Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll be right back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll be right back.

SFGovTV, San Francisco Government Television.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Welcome to the January 13, 2026 regular meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Supervisor Chen.

Chen present.

Supervisor Chen.

Chen present.

Supervisor Dorsey.

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. And Supervisor Wong. Wong present. Mr. President, all members are present.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors acknowledges that we are on the

unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San

Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions,

the Ramatusha Loni 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

Ramatusha Loni 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 under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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

Today, that is especially Kalina Mendoza.

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

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

Yes, the 2 p.m. special order is the appearance by the Honorable Mayor Daniel Lurie

to discuss the eligible topic submitted from District 11 Supervisor, Supervisor Chen.

The mayor may address the board initially for up to five minutes.

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor Lurie, do you have any opening remarks?

I do.

Good afternoon, Board President Mandelman and members of the Board.

First, happy new year, and I look forward to another year of continued partnership with all of you.

Today is an important moment for San Francisco.

Just a few hours ago, Supervisor Matt Dorsey and I announced that Vanderbilt University,

one of the world's leading research universities, has selected San Francisco

as the home for a full-time academic campus.

Beginning in 2027, Vanderbilt will bring students, faculty, and research activity

into the heart of our city, strengthening downtown, supporting small businesses,

and reinforcing San Francisco's role as a global center of innovation.

When I took office, I said restoring confidence in San Francisco

required both public safety and long-term investment. This decision reflects that work.

My team engaged multiple institutions, and Vanderbilt stood out as a partner aligned with

our values, our ambitions, and our future. Vanderbilt's choice sends a clear message.

San Francisco remains a world-class place to live, learn, and innovate. It reinforces our vision of

a city where people can live, work, play, and learn, and where our city core is active well

beyond the 9 to 5 workday. I also want to take a moment to acknowledge that this announcement

comes during a transition for the California College of the Arts community. CCA has been

part of San Francisco's creative and cultural fabric for more than a century. That legacy

matters. I appreciate Vanderbilt's commitment to preserving CCA's archives, supporting alumni,

and continuing the Waddis Institute of Contemporary Arts through a new CCA Institute at Vanderbilt.

Vanderbilt's presence will bring new energy, new talent, and long-term economic benefit to our city,

helping train the next generation of leaders, many of whom will choose to remain and stay here

their entire lives. I want to thank the Chancellor Diermeier and the Vanderbilt team, the CCA community,

and city staff for their work to make this possible. This is the kind of long-term investment

San Francisco needs, and it shows that what we can achieve when we stay focused on results. Thank you.

Thank you, and congratulations, Mayor Lurie. Madam Clerk, could you please call the topic for District 11?

Yes, the topic submitted by the District 11 member, Supervisor Chen, is strategies and funding commitments to address and prevent human trafficking, especially during major large-scale sporting events.

Supervisor Chen, please ask your opening question.

Thank you, Board President.

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Mayor, today.

San Francisco has long been a leader on issues impacting some of the most vulnerable populations,

particularly women and immigrants.

While we are excited to be a host city for the NFL Super Bowl 60 and FIFA World Club this year,

I'm hearing growing concerns about potential increases in human trafficking, both labor and sex trafficking.

between 2024 and 2025, human trafficking in San Francisco increased by 163%.

In recognition of Human Trafficking Prevention Month,

and in light of these major large-scale events coming to town,

my question to you is how are we ensuring that we have a robust infrastructure

to address and prevent human trafficking before and after the Super Bowl and World Club,

but also increasing capacity to be responsive during this event.

Supervisor, thank you.

I saw you at the press conference.

I saw Supervisor Chan as well.

I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about this

because it is absolutely critical.

Human trafficking is a violation of someone's fundamental human rights.

Children, women, and men are trafficked of all ages.

It can and it does happen year-round in every industry.

It doesn't just happen when large-scale sporting events happen, but it does tend to increase,

which is why our strategies cannot be limited to just when these events occur.

Now, I was chair of the Super Bowl 50 host committee 10 years ago.

I know very well the amazing opportunity that these upcoming events bring to our city and our region,

and we want this to be a success for everyone.

As I've said repeatedly, keeping San Francisco and our residents and visitors safe is my number one priority.

This priority is reflected in my direction to have a whole-of-city approach to prevent trafficking and supporting victims and survivors.

San Francisco has taken a comprehensive, survivor-centered approach to combating human trafficking by engaging the public, strengthening services, and improving coordination across agencies.

In partnership with the Bay Area Host Committee, nonprofit partners, and SFMTA, we are launching a public awareness campaign, including messaging on transit, to help people recognize the signs of trafficking and know how to report it.

And as we learned a few days ago, the theme of that is, if you see something, say something.

At the same time, the Mayor's Office of Victims' Rights is providing year-round training for frontline city staff and key industry workers, with several thousand being trained for February and for Super Bowl.

We are also continuing to fund trusted multilingual community-based organizations that provide legal and social services, not only for trafficking relief, but also for related harms such as eviction, domestic violence, and sexual assault.

These are concrete, ongoing actions to combat human trafficking, and my administration looks forward to continuing engagement with your office on this work.

Thank you, Mayor, for the response and the commitment.

And last year, many CBOs who conducted work in this area, they all have to figure out how to continue to meet the needs of our community despite a budget crisis.

But this year, given our budget forecast, are we prepared to fund the services and program to meet both the existing and increased capacity?

And if not, what strategy do you have by employing to do so?

Thank you, Supervisor Chen.

With the board support, the city has fully maintained funding for our gender-based violence services and increased the investment by an additional $902,000 over prior years.

This sustained and expanded $9.37 million investment in gender-based violence services, allows us to fund trusted community-based organizations that deliver essential prevention and intervention services for adults and youth

who are survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking.

We fund multiple 24-7 crisis lines staffed by trained advocates,

which can absorb increased call volume and provide immediate safety planning, referrals, and confidential support.

This infrastructure is going to be especially critical as we prepare to host Super Bowl and World Cup.

This will help ensure that survivors of trafficking and related violence can access immediate,

trusted support before, during, and importantly, also after these global events.

Additionally, with the board's partnership, the city has invested in a full housing continuum

for survivors from emergency and transitional options to the $30 million in Prop A capital

funding for long-term stable housing.

Last month, I introduced a $3.5 million budget supplemental to ensure heightened operations

during a number of large events this spring, including Super Bowl.

That ordinance explicitly includes funding for CBOs to combat human trafficking.

I really appreciate your advocacy on these issues, Supervisor,

and as San Francisco prepares to host Super Bowl and World Cup,

I look forward to working with you and all of your colleagues

to ensure our city is safe and welcoming to our visitors from around the world.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank You Mayor Lurie you may now ask a question to Supervisor Chen or to any

other supervisor in attendance pertaining to the same topic but not

necessarily related to the previous question I'm good thank you all right

well then thank you for joining us all right that concludes the district 11

topic discussion. The matter has been discussed and will be filed after general public comment.

And Madam Clerk, I think that takes us back to communications.

Thank you, Mr. President. San Francisco Board of Supervisors welcomes your presence here in its

legislative chamber, room 250. When you cannot be here, these proceedings are airing live on

SFGOV-TV's channel 26, or you can view the live stream at www.sfgovtv.org.

If you would like to submit your public comment, you may do so in writing.

You can send an email to bos at sfgov.org, or use the postal service.

Just address the envelope to the 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 to request language assistance, contact 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.

Approval of the November 18th, 2025, December 2nd, 2025, December 9th, 2025,

regular board meeting minutes, and the November 17th, 2025,

special meeting minutes at the Land Use Transportation Committee meeting,

which constituted a quorum of the Board of Supervisors.

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

Moved by Cheryl.

Is there a second?

Second by Walton.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll.

On the minutes as presented, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Wong.

Wong, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Chan, aye.

Supervisor Chen.

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmud.

Mahmud, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

mandelman aye mandelman aye and supervisor melgar melgar aye there are 11 eyes without objection the

minutes will be approved after public comment as presented and i believe this is the point at which

i can uh speak about some agenda changes anticipated um for folks who are interested in items 24 to

27 we anticipate that there will be a motion to continue those to february 3rd so if you're here

for that, just letting you know. And with that, Madam Clerk, let's go to our consent agenda. Please

call items two and three together. Items two and three together fall under the regular agenda under

unfinished business. Item two, Mr. President, I should read the titles. Yeah. Item two is an

ordinance to order the vacation of portions of Hawes and Griffith Streets, Bancroft Avenue for

For the development of the San Francisco Fire Department training facility at 1236 Carroll Avenue,

to reserve public utility and access rights in favor of the city and easement rights for existing PG&E overhead electrical facilities,

to approve the interdepartmental transfer of the street vacation area from Public Works to the fire department,

to authorize other official acts to affirm the secret determination and to make the appropriate findings.

For item three, this ordinance amends the zoning map of the planning code to change the zoning use district's designation of assessors, parcel blocks number 4877, lot numbers 001 through 004, and assessors parcel block numbers 4852, lot numbers 002 through 022.

the full width of Bancroft Avenue between Griffith and Hawes Streets

and the full widths of Griffiths and Hawes Streets

between Carroll Avenue and Armstrong Avenue,

collectively known as 1236 Carroll Avenue,

from PDR 2, Production, Distribution, and Repair, District 2,

and to P, Public, to change the height and bulk district designation

of the aforementioned parcels and assessors,

parcel block numbers 4852, lot number 001, from 4-X to 90-X,

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

Please call the roll.

On items 2 and 3, Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Wong.

Wong, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

Supervisor Chen.

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey, aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood, aye.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman, aye.

Mandelman, aye.

And Supervisor Melgar, aye.

Melgar, aye.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the ordinances are finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call item four.

Item four is an ordinance to amend the planning code to define a family as a household.

To eliminate numeric limits on unrelated family members and requirements,

that family members share meals, classify residential care facilities that serve six or few persons as residential uses,

to include certain groups of six or fewer people and associated operators as a household,

to clarify the zoning administrator's enforcement and authority, to administratively subpoena documents,

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

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

Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, let's go to New Business. Please call Items 5 and 6 together.

Items 5 and 6 are two resolutions that retroactively authorize the Department of the Environment to accept and expand grant prizes from the United States Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Item 5 authorizes the acceptance and expenditure of a $400,000 prize, confirmed as received by the Department of the Environment December 12, 2023, to develop a pilot implementation plan to upgrade to 200 San Francisco homes with electric heat pumps, water heaters, and energy-efficient measures, and to execute the contracts between the City and the co-applicants, pursuant to the purpose of the awarded prize.

For item 6, this authorizes the acceptance and expenditure of a $400,000 prize confirmed as received by the Department of the Environment on March 17, 2025, to implement a pilot program to upgrade 20 San Francisco homes with electric heat pump water heaters and energy efficient measures.

And again, let's take these items, same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolutions are adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 7.

Item 7, Resolution to Approve the Food and Beverage Minimum Annual Guarantee and Pre-Security Rent Reduction Program for Food and Beverage Concession Tenants, allowing the San Francisco International Airport to enter into lease amendments to lower the minimum annual guarantees for 18 of 69 food and beverage leases, to lower the percentage rent structure for 7 pre-security leases,

and alter the annual minimum annual guarantee adjustment methodology for all food and beverage leases.

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

Madam Clerk, please call items 8 and 9 together.

Items 8 and 9 comprise two resolutions that authorize the Department of Public Health to accept and expend two grants.

Item 8 authorizes an approximate $6.75 million grant from the San Francisco General Hospital Foundation to participate in a program entitled ZPCQI Round 3, Optimizing Epic to Drive True North and Developing Our People the ZSFG Way for a term January 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029, and to approve the notice of the award agreement.

And for Item 9, this resolution authorizes an approximate $1.1 million grant from the California Department of Health for participation in a program entitled Disease Intervention Specialist Workforce Development Grant July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026, and to approve the grant agreement.

Same House, same call. Without objection, the resolutions are adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call items 10 and 11 together.

Items 10 and 11 are two resolutions that authorize accept and expend grants for the Human Services Agency.

Item 10 authorizes the acceptance and expenditure of a $268,000 grant from Blue Cross of California Partnership Plan, Inc.

to participate in a program entitled Housing and Homelessness Incentive Program Funding for San Francisco,

April 1st, 2026 through March 31st, 2030.

And Item 11, this accepts and expends an approximate $1 million grant from the San Francisco Health Plan

to participate in a program entitled Housing and Homelessness Incentive Program Funding,

San Francisco, April 1st, 2026 through March 31st, 2030.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolutions are adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call items 12 and 13 together.

Items 12 and 13 are two resolutions that authorize the Department of Public Health

to enter into a grant agreement for terms commencing on the execution of the grant

through June 30th, 2030 between the city and the California Department

of Health Care Services and its third-party administrator,

Advocates for Human Potential, Inc.

Item 12, this is a $21.3 million anticipated revenue

to include provisions allowing for the recapture

of allowable project expenses incurred retroactive

to May 6, 2025, to include a permitted and restricted use

at 887 Petraro Avenue to authorize retroactively

public health to accept and expand grant funds for the period of May 6, 2025 through June 30,

2030. And item 13, this authorization has anticipated revenue of approximately $6.3 million

to include a provision allowing for the recapture of allowable project expenses incurred retroactive

to May 6, 2025, to include a permitted and restricted use at 333 7th Street, retroactively

authorizing public health to accept and expend these grant funds.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolutions are adopted.

Please call item 14.

Item 14, resolution to retroactively approve and authorize the mayor and the director of

the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development to execute a grant agreement with

RSU Associates LP in an amount of approximately $15.3 million for a 20-year term to provide

operating subsidies for 100% affordable housing project, housing for low-income and formerly

homeless households, to include transition-aged youth located at 78 H Street and 120 Octavia

Street to approve the form and authorizing the execution of the grant agreement with

a retroactive commencement date of October 1, 2025.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call Items 15, 16, and 18 together.

Items 15, 16, and 18 are three resolutions that pertain to 967 Mission for Affordable

Housing.

Item 15 authorizes the execution and delivery of a multifamily housing revenue note in a principal amount of $21.7 million and a multifamily housing revenue note in an aggregate principal amount of $20 million for a total amount of approximately $41.7 million to provide financing for the construction of a 95-unit multifamily rental housing development known as 967 Mission.

And item 16, approves and authorizes the Director of Property and the Director of the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development to enter into a ground lease for real property owned by the city located at 967 Mission Street with 967 Mission LP, a 75-year lease term, and a 124-year option to extend an annual base rent of $15,000 to construct a 100% affordable housing.

rental housing development consisting of 95 units for senior households known as 967 mission to

include include 40 senior operating subsidy units 24 local operating subsidy program units reserved

for homeless seniors and seniors at risk of homelessness and five units for referrals from

the city plus housing list to approve and authorize an amended restated and consolidated loan

agreement for $44.3 million and a 57-year loan term with 967 Mission LP to finance the development

and construction of the project. And for item 18, this resolution approves and authorizes the Mayor

and the Director of the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development to execute a grant

agreement with 967 mission LP for 10.5 million a 15-year term to provide

operating subsidies for a 95 unit 100% affordable housing project with 40 units

of housing for extremely low-income seniors same house same call without

objection the resolutions are adopted and madam clerk let's go to our 230

special order. Okay. Yes, it is now time for the recognition of commendations for meritorious

service to the city and county of San Francisco. Supervisor, District 3 Supervisor Sauter,

you get to start. Thank you, President Madeline. Today I have the honor of recognizing Denise

Fielder, who is an acclaimed San Francisco artist whose retail studio is located in District 3's

Russian Hill. Denise, would you come on up and join us, please?

Over the past few months, Denise's artwork has been seen around the world, millions and millions

of times in a one-inch by one-inch square. That is because her artwork has graced millions of

postage stamps as she was this year's featured artist for the holiday cheer series. I'll hold

it up right here for everyone to see. This series of four beautiful designs has brought endless

holiday cheer this season to many. The stamp designs include, and I hope you'll tell us more

about them and their inspiration, a beautiful wreath, a graceful cardinal, an arrangement of

pears, pomegranates, and citrus in a cheerful holiday flower bouquet. As an amateur stamp

collector from my days growing up, I know that stamps have a big impact despite their small size.

They tell stories, they are markers of history that will be found in drawers decades or centuries

later, and they are a physical sign of human connection, which is something we all need in

this digital age. Denise was first trained as an interior designer and then experimented with

collage and starting in the 1990s as she was working in the textile industry and she established

her studio Paste in 2009. Her dream commission and maybe we can work to make this possible her

dream commission is something for a public space to be seen by all and continuing her good taste

her favorite restaurant is Zuni Cafe. She notes that her inspiration comes from her experience

being in the natural world, particularly plants and animals, strolling the beautiful hills of San

Francisco, cutouts of Matisse, and 18th century English artists, particularly floral paper mosaics.

Denise, thank you for your decades of art, creativity, and craft. Thank you for representing

District 3 so well, and for always fostering San Francisco's creative soul. And the floor is yours

to say any remarks. Thank you. I'm so, so honored to be here today, and I just want to say, as an

artist, your environment shapes you, it molds you, and it inspires you. And I have to say, there's no

other place it would rather be than San Francisco.

It just

offers endless creativity

inspiration.

And

the stamps were actually inspired by

the farmers markets here. So

thank you again. I'm so

so honored.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

District 5, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Colleagues, today it is my honor to recognize Olivia Scanlon for her more than two decades of extraordinary public service to the city and county of San Francisco.

Welcome, Olivia.

Olivia began her career with the city in 2003 as a legislative aide at the Board of Supervisors,

where she served District 7 residents for a decade under three supervisors,

providing rare institutional continuity that deeply benefited constituents, community organizations, and policymakers alike.

During her time at the board, Olivia distinguished herself as a trusted policy leader and a fierce advocate for immigrant and undocumented communities, championing the revival of the immigrant flag-raising ceremony in 2006.

What began as a single restored tradition has since grown into a broader practice of honoring the many cultures that make San Francisco home.

After mastering the art of legislative leadership, Olivia took on a new challenge in public safety,

serving as chief of staff at the San Francisco Fire Department from 2015 to 2023.

There, she was the right hand to two fire chiefs, Joanne Hayes-White and Janine Nicholson,

overseeing government relations, communications, budget, and policy

during some of the most demanding periods in the department's history.

And while any chapter of Olivia's career could merit recognition,

It is her leadership over the past two and a half years of chief of staff at the Department of Emergency Management that deserves special acknowledgement today.

Olivia stepped into DEM at a moment of enormous transition.

Despite having the smallest budget among major public safety agencies, the department's responsibilities expanded dramatically.

In addition to 9-1-1 dispatch, emergency services, EMS regulation, federal grants, and encampment resolutions, DEM was tasked with leading street response, coordinating large-scale events, and helping confront San Francisco's most complex public safety challenges, including the drug markets.

Through it all, Olivia has been a leader among leaders.

She brings clarity and an ability to cut through bureaucracy to get things done.

She works across every division of DEM and with countless departments to solve operational problems, navigate complex policy issues, and keep the city moving forward during moments of crisis, something I know all of us in this room have benefited from as well.

From addressing the 911 dispatcher staffing crisis to helping create the Drug Market Agency Coordination Center, Olivia has been a steady force holding together our public safety system.

She is on duty every day of the year, responding to fires, power outages, storms, tsunami threats,

and major emergencies, ensuring elected leaders and the public receive timely, accurate information when it matters most.

As we all know, most recently, Olivia worked day and night to support the city's response to the citywide December blackout,

coordinating rapid response, standing up power outage centers, and communicating updates with elected officials and residents alike.

Olivia does this work not for recognition, but because she understands that in moments of emergency, the government must function at its very best.

She is emblematic of the behind-the-scenes public servants who make San Francisco work.

And beyond her professional contributions, Olivia also carries another full-time role as a devoted parent to her three children, Andrew, Kifa, and Cillian.

Anyone who knows Olivia knows that her family is her foundation

and that her service to the city is deeply rooted in her care for future generations.

Olivia, thank you for your leadership, your dedication to vulnerable communities,

and your unwavering commitment to San Francisco.

Our city is safer, stronger, and more resilient because of your work.

Thank you. I think my colleagues have some remarks as well.

There are those honorees who you know are going to trigger a list in the queue, and this is one of them.

So, Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you, President Mandelman, and thank you, Supervisor Mahmood, for honoring Olivia.

I have to look at you while I say nice things about you.

First, on behalf of the District 7 office and the entirety of District 7,

and thank you for being the wonderful human being that you are. Aside from all the professional

qualifications that Supervisor Mahmood just listed as a first responder supporting our fire

department and now Office of Emergency Management, you're always on top of it. You're a fantastic

communicator. You know exactly what to say, when to say it, when to communicate, what information

to convey. All of those things are true. You're so competent. But in addition to all that, you are

a warm, wonderful, outstanding human being. And I am so grateful to also be your friend. You have

added so much to all of our lives professionally, but also as a human. You are outstanding as a mom

whenever I see you out in the wild. I'm always so thrilled that you always have, you know, kids in

tow. And you are so connected to the community, the immigrant community, Irish community, and the

districts have been communities. So thank you for this recognition of our friend Olivia. She is

amazing and it is well, well deserved. Supervisor Sautter. Thank you, President, and thank you,

Supervisor Mahmood, for sharing this honor with Olivia. Olivia, it's been a pleasure to work with

you in this first past year. It's been a busy, active year and, you know, I think probably the

public knows of the Department of Emergency Management around some of those high-incidents

or high-profile incidents.

But there's so many others that thankfully never reach the public's awareness precisely

because of the work that you do and your department does in preparing.

And there are also so many moments where we are inundated by concerns and questions and

requests from our residents and our constituents. And surprise, surprise, sometimes we don't know

those answers, and it's usually you who we turn to, and you're always timely and responsive and

comprehensive with your answers and your support. So thank you, and I hope we don't have to lean on

you too much this year, but as it goes, we probably will. So thank you. Supervisor Dorsey. I think

everything that I would say has been repeated and will be repeated by others, but just to know how

much that I and my staff appreciate you, especially when it comes to events or emergencies that are

playing out and just having a sense of being able to have our finger on the pulse of things that are

playing out from the Department of Emergency Management. You're that connection to us, and it

helps us do a better job. So I appreciate you. I appreciate Mary Ellen Carroll and the entire staff

of DEM, but thank you so much.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, Olivia. I just want

to say thank you. Even though

I always, when I see you

on my phone, I'm like, uh-oh, what

happened? Or what is happening?

I know that it's never good news, but you

deliver bad news very well.

And so we appreciate you.

I appreciate you, and our constituents

also appreciate you, because

of you that we get

to be able to communicate in real time,

and it is amazing. You are an amazing

not just a city public servant

but also a mom and just thank you. You've also been a great

colleague to me on both professional and personal level

so for that I really am grateful. Thank you. Supervisor Walton.

Thank you for doing this President Mellerman. I am not going to be long.

I definitely want to echo the comments of my colleagues but I

also just want to say thank you for working when everybody else is not as

you know we had a lot of storms and a lot of bad weather over the holidays and

you kept everybody informed of what was going on and I know it had to take time

away from family and your commitment to the city is evident and I just want to

say thank you supervisor Chen I also don't want to be long but I echo

everything that everyone shared and I also appreciate the tension because of over the

holiday there was a storm that was flooding potentially in my neighborhood so I want to

thank everything that you and your department has done and keep doing. Thank you so much for the work.

Thank you. For myself I will I will add I think it is notable that supervisors who may not always

agree about everything, agree about the excellence of the Department of Emergency Management and

about the excellence of Olivia Scanlon. I heard at least one of my colleagues when they saw this

commendation popping up on our agenda expressing anxiety that you might be retiring and that's not

allowed. So that would be an unacceptable announcement. We would not be happy. Your

department is a little bit like I think I may have said this before a little bit

like a Swiss army knife for San Francisco we tend to make you respond to

all of the city's most pressing challenges and you are a little bit the

Swiss army knife of City Hall staffers who have come into so many different

pretty tough jobs and done them all extraordinarily I personally enjoy you

you have been you've introduced me to so many parts of my own district your

connections in the city are so deep, but you're also just a tremendous resource to everybody

on this board, and the clear and regular communication that you provide to us about what is going

on and what we need to know helps us all do our job better.

So thank you, Olivia, and thank you, Supervisor Mahmood, for recognizing this extraordinary

public servant.

And the queue is up, so it's your turn, Olivia Scanlon.

Or Mary Ellen Carroll, actually, the director of the Department of Emergency Management, gets to go first.

Much to her dismay, I have something to say.

Thank you so much.

I think it says something.

Every time you honor someone in our department, they are so uncomfortable.

And because they're uncomfortable, I think, with just the attention and are very much behind-the-scenes folks.

You know, Olivia is my right-hand woman.

she has and and with everything that we do I could not do the job I do without the people that

work with me every day and Olivia is one of those most important people um you know Olivia uh

sometimes as I've been with the city over 20 years as has Olivia um you don't always end up in places

that appreciate you in the way that you deserve to be.

And I just want to say that every day I appreciate that Olivia is here,

that she's supporting me, our department, and really the entire city,

and of course all of you, which I think is why you asked her to be here.

Being a woman in leadership, being a woman in the city is not always easy.

Being a mother, my kids have flown the coop, so my life feels a lot easier.

but Keefa and Andrew are here. I think Killian is at school.

Absolutely, there is a sacrifice to family, and I know these two kids feel it.

Over the holidays, indeed, we all worked from Saturday before Christmas through Christmas Day,

so that took away all the preparations that one has to do, the shopping, the holiday.

She was working because she was working with me, and that's the kind of sacrifice that these jobs take.

So I am very grateful that you have asked her, that you brought her in here.

She is not thrilled about it.

I mean, I'm sure she appreciates it, but this is deeply uncomfortable for her.

But I just wanted to say that any time that we have an opportunity to honor anyone in the city,

especially women who have dedicated their lives and make the sacrifice that they do every day to serve the city,

it is worth underscoring.

And so I want to say thank you, appreciation to all of the working moms out there,

and especially women in public safety.

It's a kind of unique little space that we inhabit, and it's not always easy.

So I just want to thank you, and I want to thank you, Olivia, and I want to thank you, Andrew and Kifa, and also Killian for the sacrifice.

I am so grateful for you to be where you are with us at DEM.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Supervisor Mahmood, President Mandelman and supervisors, I am mortified.

This is not my comfort zone.

anybody that knows me knows I like being behind the scenes. I like doing the work. I like being

a staffer. That's who I am. And thank you, Mary Ellen. I walked into this building 23 years ago,

and I'm an immigrant, and I didn't know a lot about what was going on. I look at Angela there

because she was a fellow aide, and I just put my head down, and I asked questions, and I learned

every day and I still do that today and it's a privilege to be a public servant. I love solving

problems. I love responding. I love helping people. It's what I get joy from. My children have grown up

in this building pretty much and I drive around District 7 specifically and I show them projects

that I worked on and I'm very proud of that still and I hope that it instilled in them a sense of

giving back and public service. DEM has been just a privilege to work in the last few years,

and I feel like I really, really found my home there. We're a small but mighty team,

and under the direction of Mary Ellen, I just feel so blessed to have her as somebody that I look up

to, and I learn from every day as well. And I just want you to know I'm still here. I'm not going

anywhere and I feel like I'm still young enough that I've got a few years left in me yet but um

I will always be here from each and every one of you and your staff and once an aide always an aide

I say that to all the aides and um you're never too seasoned to ask questions and be curious so

thank you so much for this it means an awful lot to me and to the department so thank you

Thank you.

Right, and we will conclude with District 8's Moses Korett.

Where is Moses?

Come on up.

Colleagues, Moses Coret retired earlier this month after 26 years of service as an employee

of the San Francisco Planning Department and the Board of Supervisors.

He earned his bachelor's degree in art history and philosophy at the University of Vermont

and later earned his master's degree in historic preservation at the University of Pennsylvania.

Moses joined the planning department in 1999 as an intern.

One of the first projects with which he was tasked was the design of a survey of buildings

to determine which are historic and which are not.

In 2000, he was brought on full-time as a preservation planner.

Moses participated in the development of preservation surveys and policies for area plans,

including Market and Octavia, Central Waterfront, Eastern Soma, and Showplace Square.

He authored several landmark reports on buildings, including the James Lick Baths and People's Laundry Building on 10th Street,

but his main focus has been on the documentation of San Francisco's queer history.

He authored landmark designation legislation for the Twin Peaks Tavern, the first LGBTQ bar with windows open to the street,

for which he won a coveted Governor's Award in historic preservation, as well as special recognition by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

He researched and prepared the documentation for the landmarking of the site of the Comptons Cafeteria Riot of 1966

and Gilbert Baker's rainbow flag installation at Harvey Milk Plaza.

His last landmark designation was the Mint Mall and Hall Building, a collaboration with Soma Pilipinas.

Moses has documented historic districts in the Glen Park and the Castro,

and up until last month he was continuing his work on SF survey evaluations along Lombard Street in the marina.

Over the years tens of thousands of people have visited Moses at the planning permit counter

seeking his help with approvals for their projects.

In all he's reviewed more than 10,000 applications with an aggregated estimated permit value of more than $855 million.

For six months in 2018 Moses stepped in as a legislative aide to former supervisor Jane Kim

In her office, he worked on the Central Soma Area Plan, advised on CEQA appeals, housing and labor issues, and worked closely with the Compton's Transgender Cultural District, now the Transgender District, Soma Pilipinas Cultural District, and Leather and LGBTQ Plus Cultural District.

Beyond his professional responsibilities, Moses has been heavily involved in the labor movement, going back as far as 1997 when he joined Jobs with Justice as a steering committee member.

He served on IFPTE Local 21's political action committee before becoming treasurer of the organization.

He reorganized the union's budget, which allowed them to purchase their own headquarters,

and he sat on several bargaining committees to negotiate labor contracts between the city and the union.

Moses has been a delegate to the San Francisco Labor Council for more than a decade,

including his time serving on their public employee committee.

He also served two terms on the OCII Oversight Board.

Thank you, Moses, for your decades of service to the city and county of San Francisco.

And again, we have some of my colleagues who want to add on.

So I will invite Supervisor Melgar to speak.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Moses, I'm going to miss you in the mix here.

So I have had the pleasure and honor of watching your career from the time that, you know,

I was on the planning commission when you also did your sent in then supervisor Kim's office

and your work in the central SOMA plan and your amazing wisdom and vast knowledge about the code,

but also like your human decency and dealing with people at the counter who sometimes didn't quite

get why we had to interpret things a certain way and it is what it is. And so I just want to thank

you for your long leadership, both in terms of planning, but also in our city, in our political

life, and the leadership that you have exhibited in all areas. So I'm going to miss you, and thank

you for everything you've done for our city. Supervisor Dorsey. Thank you, President Mandelman.

Moses, I just wanted to congratulate you on a well-deserved retirement after a long career in

the planning department. You've been a part of preserving some of our city's most beloved

historic resources as President Mandelman mentioned and you still have a

lot of fans in the District 6 office myself included as President Mandelman

mentioned the mint mall was among your final projects and I will just say that

that is a beloved cultural home for our Filipino community it's also important

to me as a neighbor in a place where I go for lunch and get my haircut and that

kind of thing it's it's important to the neighborhood I just import I appreciate

your work on that and everything that you have done for our city so thank you

Moses correct the floor is yours I have come to realize and I'm glad I'm

remembering this that these commendations are essentially lifetime achievement

awards for civil servants and I appreciate that so much that these

happen that we get recognized.

I would like to also thank the other people who were recognized earlier today and the

people who will be coming after.

It has been an honor and a pleasure to serve the people of San Francisco for more than

a quarter of a century.

This has been my only job in my career.

And I am proud that I was able to accomplish so much and to leave at a time when I have

found successors who are also doing good things.

And both on the labor side and on the department side, teaching the code is not easy, but mentoring

a civil servant who might otherwise be a bureaucrat is key.

And to always keep in mind that cemeteries are full of indispensable people.

So spread your knowledge and live an honorable life.

Thank you.

All right.

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

Please call Items 20 through 23 together.

Items 20 through 23 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the statutory exemption

under the California Environmental Quality Act issued by the Planning Department on October 31, 2025,

for the proposed project to disassemble and remove Armand Valancourt's Embarcadero Fountain to storage.

located on Assessor's Parcel Block No. 0233, Lot No. 035,

proposed by the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department

to address significant public safety hazard at Embarcadero Plaza.

Item 21, this motion affirms the Planning Department's determination

that the proposed project is statuatory exempt from environmental review.

Item 22, this motion conditionally reverses the determination

that the proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review

subject to the adoption of written findings by the board in support of the determination.

And item 23 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, we have before us an appeal of the determination of exemption from environmental review for Valancourt Fountain.

After the hearing, the Board will vote on whether to affirm or conditionally reverse

the Planning Department's determination.

Without objection, I would propose we proceed as follows.

Up to ten minutes for the appellant, then we'll have public comment in support of the

appeal, two minutes per speaker.

Then we'll have a presentation of up to ten minutes from the Planning Department.

Then we will give the project sponsor up to ten minutes.

At that point we will take public comment from in opposition to the appeal, again two

minutes per speaker, and then finally we'll give the appellant three minutes for a rebuttal.

Does anyone object to going forward in that way?

Then seeing no objections, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open.

with that I would ask the appellant to come forward and present their case and

then I have some slides I don't know where we can present those I'm sorry can

you I have some slides to present as well okay just wondering how we should

present have you provided those slides to the clerk's office we have events yes

Okay, great, great.

Maybe reset that clock to 10.

I believe you were directed to have them on a USB

so that you can plug it right into the laptop right to your left.

Perfect, I can do that.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Let us know when you're ready to go and we'll set the time.

All right, I'm ready.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jack McCarthy, and I'm joined by Susan Brandt-Hawley, representing Docomomo Northern

California in support of this appeal.

Docomomo NOCA is a nonprofit advocacy and education group dedicated to modern design

that has been active in San Francisco for 30 years.

We represent a broad coalition of stakeholders that include state, national, and international

groups shown here, in addition to the family of Lawrence Halperin and the fountains creator,

Armand Viancourt, and his family.

Opened in 1971, the Vaingor Fountain is the centerpiece of renowned landscape architect

Lawrence Halpern's in Parcadero Plaza.

For over 50 years, the plaza and fountain have served as one of the city's most significant

gathering spaces.

It is an icon of public assembly, free speech, and artistic expression.

This single piece of art is an internationally known historic resource.

No one disputes that fact.

The matter today is whether the city can bypass CEQA under the premise of an emergency.

The evidence shows no emergency, only that the fountain's condition is a predictable result of the city's own long-term deferred maintenance.

We ask you to overturn the decision to remove the Vinecore fountain.

Instead, require city staff to engage in the full public process mandated by CEQA.

that thousands of people who value this space for its history of protest, art, and recreation

deserve a good faith conversation before this historic resource is lost.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm not sure how to work this, though.

One moment.

Sure.

Should I go to the next slide?

Okay.

Hello, I'm Susan Brandt Hawley, and I'm a lawyer who does CEQA work protecting historic resources around the state.

President Mandelman and members of the board, I'm here to urge you to set aside the statutory emergency exemption in this case.

CEQA from its adoption in 1970 has protected historic resources of the built environment to the same level as natural resources that we're used to talking about.

And so the statutory exemption before you is to be very narrowly construed because CEQA is the way to involve the public in looking at alternatives

and ways to avoid significant impacts to historic resources.

This board is the, well, the city is the trustee of its historic resources,

and here the Valencourt Fountain is a historic resource.

As the slide said, the issue before you is not political.

We understand that the board over the years has strong feelings about the fountain

and what should happen next, but that's not before you today.

It's not the time to figure out what happens to the fountain.

The only issue is relating to the relocation of the fountain at this time.

While the planning department has framed this as a separate project, it is not.

In CEQA parlance, when you have elements of a project,

and here it's the renovation of Embarcadero Plaza and the Sue Bierman Park,

the fountain's smack in the middle, as you all know.

And what happens to the fountain has a great impact

on what you're going to do with this renovation project.

And CEQA does not allow segmentation of parts of a project

into little pieces to make each piece possibly seem not important.

So here you can see in the 2024 plan and the 2025 plan

that obviously the fountain is in the middle of it.

And the Recreation and Parks Department has proposed removal of the fountain

as part of the Embarcadero Plaza project.

All of the information on the slides also will be before you.

It already is in the record in packets that have been submitted.

So the review scope says that removal of the fountain is part of the project.

and project materials were provided by staff in the project materials. Surely we should be

very straightforward about what's happening here and for the city to have a pretext to find a way

to remove the fountain from the plaza in order to make the project less complex as a part of

CEQA review, that is disallowed by law. Hand in hand with the problem with this exemption

is the city's pre-commitment to this project by its actions. I represented a group involving the

George Washington High School murals a few years back against the city successfully, where without

a formal approval, they took actions that clearly showed a pre-commitment to the project without

doing environmental review to analyze impacts, look at alternatives, and look at mitigation.

We have a lot of project commenters, including the project sponsors, admitting removal as

part of the project.

Supervisor Satter has explained that he doesn't see a path to keeping the fountain.

And again, while there may be opinions about this, it's too early to actually move forward

in a way that doesn't allow fair consideration of alternatives.

I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to see how much time I have.

Is there a number somewhere, or do I need to...

What? Pardon?

Four minutes left.

Okay, I'm going to go fast then.

None of the expert reports before you have recommended approval.

There's a cost estimate of over $4 million with no funding for removal.

The purpose is to expedite the plaza project.

and there are ways to look at abatement of any kind of risk that there is that has developed.

There's nothing new that's happened.

It's not a sudden emergency, an unexpected occurrence.

Basically, it's just the continued failure of the city to maintain the fountain

that has led to its condition.

The fencing was unrelated to anything about an emergency.

If you look at the experts, you have the planning department and RPD's opinion.

Then you have the engineer's report, the page internal report, the DBI letter.

None of them recommend removal for any reason, including an emergency.

While there's lead and asbestos and structural issues, the same is true of hundreds of buildings throughout the city,

and the city does not then require their immediate removal

unless there's something more significant going on,

and that's not going on here.

Environmental review needs to look at the whole of the action

and the evidence before you by remarks from staff and supervisors

and the project sponsors are that this has been planned

as part of the project.

So what needs to happen respectfully is that this board set aside the statutory exemption

and proceed with CEQA review of the entire project.

Otherwise, it's respectfully a blatant violation of CEQA that doesn't serve the public

and certainly is not to the benefit of the city and its historic resources.

I think I'm probably out of time.

I'm just guessing.

You have a minute 45 left.

It's okay.

Thank you.

All right.

If that is the conclusion of the appellant's presentation,

we will now open up a public comment for speakers in support of the appeal.

Thank you.

How much time is allowed?

We're setting the timer for two minutes,

and there is a timer on the larger, taller podium.

Okay, but for each presenter?

Well, I will be brief.

The San Francisco brand is not a carnival display

of Victorian rickrack on the front of buildings.

It's the footprint left in the city in every epoch

by the people who have contributed to it.

And this board is faced with the opportunity to match the courage of its predecessors who have preserved and advanced the San Francisco brand.

Thirty years after the first autobus ran on Muni,

the cable cars had fallen to rack and ruin by neglect.

But your predecessors had the courage to invest what was necessary

to bring the cable car system back and preserve it as part of the San Francisco brand.

Fifty years after the Pan-American Exposition,

the Palace of Fine Arts had fallen into disrepair because of its temporary structure.

But your predecessors, again, had the courage to invest what was necessary to bring it back and preserve it as part of the San Francisco brand.

This very building was challenged 80 years after construction by the Loma Prieta quake.

But your predecessors had the courage to rebuild it better, complete with earthquake bumpers in the basement, to maintain it as part of the San Francisco brand.

And I ask that this board adopt a long-term view so that this public art will be available 30 and 50 years from now when it is seen by fresh eyes who will appreciate the courage of the San Francisco government in preserving their dedication to art in public spaces.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Madam Clerk, before I begin, I just want to be clear.

We are at the point in the hearing where anyone from the public can speak in support.

That's right.

Thank you so much.

You're very welcome.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman and supervisors of the board.

My name is Catherine Petron.

I'm speaking on behalf of San Francisco Heritage.

We are a 54-year-old San Francisco-based nonprofit with a mission to preserve and enhance our city's architectural and cultural heritage.

we strongly support this appeal.

While fundraising for a new park, the Recreation and Parks Department aggressively pushed for the removal of the Embarcadero Fountain a year ahead of any condition assessments, inspection, or public process.

Under law, this is considered pre-commitment and it is illegal.

A decision to remove the fountain was made and publicized before community outreach meetings were conducted and other independent input finalized.

Later, the consultant's assessment did not find an immediate or sudden danger to the public.

Yet, RPD quickly declared an emergency and erected fencing to support that pretext.

Alternatives to removal of the fountain, a historic work of public art, have not been adequately investigated,

and a true public process exploring preservation alternatives is imperative.

San Francisco Heritage stands with Documomo in support of retaining and celebrating the Valancourt Fountain,

and we ask you to uphold this appeal. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Catherine Petron, for your comments.

Next speaker, in support of the appellant.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kirk Esler, and I live across the bay in Richmond, California.

I first saw the Viancourt Fountain in 1971.

It was awesome.

The next year I traveled, then settled in Europe for five years,

seeing many different fountains in major European cities,

but none were as exciting as the Viancourt.

How could San Francisco allow it to fall into such disrepair

when it should be a World Heritage Site?

If you want to remove ugly public art,

Please look at the DeSuervo at the Legion of Honor parking lot.

Have you considered a ballot initiative?

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker in support of the appellant.

My name is Ado Duffy.

I live here in the city.

You know, a thousand years ago at the turn of the last millennium, there was a great deal of millennialism.

There was a belief that the world was ending, the savior was going to come, and it created a lot of instability.

And it was at that time that the cities of Europe, they started to start in on the great cathedrals.

These cathedrals took in excess of a century to build,

and it started to give people a sense that the culture was going to be around for a while.

And I think that that's something that's horribly missing, horribly missing in our culture today,

that we should be building for 100 years or 200 years.

And the man did a really nice public comment, but he only mentioned 50 years.

And we need to have those kind of projects.

Thank you, Otto Duffy, for your comments.

Next speaker in support of the appellant, please.

Hello.

My name is Lindsay White.

I've lived and worked as an artist in San Francisco since 2005.

and for over a decade I served as an associate professor and photography

department chair at the San Francisco Art Institute. I support the appeal for

the Valencourt Fountain SF parks and city officials invoke the emergency

exemption not to mitigate an imminent risk but to avoid the cumbersome

California Environmental Quality Act process. This is a failure by officials

to go through the proper channels to take care of a historical monument.

Did any of you meet Armand Vallecourt, the 96-year-old artist who came to town to save his work?

I did.

Artists pour their heart and vision into public sculptures.

For what?

For the city to neglect it and then mismanage a situation so that they can build a pickleball court and gardens over history.

The city keeps missing the mark on taking care of the arts, and this situation is a reflection of a deeper problem citywide.

You can't just get rid of a historical landmark, an iconic piece of architecture and art.

As a city, it is your duty to take care of our historical monuments.

We must take pride in the variety of artistic approaches from all decades.

It makes the city more well-rounded.

I will say that this is a sad moment for the arts in San Francisco for a multitude of reasons,

but especially on a day where the city tries to put a positive spin on the California of the arts closure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lindsay White, for your comments.

Next speaker in support of the appellant, please.

Alice Rogoff.

The Valancourt Fountain was an inspiration for a fictional story I wrote about it,

and this is an excerpt.

In 1971, a fountain was erected in San Francisco.

It was the beginning of many new buildings, but Lyle didn't know it yet.

A fountain speaks in a constant tongue with its peaks and valleys, lulls and streams.

a fountain as eternal in architecture and as an idea.

And so he walked back home from the Valencourt Fountain.

Coral worked as a temporary downtown.

Lyle introduced her to the Valencourt Fountain.

Many people disliked it and wanted to tear it down,

but it became her river, her stream, her brook, and the city.

She always liked it.

I would like to keep the Valencourt Fountain.

Thank you, Alice Rodolph, for your comments.

Next speaker, please, in support of the appellant.

Supervisors, my name is Robert Herman.

I've been an architect practicing here in San Francisco for over 60 years.

I beg you for a few extra seconds.

I'm nearly 92.

I don't know how long I'm going to be here.

I witnessed the dedication of Amon Viancourt's fountain.

back in 1972. It instilled pride, the pride of belonging to a town progressive enough to choose

a unique international design competition winner. At its unveiling, Thomas Hoving,

director of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, delivered the keynote address praising San

Francisco for its broad-minded cultural arts program. Hoving looked and could see

beyond the fountain's provocative shape. He saw it as a reference to San

Francisco's 34-year freeway battle to save its waterfront. Now 50 years later

to Reckon Park looked but could only see their neglected fountain rather than the one that

had once joyfully ridiculed a joyless, universally despised, 40-foot-high double-decker freeway

that walled off the city from its gorgeous northern waterfront.

Viancourt had made an astounding conceptual design leap, reimagining the freeway's elephantine pillars as hollow precast concrete beads strung together to spout rambunctious bursts of water into a shallow pool.

I've practiced architecture here in San Francisco for 50 years and taught architecture design at Berkeley for 20 years.

That's the perspective I bring to the topic.

I know that the key to affording any construction budget is attitude.

When there's a will to get a project done, the budget can be pushed and pulled until it works.

If there's no will, the funds will forever be out of reach.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for your comments, sir.

We are happy to take your comments, and we can place it into the record.

Next speaker on behalf of the appellant.

We just ask that you hold your applause, everyone.

There's a board rule, no audible sounds of any sort, approval or against.

Welcome ma'am.

Thank you.

My name is Bridget Boylan.

I've lived 20 years in the Golden Gateway apartment, so I'm over at the Valancourt Fountain

quite a bit.

I love that fountain.

I really urge you to put the brakes on this overly fast Ratchigan Parks Department decision.

It's dangerous.

But on a more personal level, I thought I would just bring to your attention what I think of when I see that fountain.

So one of the first things I see is octopus arms.

Also, I was over at the Pier 7 this morning looking down at the water,

and there were the piers covered in barnacles,

square piers covered in barnacles.

I thought, this looks like Valancourt Fountain.

It looks like Lego.

It's a piece of art that has a lot of people can look at it

and see very different things.

I think it should remain.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

My name is David Michel.

Well, I've been a resident of San Francisco since 1970, and I too was at the dedication

of the fountain in 72.

I'm not here to speak about its validity or why it should remain, because as I understand

it, what you are being asked to decide is whether I will ever get a chance to speak

in favor of the fountain and its value.

This is about the neglect which the park has committed on this fountain over the decades

when it's no longer accessible and certainly it's no more fun to enjoy and feel and get

inside.

And then they want to make this neglect be an emergency that requires them to skip an

opportunity to hear how the public actually feels about their decision.

So I really urge you to approve this measure so that the public will, in fact, have a chance

under the orderly process of making these decisions.

The public will have its chance to speak, and I will be happy to return at that time

and explain to you why I think the fountain should indeed be preserved.

Thank you.

Thank you, David Michel, for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Hello.

Good afternoon.

My name is Kevin Dominguez, and in 2018 to 2021,

I was a general manager at Hotel Adagio,

which was a great honor to be a part of that historic building,

and people really enjoyed what the historic value was that it brought.

At that time, it was a pleasure to also tell people

about all the diverse artwork in the city,

and this is what I loved about San Francisco,

is that the people care about their artwork.

They care about their city.

They care about the experience.

I really hope that you reconsider this idea of erasing history.

As you can see, there's many, many ages in this room,

and taking away something means that the threat of possibly

taking away from somebody else's generation as well.

Looking... Sorry, I just wrote a few things because it's the first time I did this before.

I just hope that this important public art is not erased from San Francisco's history.

And as the coat of arms shows for San Francisco, I really hope it rises from, as like the Phoenix, which is a great symbol for the city.

It means that there's hope and there's care involved.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Kevin Dominguez, for your comments.

Let's welcome our next speaker on behalf of the appellant.

Hi, supervisors. My name is Matt Joseph. I'm a resident of Petraro Hill. As one of the other

public commenters said, there's an immense discussion here to be had about art, but today

is not about art. It's about a so-called emergency. And something that I do in my job,

something that my father did before me, and something that many professionals in the industry

do is evaluate risk. And often, when you evaluate risk, you do it in two dimensions. You evaluate

it in terms of likelihood of that risk, and you evaluate it in terms of the impact of that risk.

That's what professionals do. They don't put up a bunch of scary technical jargon. They don't put

up a bunch of things that say the arm is going to collapse. They don't give you a bunch of technical

details. They synthesize it into something meaningful, and that's likelihood and impact.

So what is likelihood here? The likelihood before us today is defined in Project Sponsor's word as

may or potential or appears or could or might, the reality is that no one in the audience here

can predict the next earthquake. No one here can say with absolute certainty when something's

going to happen. So in fact, the likelihood is rare or unlikely. It is not likely. It is not

almost certain. It is simply unlikely. It might happen, but no one here can say when.

What is the impact? Well, the impact can't be looked at in isolation. The impact has to be

looked at in the larger scope of our city. What is catastrophic impact? That involves multiple

fatalities. That involves disasters. That involves landslides. That involves Embarcadero Center

crumbling down under an earthquake. That is catastrophic. But what are we talking about here

today? We're talking about things that people experience on a regular basis. The lead in 90%

of homes in San Francisco, the asbestos in 90% of homes in San Francisco, the seismic risk

encountered by hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans every day. And so the impact necessarily

exists. It is serious, but it is not extreme or catastrophic or high. It is moderate or low. And

so if we look on these two axes, the likelihood low, the impact low, this is not an emergency.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker on behalf of the appellant. Welcome.

Hello, supervisors. My name is Andrea Cernasak. I am a practicing architect in San Francisco

and the Bay Area, and I've permitted several projects through the San Francisco Planning

and Building Department. Oftentimes, when I'm working with my clients, I have to go back to

them and say, hey, there's this extra process or this extra step that we have to take that's being

required by the city in order for you to move forward with obtaining a building

permit. It's gonna cost you time, it's gonna cost you money, but it's required

and also the right thing to do in most cases. So as a working professional to

see the city kind of blatantly sidestep the processes that have been put in

place for these kinds of projects I find extremely discouraging and

disheartening. I'm also a parent and as a parent I feel that you model the

behavior that you want your children to learn in order to become decent human

beings and I feel like the city in this case is not modeling the behavior that

anyone working within the built environment in San Francisco is going to

need to be able to do in order to permit or get anything built. Thank you. That's

Thank you for your comments. Are there any other speakers on behalf of the

appellant? Please proceed over to the line near the curtains, otherwise this

may be our last speaker. Welcome. I just want to share any gamers out there that

this fountain is a skatable spot on Tony Hawk released in 99. May I ask you to

speak directly into the microphone just as close as you can. Thanks. Please

supervisors, fix it, don't

nix it. It fell into this

repair. It was a very cool fountain,

water flowing through it.

People would take photos, tourists,

everyone loved it.

Please fix it.

The environmental impact of moving

tons of concrete into storage,

it's significant.

If we can try to fix it so that

we can enjoy it one last time.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

all right one more speech okay so last i don't i'm not familiar with this font and for whatever

reason i haven't studied it thinking it will be there forever now again what's the goal

why do you take this thing down that's key right so if the goal was good don't worry they will ask

the public opinion it's because it's no good so it means they don't want your opinion because

everybody is going to be against.

Removing this thing is very easy

to understand. So you fight to keep

this thing.

That's it.

You are destroying beauty

here. It's a sort of beauty.

It's not going to work. You can't destroy

beauty. Beauty wins

in the end, no matter what.

So, that's my take on it.

Thank you for

your comments, Mr. President.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Seeing no other speakers,

public comment and support of the appeal is now closed now we're going to have a

presentation from of up to 10 minutes from the Planning Department good

afternoon President Mandelman and members of the board my name is Kay

Zushi I'm a senior planner with the Planning Department joining me today are

are Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer,

and Tanya Schener, Principal Planner,

also with the Planning Department.

Following my presentation,

staff from the Recreation and Parks Department

and Arts Commission will provide additional information

regarding the project and background.

The project site is the Embarcadero Fountain,

located at the northeast corner of the Embarcadero Plaza

in the financial district.

The Recreation and Parks Department,

one of the city agencies responsible for maintaining

that embarcadero fountain, proposes to disassemble

and remove the fountain for storage

and further technical analysis.

The purpose of the project is twofold.

First, to eliminate an immediate public safety risk,

and second, to facilitate further investigation

into the fountain's deteriorating structural integrity

and the presence of hazardous materials used in its construction.

The fountain currently exhibits numerous severe structural deficiencies.

These include cracked and deteriorated concrete throughout the fountain,

advanced corrosion of embedded structural steel,

as well as missing or failed critical structural weight supporting elements.

Partial structural failure of one of the fountain's approximately 10-ton concrete arms,

which is currently resting on another concrete arm.

As-built conditions that do not conform to the design drawings.

For example, precast elements along the back wall of the fountain are unreinforced

despite the design calling for them to be anchored to the mat foundation.

Missing or discontinuous reinforcement steel,

noncompliance with current seismic and safety standards,

heightened structural risks due to the fountain's location

on unconsolidated fill and bay mud,

and accelerated structural deterioration

caused by the previous exposure to water,

combined with continued exposure to San Francisco's humid marine environment.

These conditions are documented in a May 19, 2025 report by engineering firm DCI,

an October 27, 2025 letter from the Department of Building Inspection,

and a June 2, 2025 report from Page and Turnbull.

The record also documents breaching of fencing and other security measures

intended to restrict public access to the structure.

Despite these controls, individuals have entered the structure,

including sleeping with the concrete tubes.

As a result, if a structural failure were to occur

and one of the 10-ton concrete arms were to fall,

it could cause serious injury or, in the worst case, loss of life.

Based on these conditions, the Recreation Parks Department determined that the fountain's condition constitutes a safety emergency.

Based on the substantial evidence in the record, the Planning Department determined that the project qualifies for an emergency statutory exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15269.

Statutory exemptions are established by the state legislature to exempt certain projects from CEQA review to advance other important policy goals.

In this case, the emergency statutory exemption was issued to prevent or mitigate a safety emergency.

The department's key responses to the appeal are summarized on this slide and discussed in our January 5th and January 8th appeal responses.

First, Appellant disregards substantial evidence in the record, demonstrating that the project

is required to prevent or mitigate a safety emergency, and that the statute does not require

an emergency to have occurred, nor does it prohibit the issuance of statutory exemption

when the project could have a significant impact on the historic resource.

Staff from the Recreation and Parks Department will further address the nature of the safety risks

The appellant also asserts that the city manufactured the emergency

Through calculated long-term deferred maintenance

This assertion is not supported by the factual record

And immaterial to the exemption analysis

CEQA does not require the lead agency to evaluate the origin or intent behind a hazard

It requires a determination whether urgent action is necessary to address a clear and imminent danger

Second, contrary to the appellant claim

The city did not approve or commit to the project prior to completing the environmental review

CEQA prohibits public agencies from approving or committing to a project before completing environmental review.

Here, the planning department issued the emergency statutory exemption on October 31, 2025.

The Arts Commission subsequently approved the project on November 3, 2025, relying on the statutory exemption.

While preliminary discussions planning occurred, prior to the Arts Commission approval, those

activities did not commit the city to a definite course of action regarding the scope or nature

of the foundation removal.

Therefore, the city did not impermissibly commit to the project prior to completing

the environmental review.

Finally, the planning department's issuance of the emergency statutory exemption does

not constitute impermissible piecemealing under CEQA.

CEQA allows environmental review for a discrete component of a project when that component

has independent utility, even if it's related to the larger project.

In this case, the fountain removal does not rely on the larger Embarcadero Plaza improvement.

to be implemented, and vice versa.

Also, the fountain removal does not limit the options

available for the design of the plaza,

given that the fountain will be placed in storage.

Therefore, the two projects have independent utility,

and the fountain removal does not constitute

impermissible piecemealing.

To conclude, the department has provided substantial evidence

demonstrating that the project is statutorily exempt

from CEQA Environmental Review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15269.

The appellant has not demonstrated that the issuance of statutory exemption

was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The planning department, therefore, respectfully recommends

that the board of supervisors uphold the department's determination

and deny the appeal.

Thank you.

Staff are available to answer any questions you may have.

In addition, we have a representative here from DCI, the firm that prepared that condition assessment report.

Thank you.

I do not see any colleagues.

Oh, Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

And I'm just trying to understand with sort of kind of making the argument about the removal,

just trying to understand what is the process like for the removal

and approximately the cost for the removal,

and should it be removed, what is going to happen to it,

like this to that space like what's going to go into it.

Good afternoon President Mandelman. I'm Lisa Gibson environmental review officer. I'd like to

ask if possible that Rec Park could answer that question.

Come on up Rec Park.

Thank you so much supervisor for your question.

So the question was what's going to happen to the fountain, where will it, or how will

it be stored, and what's the cost?

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, so the tentative plan would be that the fountain would be removed in about a month

in mid-February.

is after the 90-day kappa requirement to notify the artist Armand Balancourt the

process would take approximately two months and it would be stored off-site

for up to three years the cost to remove to disassemble and store it is

approximately four point four million dollars and what is the funding source

for that four point four million that would be project funding that will be

Sorry, I can't hear.

Oh, project funding.

Where is the project funding source coming from?

I'm going to direct this question to Stacey Bradley.

Hi, Supervisor.

Thank you for the question.

My name is Stacey Bradley.

I'm the director of our capital and planning division

at Reckon Park.

The project funds are developed through the,

there is a separate project that we are working on,

the Embarcadero Plaza project that is able to deal with this emergency situation.

So we are using project funds from the larger Embarcadero Plaza renovation project to deal

with this separate project.

And the fund source is, there's multiple sources.

So we have 2024 bond dollars.

We also have a partnership with Downtown Partnership and BXP to deliver private funding.

Sounds like it's, I mean, if I recall correctly, I think that we recently did the accept and expand grant, roughly.

Sounds like you're using the accept and expand grant that the city has accepted most recently for the removal of the fountain.

Yes, that is our anticipation.

And what will be then going into it?

Should it be removed?

Like what will happen to that space?

Well, we don't know right now.

So part this project, the removal,

this project is looking at the removal of the fountain

and keeping it in a secure location

and securing the space as we identify next steps.

So it's kind of like an empty, just like an empty plot, like after removal.

Yes.

Like after February or after March, then it will be just like an empty space there.

Yes.

And how do you plan to secure, I mean, once it's demolished or not removed, you're taking it apart, how do you plan to secure that space?

We're going to use similar defencing to what is there today.

There's fencing and planting in the area, and so we will continue to keep that same fencing.

Something similar.

And how much roughly would then be from then on out?

Should it be removed?

What does the maintenance budget look like?

Well, we would maintain the space in the same way that we maintain the whole Embarcadero Plaza.

And how much does it cost right now to maintain the fountain?

or how much has it been as a maintenance fund for the fountain?

We work jointly with the Arts Commission to maintain the space.

We both, I believe the Arts Commission, who is here,

can answer as well from their perspective,

but both of our agencies identify maintenance funding

throughout all of our projects, right?

So when something is needed, we will use it to address maintenance needs.

Does that make sense?

So from our larger budget of maintaining all of our parks and open spaces

and from the Arts Commission larger budget of maintaining their civic art collection,

we then allocate necessary funds to operate and maintain.

Of course.

And do we know roughly how much that is on an annual basis?

sorry

hi I can answer that one

yeah we asked our

director of operations about how much

it would cost it's somewhere between 50 to 100

thousand dollars it kind of depended on the year

but that included

just from rec park side it was

graffiti abatement

which the arts commission is also

was also doing

cleaning out that entire fountain

quarterly and removing all debris to allow for removal of sediment, maintaining the pump.

So the last pump stopped working in May of 2024, and it was a near daily job to go over

there and check everything.

So that was their estimate in the last few years.

Thank you.

I just want to make a statement about how I viewed the fountain, you know, and really

also how I viewed the entire space.

First, I appreciate the most recent name removal from Justin Herman Plaza to now known as Embarcadero Plaza.

I think there's an interesting history in that space.

I grew up in San Francisco's Chinatown and in that area and visit that area often.

I do not have a personal attachment to sort of this brutalist fountain as I view it.

But I do understand its value and as a mark of our history and as a city.

I do appreciate its existence, but I also can understand just moving forward as a future vision for that space.

I am torn and it's conflicted.

It certainly is a character, part of the characteristics of who we are as a city in that space.

But I can certainly also see how it's been deteriorating quite some time now.

So thank you.

Thank you for answering the questions.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

And Chair Chan, I appreciate your questions and can provide some insight from Government On and Oversight Committee.

In March, we approved a behest of payments waiver for the general manager of Regan Park, the director and staff of Regan Park, the mayor, and several staff in the mayor's office to have a behest of payment waiver and solicit donations for the renovation of the Embarcadero Plaza.

and suburban parks from individuals and nonprofits.

We also passed another resolution in March with BXPE, Embarcador Plaza,

Downtown San Francisco Partnership, accepting cash and in-kind grants from BXPE,

approximately $2.5 million for the design and RPD,

and additional grants of approximately $10 million

from the downtown community benefit district.

All that to say there's a lot of money going into this

from outside of the city government, it seems.

And I just, you know, this is a pretty ugly fountain.

I think everyone can agree on that.

but

but

let me finish

clearly an important

historical part of this

area and San Francisco's history

whether you appreciate it or not

it evokes something in you and I think that is

the point of art in architecture

and I also appreciate

I also appreciate

that it is an important part

of the skateboarding community

whether that is recognized by us here in the room or not.

There's something to be said about San Francisco's history

and what we all love about it.

And I just, it doesn't sit well

how much money is being put from outside entities

and whoever BXP is.

It's not really just about the fountain.

It's clear to me it's not just about the fountain.

There's also, you know, priorities.

and it seems like there is a lot of interest from a lot of powerful people downtown in this

particular spot, and I find it very interesting that when that's the case, Rec and Park can move

mountains in order to get something done. Meanwhile, I have a letter to them outlining

all the ways in which District 9, and specifically the mission, is still ignored when it comes to

programming when it comes to the quality of our facilities like the Mission Rec Center.

And I'm still awaiting a response to hear anything about addressing those. And so that's where I'm on

this, and that's how I'll be assessing how to move forward. Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you. This is a good discussion. For me, it's a little more straightforward in that this is an appeal of a determination of exemption from environmental review.

Whether or not the Reg Park Department in the past neglected the maintenance of the fountain, the fact is right now the fountain is not working, and it does present a hazard.

even though folks skate on it and do all kinds of things on it it doesn't mean that it's safe

it's actually quite hazardous and so for me it is uh you know this is a pretty straightforward

sequa issue and we sit in this body as the body that handles appeals of the determinations that

have been made by our environmental review officer have gone to the commission and so

So in that vein, in that, you know, I want to ask, if we were to support the appeal,

we would have to have different findings in terms of, you know, supporting a denial.

What would those findings be?

What could we possibly say if it's, you know, the fountain is actually unsafe?

It has been surrounded by a fence because we want to keep people from, you know, getting hurt on it.

What would be the findings?

Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer.

Thank you for the question, Supervisor Melgar.

That is the purview of the Board of Supervisors.

As you correctly noted, the hearing today is on the adequacy of the department's determination

that this project is exempt from CEQA.

And we presented our responses to the arguments made by the appellant in two submittals,

and we've had two detailed responses stating our reasons why we find that that determination

that we issued of the statutory exemption is appropriate and that there has not been

the legal burden of proof met to successfully argue that the city did not have substantial

evidence to support our determination.

and certainly that is our recommendation that the board uphold our determination.

The findings, if this board does vote to support the appeal

and return this project to the planning department for further assessment,

the board would then adopt findings stating the basis of that determination

and we would then review those findings and determine the appropriate course of action.

Thank you, Ms. Gibson. And so I have not heard any arguments, you know, today that would support findings other than to support the determination that you have made, notwithstanding the potential, you know, attachment that people have to this, whether or not, you know, we, you know, want to honor the brutalist architecture or the time and space that this art was done or who is paying for it.

I mean, the fact is it is unsafe. We have determined that we can issue a statutory

exemption because of the circumstances. If we were not to do that, we would risk the liability

that comes with it. And I have not heard any supporting evidence to have me vote to take

that risk as a city. Thank you. Although appellants will have three minutes to convince you at the end.

Supervisor Sauter. Thank you, President Manelman, and thank you for the conversation, colleagues. This

sits in District 3 by just a few feet. I have a quick question. You know, if we were to go down

the route of restoring this fountain to its original form and function, do we have a sense

of the cost of such an endeavor.

Thank you, Supervisor Sautter.

Yeah, if we went down the route of restoring the fountain,

we did a cost estimate, and that would be approximately $29 million.

$29 million.

Thank you.

That is quite a price tag.

All right.

I know there's more steps in the hearing, so I'll turn it back over.

President, thank you.

Supervisor Sauter.

All right.

That was the presentation from the planning department.

I believe there's now a presentation from the project sponsor, which is the departments,

and they have up to 10 minutes to present.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman and members of the board.

My name is Mary Chu, Director of Public Art and Civic Art Collection for the San Francisco Arts Commission.

I'm joined today by Ralph Remington, Director of Cultural Affairs, and Allison Cummings, Senior Registrar.

The Embarcadero Fountain, also known as the Valencourt Fountain, was designed by Canadian sculptor Armand Valencourt

and completed in 1971 as part of the Lawrence Halpern's design for Embarcadero Plaza

and the larger Golden Gateway Redevelopment Project,

managed by the former San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.

The fountain is part of the city's civic art collection

and under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Arts Commission.

The Arts Commission and the Recreation and Park Department

have managed the maintenance and care of the fountain,

including graffiti abatement and repairs to the fountain's pumps and mechanics.

As part of the planning phase for renovation in the Barcadero Plaza in Sue Beerman Park,

the Recreation and Park Department completed a conditions assessment of the fountain.

As part of this assessment, structural analysis identified structural and seismic risks

due to corrosion and other material failures.

On November 3rd of 2025, the Arts Commission was presented with documentation from the structural engineer, the Recreation and Park Department, the Department of Building Inspection, and the Planning Department, and approved removal and storage of the fountain as an emergency safety measure.

The fountain will be disassembled and placed into storage to allow for further investigation

to the extent of deterioration to the structure, as well as consideration of possible restoration,

repair, relocation, repurposing, or other future actions related to the fountain.

I will now turn it over to Joanna Goodwin, Project Manager at the Recreation and Park Department,

to provide more detailed information about the conditions assessment and mitigation measures.

Thank you, Mary.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman and members of the board.

My name is Ioana Harrison Goodwin. I'm a project manager with the San Francisco

Recreation and Park Department. Today's hearing concerns the emergency response

to documented safety hazards at the fountain. The project is

separate from the Embarcadero Plaza and Sue Bierman Park renovation project.

That project is in the planning phase and in the midst of community engagement.

I am here as the project sponsor to provide background information in support of the Planning Department's determination

that removal of the Valencourt Fountain is necessary to address an immediate threat to public health and safety,

and the proposal therefore qualifies for the emergency statutory exemption under CEQA.

I will address what we know about the current life safety hazards presented by the fountain.

The Valencourt Fountain is not a conventional structure, but a highly complex, fully integrated work of art and infrastructure, completed in 1971, over 50 years ago.

Since the final pump failed in May 2024, the fountain has been dry and inoperable.

The fountain was originally designed to be physically interactive, inviting members of the public to move through it and under it.

However, based on the structural degradation identified in the conditions assessment, the city has had to prohibit all direct public access for safety reasons, and that restriction remains in place.

The fountain was designed to pump approximately 30,000 gallons of water per minute through its concrete arms.

These cantilevered concrete arms weigh roughly 10 tons each.

The overall structure weighs approximately 710 tons.

Structural steel cores, welded steel plates, electrical conduits, and mechanical pumping run through the hollow, precast concrete arms,

making these components inaccessible from the exterior.

The mechanical and electrical systems of the fountain connect to an underground vault that is prone to flooding

and does not meet current OSHA safety standards, further limiting safe access for inspection and maintenance.

That flooding is the result of failed waterproofing, including in the membrane beneath the fountain's basin,

which requires full replacement. In 2025, the city retained Page and Turnbull to prepare a

conditions assessment of the Valancourt fountain, which included a structural observation and

evaluation by DCI engineers. One of the most significant findings documented by the structural

engineers involves a cantilevered concrete arm weighing approximately 10 tons that is rusting

on an adjacent arm. According to the original design, these arms were intended to act independently

and were not designed to transfer load to one another.

The fact that one arm is bearing on another

demonstrates that the structure is not behaving as designed.

This condition reflects an existing structural failure,

with forces being transferred to elements that were never engineered to carry them.

The city also conducted non-destructive testing through ground-penetrating radar

to better understand the fountain's as-built condition.

That testing confirmed that the fountain does not fully conform to its original design drawings.

Engineers identified missing reinforcing steel in the back wall that was intended to be anchored to the foundation.

In addition, structural engineers confirm that at least one post-tensioning rod,

an element originally installed as part of the fountain's structural system

and critical to maintaining tension and resisting bending in the cantilevered arms, is now missing.

The structural report indicates that the absence of this rod reduces the load-carrying capacity of the affected arm by approximately 25%.

DCI engineers further concluded that even under ideal material conditions, meaning assuming that the structure had experienced no corrosion and all materials were performing as originally intended, the fountain does not meet current seismic or safety standards.

Their analysis indicates that under both design basis and maximum considered earthquake loads, the structure is likely to yield or deform.

These conclusions are based on structural modeling using original design assumptions

and do not account for the additional loss of capacity caused by corrosion and missing elements.

The structural report also explains that these risks are exacerbated by the fountain's location

on unconsolidated fill and bay mud, which is known to amplify seismic forces, increase

liquefaction potential, and reduce overall seismic performance.

The structural evaluation also explains that deterioration of the fountain is ongoing.

Engineers observed that internal tubes are heavily corroded, largely due to prolonged

immersion in water during the fountain's decades of operation, combined with continued exposure

to San Francisco's humid marine environment.

The report states that this corrosion likely compromises the structural integrity and low

bearing capacity of these steel elements.

Importantly, DCI engineers noted that additional corrosion of internal steel plates and connectors

is likely present but cannot be confirmed without disassembly because these elements

are concealed within the concrete.

Following issuance of the conditions report starting in June of 2025, the Recreation and

Park Department implemented interim measures to restrict public access to the fountain,

including fencing, mesh barriers, and warning signage.

Despite these efforts, fencing and mesh barriers have been breached, and staff have documented

evidence of people sleeping inside the concrete tubes.

The fountain is located at one of the city's most heavily trafficked civic intersections,

adjacent to Market Street and the Ferry Building, and it is frequently the size of large public

gatherings, demonstrations, and protests.

Given its size, configuration, and location, it is extremely difficult to reliably exclude

the public through fencing alone.

In October 2025, the Department of Building Inspection independently reviewed the conditions assessment, conducted a site inspection, and issued a written letter confirming corrosion and material degradation and directing that the site remain vacated and that security be strengthened until hazardous conditions are abated.

Based on these documented conditions, the Recreation and Park Department determined

that the fountain presents a public health and safety hazard in its current condition.

The department determined that the safest way to conduct the necessary further investigation,

consider possible repairs or potential hazard abatement, is to remove the fountain from the

public plaza and conduct these investigations off-site.

In short, the fountain is a 710-ton concrete structure built on unconsolidated fill and bay mud

and is not supported by deep foundation or pile system.

Its 10-ton cantilevered arms are hollow tubes lined with structural steel

that is constantly exposed to a corrosive marine environment and is inaccessible from the exterior.

This is not a simple maintenance issue.

Instead, internal deterioration is ongoing because of the fountain's location and the materials used to construct it.

Disassembly and removal are necessary to remove the immediate public safety risk

and to allow the city to fully understand the extent of deterioration, corrosion, hazardous materials, and structural failure of the fountain.

Delaying action would allow deterioration to continue and would prolong exposure of the public to known hazards,

including asbestos and lead paint used in the fountain's construction.

This secure storage allows for consideration of possible future options to restore, repair, relocate, and or repurpose the fountain.

Taking together the documented structural failures, expert analysis, DBI concurrence,

ongoing environmental degradation, and repeated public intrusion

constitute a sudden and escalating life safety emergency.

We respectfully ask the board to uphold the CEQA determination and deny the appeal.

As a reminder, Jeff Brink of DCI Engineers is also here to help answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, do we have any questions for the departments?

Looks like we do not.

not and in that case we'll invite members of the public who want to speak in

opposition to the appeal and in support of the project to line up you will have

two minutes each madam clerk will you please call our first speaker coming up

to the podium we are setting the timer for two minutes at first you you will

hear a soft bell that'll tell you that you've got 30 seconds to finish up your

comments. Welcome to our first speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is

Diana Taylor and I'm a resident of District 3 living very close to Sue

Beerman Park and Embarcadero Plaza. Today I'm representing the Barbary Coast

Neighborhood Association and the nearly 5,000 people who live and work within a

short walk of the park and the plaza. Our neighborhood has lived in the shadow of

the freeway for over 40 years and has been an active participant in the

improvement of what we consider our backyard. For example, we led the

fundraising for a children's playground that is in constant use and recently we

have participated in extensive meetings and outreach to our neighbors through surveys,

community meetings, design planning of badly needed renovations of the Embarcadero Plaza.

As stated in our letter to the board, BCNA believes that ample opportunity for bona fide

community engagement on this overall renovation project, including its public-private

partnership aspects and on the fate of the fountain specifically has been

provided by both Department of Rec and Park and the Arts Commission any

allegation that adequate opportunity for such engagement has not occurred is

not factually supported and should not be a factor in your decision on this

appeal in conclusion while we are sensitive to the issues raised by doco

Momo to save artistic history. The fact is that funds necessary to make the fountain safe and

operational probably do not exist. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Welcome to our next speaker.

Hi, I'm Ron Fisher. I live in the Gateway Apartments, and because of that, I walk by the fountain at

least a half a dozen times a week, probably more. I'm always struck by how it doesn't fit.

And, of course, there's a reason for that.

It was designed for a completely different environment.

So when I bring people from out of town and they have the same reaction,

I go through the whole explanation of how it came about,

the Barcador Freeway was torn down, and so on.

I think it no longer makes sense to be there, even if it's historical.

So I would encourage the board to have it taken away

so we can proceed with the beautification of the plaza.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michelle Hennessy, and I live at the Gateway Apartments,

and so that's right next door to Sue Bourbon Park.

And I'm also on the board of the Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association.

The fountain needs to be removed in order to open up the area

for the redevelopment of the Sue Bourbon Park.

We need to bring more activities to the area for our residents and visitors alike.

The east side of the Embarcadero, where the very building is, over the last 20 years, has totally reinvented itself.

And more restaurants, more people are going to that area, but not on the west side, which is where the park is.

In order to bring more economic benefit to the city, we really need to improve the park

and be able to bring more people down that will also bring it into the park area,

but also into the financial district.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Madeline Tremblay.

I am the president of the Gateway Tenants Association.

It was very important for us to figure out and let our people know at the Gateway.

So as a reminder, what is the Gateway?

Well, it's a huge community.

It's a village.

We basically have 1,254 units spread out between four buildings and 58 townhouses.

We occupy the blocks from Battery to Drum and Washington to Jackson Street.

So we are literally a village.

And it was important to get the opinion and to let the people of our village know what was going on.

On top of it, we are rent control for you that do not know.

So what did we do to spread the word?

Well, we sent emails and we notified our residents as early as February 25 of the project.

And we encouraged them to attend all meetings, fill in all surveys, and express themselves without taking position whether we were for the Vaillancourt fountain or not.

the meeting and response that we got were a resounding success.

Although we were not able, and we are not able as the Gateway Tenants Association,

to reach all residents, we utilize flyers in the elevators,

social media platform such as Facebook and Nextdoor.

And the project is met with huge enthusiasm,

and everyone is looking forward, well, many are looking forward to the opening of that area.

Again, recognizing how important the fountain, the Vaillancourt Fountain was and served its time.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Mr. President, members of the board, city staff,

My name is Alec Bash, Vice President of the Gateway Tenants Association, also Chair of its Safety Security Committee and Co-Chair of the Barber Coast Neighborhood Association Safety Committee.

I'm one of many people in our area who have been actively participating in the planning for the renovation and merger of Sue Bearman Park and Embarkdale Plaza.

And in my earlier days, I actually created the city's CEQA process

and was its environmental review officer for six years.

So I understand the process we are going through now.

This last phase of the environmental falcon is its most troubling.

Its cause to labor of nature has led to extensive evaluation of its physical condition,

and we now will know what the hazards are associated with it.

It's an attractive nuisance, a dangerous condition on city property.

Its unique nature with high overlooks, large water spouts, and open walkable concrete pads over the dry water basins

may particularly attract children into the site and pose a risk to their safety.

Its deteriorated condition and in many places failing concrete, steel, and structure exacerbates these concerns

to say nothing other than known presence of hazardous materials.

the entry is readily foreseeable by the city

and an emergency exclusion from CEQA is very appropriate.

Renovating and merging Subamaran Park and the Embarcadero Plaza

to create a truly grand waterfront park is such a worthy goal for the city.

The violin court fountain that many of us loved

when it was such a brilliant concept in conjunction with the Embarcadero Freeway

is now an anachronism.

It deserves a better fate it fills most of the narrow neck between the two parks

And if it stays it would present it I believe an insurmountable hurdle to any successful

Combination renovation of those merge parks. Thank you. I urge you to

appeal

Thank you for your comments

Next speaker

Good afternoon President Mandelman members of the board

I'm John Loftus and I was born and raised here in San Francisco

For the past roughly 12 years, I've worked as the Director of Safety and Security for BXP,

formerly known as Boffton Properties, and owners and operators of the Embarcadero Center.

Prior to my employment with BXP, I served with the SFPD for 32 years.

I think it's important that I share with you my experience with the structure

as your board considers the issue of safety at Valancourt Fountain.

In the past 15 years, the security team at BXP has responded to numerous calls for service at Valancourt.

These calls have originated from an array of sources, including our clients, the tenants at Embarcadero,

visitors to the plaza and fountain, tourists, and our janitorial staff who are tasked with cleaning the area around the fountain,

and plaza as a result of these calls nearly 500 incident reports have been generated

these reports document a wide variety of safety and security issues

occurring at the fountain among the reported incidents concerns related to the unhoused

population, encampments, disturbances and the like, medical calls, vandalism, thefts,

assault cases, robberies, thefts, suspicious persons, hazards, skateboarding, and slips

and falls with injury.

So although it's unfortunate, the 55-year-old fountain has become somewhat of an attractive

nuisance and does represent a safety risk.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

In opposition to the appeal and in support of the project.

Yes, good afternoon.

My name is Dan Rabinowitz.

I am a proud and engaged resident of District 3, and thank you for the opportunity to be here.

I would make two observations which I think are pertinent to what's going on in today's hearing.

The first is that the ultimate fate and perhaps the ultimate placement of the fountain is not actually what's before the board today.

The decision of the Arts Commission, which is the body having actual direct jurisdiction over the fountain as a piece of public art,

was that the fountain should be removed to storage pending further consideration of what its ultimate destination might be,

given the enormous expense that would be entailed by trying to reconstruct it in place.

As a District 3 resident who was frequently in Embarcadero Plaza and Sue Bierman Park,

while I'm not a structural engineer, there is no reason that I can see,

having looked at the fountain carefully,

to doubt the thoughtful, detailed engineering assessments from multiple sources

about the potential structural hazards, about the presence of hazardous materials there,

and about the fallen state of desuetude into which the fountain has come.

Under these circumstances, I would respectfully urge that the only course that makes sense for this board

would be to reject the appeal and to allow the removal of the fountain

pending its further assessment and ultimate destination.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Tad Sky.

I became a street artist in the early 70s and started working at the plaza in 1976.

So we had a lot of fun with that fountain.

You could go on top of it, smoke a joint, the police wouldn't see you coming.

You could walk under it. It was a great joy.

Over the years, I did see many times it was turned off,

and when the water wasn't running, it really wasn't that pretty.

And then, of course, after the earthquake, when the freeway came down,

part of its purpose was gone.

It was big, and now, ironically, the huge size which masked the freeway

is now part of its problem,

because if you want to join those two parks together,

which I think is a great idea,

The fountain just doesn't fit in there.

Furthermore, of course, it wouldn't be ADA compliant,

and the materials there are not too healthy.

But if this were proposed today for you folks, you would reject it.

It's not safe.

Those pads that you have to walk on underneath are slippery when the water is running,

and that's a problem.

So I think it's time for it to go

because progress shouldn't be halted

or held hostage to nostalgia or to history.

Normally, as an artist, I would be in favor of keeping it,

and if it were smaller, I'd say, yeah, let's fit it in somehow.

But right now, it blocks the two.

That area of the plaza is dead.

People don't go there.

So please do what you have to do.

If it can be stored somewhere and repurposed

and reimagine somewhere on the southeast part of the bay.

There's a lot of waterfront there.

It would look great.

But where it is now, I don't think it works too well.

And sadly, the artist will be disappointed,

but maybe it can be put somewhere else and have a second life.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

My name is Jack Hutton.

I may be speaking out of turn.

I apologize.

But I support the fountain.

Is this not the right time to speak to that?

This is for speakers in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project.

And I'm going to come back later, is it possible, or is that already done?

We've already had the public comment you're interested in.

I will talk to my supervisor.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming down today.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Chair Mandelman, Joel Koppel, District 4 resident.

Not only did these downtown buildings keep me employed as an electrician for about 20 years,

my campaign of recent as governmental affairs director for our electrical

contractors Association is downtown revitalization spending time on the

Commission within Commissioner Melgar very familiar with our very rock-solid

robust environmental impact review staff and want to thank again Supervisor Melgar

for bringing up just the simple fact of findings you cannot ignore the fact that

The report says that this fountain is not compliant with current seismic and safety standards.

Okay.

And just speaking about land use, you know, downtown is a very important part of our city.

Venice and Market is a gateway.

More importantly, the ferry building sector is a gateway with transit, with parks.

We even have, you know, ferries coming over from the north and east bay.

What a way to enter our city.

I was down there this weekend, had some gluten-free pasties at Mariposa Bakery in the Ferry Building,

walked my way to Hillstone to watch the 49er game, and just again saw what could be a little more prettier of a plaza

to greet people that come into San Francisco.

We have people that work in office buildings taking lunch.

They go to coffee.

These buildings put people like me to work.

They bring people into the city, give them jobs and support all the retail, all the bars, the restaurants, the hotels, and they keep this city alive.

So we need to prioritize revitalizing downtown.

Just look at what's happened.

We remodeled One Sansom.

It's become a hot spot.

It's bringing people down to San Francisco downtown.

The streets are cleaner.

It feels safer down there.

This is just another step we can take to beautify a big gateway into San Francisco.

so deny the appeal today.

Thank you for your comments.

Are there any other members of the chamber before this gentleman begins to speak

who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project?

If so, please come on over and stand on your right-hand side of the chamber, please.

Otherwise, this may be our last speaker.

Welcome, sir.

Thank you.

I'm downtown Dave, here to oppose the fountain.

It's going to cost a lot of money.

We should get rid of all the fountains in town.

Who needs them?

And while we're at it, let's bring in more billboards, more advertising, chop down all

the trees.

They're dangerous.

They cost money.

And I'm happy to support my fuddy-duddy neighbors.

Thank you for your comments.

All right.

Mr. President.

All right.

Public comment in support of the project and in opposition to the appeal is closed.

And then I think lastly, we invite the appellants up to present a rebuttal argument for up to three minutes.

hello Susan Brant Holly again if I could have my other 45 seconds that'd be great I don't know if

that's possible all the comments you just heard in opposition I think there might have been one

that talked about the issue of some kind of danger or problem with the fountain but no one talked

about emergency, and most of those comments, those thoughtful comments, were opinions about

the merits of the project itself, which is not before you, as you know. We did hear the

Rec and Park staff admit that the funding to disassemble and relocate the fountain into

storage is going to be funded by the plaza project. It's part of the plaza project. So

starting out of the gate here, this is not a project separate from the Plaza project. That's

so logical and apparent and admitted once again by the fact that it's being funded as part of that

project. So that's a problem. We've heard about there have been problems for 15 years with the

fountain. That's not anything that's new. It's not an emergency that would qualify for a CEQA

exemption. We heard about the goal of this quote-unquote project is to eliminate risk

and facilitate investigation for the project. That's not an emergency. And importantly,

there's a way to abate the problem from everything we've heard. If the fountain was to be removed,

there would still need to be a fence around the site where the fountain was to protect the public.

any danger could be abated and it hasn't been looked at it should it should be with adequate

fencing and security we put in our presentation that we figured out at a fair wage security could

be accomplished by i think it's four hundred thousand dollars for 18 months so yes protect

the public if there is some problem but there's no emergency that's been demonstrated to you today

and that's what's required to completely avoid CEQA.

The fact that it wasn't now built as it was planned 50 years ago,

that's not an emergency either.

There was mention of the DCI engineer who I heard say was here,

and he made no recommendation as to removal

and, in fact, stated, as we have on page 21 of our presentation,

that it's extremely hazardous to disassemble the fountain

and would be significant safety hazards in doing so.

So you have $4 million as opposed to the smaller amount to do other abatement,

and this is not a separate project.

And I'd be glad to provide findings for this board in draft

if you would be interested to grant this appeal.

Thank you.

All right.

Colleagues, this public hearing has been held and is now filed.

And now we will consider whether to affirm or conditionally reverse the approval of the Planning Commission.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

And thank you, everyone, for coming today.

I appreciate all the conversation that this has ignited.

and throughout this process I've heard from many who have shared fond memories of the fountain,

some from decades ago when it was shrouded by the freeway above and when it fully functioned,

but believing that it's now time for a new chapter. I've also heard from others

who believe we should restore this fountain and really cherish its role and continued role in

the architectural history of our city.

The decision before us today is not to choose between these two arguments, but rather it

is really focused narrowly on the question of whether this project is exempt from further

environmental review pursuant to an emergency statutory exemption due to the condition of

the fountain.

After reviewing the materials, hearing the presentations today, I do believe that this

fountain, which is a 710 ton concrete structure, poses a significant public safety hazard.

As such, I believe it qualifies for the statutory exemption created exactly for this reason,

to prevent damage to individuals and public property when such conditions exist.

So given this, I would recommend that the board uphold the emergency statutory exemption

determination and deny the appeal of the CEQA determination.

As such, I would make a motion to affirm item 21 and table items 22 and 23.

Supervisor Sauter has made a motion.

Is there a second?

Supervisor Cheryl.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thanks, President Mandelman.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you to everyone for coming out.

I think there are valid arguments all around.

And I remain deeply concerned about how Reckon Park has really prioritized this particular space and downtown and other parks like Sunset Dunes the past couple years.

and I believe that is very concerning in light of budget deficits, in light of increased fees for park facilities,

and especially in my district, District 9, in light of the fact that parks in my district,

four of the 18 lowest scoring parks are situated in the mission.

there was a report that came out by the controller's office

stipulating this and around 45 percent of the lowest scoring parks are in equity zones

which are regions that have historically experienced environmental health risks

this is the same proportion as the equity zone parks in the city and this is obviously about

the fountain this is about safety this is about renovation this is about redevelopment

and having quality of life for the residents around.

It's about history.

It's about architecture.

And for me, it is really plainly, from my perspective,

also about money and power

and this particular city government and its history

and responding to constituents and powers

that have the capital to be able to do what they want in the city.

And so I will be casting my vote as such.

Thank you.

All right.

Seeing no other names on the roster, Madam Clerk,

will you please call the roll on Supervisor Sauter's motion.

On the motion to approve item 21 and table items 22 and 23,

Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Wong.

Aye.

Wong, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

Supervisor Chen.

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, no.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Mahmoud, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

And Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, aye.

There are 10 ayes and one no, with Supervisor Fielder voting no.

Without objection, item 21 is approved, and items 22 and 23 are tabled.

Madam Clerk, that concludes our first 3 p.m. special order.

Let's go to our next 3 p.m. special order.

Please call items 24 through 27 together.

Items 24 through 27 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a conditional use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 210.1 and 303.

for a proposed project at 825 Sansom Street that involves a change of use from the existing public parking garage use with 96 parking spaces

and the establishment of a private fleet charging use at the upper level, a public electric vehicle charging location use at the ground level,

and a private parking garage use at the basement level at the subject property

and existing enclosed two-story, multi-level public parking garage with the basement.

Items 25, 26, and 27 are the motions associated with that public hearing.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

On these items, we are having productive conversations with the parties involved,

and we have agreement from both parties to continue this item, continue to February 3rd.

So with that, I'd like to move to continue these items to February 3rd.

All right.

Suraj Sada has made a motion to continue this item to February 3rd, 2026, these items.

That has been seconded by Supervisor Dorsey.

And before we vote on that motion, we need to take public comment on the continuance.

so if there are any members of the public who would like to speak to us about the continuance please come forward

and if folks could take their conversations out into the outside the chamber

all right public comment on the continuance is closed

and so Supervisor Sauter again has made a motion to continue these hearings open to the February

3rd, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting and that has been seconded by Supervisor Dorsey and colleagues.

I hope we can take that without objection. Without objection, the appeal hearing and

Motions are continued open to February 3, 2026.

All right.

And now we go back, Madam Clerk, to item 17.

Item 17 is a resolution to approve the First Amendment to the agreement between the city and A&A Health Service, Inc.

to provide rehabilitative board and care residential services to extend the term by three years from June 30, 2026,

for a total term July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2029,

and to increase the amount by approximately $23 million

for a new total of $32.6 million.

Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on this item?

On item 17, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Wong.

Wong, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

Supervisor Chen.

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey?

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder?

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood?

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman?

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

And Supervisor Melgar?

Melgar, aye.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, we have already taken care of item 18.

Can you please call item 19?

Item 19, this is a motion to appoint Sakai Bailey residential requirements.

This is a motion to appoint Sakai Bailey residential requirement waived and Tiffany Bohi to the Inclusionary Housing Technical Advisory Committee for unlimited terms.

And colleagues, I'm imagining we can take this item, same house, same call, with a big nod from Chair Melgar, Landy's Chair Melgar.

Without objection, the motion is approved.

and then Madam Clerk let us go to committee reports. Yes item 28 was

considered by the Rules Committee at a regular meeting on Monday January 12th

and was recommended as a committee report. Item 28 is a motion to confirm

the mayoral reappointment of Carmen Chu as City Administrator for a five-year

term. And City Administrator Chu and her very patient daughter are in the

audience and she's waving and I don't think she wants to talk to us but she is

she have a we are grateful to you and with that colleagues I think we can take

this item same house same call without objection the motion is approved all

right all right good move Board of Supervisors

madam clerk let's go to roll call for introduction supervisor solder you're

first up to introduce new business. Submit. Thank you. Supervisor Cheryl. Colleagues over the past

year, along with many of us, if not all of us, have been very focused on understanding and seeing

how we can better support the city's small business community. One of the elements that

I talk to small business owners and advocates about regularly is permitting. And across all

of those conversations, one permit is referenced over and over again, and that is the permit

related to ADA access from the Department of Public Works.

When we talk about opening small businesses, providing access for all San Franciscans,

the answer has to be speed.

And when one thing comes up over and over again, I think that demands some focus.

So today I'm introducing a hearing request focused on improving the city's administration of ADA accessibility requirements and permitting so that our entrepreneurs can quickly open doors and open access to every San Franciscan of all age, shape, size, ability, everything as quickly as possible.

I think we've all heard horror stories throughout the city.

It's not just in District 2.

I know I'm very familiar with a situation in District 1 that I know my colleague, Supervisor Chan, had to suffer through with the Saltwater Bake Shop, a terrible situation.

Bob's Donuts, a legacy business, another terrible situation.

It's unacceptable.

I think we all see this.

And while Permit SF and recent legislation at this board has made great strides towards streamlining our processes, more needs to be done.

as we look at administering ADA accessibility.

Are we putting enough resources towards accessibility?

Are we supporting our seniors and our disabled community

in the way that they deserve?

This hearing is here to make sure that we are a city of yes,

a city that enables, not obstructs, and that makes it easier

for small businesses to open, to thrive,

and to serve all San Franciscans.

This will be a key step towards creating a comprehensive,

clear, and concise permitting process,

and that conveys that we are one city government working cohesively to support our entrepreneurs.

I want to give a special thank you to Director Dierman at the Department of Disability and Aging Services,

Director Tang at the Office of Small Business,

a special thank you to Harry Brough, our District 2 representative on the Disability and Aging Services Committee,

Tim Omey, the President of the Council of District Merchants Association,

and also Disability Advocates at Senior and Disability Action.

Their partnership is critical to ensuring access for all San Franciscans in as speedy and timely a manner as possible.

Together, we can work to achieve a better and quicker process,

and I look forward to continuing this work as we strategize for an informative and constructive hearing.

Thank you, and the rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Cheryl.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I have nothing to submit, so I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton.

Supervisor Wong.

Submit, thank you.

Supervisor Chan.

Submit, thank you.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleague, today I am introducing a resolution urging our controller to incorporate additional metrics in the bimonthly controller status of San Francisco's economy report.

Monitoring the city's progress towards a just economic recovery across all communities is

vital to enable policymakers and the public to plan for a more inclusive San Francisco.

In 2021, the controller began to publish a bimonthly report on the status of the San

Francisco economy to shed light on the city's economic recovery following the COVID pandemic.

This report tracks measures such as hotel rates and occupancy, office attendance, transit ridership, apartment rents, authorized housing units, and unemployment.

A comprehensive understanding of the health of our local economy requires a broader set of indicators that reflect the lifted experiences of San Franciscans,

including our workers, our children, our residents, and small business.

Otherwise, it is a measure of economic progress without considering shared economic inclusion and prosperity.

Achieving shared economic prosperity requires making sustained progress on a broad range of indicators.

For example, workforce wage change, economic inequality, financial stability of small business, housing affordability, displacement, social housing, changes to social safety net, racial, gender, and elder equality, labor union participation, and workforce preparedness and education.

education. The current measures of economic progress in the controller status of the San

Francisco economy report fails to account for these essential indicators, and this marks underlying

inequities impacting everyday San Franciscans. Numerous studies have shown that inequity

inequality is detrimental to economic health, hindering long-term growth, increasing instability,

reducing social mobility, and worsening outcomes for low-income residents.

I know that as a city and county, we are committed to principles of shared economic prosperity,

racial equality, and just economic recovery across all communities.

My office has been working collaboratively with Chief Economist Ted Egan,

who has been a very helpful thought partner in drafting this resolution.

The Office of the Controller has the expertise and data necessary to compile and analyze these essential metrics in an impartial and thoughtful manner.

I want to thank my early co-sponsor, Supervisor Chen and Malga, and look forward to the rest of my colleagues for their support.

I also have another resolution that I am introducing.

Last year, more than 30 people died while in ICE custody, making it the deathless year in more than two decades.

Two people were fatally shot by ICE officers, eliciting profound outrageous and despair at the inability of ICE to properly observe,

due process or engage in our communities without inciting extreme violence.

This year, less than a week ago, a woman was fatally shot by an ICE officer in Minneapolis,

and two individuals were shot by a CBP agent in Portland.

Today, I'm also introducing a resolution condemning ICE for actions that have led to loss of lives throughout our country,

including in our home state.

Many of these deaths are still under investigation,

leaving families and communities without adequate answers

surrounding the circumstances that would occur while in ICE custody

and without closure.

Further, these deaths don't account for the widespread reports

of the disappearance of countless individuals

and the death of those impacted by the stress

from rampant escalation of ICE enforcement.

Escalation of ICE enforcement.

This resolution seeks to memorize those who have lost their lives,

and it calls for accountability for the action of our federal entities

that contradict public safety and due process.

It condemns ICE for action that have led to those loss of life,

both in both instances of fatal shootings and in custody death.

Urge our state and federal partners to call for a third party investigation of all deaths that have occurred as a result of action taken by ICE officers.

Calls for a moratorium on ICE detention until third party investigation is conducted and corrective action is implemented.

and reaffirm our commitment as a board to protecting sanctuary city policies that keep our immigrant community safe.

I want to thank my co-sponsors, Supervisor Walton, Fielder, Mahmoud, Supervisor Chen, and Supervisor Melka for their support.

And the rest I submit. Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen. Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, I am today submitting a letter of inquiry to request information through

the San Francisco Health Service System as to whether Blue Shield of California may be

engaging in a pattern of denying or delaying coverage for medically necessary care to San

Francisco employees and retirees in city-sponsored health plans.

Given the strong possibility that this could result in a hearing before the Budget and

Finance Committee, I am submitting this in partnership with Budget Chair Connie Chan.

I appreciate her leadership on these issues, and I know we are 100% aligned in ensuring

that our city's workers and retirees get the health care coverage for which they are entitled.

Last week, retired San Francisco firefighter Ken Jones received notice that Blue Shield

of California denied coverage to him for a cancer treatment regimen

that was recommended by his UCSF oncologists.

The following day, news of that denial was presented during public comment

to the Health Service Board, on which I sit.

There we learned from Mr. Jones' family members and colleagues that even after his physicians determined that the proposed treatment was medically necessary to slow the progression of his stage 4 lung cancer,

his initial request and the subsequent physician appeal were denied.

Although I am informed that Blue Shield has since approved a modified treatment plan for Mr. Jones,

We have now been made aware of three other firefighters facing cancer, in which their treatment was initially denied or delayed by Blue Shield.

In two of those cases, treatment was also finally approved, but only after extraordinary advocacy.

Colleagues may recall that this Board of Supervisors in June 2024, together with the Health Service Board,

approved the addition of Blue Shield's Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan to replace a similar plan by UnitedHealthcare.

That move saved many millions of dollars, you may recall, but it was not without controversy or opposition.

Speaking for my own vote on that, I was persuaded by a competitive RFP process, which found Blue Shield to be the more affordable option.

However, I also relied on assurances that the transition to Blue Shield would be smooth and that its coverage and access to high-quality medical professionals would be as good as or better than the incumbent it was replacing.

These assurances appear increasingly difficult to reconcile given what we have seen play out over the last year,

and I think that's especially true now in light of the denials that I just described.

The city and county of San Francisco provides health care coverage through Blue Shield to approximately 5,000 of our employees and retirees,

many of whom selected the plan specifically because of the continuity of care with UCSF and other trusted providers.

In particular, San Francisco firefighters who face well-documented occupational cancer risks

and who benefit from statutory presumptions that cancer is linked to their service

should not be forced to encounter needless barriers when seeking medically necessary care.

Accordingly, our letter of inquiry seeks responses to ascertain whether evidence may suggest

that Blue Shield is engaging in post-claim underwriting practices

to deny medically necessary treatment to our city workers and retirees.

I again thank Budget Chair Chan and her team for their partnership on this.

Supervisor Melgar and I have spoken about it too, and I appreciate her leadership on it.

Finally, thanks to the Clerk of the Board and her office in advance

for their work to facilitate the responses we seek, and the rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey. Happy to do it.

Supervisor Fielder.

Submit. Thank you.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

President, Madam Clerk, thank you.

Colleagues, today and across the country, we continue to witness increased immigration enforcement across our country.

Thousands of dollars are being spent to disseminate recruitment ads, promising five-figure signing bonuses to join the Department of Homeland Security as an agent.

As a sanctuary city, San Francisco has long been a leader in maintaining a clear separation between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement in order to protect immigrant communities and promote effective, equitable public safety.

At a time when our city is experiencing ongoing peace officer staffing shortages, sworn officers must focus their time and expertise on addressing local public safety needs rather than being diverted to federal immigration enforcement activities.

That's why today I'm introducing a resolution in support of Assemblymember Isaac Bryan's Assembly Bill No. 1537,

which prohibits peace officers from being employed by contracting with or volunteering for the United States of Department of Homeland Security

or any entity that assists with immigration enforcement.

I also want to take a moment to thank the Public Defender's Office for their leadership and partnership with Assemblymember Bryan

and the ICE out of California coalition, as well as Chinese for affirmative action for their strong

support for this resolution as well. AB 1537 would require peace officers to report any offer or

attempt of secondary employment related to immigration enforcement to their employing

law enforcement agency, ensuring transparency and accountability within local departments.

Decades of research and lived experience have demonstrated that entanglement between local

law enforcement, and federal immigration enforcement undermines public safety by discouraging immigrant

communities from reporting crimes, cooperating with investigations, or seeking emergency

assistance.

By clearly prohibiting peace officers from participating in immigration enforcement,

AB 1537 strengthens our state's commitment to civil rights, constitutional protections,

and community-centered public safety.

I want to thank Supervisors Fielder, Walton, and Chen for their early support, and my Legislative

Director Sam Logan and Chief of Staff Jessica Gutierrez-Garciera for their work on this

legislation, and I hope to have colleagues your support as well.

Second, colleagues wanted to note that on December 12th of last year, a three-alarm

fire at 50 Golden Gate Avenue displaced nearly 142 residents, including families with young

children, seniors, and monolingual tenants, forcing them from their homes ahead of the

holiday season. The uncertainty and trauma the residents faced following a fire is deeply

concerning. In conversations with residents impacted, they shared with me that they'd

lost packages with Christmas presents for their children, left units they had called

home for over 20 years, many having left with nothing more but the clothes on their backs.

This is a reminder that any one of us is one unpredictable emergency away from losing it all

and sitting on the cusp of homelessness. As a city, it is our responsibility to protect the health,

safety, and dignity of all residents, especially during times of crisis, when families are

displaced, traumatized, and at risk of becoming unhoused. I'd like to acknowledge and thank the

work of the San Francisco Human Services Agency in coordination with the American Red Cross and

other city departments, which responded by establishing an evacuation center, coordinating

emergency transportation, placing residents in hotels, and administering the Temporary Assistance

for Displaced Persons program for residents. Despite these actions, the scale and duration

of the displacement has left many residents facing continued instability. As those impacted

have voiced, the one-week duration of temporary assistance programs is insufficient to secure

housing in San Francisco's constrained rental market, leaving households at risk when assistance

sunsets. In evaluating this response, we've heard that the existing displacement response systems

leave many displaced residents in the missing middle, excluding households from rental assistance

due to rigid asset thresholds.

That residents with limited English proficiency

faced significant barriers navigating displacement services

even when interpretation was available.

And that displaced residents felt lost in the process

relying on resident-led housing searches.

We must do more to support our neighbors in time of need.

That's why today I'm introducing an urging resolution

that will, one, request that we add staffing dedicated to the city's fire displacement response,

including case managers who can provide individualized and continued support to displaced households.

Two, expand eligibility for the Temporary Assistance for Displaced Persons program

by raising asset thresholds to align with the state Medi-Cal thresholds

from $30,000 to $130,000 for single-person households.

And three, strengthen language access services for further alignment to the language access ordinance to facilitate the application processes related to displacement and recovery.

I'd like to thank my legislative aide, Will McPhee, and Chief of Staff Jessica Gutierrez-Garcia in my office for working on this piece of legislation.

Ultimately, our disaster response must be rooted in equity, transparency, and compassion,

ensuring that no family displaced by a fire is left without shelter, support, or a clear path to permanent housing.

I hope to have your support, colleagues.

Lastly, colleagues, today is my distinct privilege to honor the life and legacy of Bob Weir,

legendary musician, cultural icon, and beloved member of San Francisco's rich artistic community.

Bob Weir was born Robert Hall Weir in October 1947,

passed away on January 10th at the age of 78,

surrounded by family and loved ones after courageously battling illness.

As a founding member and rhythm guitarist at Palo Alto's Grateful Dead,

where I was born, Bob helped create a sound that became the soundtrack of a generation.

His innovative guitar work, soulful vocals, and restless creative spirit

were central to the band's evolution from a local San Francisco act

into a global phenomenon that continues to influence music and culture

and inspire communities throughout the world.

For more than 60 years, Bob brought joy and inspiration through music

by blending rock, blues, folk, and improvisational exploration

in ways that challenged genre and united fans across cultures and generations.

His contributions to songs like Sugar Magnolia, Playing in the Band, and Truckin' hold a permanent place in the American music canon.

Bob's influence stretched far beyond performance.

He embodied the spirit of community that defines our city.

Throughout his life, Bob fostered connection, creativity, and a sense of shared experience.

through Grateful Dead's legendary tours, benefit concerts, and outtreat efforts,

Bob helped build a worldwide community called Deadheads.

The Deadhead community is a community that is rooted in music, compassion, and freedom.

Here in San Francisco, Bob Weir's presence was never solely musical.

It was cultural and civic.

From the early days at the Fillmore and Avalon Ballroom,

through historic performances in Golden Gate Park celebrating 60 years of music,

Bob's artistry was woven tightly into the fabric of our city's identity.

Nowhere is that connection to the city felt more strongly than Haight-Ashbury,

which came alive with tributes to Bob and the dead over the weekend.

Today, we extend our deepest condolences to Bob's wife, Natasha,

his daughters, Shala and Chloe, and all who loved him.

His passing is felt by a global community of fans and friends

whose lives were touched by his sound, his spirit, and generosity.

Bob Weir once spoke of music as a journey without a final curtain.

He described music as a reflection of his vision that the song and the heart of the community lives on.

In that spirit, we remember him not just for what he created, but for how he shared it with others with an open heart.

May Bob Weir's legacy continue to resonate in every corner of San Francisco and beyond

as a lasting tribute to a life lived boldly with love and music as his guiding forces.

The rest I submit. Thank you supervisor Mahmoud

Supervisor Milgar before we go there if supervisor Mahmoud has no objection

I'd like to have that come from the entire board as well

So without objection we'll do that in memoriam from supervisor Mahmoud on behalf of the entire board

Supervisor Chen

Thank you, but present I

thought we're and the grateful that it's also

important asset in this year 11.

I just want to thank

Supervisor Mahmoud for doing that, and

thank you for doing it as a full boy.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen. Supervisor

Milgar. Submit. Submit.

Thank you. Mr. President,

seeing no other names on the roster, that concludes

the introduction of new business.

Except for the President.

So sad.

Madam Clerk.

Mr. President.

I mean, I do have a few introductions.

All right.

Colleagues, first I am introducing legislation to establish an entertainment zone in and around downtown Glen Park.

This entertainment zone will allow restaurants and bars on Diamond Street, Chenry Street, and Monterey Boulevard

to sell alcoholic beverages to go for outdoor consumption during events and activations such as the Glen Park night markets.

Already established entertainment zones have helped support such events in Coal Valley and the Castro,

and in light of those successes, the Glen Park merchants are interested in bringing an EZ to their neighborhood.

I want to thank the Glen Park Association for working with GPMA to come up with a map on a proposal that was acceptable to both organizations.

I also want to thank Ben Van Houten and Kelly Varian from the Office of Economic and Workforce Development,

Vicki Wong from the City Attorney's Office, and Calvin Ho from my office for all of their work on this legislation.

I'm also today introducing resolutions to initiate the process of landmarking 28 historic properties in District 8.

This batch is another installment in our ongoing efforts to ensure the preservation of some of the most historically significant properties in District 8's neighborhoods,

even as the board has acted most recently through the passage of the family zoning plan

to encourage the development of more housing in those neighborhoods.

Of course, I believe we can pursue both goals in parallel at the same time.

And I want to thank Rich Sucre and Alex Westhoff from the Planning Department's Historic Preservation Team

and Calvin Ho in my office for their work on these resolutions.

I believe Calvin has had to do 28 resolutions today, so he's had a busy day.

And finally, I do want to thank Supervisor Chen especially for her resolution.

I think, and we will consider that and I'm sure it will pass eventually, but I thought

that for today it would make sense that we adjourn today's meeting in memory of Renee

Goode who was killed on January 7th, 2026 at age 37 by a federal immigration agent in

Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Renee was born in Colorado and was a devoted Christian who would travel to Northern Ireland

for mission trips while growing up.

She loved to sing and studied vocal performance in college.

She had three children, aged 15, 12, and six,

and she described herself as a poet and writer

and wife and mom.

She graduated from Old Dominion University in Virginia

with an English degree in 2020.

She won an Academy of American Poets award in that year

for her poem on learning to dissect fetal pigs.

Renee had recently moved to Minneapolis

with her six-year-old son, now an orphan, and her wife.

Her wife described Renee as made of sunshine, and her mother remembered her as one of the kindest people I've ever known, loving, forgiving, and affectionate.

Neighbors and friends recall Renee as kind, gentle, and open-hearted, and someone who cared deeply for her family and the community around her.

The City and County of San Francisco mourns the loss of Renee Good and extends our deepest condolences to her family and loved ones, as well as the people of the City of Minneapolis.

Rest in peace and power, Renee Good.

May your memory be for a blessing.

and if colleagues are all right, I'd like to have that come from the full board.

All right.

Now, Madam Clerk, you got through the President.

Thank you kindly, Mr. President.

All right, so I think we go to public comment at this point.

Yes.

All right, let's do that.

Please line up on your right-hand side of the chamber.

You're able to speak to the mayoral appearance for today's meeting.

The minutes is presented.

items 31 through 32 on the adoption without committee reference calendar

and other general matters not on today's agenda

but are within the board's subject matter jurisdiction.

We're setting the timer for two minutes.

Let's hear from our first speaker.

Welcome.

Yes, this fountain is ugly, actually.

I forgot.

I missed the mayor's appearance.

I saw he's talking about human trafficking now,

Great. Sure.

So first step, at first I was like, yeah, first step now,

it's especially in sports organizations.

So it basically is to enforce surveillance.

So it is not about human trafficking, first of all.

It's specifically against institutionalized children trafficking,

therefore by the government itself.

So we know we need to target.

We won't forget, no matter all the shenanigans going on, now it's incredible, obviously.

So we need to stay, I mean, I will stay focused.

We are working to stop institutionalized child trafficking, all in the end of the government and the media.

so whatever they tried now

is not going to work

because they are guilty

there is no in the name of science here

child trafficking is not in the name of science

so you forget AI

weather manipulation

fake

whatever those

big pharma, you name it

that's always in the name of science

no, no, child trafficking

is not in the name of science

you are sick

You cannot be in any position of a government, period.

And we're going to take care of you.

It's coming.

We are in San Francisco.

We start with San Francisco.

Then we'll see how it spreads all over the state, country, and world.

So, you guys, I don't know.

Have a good day.

I won't be back every week now anymore.

That's enough.

Almost three years I'm trying to inject beauty in your minds.

Thank you for your comment.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman and Board of Supervisors.

My name is Richard S.T. Peterson, and I typically talk on parcel taxes, which I'll get to.

I've been approached by some people in my district, District 8, that I should run as a supervisor.

And I said, well, that's a nice concept, a straight in District 8 in my lifetime.

But I said, no, I'm too old.

What we really need in District 8 is a couple, a couple that can be straight, gay, or whatever, that have children in the public school.

That's the representation we need in District 8.

They can be gay, they can be straight, they can be binary or X, Y, Z.

That's fine.

But getting into the parcel taxes, I noticed that our newest supervisor is bringing up a potential petition to reopen the highway.

That's really a dead issue.

I mean, come on, what is going to happen?

That's all smoke and mirrors.

You're going to bring it up.

People that there's going to be a citywide election are going to vote it down.

and then you're left in the same position you are today.

Better to focus on things like parcel taxes.

Parcel taxes bring us to the west side versus the downtown.

All I want is fair parcel taxes.

I noticed that in the latest January 8th edition of the Chronicle,

They had another article, and the one thing that was absent from the article was the stakeholders

who are homeowners.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

All right, let's hear from our next speaker, please.

When people say I should be grateful that Mayor Lurie stops Trump's siege in San Francisco,

I say immigrants have been under siege at the immigration courts in San Francisco.

Did you care about that this past year?

The immigration and civil rights lawyers suing the government and protesters

are the main reasons the abductions went down, not the mayor.

A majority of the immigration judges got fired by Trump

and will supposedly here in San Francisco

will supposedly be replaced by deportation judges.

Hear any protest about that from our mayor?

Are you happy you don't have to see the siege on your streets

because it remains hidden indoors?

Just about every person abducted by ICE in the Bay Area comes here for inhumane illegal

imprisonment.

One of the lawsuits is about stopping that.

And our mayor and most of the board is often silent about it all.

Sorry, that's not good enough for me.

Any immigrant in San Francisco is at risk of abduction in San Francisco's courts and

ICE check-ins or public abduction outside of San Francisco.

The October compromise seems to be keep this violence out of sight and keep out of people's

minds here so tourists aren't scared away and businesses can keep on banking.

I don't know, though.

Release the files, Mayor Lori.

Not to mention all the increased police and surveillance.

A person can be tracked in San Francisco, abducted outside San Francisco with said surveillance like flock.

That is collaboration, not protection.

On conservatorship legislation that was introduced by State Assemblymember Catherine Stephanie,

supported by our board president, State Senator Scott Wiener, Assemblymember Matt Haney,

City Attorney David Chu, and the Chief of Health and Human Services, Kunal Modi,

I would read up on the shameful history of the ugly laws.

That's what this conservatorship reminds me of in the laws about it.

In the DSM-5, trans people can be diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

It is common for insurance to require this diagnosis to access care like hormone replacement therapy.

Being that this federal administration deems trans people as mentally ill, I do fear laws like this being used to target and imprison trans people as well.

Today, the Supreme Court is debating trans people's humanity again.

Disturbingly, the petitioners are arguing for constitutional rights to be determined by population size.

and asking for a constitutional definition

of what defines biological sex.

Do you care?

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Hi, my name is Carlos Funes.

Connie, you already have a-

Can you grab your microphone, sir?

We can barely hear you.

Connie, you already have a-

Hold on one second, sir.

Don't address members directly.

Okay.

To rest your comments to the board as a whole.

Okay, thank you.

I'll start your time now.

Hello, my name is Carlos Funes.

I've been having a lot of problems with the housing issue.

I feel that I'm the victim of the shallow thinking of the Board of Supervisors.

I'm going to leave a couple of pieces of paper here for you to follow up on.

We will come collect that from you.

And anyway, it all started when I bought my house here in San Francisco 26, 27 years ago.

and when it was finished, an immigrant family from China came to us saying that they were in desperate need of housing.

Our house was not set up for that.

However, I let them stay there since my downstairs was set up for my own little workshop, and I gave that up.

They ended up staying there.

A few years ago, they decided that, oh, they can tap into the policies of the city in order to extort money from me.

So they called in an anonymous tip saying that they were living in an illegal ADU.

And ever since, the building department has been coming after me.

They demolished one staircase because they said it was not up to code.

And they put one in, and it's not up to code.

And they put it in 100%.

I've been complaining.

They don't care.

They just ignore me.

And now I want them evicted.

I have to pay them.

nearly $50,000 to move out.

That's extortion, isn't it?

Isn't that unconstitutional?

Third, fourth amendment of the Constitution?

This isn't the way you guys are thinking.

You know, I'm not the only one.

There are a lot of other people.

I'd like to invite everybody here

to come to my house and see for yourselves.

Okay?

Thank you.

My information's there.

Please come.

Thank you for your comment, sir. Welcome to the next speaker.

Good evening, supervisors. My name is Edgar Ryan Silva. I'm a recent USF graduate and the son of Filipino immigrants.

The horrific killing of Renee Good during a federal ICE operation shook people across the country,

but it hits especially hard in places like San Francisco, a city built by immigrants,

sustained by immigrants and defined by the belief that where you were born should never determine

how much dignity you deserve. We have to ask what kind of system we are willing to accept.

One that protects people and keeps the communities whole or one that pushes families into the shadows

and calls that enforcement. Immigrants contribute enormously to this city's economy. They pay sales

taxes, they pay property taxes through rent, they contribute billions into Social Security and

Medicare, even though many will never be able to collect those benefits. They build our housing,

they harvest our food, they care for our elders, and they keep this city running.

They are not outsiders. They are part of our foundation. When we look at how broken and slow

the legal immigration system is, where immigrant families like mine have to wait years or even

decades just to get status? Does it not make more sense to help people become legalized and stable

than to criminalize them for surviving inside a system that barely works? Moral righteousness

in addressing policy does not do anything unless we consider the economic consequences of our

actions. And the economic truth is simple. Tearing apart a workforce that gives so much

weakens all of us. I urge this board to keep strengthening immigrant protections

and legal defense programs so this city treats people not as paperwork but as

human beings in search of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, Board Griffin Lee here representing Sunset United Neighbors and

staff of Connected SF staff. I'm here today to ask four supervisors in the room to support

Supervisor Wong's Upper Great Highway compromise ballot measure. Let's start with the facts.

Currently, up until September 2025, reporting and public records show Recreation and Park

has spent approximately 1.98 million dollars on the park thus far nearing 2

million mission local reported 80% of that public funding I think I may have

oh no let's talk about the congestion that the closure has led to which the

Sunset and District 4 has been hurting on since the closure.

Since mid-March 2025, Sunset Boulevard's traffic is up 31%, Lincoln Way 49%, MLK Drive

and Golden Gate Park westbound 20%.

We need to restore the compromise.

This is what's best for the interests of San Francisco, and more specifically, the west

side not just district 4 but district 7 and district 1 and all the west side

please for supervisors step up and do your duty thanks so much thank you for

your comments next speaker please

good evening and happy new year this is the first time I've been here this year

So hello. I am here to ask three supervisors to sign on to Supervisor Wong's ballot measure.

I believe the time has probably closed for the June ballot. If it hasn't, please step up now.

I know there's three that are already signed on. I think there's one more that's needed.

So please step up if there's still time.

If there's not, I urge you to work on this for the November ballot.

It is the right thing to return the Great Highway to the compromise.

And if you're wondering how people across San Francisco feel about it, now that they

realize that they were sold a bill of goods, that this wasn't the bucolic park in the pictures

that was sent to everybody, that it's actually just a closed road.

And the impact that it has had on D4 and D1 residents,

people across San Francisco are wishing that they had known the truth before they voted.

Now that they've seen the actual reality, they would like to vote on reality.

And if you have any question, KTVU ran a poll today, and the last I saw, 77% of San Franciscans said they wanted it open either just on weekdays or entirely open.

There was, I think, 23% that they were saying they wanted it closed.

So, you know, updated information, if people had had facts and not lies during the prior election period, this would have gone very differently.

Several members of this board opposed closing the Great Highway, so I hope you'll step up and do the right thing.

This is what's needed for working families in San Francisco.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Board of Supervisors and Mayor of the Office of San Francisco, the title of this speech is Animal Care.

I worked in Six Flags Discovery Kingdom for four years, from June of 2007 to end of year 2012.

On my third year, my supervisor came to me and warned me about the protests just outside the park entrance, the animal rights entrance.

I was told to ignore them.

When guests asked about it, I was able to keep quiet and divert any verbal exchange to the public relations department.

Eventually, animal rights won their court ruling in 2019.

Since then, I have developed a sense of pride to have extended knowledge of animal care.

After my days in Six Flags, I worked on jobs, including driving Uber for 10 years.

Usually, when I go out in age engagement, my best friend, Maggie Wong, who happens to be Miss Chinatown or San Francisco

and Miss Popularity or Miss Chinese International told me,

I over-talk, I talk too much.

Derek, will you stop talking and just help me shoot pictures?

Maggie would insist.

And that's when I reach a psychological breaking point.

I can teach myself to be interested because I am interesting.

I can talk all about the animals in the Discovery Kingdom.

And that's only a tiny facet about me.

I know for a sight, cougars are mountain lions.

They're the same thing, just a different name.

I also know that you're not supposed to look at dolphins or seals and sea lions directly,

because just like birds, they'll go crazy.

Alligators have sharp snouts, and crocodiles have blunt ones.

I also visited Claude the Ibeno alligator.

Suvukwak was a joccal-divorist in the movie 51st State starring Anna Sandler and Drew Barrymore,

who passed away in 2015, or three years after I left South Africa.

So in all, I appreciate animal conservation.

Animal conservation is not animal activist.

I appreciate the deep understanding of humanity and how life coexists with each other

with a bunch of smartphones and gadgets all around us.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Yes, we will come.

Oh, SFGovTV, please.

Hi, Supervisors.

I'm David Osgood with Rincon Point Neighbors.

I've had something of a change of heart.

We want to encourage you to oppose or amend the mayor's proposed ordinance

that would allow developers to not plant trees.

It would also prohibit some appeals.

We sent you all emails at 3.15 p.m. today

about an appeal we currently have in the works

that demonstrates the need for appeals.

Please ask your staff members to provide you with our email

before you vote on that matter.

Again, it was sent to you at 3.15 p.m. today to your primary addresses.

Our appeal is going forward because DPW wants to kill seven trees, some significant, on eastern Howard Street.

While they keep saying these seven trees would interfere with the Howard Streetscape project, they provide no serious evidence of that.

Almost all the reasons given in a hearing and email communications are cosmetic in nature.

Our email includes DPW's streetscape plans, which show the trees or replacements all in the same place.

It also has photos of the trees, the email I referenced in a Zoom link to the DPW hearing about the project.

DPW staff stated five trees are slated for removal

because they are not growing fast enough

Is that a first?

Another tree is simply growing into its metal grate

Another tree is slated for removal because the bricks covering the soil around it are loose

Again, there is almost nothing about the trees interfering with the streetscape project

These bad decisions need to be appealed.

Thank you.

Thank you, David Osgood, for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

My name is Otto Duffy.

I'm a San Francisco resident.

Some time, I've lived here longer than the new police chief, just 52 years.

sometimes I think there are issues that come up that whether the one I'm thinking about right now

is whether there should be a park at the Great Highway or not and sometimes I think that things

get kind of missed or maybe there's a bigger vision and that is that very few people know

that there's a subsurface seawall from Rivera to Terravel Street and it works very effectively and

Nobody even knows it's there most of the time.

You know, the sand comes in and then it goes out again.

It's only in times of extreme erosion that you see this seawall that's actually quite a bit out into the beach.

And I think that that speaks to a strategy by which we could rebuild.

We've done very good with rebuilding the sand dunes on the northern part of the Great Highway.

But we could extend those standards all the way down to Sloat Boulevard with that technique.

And I think it's some of the most valuable property in the world, and I think we should try to preserve it.

Thank you for your comments.

All right, Mr. President.

All right, public comment is now closed.

Madam Clerk, let's go to our For Adoption Without Committee Reference Agenda, Items 31 and 32.

Yes, items 31 and 32 were introduced for adoption, but without committee reference.

A unanimous vote is required for adoption of a resolution on first appearance today.

Alternatively, a member may require a resolution on first appearance to go to committee.

Please call the roll.

On items 31 and 32, on items 31 and 32, Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Walton aye. Supervisor Wong. Wong aye. Supervisor Chen.

Chen aye. Supervisor Chen. Chen aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey aye. Supervisor

Fielder. Fielder aye. Supervisor Mahmood. Mahmood aye. Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye. Mandelman aye. And Supervisor Melgar. Melgar aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection the resolutions are adopted. Madam Clerk do we have any

Any imperative agenda items?

They are under report, Mr. President.

Could you please read the in memoriams?

Yes.

Today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals on a

motion made by President Mandelman to be on behalf of the entire Board of Supervisors

for the late Renee Nicole Good.

On behalf of Supervisor Mahmood and Supervisor Chen joined in on that, made a motion that

this in memoriam be on behalf of the entire Board of Supervisors for a legendary member

of the Grateful Dead, playing rhythm guitar and singing vocals, a rock and roll hall of

famer, and dedicated San Franciscan, Bob Weir.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I think that brings us to the end of our agenda.

Do we have any further business before us today?

That concludes our business for today.

Then we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.