrants to naturalize as United States

citizens wasn't enacted until 1946, underscoring the barriers faced by early Sikh Americans who

nonetheless persevered and contributed meaningfully to their adopted homeland.

Importantly, the Guthur, or Revolution Party, found its base in San Francisco in 1913,

acting as a home to progressive thought and a crossroads of global ideas, activism, and dissent,

where freedom of speech and political expression allowed British Indian revolutionaries to organize

openly for independence and equality. From its base in San Francisco, the Guthur Party published

the first Punjabi language newspaper in the United States, whose words reach communities across Asia, Africa, and the Pacific,

advancing a vision of revolution and freedom for all that connected movements for justice around the world.

The Sikh American community continues to enrich San Francisco through contributions in business, education, technology, medicine, and public service,

reflecting the city's commitment to diversity, equity, and shared progress.

Sikhs have remained among the most frequently targeted faith groups,

underscoring the need for education and solidarity to foster understanding and inclusion.

And speaking from personal experience,

I wanted to comment on some of the public comment that was raised

about the continued attacks and discrimination of the Sikh community,

especially as I saw personally after 9-11.

Unfortunately, a lot of the Sikh community was targeted

because a lot of the people who were uneducated thought that they were Muslim.

And as a Muslim American, seeing another member of the community be targeted due to discrimination and prejudice is something I have remembered since I was a teenager.

And we have to remember in that context that when one group is targeted, often many groups are targeted at the same time.

So colleagues, item 47 recognizes the month of November 2025 as Sikh Awareness and Appreciation Month,

representing a commitment to ensuring that all people of faith, including the Sikh community,

can practice their religion freely and fearlessly,

and stands united against all forms of hate, discrimination, and intolerance

while upholding the city's enduring values of equity, dignity, and belonging for all residents.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmoud.

I think we can take that item.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

And then, Madam Clerk, can you call item 49?

Item 49, this is a resolution to declare November 17, 2025 as World Prematurity Awareness Day

in the city and county of San Francisco

and to urge interagency efforts to close gaps in birth disparities.

Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you, Mr. President.

colleagues, I want to thank Supervisor Walton, Sauter, Fielder, and Chen for their co-sponsorship,

declaring November 17, 2025 as World Prematurity Awareness Day in San Francisco. This resolution

represents an international health campaign that urges for increasing investments to prevent

preterm births and support birth givers and babies with accessible, life-saving health care.

Pre-term birth occurs before 37 completed weeks of pregnancy, and these babies are more susceptible to difficult breathing, long-term disabilities, and chronic illnesses.

San Francisco has one of the worst birth disparities in California, with one in every 12 babies born preterm,

with black Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and Latin A pregnant people experiencing disproportionately higher rates of preterm births than their white counterparts.

No birth giver, regardless of race or income, should face preventable, life-threatening risks during childbirth

when medical professionals possess the knowledge and the resources to address complications that can result in fatalities for the parent and the child.

This resolution seeks immediate action and increase investments in stronger, more resilient health systems to save lives,

improve health, and promote the rights and opportunities for women and children.

This week, I encourage all San Franciscans to take a moment to honor our health care workers,

midwives, birth doulas, and the birth givers whose strength and resilience bring new life to our community.

Thank you all for your support.

Thank you, Supervisor Melgar.

I think we can take that item.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items?

None to report, Mr. President.

Then can you read the in memoriams?

Today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals.

On behalf of Supervisor Walton, for the late Mr. Reginald Cummings.

On behalf of Supervisor Mahmood, for the late Ms. Alice Wong.

On behalf of President Mandelman, to be prepared on behalf of the full Board of Supervisors for Ms. Mary Kay Engardio.

And I think that brings us to the end of our agenda.

Madam Clerk, is there any further business before us today?

That concludes our business for today.

Thank you, and we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.