Good afternoon, everybody.

Welcome to the February 3rd, 2026 regular meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Supervisor Chan.

Chan.

Chan present.

Supervisor Chen.

Chan 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 presents 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 unseated ancestral homeland of

of the Ramatush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatush

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

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

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

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

Ramatushaloni community and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

Colleagues, will you join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

On behalf of 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.

Madam Clerk, do you have any communications?

Yes, Mr. President.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors would like to welcome you all to be here in attendance

in the board's legislative chamber, which is room 250 on the second floor of City Hall.

When you cannot be here, the proceeding is airing live on SFGOV-TV's Channel 26, or you can view the live stream at www.sfgovtv.org.

If you would like to submit your public comment in writing, you can do so by sending an email to bos at sfgov.org,

or you can use the U.S. Postal Service.

address your 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 would like to make a

reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disability Act or to

request language assistance, please contact the clerk's office at least two business days in

advance by calling 415-554-5184. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's go to

approval of our consent agenda. Please call items 1 through 8 together. Items 1 through 8 are on

consent. These items are considered to be routine. If a member objects, an item may be removed and

considered separately. Please call the roll. On the consent agenda, Supervisor Walton. Walton, aye.

감 around пять пять пять

Cheryl aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, these ordinances are finally passed.

Madam Clerk, let's go to unfinished business. Please call items 9 and 10 together.

Items 9 and 10 comprise two ordinances that pertain to the capital expenditure plan and the general obligation bond.

Item 9 amends the administrative code to change the reporting requirement for the capital expenditure plans from odd years to even years with the next report due March 1st, 2028.

And item 10, this ordinance pursuant to the California Government Code, this matter shall require a vote of two-thirds or eight votes of all members to approve for final passage of this ordinance today.

This ordinance calls for and provides for a special election to be held on Tuesday, June 2, 2026,

to submit to the San Francisco voters a proposition to incur up to $535 million in bond debt

to finance the ESSER facilities, and additionally, to consolidate the special election with the general election

to establish the election precincts, voting places, and officers for the election.

Supervisor Wong.

Speaking to item 10, preparing for earthquakes is one of the most basic responsibilities we have as a city,

especially when it comes to protecting lives and ensuring our public safety system remains operational.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there is a 72% chance of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in our region within the next 30 years.

This is not a hypothetical risk. It is something San Francisco must be ready for.

The Terravel Police Station will be one of the two stations that the city prioritized for funding for this bond.

The station serves much of the west side and District 4.

It is over 110 years old and was built long before modern seismic standards.

In a major earthquake, the station is expected to be severely damaged or potentially unusable.

If the Terravel station were taken offline, District 4 and surrounding neighborhoods would face slower emergency response times

and delayed service at the exact moment residents would need help the most.

Retrofitting the station is about protecting the officers and staff who work there

and ensuring the San Francisco Police Department can fully support public safety needs

and assist residents immediately following a major earthquake.

The Ezer-Goban allows us to make responsible, preventative investments

so critical public safety infrastructure remains functional when it matters most.

For District 4, this is about readiness, resilience, and equity for the west side.

Earthquakes don't give warnings.

Strengthening Terravella Station ensures our officers can report for duty

and our residents can get help when they need it most.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong.

Madam Clerk, let's take these items, same house, same call.

Without objection, the ordinances are finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call item 11.

Item 11, this is an ordinance to amend the building code to create a permit and permitting process for hydrogen fueling station equipment installation and to affirm the secret determination.

Please call the roll.

On item 11, Supervisor Walton.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Wong.

Wong, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Chan, no.

Supervisor Chen.

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder?

Fielder, no.

Supervisor Mahmoud?

Mahmoud, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman?

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar?

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter?

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

And Supervisor Cheryl?

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

There are nine ayes and two noes, with Supervisors Chan and Fielder voting no.

The ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call item 12.

item 12 this is a charter amendment first draft to amend the charter of the city and county of

San Francisco to change the current two-year limits to term limits for the office of mayor

and the office of members of the board of supervisors from consecutive term limits

to lifetime term limits at an election to be held on June 2nd 2026 supervisor Walton thank you so

much President, Madam and I just wanted to ask a question to the city attorney. I know there is a

state law in place right now that states that if you want to change the term limits for bodies like

the Board of Supervisors or for mayor you can it should only apply prospectively and not apply for

members who have currently or served in the past. And that statute is California Government Code

Section 36502. And it has been in effect since 1996. And it says any proposal to limit the

number of terms an elected may serve shall apply prospectively only. And I just wanted to check in

with the city attorney about that state law and how that applies to San Francisco.

Mr. City Attorney.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi.

Under current case law, the statute that Supervisor Walton mentioned does not apply to San Francisco.

The city's home rule authority under the state constitution as a charter city authorizes

the city to determine how term limits are applied, and this would include applying the

proposed measure lifetime term limits both to current office holders and past office

holders thank you madam clerk please call the roll on item 12 supervisor

Walton though Walton no supervisor Wong Wong I supervisor Chan Chan no

supervisor Chen Chen no supervisor Dorsey Dorsey I supervisor Fielder

Fielder I supervisor Mahmood Mahmood I supervisor Mandelman no

Mandelman no supervisor Melgar Melgar I supervisor solder solder I and

supervisor Cheryl Cheryl I there are seven eyes and four no's with supervisors

Walton Chan Chan and Mandelman voting no the charter amendment is ordered

submitted madam clerk please call item 13 item 13 this is an ordinance to amend

the Business and Tax Regulations Code to revise how the alt or the access line tax applies

to the VoIP, the Voice Over Internet Protocol services, to require collection and remittance

of the alt on VoIP services using the lower of the number of telephone numbers provided

to a subscriber and the number of calls that the subscriber can make and or receive at

the same time using those telephone numbers.

Please call the roll.

On item 13, Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Wong.

Aye.

Wong, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

Supervisor Chen.

Aye.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmud.

Mahmud, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. And Supervisor Cheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call items 14 and 15 together.

Items 14 and 15 are two items that authorize the office of the mayor to accept and expend grants.

for item 14. This is a $7 million

grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies to fund the Mayor's Office of Innovation

January 1st, 2026 through December 31st,

2028 to approve the associated grant agreement under Charter Section

9.118 and to amend the annual salary ordinance

file number 250590 for fiscal years

2025, 26 and 2026-27

to provide for the creation of four grant-funded full-time positions in the Office of the City Administrator

with one position in each of the following classes, 0931, 1053, 1054, and 1043.

And for Item 15, this resolution retroactively authorizes the Mayor's Office

to accept and expend a $700,000 grant from Tipping Point Community

for the establishment of a director of strategic partnerships

to advance public-private partnership initiatives aligned with mayoral priorities

for the term January 20, 2026 through July 1, 2028.

Chair Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

Colleagues, my apologies.

There was an oversight at the budget committee for item 14 for the Bloomberg grant

that it should be listed or amended to be retroactive.

And therefore, I would like to move to amend item 14

to include the retroactivity for this Accept and Expand grant.

Is there a second?

Second by Dorsey.

I think we can take that motion without objection.

And then I think we can take these items,

same house, same call, without objection.

the ordinance is passed on first reading and the resolution is adopted

madam clerk please call item 16 through 18 together item 16 through 18 or three resolutions

that authorize the recreation and parks department to accept and expend grants for

india basin shoreline park project item 16 is for approximately a 1.1 million dollar grant

from the san francisco bay restoration authority measure a a grant for to enter into the associated

grant agreement that requires the continued operation of the property for public recreation

for a 20-year term upon project completion.

Item 17 is for a $2 million grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency

for the Brownfield Cleanup Program to support environmental remediation and park redevelopment

through to an estimated end date October 1, 2025 to October 31, 2029.

for item 18 this is for an approximate three million dollar grant increase from

the California State Coastal Conservancy for a new total grant amount of

approximately eight point six million for the parks redevelopment project

let's take these items same house same call without objection the resolutions

are adopted madam clerk please call item 19 item 19 this is a resolution to

approve the tenth amendment to the contract between the municipal

Transportation Agency and Texco LLC for services related to the towing storage and disposal

of abandoned and illegally parked vehicles to increase the contract amount by 22.1 million

for a total contract amount of 158.8 million and to extend the contract term by nine months

with up to six additional one month extensions for a potential new term April 1st 2016 through

June 30th, 2027.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 20.

Item 20, this is a resolution to establish the San Francisco downtown revitalization

and economic recovery financing district, to approve the downtown revitalization financing

plan, to include the division of taxes set forth therein, and documents and actions related

thereto, and to authorize the filing of a judicial validation action.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thanks, President Mandelman.

Colleagues, unlike most other tax increment financing districts, which normally fund programs

like affordable housing, utilities, or public infrastructure for the public good, this plan

instead diverts $610 million in taxpayer revenue into private hands to use for market rate

developments.

Furthermore, this plan also exempts the first 1.5 million square feet of the conversions from the city's affordability requirements and according to the VLA, would create an incentive for these properties to be developed as luxury apartments that will be unaffordable to most of the city's working class residents.

Given the city's budget and housing and affordability crises, it is high time we stop privatizing profits and socializing costs, subsidizing private developers at the expense of San Francisco taxpayers.

Because of this, I will be voting against this resolution.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

I voted in support of this at the Budget Committee with the expectation that I will have a list of the 48 properties that can be benefited from this tax increment.

And as of now at 2.20 p.m. at the board meeting, I have yet to receive the specific lots and addresses of the properties, of the 48 properties, that should they participate, they will then receive this benefit.

It is not clear to me which 48 properties will then receive this tax increment.

It is not transparent.

Look, we already, in the sake of revitalizing downtown, we first waived the impact fee for any property converting from commercial to residential.

And then we also have waived the inclusionary requirements, but thanks to Supervisor Shayan Chen that we were able to cap it at, I believe, what was a 77,000 square footage that was supposed to yield 14,000 housing units.

Now we are going to give away our tax increment to these specifically 48 properties, which

as indicated by the budget and legislative analyst, quite a bit of chunk of money that

projecting at potentially a $610 million over 45 years time.

we can't be sure how that is would be really by definite like in a definite

term to impact our general fund we see that there could be a variance between

negative to positive significantly positive tax revenue impact so and

without the transparency of that 48 properties it is difficult for me to

to tell what is happening with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development here.

The relationship and the conversations are not clear to me how we came to the conclusions

of 48 properties without knowing specifically which 48, and to simply give away tax dollars

and benefits without knowing which 48 properties will be benefiting, meaning by conclusion

the potentially 48 or more or less property owners

that could be benefiting from this tax increment.

And with that, regrettably,

I will be voting against this measure today.

Thank you.

Supervisor Sautter.

Thank you, President Manelman.

You know, this item I know was discussed

at the budget committee and did move out with recommendation.

And I would certainly welcome more information on those specific properties, but I was always under the impression that those properties were an exercise.

There's nothing in here where we're assigning incentives to a specific properties, but those were always an exercise in looking at the spaces and buildings downtown that would fit the criteria put forth in this package.

and that has always been my expectation and how it's been presented.

But I do want to note that this goes back, the groundwork for this was laid at the state level

by the former Assemblymember Phil Ting and so much of what we're looking at here

was set out in state legislation.

I would certainly welcome more affordable housing but I do think we have a choice here

and when we're looking at this bill and when we're looking at downtown in these spaces it is a choice

between empty offices and space for new homes and welcoming residents downtown I think that's the

choice before us today it's why I'm supporting this and I just want to emphasize that you know

we have taken some initiatives here when it when it comes to the downtown efforts to convert offices

to housing, but clearly not enough. Clearly what we've done so far is not working. I mean,

you look at every other city around the country, and we are just so far behind. I mean, you look at,

you can just pull all these names out. Charlotte, Atlanta, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Omaha, Denver. I

mean, almost every single city of any significance is ahead of us when you look at these conversions,

and I think we have to do more, and that's why I'm supporting this.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

I'm a member of the Downtown Revitalization Financing District Board, and by now I've

spoken several times on this.

I'll try to be briefer than usual.

I'm an enthusiastic supporter of this plan.

Like most public policy innovations, I know that reasonable minds may disagree, and my

respect and affection for my colleagues who disagree is undiminished by our debate here.

In my view, the imperative reflected in the downtown district financing plan isn't solely

economic revitalization.

As an adaptive reuse plan, this is also a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to correct

20th century land use decisions that contemplated 9-to-5 neighborhoods and bring them into the

21st century as more vibrant and diverse 24-7 neighborhoods.

I'm lucky to represent some of those 21st century neighborhoods,

and I think they're driving a lot of our economic activity now.

I think we should do more of that.

As an adaptive reuse plan, it will enable us to preserve and repurpose buildings

that are part of our city's rich cultural heritage.

Done right, I think this plan will help fulfill a version of 21st century urbanism

that reimagines our downtown as a reinvigorated, thriving neighborhood

that's mixed use and mixed income with more residents, more commuters,

more shoppers more visitors and more amenities to serve them i also think this plan balances

the need for an effective financing tool with critical guardrails the program itself is time

limited it will sunset in 2032 all projects seeking this benefit will come before the district

board for approval and the board is required to publish an annual report so we'll be able to

closely follow the fiscal impact of the program and i look forward to working with my colleagues

on the district board to ensure that we're supporting these much-needed conversion projects

while exercising our fiscal oversight authority.

And with that, I hope that we can have majority support of our colleagues.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Board President.

Colleague, again, early last year, one of my very first foes as a new supervisor was

to authorize the waiving of inclusionary requirements and impact fees for downtown office to residential

conversions. At the time, I was also very concerned that our desire to stimulate new development in the

downtown area, we were sacrificing the economic recovery of our lower-income residents and our

workers. When that legislation was passed, I was told by the mayor's office that they would meet

with our community leaders to discuss strategies to advance affordable housing and community

stabilization goals in the vibrant yet vulnerable communities in the downtown area.

Today, I'm not aware that this conversation has happened. I'm not comfortable authorizing

additional legislation that further sacrifices our affordable housing and community stabilization

goals, especially when they involve additional public funds. The 5% requirement for below

market rate units is irresponsible and it goes against our stated goals of working towards a

more affordable city. Other EIFDs that we have adopted in the city have higher inclusionary rates

and downtown should not be an exception. I am supportive of a downtown recovery strategy

that is more balanced by delivering new housing while ensuring that a fair return for affordable

homes units. Otherwise, we have a downtown recovery without a fair recovery for our working class

families. For these reasons, I'm unable to support the legislation as it's currently formed today.

Thank you. Supervisor Melgar. Thank you, President. I will be supporting this legislation today,

and I wanted to follow up a little bit on the comments of my colleague, Supervisor Dorsey. I

think, you know, our downtown has been ailing for quite a while. During the pandemic, you know,

the sort of dystopian picture of what was happening downtown was fodder for Fox News and

a bunch of, you know, right-wing media around the country sort of showing how we had failed.

But the truth is that our downtown is suffering from a bunch of land use decisions that previous

leadership of CityMade over decades. And we zoned almost exclusively for retail,

and retail dramatically changed, not during the pandemic, but when somebody brings you

a little box with whatever your heart desires to your door, the motivation to go to the eighth

floor of Nordstrom is not so pressing. So we failed to adapt a lot of our land use

uses to reflect what retail is today. And our downtown, which made up almost 60% of our tax

base, started failing. I want to remind everyone that the Macy's Men's Store disappeared eight

years ago, way before the pandemic. And people stopped going to the second floor, the third

floor. First it was Macy's, or first it was iMagnon, then Macy's and Nordstrom. It just really changed.

and now we have a Westfield Mall that's completely empty.

So I have no doubt that we have to do something

to make sure that our downtown succeeds and thrives.

A lot of it has to do with thinking what the uses should be,

not just retail, but what should be happening

because our entire transportation infrastructure

runs through downtown.

It's adjacent to the financial district,

to a bunch of the other uses that we have.

So, I like it that this ends in 1932. It gives us some time to reassess, and I will also point out that the math of this legislation only works if there is an increase in the assessment value of these properties.

If there isn't, there's nothing that we can do here.

So I think that it is predicated on hoping to reinvent something, that it will be successful,

that we are revitalizing through these little redevelopment efforts.

And I am hoping that we can all work together to make sure that it succeeds because the

rest of the city does depend on the success of this small area.

Thank you.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

definitely believe in conversion.

I think that's going to be important for us to address housing needs as we move forward.

But I am struggling with, and this is through the chair, unless the chair can answer the

question, why can't we specifically identify the properties that were used for the exercise

of determining how many properties this may affect?

If we know a specific number, why can't we identify what those were?

Is that a question for staff?

It's a question for whoever can answer it.

For anybody who wants to answer it, Mr. Bentliff.

Ms. Luchinski.

Because it was stated that there are 48 that might qualify.

So I'm just wondering why we can't know specifically what those 48 are.

Thank you, Supervisor.

And through the chair, Jacob Bentliff with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

As we discussed in budget committee and as Supervisor Sader alluded to, the exercise we had our consultants do was to do a high-level analysis of how many properties within the district boundaries might be likely candidates to convert.

They did not do a site-specific inventory that identified specific properties that would convert.

The program applies to the entire area.

Any property within the district area is eligible to come forward, as Supervisor Dorsey said, through the district board process.

and they have to each one enroll individually before 2032.

So we'll know which projects they are as they come forward,

but there is no list of specific projects that would qualify or not qualify.

So where did the number 48 come from?

It came from that exercise that our consultants did

where they estimated how many properties would be likely

based on building age, vacancy rates that were available at the time,

the class of the building, the size of the floor plates, characteristics like that.

some of the variables like the rents, the office rents, and the vacancy rate change,

and that was data that was available at the time.

So it was never intended to be an exercise that would generate a definitive list of projects,

but something more akin to polling, where you do a sample, you get a basic sense of where people are,

but you don't know what each individual respondent would do on that question.

But you know what those 48 properties are.

I do not.

And where they're located.

I don't.

Somebody does.

Well, you gave a specific number.

Or the people who did the study gave a specific number,

which means they know 48 properties somewhere in the universe,

and they actually do have addresses, I'm going to assume.

So why is it hard to just say these are the 48 that were looked at during the exercise?

I mean, this is not something that, you know,

it's problematic that we can't say what 48 addresses maybe possibly qualify,

because that would help with decision-making moving forward.

Yeah, so it was not a deliverable from our consultants to provide a site-specific list.

They looked at a list of all the parcels in the city and then within this area,

and they provided the data that we have.

Right, but they gave a number.

They gave you 48.

Yes, an estimate.

They didn't say it could be 10,000.

They didn't say – they said 48.

That means they have 48 addresses somewhere, I'm going to assume.

yes and so the deliverable that we received is that there's an estimate of approximately 48

properties within the district that would qualify we took that projection that uh was estimated to

be a certain amount of revenue the 600 million dollars over 30 years that was projected and

that's what the program's accommodating for so if there were more properties or a different set of

properties that cap would still apply i'm not asking for more or less you made projections

on a specific number of properties that are possibly something that might be a part of how we move forward.

But we don't know what those 48 addresses are.

That's what's problematic for me.

I understand what the charge was.

But I agree with my colleague that you should be able to give us a list of what these approximate 48 properties are

that might qualify for something that will benefit the city in the future.

I agree with what you're trying to do here.

I'm just it's just troubling that we can't look at the properties that

are possible because somebody has to prioritize at some point

which ones are more feasible, which ones are not.

You gave us a number, an estimated number about what the benefit would be

from these 48 properties.

So that leads me to believe that we know what these 48 properties are.

All right. Thank you.

All right. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

On item 20, Supervisor Walton.

No.

Walton, no. Supervisor Wong.

Aye.

Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, no. Supervisor Chen.

Aye.

Chen, no. Supervisor Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, no. Supervisor Mahmood.

Aye.

Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mendelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter, aye.

And Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl, aye.

There are seven ayes and four noes,

with Supervisors Walton, Chan, Chan, and Fielder voting no.

And the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, let's go to our 230 special order.

Our 230 special order is the recognition of commendations

for meritorious service to the city and county of San Francisco.

And we will start with District 10, Supervisor Walton.

Thank you so much, President Mandelman.

Colleagues, in honor of Black History Month this year,

we want to take the time to honor community leaders

that make positive change every day for our young people

and communities as a whole, and who are not usually recognized because they would rather

stay in community and do the work versus focusing on highlighting the wonderful things that they do.

So today, we will start with Paul Belezane, Jr.

Paul is a lifelong resident of San Francisco's Hunters Point Holly Rock community, a historically rooted area encompassing the Hollister and Double Rock neighborhoods.

First incarcerated at the age of 12, Paul spent much of his youth and early adulthood cycling through the justice system until age 28.

Rather than allowing those experiences to define him, he made a deliberate decision to change course.

He chose discipline, accountability, and purpose.

His journey reflects the reality faced by many young people raised in under-resourced communities

and demonstrates the power of transformation when opportunity meets determination.

Today, Paul is a skilled trades professional, community leader, and CEO committed to rebuilding both infrastructure and community.

Through formal construction training, he became a union ironworker and expanded his expertise into utility and welding work,

contributing to projects essential to public safety and long-term stability.

Beyond his professional career, Paul remains deeply invested in strengthening families and neighborhoods through mentorship, housing support, and community engagement.

His work reflects a belief that second chances when met with responsibility and service can produce leaders who uplift entire communities.

As CEO of Broadway Place, Paul provides transitional housing and recovery support.

He also helps lead impactful community initiatives, including participation in Batters Up, Guns Down,

an anti-violence program using softball to mentor youth, and Holly Rock All-Stars,

a softball league fostering positive engagement.

Additionally, he organizes family-centered events, such as the annual father-daughter dance and community,

and more recently, the mother-son dance, and annual holiday toy drives.

All of these events were featured in local news outlets, as it is important for these messages of positivity from a native son to be highlighted.

Paul's journey is a testament to resilience, transformation, and the power of giving back.

Paul, today we celebrate you along with community and want to thank you for continuing to inspire others to rewrite their stories and uplift their communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Walton, for the acknowledgement and for your recognition.

First and foremost, I'd like to give honor and glory to God.

Without his guidance, his protection, and his grace, none of this will be possible.

I'd also like to thank my family, your patience, your sacrifice, and your belief in the work

allowing me to keep showing up even when the load is heavy.

Thank you to the District 10 office, the Dream Team.

We appreciate all the support you guys do behind the scenes.

This moment means a lot.

The very first of this honor, and I receive it with humility, but I want to be very clear.

This recognition does not belong to me alone.

It belongs to the Holly Rock All-Stars.

Up top softball, batters up, guns down.

Keep going.

This team allowed us to operate.

They have allowed us to operate in peace.

They made sure resources were available, communicated clearly, went above and beyond financially, physically, and emotionally so the work could contribute without disruption.

Leadership is never a solo act, so it's important to me that those who stood in it with me, I want to thank.

Started from left to right.

That's a lot of names.

So Mrs. Banks, Mrs. Jones, Mr. Durden, J.B. Germ, Eugene Ledbetter, Kahari Swift, Moses Johnson, Gregory Tucker, Lavelle Shaw, Ronnie Woods, Samuel Markell, Will Vargas, Armani Brooks, Joe Jacobs, Matthew Donaldson, Damone Grayson, Ronald Black, Javon Marshall, Dominique Jackson, George Kent, Terrell Rogers, Phillip Buford, Michael Barber, Bo Corbin, David Reynolds, Dennis Tucker, Orlando Hodges,

Gino Carpenter, Roland Black, and DeAndre Kwan-Nine.

Each of you played a role.

Charles Garner and Jimmy E. Wilson.

Each of you played a role, some visible, some behind the scenes, but every contribution

mattered.

I also want to acknowledge the programs and individuals who supported me through this

journey, those who believed in the mission and helped me carry it forward.

Jimmy E. Wilson and Charles Prezi, thank you for your leadership and counsel.

YCD Rafiki, Wellness, Camp Wilsdon, Wealth and Disparities, Us for Us, Healing and Growth Opportunity, Senseless Tragedies, Oppressing Our People, and the Girl Dad Club.

I don't know where he at.

And to the SF Packers as well, thank you for standing in alignment and showing what collaboration truly looks like.

This award carries my name, but it represents many hands, many shoulders, and many hearts.

We move as one even when recognizing it visually, but unity isn't about who stands at the podium

It's about who stood in and worked together as Frederick Douglass reminded us if there is no struggle. There is no progress

We struggle together. We'll build together. We will continue to rise together

Thank you all for everything you have done again. Thank you Shaman for all your support from the beginning

You told us to get out there and do it. You know what I'm saying?

And you will support us

It hasn't been anything we came across that you haven't supported us with from the smallest things

Thank you to the D10 Dream 10

you guys really do care and have shown us.

And thank you to my mentor and counselor,

you know, sleep-type reductions, man.

Thank you.

a popular certificate.

District 5, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Colleagues, today I am honored to recognize Victoria Lee.

Victoria, you want to come up to the stand?

Victoria is a quiet force whose nearly five decades of service helped shape the heart and culture

of Glide Memorial Church. Victoria Lee was born and raised in Oakland to immigrant parents,

the second of four children in a lively household that taught her early lessons about what providing

service truly means. After graduating from college, Victoria worked in a childhood education and church

administration. During this time, she became deeply inspired by GLIDE through Reverend Cecil

Williams' Sunday celebrations, which centered the values of inclusivity and community service.

Those values resonated deeply, and in 1978, Victoria joined Glide, beginning what would become a 47-year commitment to the organization and its mission.

Victoria's official role was managing Glide's building and business office, but her true contribution extended far beyond any job title.

Over the decades, she became an organizer, curator, historian, event planner, graphic designer, and keeper of Glide's culture.

It's a lot of jobs.

Working closely alongside Reverend Cecil Williams and Glide co-founder Janice Mirakitani,

Victoria helped build not just an organization but a community rooted in true service.

Her impact is perhaps best captured by the words of a GLIDE community member who shared

her grace, radiant spirit, and tireless dedication kept us going, and her presence continues to shape

who we are. Glide was also where Victoria found love. She met her late husband, David Richmond,

another foundational figure in Glide's history. Together, married to one another and to the mission

of Glide, they dedicated their lives to service, witnessing the organization's growth and deepening

its impact across San Francisco over the decades. Beyond Glide, Victoria is a devoted artist and

calligrapher. She's a longtime member of Friends of Calligraphy, an international calligraphy

society where she has volunteered at workshops and exhibitions and continued to expand her craft.

Her work has been exhibited at the San Francisco Main Library and she is known for her bookbinding,

handmade papers, and intricately collage and sewn cards. Her artistic practice reflects the same care

and patience she has brought to her work in the community. Today, as Victoria Lee retires after

nearly five decades of service, we honor her not only for her extraordinary work, but the spirit

with which she carried it out. Victoria, thank you for your devotion and your unwavering commitment

to the community. Your legacy lives on in the countless lives you have touched. Thank you.

My personal poet and preacher, Marvin K. White.

I don't speak for Vicki.

She has her hand in my back and speaks through me.

Members of the Board of Supervisors, honored colleagues, and members of the public,

my name is Marvin K. White, and I am the Minister of Celebration at Glide Memorial Church.

And on behalf of the Glide Memorial Church congregation, clients, and community, the Glide Memorial Church Board of Directors, Reverend Dr. Gina Fromer, our CEO and President of the Glide Foundation, we know that there are moments in the life of an institution, really in the life of a city, when we pause not because the work has ended, but because someone has carried it so faithfully that we must stop long enough to say thank you.

Today, we join in honoring Victoria Vicki Lee, whose 47 years of extraordinary service spanned nearly the entire modern life of Glide Memorial Church and its evolving relationship with the Glide Foundation.

As you've heard today that Vicki came to Glide as a young woman seeking work that mattered.

She was drawn by the radical invitation of Cecil Williams and shaped under the visionary leadership of Janice Mercatani.

She entered the community ready to serve, ready to build, and ready to take her place

in a movement rooted in unconditional love, justice, and liberation.

From the beginning, Vicki became the quiet constant across nearly five decades of social

transformation.

Her tenure spans the defining eras of our city and our congregation, from the post-civil

rights and women's liberation movements of the 1970s, through the AIDS pandemic and sanctuary

movement of the 1980s, from the racial justice, reckonings, and welfare reform battles,

of the 1990s into the 2000s, marked by LGBTQ marriage struggles, post-9-11 solidarity,

and the rapidly changing San Francisco. But across every decade and through every political shift,

cultural upheaval, and institutional evolution, Vicki remained the steady heart of the church

office. She held our archives in her memory, our schedules in our hands, and our community in her

care. Her work was rarely on the stage, but it was always the reason the stage could be set.

Vicki began her service when GLIDE was one organization, church and foundation held together

by a shared mission and shared breadth. When GLIDE evolved, when the church and the GLIDE

foundation became distinct expressions of the same calling, Vicki transitioned with grace,

integrity, and deep institutional wisdom. Very few people hold that kind of history.

fear still hold it with generosity.

In more recent years, she continued her faithful service through Glide's transitions of our co-founders

and our organization, offering steadiness, continuity, and institutional memory

during seasons of growth and change.

Her ability to bridge errors, leaders, and structures has been a quiet

but essential gift to Glide's ongoing life.

Her title never fully captured her contribution.

Vicki was not simply an office manager.

She was a board organizer, a curator, an historian, an event planner, a designer, a sustenance provider, and keeper of culture.

She made it possible for ministries to function, for celebrations to unfold, and for GLIDE to remain rooted, even as the city around it changed.

She welcomed thousands, I would even say hundreds of thousands, congregants, neighbors, volunteers, and seekers with patience, clarity,

and a spirit that embodied Glide's values long before those values were written down.

Vicki also found her love at Glide.

She and her late husband, David Richman, himself a formative leader in Glide's early years,

were married not only to one another but to the mission they served together.

Their shared devotion reminds us that institutions are ultimately sustained by relationships and not structure alone.

Vicki has often been called the glue, but that word is too small.

Glue suggests something silent and burdened.

Vicki has been the heartbeat, steady, compassionate, and strong.

She reminds us that care is infrastructure.

Memory is civic labor and love.

Practice daily is a good public good.

Again, it is with profound gratitude that we know that Vicki receives this commendation,

not only as recognition of a remarkable life,

but as an affirmation of the quiet, faithful labor

that helps hold a city's conscience in place.

Vicki Lee, we thank you so much for your service

and wish you the best in your retirement.

Yes!

She's not going to talk, so...

That was it.

All right.

Supervisor Wong, you have your folks here?

Yes, I do.

All right, let's go with District 4, Supervisor Wong.

Thank you, President and colleagues.

As the supervisor for the Sunset District 4, I'm truly proud to recognize St. Ignatius,

a school that has been part of the Sunset and part of San Francisco since 1855.

St. Ignatius is known not only for academic excellence, but for helping students learn

how to balance hard work in the classroom with commitment on the field and how to grow as whole

people. This past season, the Wildcats made history by winning the school's first state championship.

To the student-athletes here today, what makes this achievement especially meaningful is not just

the title itself. You showed that it is possible to compete at the highest level while still showing

up for your studies, your teammates, and your community. Your discipline, teamwork, and perseverance

reflect values that will stay with you long after football. I also want to recognize head coach

Lawson, principal of Vollert, and all of the support staff who are here with us today. Thank you for

everything you do for these students. This kind of success comes from leadership that cares deeply

about who these students are becoming, not just what shows up on the school board. You have built

a program that emphasizes character, integrity, and balance, and that impact will last beyond this

season. And to the entire St. Ignatius community, including students, families, alumni, faculty,

and staff, this season brought real joy to the sunset and to District 4. Neighbors followed the

team, celebrated together, and felt proud seeing a local school represent San Francisco so well.

That shared pride and sense of joy is something that our community truly values.

On behalf of the city and county of San Francisco, I'm honored to commend the St. Ignatius College Preparatory Wildcats on this historic achievement.

Congratulations on a remarkable season, and thank you for the inspiration you brought to our community.

With that, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. DeLucci, the captain of the team.

Go Wildcats!

Thank you, Supervisor Wong.

My name is David DeLuke and I'm a team captain for the 2025 SI varsity football team.

I'm grateful to be up here speaking on behalf of my team and community and accepting this

recognition.

As a community, we want to thank the Board of Supervisors, Alan Wong specifically, for

this recognition.

Thank you for the send-off and your support as we went to play in the state championship

game.

Growing up in San Francisco and attending SI has shown me that SI is at the heart of our

city.

More personally, five generations of my family has attended SI,

so being up here today makes me feel even more connected to them.

Being a part of SI football since freshman year means everything.

Growing a brotherhood that will last a lifetime.

I've made plenty of friends throughout my four years that I know I can rely on if anything ever gets hard.

And just being a part of that and getting to grow in that is what makes SI special.

We continue to build that every day, and it goes past just one class or just one year,

which is something I'm going to be eternally grateful for from SI.

SI is San Francisco, and football is our way to give back.

Some special thanks we want to give is to the Board of Supervisors for allowing us to have lights

and embrace the Friday Night Lights spirit that is high school football.

We appreciate that.

Additionally, I want to thank all the people at SI that helped us get to this moment,

including trainers, staff, coaches, and teachers.

Thank you all again.

And speaking on behalf of all of SI,

thank you for this recognition.

Go Cats!

Thank you.

Let's get through a couple more items.

Please call item 21.

Item 21.

This is a resolution to approve the first amendment to the agreement between the city

acting through the Department of Public Health and HealthRite 360 to provide withdrawal management

and residential treatment services to extend the term by two years for a new term of July

1st, 2024 through June 30th, 2028, and to increase the amount by approximately $28.6

million for a new total amount of 38.6 million please call the roll on item 21

supervisor Walton Walton I supervisor Wong Wong absence supervisor Chan Chan

I supervisor Chen Chen I supervisor Dorsey Dorsey I supervisor Fielder

Fielder I supervisor Mahmoud Mahmoud I supervisor Mandelman I Mandelman I

Supervisor Melgar Melgar I supervisor solder solder I and supervisor Cheryl

Cheryl I there are 10 eyes without objection the resolution is adopted and

with that let's go to our first 3 p.m. special order the first 3 p.m. special

order items 33 through 36 comprise a public hearing of persons interested in

the decision of Public Works dated November 7th, 2025, to approve a tentative parcel map

for a three-lot vertical subdivision, five residential and ten commercial mixed-use condominium

project at 3333 Mission Street and 190 Coleridge Street.

Item 34, that's the motion to approve the Public Works decision to approve the tentative parcel

map.

Item 35, that's the motion to conditionally disapprove the Public Works decision based

upon or subject to the adoption of written findings in support of the disapproval.

And item 36, that's the motion to direct the preparation of findings.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, the Clerk has described the appeal before us.

We'll have our hearing.

After the hearing, the Board will vote on whether to approve or conditionally disapprove

the decision of Public Works.

Unless there are objections, I propose we proceed as follows.

We will give up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellant.

Then we'll take public comment with up to two minutes per speaker in support of the

appeal.

Then we will give the city departments up to 10 minutes to make their presentation.

And then we will give the project sponsor up to 10 minutes.

And then again, we will take public comment, two minutes per speaker in opposition to the

appeal.

And then finally, we will give the appellant three minutes for a rebuttal.

I don't see any objections.

Seeing none, the hearing will, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now

open.

And I don't see any names on the roster, so I'm going to invite the appellant to come

forward and present their case.

And I think that's Don Lucchese and Martha Hwetti.

Yes, thank you.

Good afternoon.

Actually, I'm going to be speaking on behalf of the presentation.

Martha will follow as being one of the public commenters after this.

It's a beautiful room.

Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing us this opportunity to meet with you.

First, a few words to clear up any misconceptions about this appeal.

It was filed not to stop the development from being built,

not to intentionally delay the project from moving forward,

and not to show disapproval of new housing in our neighborhood.

as BHNC, the developer, has been framing this as a, quote,

a frivolous appeal by a few homeowners who want to stop affordable senior housing, unquote,

that is simply not true.

In fact, it is a gross misrepresentation of the truth

calculated to manipulate public opinion

and get people to sign a petition to drop this appeal.

BHNC will be adding 105 new units of housing,

and there is a proposed 370-unit development on the site

of the Safeway at 30th and Mission.

Together, that is 475 new units of housing,

all just one block away from the current Coleridge Street Park.

As our immediate neighborhood will become denser,

BHNC is proposing a smaller park by a significant amount,

over 42% smaller.

We cannot afford to lose open space that has been part of the community

for almost 40 years, while many more people will be moving in.

Affordable housing is one of the biggest issues facing San Francisco today, but it must be done with the intention of improving the neighborhood it impacts, and not by taking away what it badly needs.

Open park space for children and families, for neighbors young and old, and for future generations.

While BHNC first presented these plans to us, when they presented these plans to us, it was a six-story, 70-unit project.

After much outrage at how six stories was imposed upon our two-story homes

BHNC did make the concession to lower it to four stories, but they wouldn't budge on making the park larger

a

Petition was signed a petition was started on change.org by the Coleridge Street neighbors to save our park and still add senior housing

It specifically says that the signees of this petition

welcome affordable senior housing in our community a

A grassroots effort led to 360 signatures from a two-block radius coming from renters, homeowners, daycare centers, seniors, families that have been in the area for decades, and families who have just moved in.

It became very apparent that we wouldn't be able to save the park to its original size since PHNC would be developing on much of it.

But the intent of the petition remains the same. Save our park.

It is with this support from 360 signatures and the over 40 members of the Coleridge Street Neighbors that this appeal was filed.

This appeal is specifically about rezoning the park parcel to make it larger.

The intention is to get an audience with city officials who have not listened to our concerns because they say their hands are tied by SB35.

SB 35 allows any project for affordable housing to move forward past any

to move past any community review while the intention is to expedite development it also

overlooks how it could impact the community and it silences the rights of residents to speak out

filing this appeal was the only way to get our concerns about the park reduction heard with any

member of city government we are hopeful that BHNC can make minor modifications to their plans to

return some of the park and still retain 70 units of housing by looking at the

plans we feel strongly that that can be done and that a large part of the park

can be saved we have left copies of the building plans with each supervisor so

that it so that they can see how small changes and some shuffling of units can

save a large part of the park we are resigned to not ever having the park

restored to its original size but we feel saving any part of it is worth

negotiating for we are hoping for a solution that that both parties can walk

away from and feel enthusiastic about supporting this development but that

hasn't happened because there's no road to negotiate under SB 35 BHNC has

gathered a number of signatures to tell the supervisors to end this frivolous

appeal this is not a frivolous appeal this is this park has been a vital part

our community for decades. We are not a few homeowners. We are 365 Brunel Heights

residents and we are not trying to stop affordable housing. Frankly we are

disappointed that a nonprofit in Brunel Heights would stoop to a dishonest

campaign like this and use their lies to propagate and influence local political

groups and citizens. I don't mind that they say I'm against affordable housing.

it's a lie and I know it I'm a member of the Green Party so my politics lean

quite far to the left affordable housing is one of the issues I support along

with keeping the voices of the community community alive and heard but

to drag down my neighbors neighbors who are housing activists neighbors who are

social workers conservationists nonprofit workers teachers and to insist

that they are anti affordable housing is downright shameful a neighbor who is

part of the Coleridge Street Neighbors Group was confronted by another Bernal

resident who called her selfish and asked how could she support how could

she be against affordable housing my neighbor is in her 70s she just came

back from a nice demonstration and she had a deal with the blowback from BHNC's

rhetoric to that I say shame on BHNC shame on Gina Dacus and shame on Solomon

Hyatt for propagating lies lies that vilify our neighbors lies that divide

our neighbors and lies that incite confrontation I brought this appeal

forward in the name of our greater community this appeal is not intended

to halt the project hinder its progress or impose any delay and we are sorry if

it does it is simply a common-sense ask for saving our open space we didn't want

to file this appeal but it was the only way to get the city involved in our

stalemate with BHNC. We want the city to recognize the need for open space at a

time when the density of the city is increasing immensely. This should not be

overlooked and it's something that has implications in all neighborhoods in all

districts throughout the city not just Brno Heights. Developers of all housing

developments and the city should be working hand-in-hand with their

neighbors to ensure that we are not living in the canyon of

concrete and not suffocating from lack of space if resolutions are unsolved

between developers and the community without city involvement the developers

will always win it is my hope that the city can find a way to fast-track

affordable housing projects in the future but still allow the concerns of

the community to be addressed I also hope that each supervisor here consider

this appeal happening in their district as well and not just district 9 because

this is something that can happen in any district and affect constituents

throughout the city the appeal is a citywide this appeal is a citywide plea

to save existing green space from being lost to development I'm old enough to

remember the fight for green space in the 70s it was important then and it's

important now please consider our appeal to rezone this park thank you for your

time I don't see any comments or questions from colleagues so mr.

president may I just ask the audience to hold their applause there's a board

rule that there is no audible sounds of support or against if you would like to

express yourself, just wave your hands as such. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

All right. I'm sorry. We're entering into the public comments phase here, and should I introduce

the next speakers, or should the speakers just come up? We'll take care of it. The speakers will

be invited to line up on the right side or your right, my left, and then be given two minutes each.

And so let's go into public comment in support of the appeal.

Madam Clerk, you want to call the first speaker?

Thank you, Mr. President.

You may line up on your right-hand side of the chamber.

Yes, come to the podium.

If you are in support of the appellant or the representative, you'll have two minutes to speak.

This is for the appeal for 3333 Mission Street and 190 Coleridge Street.

Sure, if you use the podium, there's a timer on the podium which will help you know where

you are at in the two minutes.

That's scary.

When, do you tell me when to start?

And before you start, I'll just let you know that each of you may have your own two minutes

or you may present as a group and only one of you speak and then you'll have a seat.

All right, I'm starting your timer now.

Hi, my name is Martha Huddle and I've lived at 181 Coleridge Street directly across from the park for 23 years.

I raised my foster son here and we use the park regularly for play, picnics, and many birthday parties.

I have personally consulted with two different architects and a real estate attorney about the plans

and it is possible to retain most of the current park size and still build 70 units of affordable senior housing,

which is what this appeal is about.

We've been asking for the proposed park size to be increased for the past two years.

However, due to SB35, no community collaboration is required, and without it, history and local area knowledge are lost and misguided plans get approved.

There is a traffic and public safety concern with the planned loading zone on Coleridge Street.

Coleridge Street becomes one-way going northbound at Esmeralda Street.

Therefore, any passenger drop-off, pickup, or delivery vehicle needs a place to turn around to be facing the lawful direction on the street and to use that loading zone.

Currently, there is a driveway for 190 Corrish Park homes,

but with that taken out, where will these vehicles turn around?

Private driveways?

It seems that both the city planners and the developers

miss this traffic safety issue when planning the loading zone.

This issue could be mitigated and avoid potential lawsuits

and further delays of the project

if the developers would change the plans to add back some of the park parcel

and add a driveway to the loading zone area

for a turnaround space and for park maintenance vehicle access.

Just because the plans have been approved by the city

does not mean that BHNC can't make changes,

including enlarging the park parcel

and submitting a new rezoning request.

It is not our fault that this may delay the project a little longer.

If BHNC had been willing to collaborate with us,

we would not be here today.

A small delay in the project is worth the larger gain of park space

and the safety for the community and the city.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's welcome our next speaker.

I'm reading this on behalf of a...

May I ask you to speak directly into that microphone?

Sure, sure.

Here you go.

Thank you.

Is this better?

Yes.

Okay, reading on behalf of an anonymous resident.

I am a neighbor on Coleridge directly across the planned development.

I was born in San Francisco to a working-class family,

and except for a few years away for school and work,

have been a lifelong resident of Bernal Heights, all in all 30 years.

I want to start this message to state that I am a homeowner

and that I'm also 100% pro-affordable housing,

So BHNC's message that homeowners are trying to stop the building of a new senior affordable housing is an untrue blanket statement.

I support this appeal for increasing the park square footage than is currently planned for

because it is the people who currently live here who will be the ones most impacted by the development.

With ongoing and planned development projects in the immediate surrounding area,

it is only sensible that we preserve a fair balance of density and open space.

This is in accordance with good urban planning.

Green spaces are essential for environmental, social, and psychological well-being,

ensuring the long-term enjoyability of a neighborhood.

More affordable housing is needed, but it should be done in close consultation

with existing neighbors from the outset of the project,

because, again, it is they who are most impacted.

Otherwise, it drives a rift between current San Francisco neighbors on the one side

and the city and new neighbors on the other.

And for folks who are otherwise sympathetic to the cause of affordable housing, they will be swayed away from this position.

To wrap it up, I am for the expansion of affordable housing across the street.

I just want the city and supervisors and developers to understand that our input matters too.

Community-centered development is the only sustainable solution that wouldn't result in division and policy whiplash.

Thank you for listening.

Coleridge, neighbor.

Thank you for your comments.

Hello, my name is Linda Kitlitz, and I have been residing as well as being a homeowner

for the past 36 1⁄2 years at 193 Coleridge Street.

I'm also a business owner.

I have always enjoyed seeing children use the playground,

which is almost directly across the street from my home.

There have been even birthday parties and other public events held there.

And as far as I know, I've always enjoyed meeting friends and family over there,

even having a cup of coffee with a friend and just enjoying the outside air.

My friends who visited me from out of town would bring their children and go and enjoy the playground.

And it made that more inviting for them to come and visit me.

Then COVID happened in 2020, and the park had to be shut down.

Once again, when COVID was lifted, I was surprised that it wasn't reopened.

Back open to the public.

It was just sitting there.

Open space wasted.

Land wasted.

It was really very sad indeed.

I realize that the BHNC is planning to add another 105 units in that area,

and there is a proposal to add those units above the Safeway, all just a block away.

We can't afford to lose precious open space where there is air.

And I'm not against affordable housing.

I'm in favor of it, like anybody else that's got a mind of their own.

But this is a big concern.

I'm in favor of all this happening.

but I don't want to lose the precious space of Mother Nature.

Please listen to us. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker.

Hi, I'm Mary Kearney. I'll be 87 this April,

and I've been residing at Coleridge Park since 2010, almost 17 years.

You could say I arrived during the golden age of our community park,

a time when nannies brought their chargers to the playground,

when new moms sat on the benches and chatted while rocking their babies in their prams,

when preschools brought their entire classes

to enjoy playing kickball in the grass

or swing on the swings or climb the jungle gym.

A time when each of my grandchildren, I have three,

visited me and I helped each in turn

learn to swing from the overhead bars.

A time when families had picnics on the park tables

and fathers taught their children how to play catch on the grass.

I entertained my in-laws with snacks on a park table while the children played.

It was a fun place where children, parents, grandparents, teachers, and caregivers mingled.

When COVID came, the park closed down and was allowed to go into disrepair.

Most people who arrived at 190, that's Coleridge Senior Housing,

after COVID had no experience of the joy that park brought to so many residents and neighbors alike.

It is my understanding that when the senior resident was built in the 1980s,

it was specified that it must be included in the plans.

The park must be included in the plans.

The new proposal to cut the concrete sitting area and reduce the grassing area of the newly conceived park

would ruin that original purpose.

Where would the grown-ups sit, watch their children, and make friends?

How would prams, walkers, and wheelchairs navigate without solid footing?

Where is...

Thank you for your comments.

Apologies for cutting you off, but we are providing everyone the same two minutes.

Next speaker.

Hello. My name is Heather Kaufman.

and I live on Virginia Avenue in Bernal Heights.

I'm reading this for another resident, and they are anonymous.

We are writing as residents of Coleridge Park Homes.

That's 190 Coleridge.

Before the pandemic closed our much-used and much-beloved Coleridge Park in Bernal,

it was a place where neighbors would meet each other in a typical San Francisco way.

One day I would sit next to a neighbor who relies on a local food bank.

The next day I might sit next to a neighbor who had just paid off her house and was looking forward to retirement.

Friendships and neighborly support flourished in our park in ways not possible in indoor spaces under LED lights.

When our neighbor saw an online petition which read, Save Our Park, Help Reopen Coleridge Park, and Still Add Senior Housing,

many neighbors, old and new, renters and homeowners, signed the petition.

especially after understanding that 105 new senior apartments would be added to the square

block radius of 3,300 and the proposed 3333 mission street developments it seemed common

sense that we recognize the need to preserve as much of the park as possible nearly 400 neighbors

including ourselves not a small number made up of families with small children fixed income seniors

renters, working service jobs, students, and people with tech jobs all agreed that more

people means more need of green natural outdoor park space and fresh air. The appeal is for to

rezone the request that BNC submitted is not frivolous. It continues the neighbor's desire

for further dialogue about a bigger park to call it frivolous is insulting and dismissive.

People in this neighborhood support each other and have been disappointed to say the least that VHNC has chosen to frame this issue in a with us or against us way of implying that anyone signing the petition or supporting the appeal is against affordable senior housing.

This is absolutely not true.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Hello.

I'm reading this on behalf of a resident of the same place of the Coleridge Park who remains anonymous.

I am a resident of Coleridge Park Homes and vociferously in favor of senior housing.

Indeed, I live in senior housing and I'm grateful for the opportunity to have a bulwark against spiraling housing costs rising in San Francisco.

I hope many more seniors can be similarly sheltered.

I'm also grateful for the vivid community at Coleridge Park Homes, which has become an integral part of my life.

I want to call attention to the very name of this residence, Park.

It's right in there Coleridge Park homes

The park is important to us here at Coleridge in our later years

The open space outside literally the front yard is a focal point for the immediate neighborhood and certainly a hit with children

The park is laid fallow closed for many years

Since the pandemic the neighborhood will be thrilled by its return

As I understand it the proposal by B agency with the worthy aim of bringing an additional 70 units

of senior housing would result in the existing park exiting their plan, missing quite a large

chunk at a time when the need for park can only increase with the 35 new units across

the street at 3,300 mission and the 70 new units proposed for the 3,333 mission site.

Yet alterations to the plan could preserve both the 70 new senior units and most of the

park to imply or to state that anyone opposing the trimming down of their neighborhood park is

exhibiting evidence of inherent opposition to senior housing seems disingenuous and not at

all the case here. Yes, building plans would need to be reworked, as was done at BHNC's new senior

housing project at 3300 Mission, and a more homogenous building has risen when there was a

late major change, which resulted in plans being reworked.

So plan changes might be viewed as what happens in construction.

Thank you for your comments.

Just a reminder, we're setting the timer for two minutes, and on the podium there is a clock,

so you can see where you're at in your two-minute presentation.

Welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Maria Aldaz.

I've been living on Coleridge Street since 1963, since I was very small,

and have enjoyed the park when it was built in the 80s,

enjoyed that open area, open space for us,

because it was just a big bowling alley parking lot before.

Probably the only supervisor here who's familiar with our park is our supervisor.

But it was a park that was very visited,

as has been explained before by the seniors in that housing.

the daycare providers around our neighborhood. Nannies would always be there every day. I myself

would enjoy it when I was younger, and I would take my daughter there when she was small.

There was always birthday parties. There were meetings. It was a place to join and meet other

people. It was to throw a ball around, play soccer. It was just very used every single day by everybody

in the neighborhood. It's not a famous park like Presidio of Tunnel Tops, like Sunset

Dunes, like all these new spaces that the supervisors have supported, but it is a very

important, a hugely important park to our neighborhood. It's very important to us. So

I hope that you hearing all of this information and people speaking about the need for this

park, especially with more density, which we are not against, that you will support making sure

that this park remains an open, viable space for everyone in the community and surrounding area,

as a large area, not the reduced space that BHNC wants to make and the developers want. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon. My name is Barbara Handler. I live directly across the street from the park.

And I don't have prepared remarks, so I'm going to keep this very brief.

I've lived in my apartment there for some 24 years,

and it's a very nice neighborhood of generally two-story homes,

quite neighborly, pleasant, relatively quiet,

considering its proximity to Mission Street.

I find the portrayal of the people protesting this development

as heartless NIMBYs is very disheartening

because that's not the case.

I'm very concerned about housing in San Francisco,

both for the homeless and for senior citizens,

especially as I myself am a senior citizen

and am newly conscious of the need

for both affordable housing and community.

Part of my concern is the additional density and the destruction of the look of the neighborhood,

which is a classic San Francisco neighborhood with beautiful homes.

Most of the people who live in the neighborhood are senior citizens themselves,

not opposed to senior housing, only to the shape this development is taking.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome. The next speaker.

Members of the board, my name is Buddy Tate Choi.

I have lived on Coleridge Street for 49 years.

This year will be 50.

My wife will tell you the history of our involvement in the community

and the building of the Coleridge Park homes and the play space.

I only have two comments.

One, we are 100% for affordable housing.

Two, we are 100% for open space for our community.

And finally, I just want to point out, I am a very old man.

But when I was young, I was a social worker.

And I spent my days in Chinatown working.

And one of the privileges I had then was being on the board of the Chinatown Development Center.

As you all know, one of the premier housing affordable organizations in the city.

I happened to be the president for a couple of years, too.

One of the rules that we had as board members was we respected everyone, even those who didn't agree with us.

There was no name-calling.

We didn't do anything to vilify them.

We did not put up posters or call meetings.

So I would ask if we may negotiate this with respect, I think we can make it work.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Before the next speaker, is there any other member in the public gallery

who'd like to support the appellant for the 3333 and the 190 Coleridge Street project

for the appeal specifically?

All right.

Welcome.

I'm Jean Troy Tate.

You just heard my husband.

When we moved into our home in Coleridge Street in 1977,

across the street was an abandoned lot that was fenced off with a chain link fence

and was filled with broken glass and trash.

So we were particularly glad when BH&C proposed Coleridge Park Homes.

and since my husband and I had been working for affordable housing in Chinatown,

we were delighted to collaborate as Colbert Street neighbors.

And in 1987, the park we designated since then has been an important asset to the neighborhood

and we had a major part in designing the park and are grateful for that opportunity.

Unfortunately, the play structure was not maintained properly

and the park closed in 2020.

When BH&C proposed an additional 70 units of senior housing,

we were supportive,

and we assumed that we would have a similar collaborative relationship.

But then we learned that the park would be reduced by 42%.

We were stunned that unlike our previous collaboration,

now BH&C refused to work with Cold Road Street neighbors

or communicate with them.

Our questions were never answered.

For instance, why, with two other lobbies, is having an exceptionally large lobby on Coleridge preferable to having additional open space?

We want all 70 units of housing.

We believe it can happen and still increase the size of their park by reducing the lobby.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Mr. President.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

public comment in support of the appeal is now closed and now we will give the

representatives of city departments up to 10 minutes and I think we're starting

planning or public works or okay

Thank You Supervisors my name is Elias French I'm here for public works as city

and County Surveyor, the lead agency that processes subdivisions in San Francisco.

I'll give a brief summary of the project from our perspective through our agency.

On May 19, 2024, or 2024, we received a final map application for the above reference property

or the subject property in june 2024 we submitted it to city agencies for circulation

for their comments and then in june 2025 we received a revised tentative map changing the

project entitlements proposed slightly after a referral to city agencies and their approval

we issued approval of the subdivision tentative map on October 2025 followed

by this appeal the summary of the project is the existing site consists of three

airspace subdivision parcels which correspond to the existing senior

housing building the park and the commercial space and garage respectively

it also entitles a certain number of condominium units five residential and

ten commercial within lot one which is the parcel proposed for new construction

we found that map satisfied the technical requirements conform and city planning

found that it conformed with the general plan and all applicable codes the

The appellant's letter raises concerns about the reduction in size of the park.

The map concerns itself entirely with the delineation of parcel boundaries which do

not pertain to the approval of the building size and shape which were already approved

ministerially by planning.

accordingly and in as much as the map conformed to the subdivision map act required findings to approve tentative maps

We approve we had approved the map and in as much as the appeal

addresses concerns which are not

relevant to the map and

Aren't weren't before our office for review

We believe the map approval should stand as issued. Thank you

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Audrey Maloney, Acting Manager of Legislative Affairs for the Planning Department.

On October 28th of 2025, the Planning Department approved the proposed subdivision referral

from the Department of Public Works.

The approval was based on our determination that the subdivision is consistent with the

project that was previously approved by the Planning Department on April 16th of 2025,

and that it aligns with both the Planning Code and the General Plan.

We'd like to address a key concern raised by the appellants regarding Coleridge Park.

Their claim is that the subdivision will reduce the size of the park.

In fact, the subdivision does not reduce the size of Coleridge Park.

Rather, it reflects the reconfiguration and reduction in size that was already approved under the SB35 development application.

The tentative map application simply updates the lot boundaries of existing lot 101 to match that previously approved reconfiguration.

For these reasons, and as detailed in our written response and the Planning Department case file, we recommend that the Board uphold the Department of Public Works decision to approve the tentative map application for this project.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Merloni.

I don't see any, but I do.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thanks, President Manelman.

I have some questions for a few departments.

So, Mr. French for Public Works, just to make it clear, did you consider any of the design concerns brought up by the appellants in approving the map here, and why or why not?

Thank you, Supervisor Fielder.

The design concerns raised by the appellant and the design of the shape, size, massing of the buildings and park are not part of the scope of review for subdivision approval.

and in this instance the building and development form was already approved by

planning and we review the proposed boundary line delineations with respect

to the approved buildings not the shape size form of the buildings themselves

thank you and miss Maloney for planning was there any opportunity for

neighborhood feedback in reviewing the affordable housing application for 3333

Mission Street, why are we not? Thank you, Supervisor Fielder. Audrey Muriloni for the

planning department. Because this is an SB35 project, or now more commonly understood to be

SB423, state law restricts the city's ability to modify or even give feedback to code-compliant

projects, especially if those modifications would inhibit or chill the approval, or if the

modifications would increase project costs. And where should neighbors bring feedback regarding

the affordable housing project? Again, Supervisor, unfortunately, state law restricts. This is a

state law project. It is truly out of the bounds of our jurisdiction. The only thing that the local

jurisdiction has control over is determining whether the project is code compliant, which we

did determine in this case. Thank you. For our city attorney, I just want to be clear about

what we should consider when reviewing this map appeal.

Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi, the question before the board is whether the map complies

with the subdivision of the state law, and it limits what the board can consider. I think the

Public Works Department has laid out sort of the factors that are at issue before the board,

and that's the scope of what you have to consider here.

Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly,

the board should not consider questions around the product design.

The board can consider compliance with state law

and that those design of the project questions

are not part of what state law requires

for your consideration under this appeal.

Thank you.

That's all my questions for the departments.

All right.

then we will go to the project sponsor for up to 10 minutes.

And I think that's Lauren Chang and Gina Dacus.

Yeah, just a little bit.

and supervisors. My name is Gina Dacus and I am the CEO of Burnell Heights Neighborhood Center

and Burnell Heights Housing Corp. We are also a non-profit service provider and community-based

housing developer that has served the Burnell Heights community for close to 50 years.

This appeal is being held as a result of neighbors' concerns about our proposal for

Coleridge Neighborhood Park. It's a privately operated park that has been closed since 2020

and requires significant repairs.

It is our intention to reopen the park for the enjoyment of the public

with the reduced square footage to allow for 70 new units at 100% affordable senior housing

as well as a new 1,000-square-foot community room space

that allows senior residents and neighbors alike that they will all be able to use.

I am disappointed that despite our many intentions to reopen the park as soon as fiscally possible

as well as extensive community outreach and concessions to make 3333 a more welcome addition to the neighborhood,

including lowering the initial unit count as has been shared from 108 units to 70 units

and adjusting the design at a significant expense to the ownership to reduce impact on neighbors' backyards,

we still find ourselves here today.

This project has already received ministerial approval twice,

and yet we have been asked to waste precious time, money, and resources

preparing for this appeal, which has no bearing on the park design

because neighbors are upset about losing what is currently unusable concrete and bushes.

In fact, this appeal only serves to delay the entire process

and prolong both the park closure and the timeline for delivering affordable housing.

Over the past two years, we have worked closely with the 33.3 Mission neighbors that extend beyond the appellants represented in this room,

including them to hear their concerns and share timely information regarding the project.

This included two community open houses, small group meetings in person and on Zoom,

and one-on-one meetings with the neighbors at their homes to see exactly how the development might impact them.

Our community organizer even went to individual homes in their backyards, including the appellants,

and we have made our entire development team, including the architects and the landscape architects,

available to answer questions at all of these meetings.

In addition, we did a survey and sent it out to over 2,000 Bernal Heights neighbors

to determine what elements the community would like to see included in the new design.

And none of this required SB35.

we voluntarily initiated a proactive community engagement effort with a dedicated email to

receive neighbors' inquiries and a project website. Despite these efforts and our continued

reassurance that we would share relevant information with the community when we were

able to do so, neighbors continued to allege that we were not doing enough and that we were

intentionally keeping the park closed. Coleridge Neighborhood Park did close in 2020 due to COVID-19

mandates and remains closed now because of the significant maintenance and safety concerns.

Safety concerns such as the tree roots that the city owns growing into our park, lifting

up cement that have not been addressed.

And by utilizing this funding tied to this project, we have proposed a more officially

designed park that removes the 2,000 or so, 28, let me be specific, 2,835 square feet

of concrete and bushes, and it maintains 3,885 square feet of park space, which will include

grass and a place structure area.

And we're also adding, again, a 1,000-square-foot community room intended for multi-generational

use.

And this solution offers benefits for the entire community, not just one group of neighbors,

allowing us to reopen the park while creating more affordable housing.

And the impellance is insisting that we maintain the entirety of the park space, although it's

already been approved and despite our explanations that means that we would be removing 36 units

of affordable senior housing, no space for private office space for services and property

management and the designated lobby area. And while we hope that this project will bring benefits for

all, we cannot in conscience reduce the unit count in order to save a small amount of concrete and

dirt. In recent discussion, even with the appellant's representative, when I asked what their plans were,

They had no plans. They didn't even consider visioning and dreaming with the rest of the neighbors of how we can take a 35-year-old park and bring it to today's standards in terms of park programming.

And furthermore, they have, again, not delivered a plan to retaining the park space.

And our proposal creates an opportunity to redesign the park that is community-based and community-driven with the most efficient use of the space,

ensuring that there is public face-to-face community and critical needed low-income housing that is definitely needed in Bernal Heights,

where our seniors are being priced out of San Francisco.

And this appeal also alleges that there is no open space in the neighborhood.

On the contrary, there are 24 parks within 1.1 miles of the project site.

Eight of them are a half a mile away walking distance or less and provides substantially and readily accessible open space to our residents while we figure this out.

And it is my hope that the Board of Supervisors will take into consideration not only VHNC's demonstrated commitment to the community for the past 50 years through our outreach process for now, but also this is a frivolous appeal, which does not have the power to advance the appellant's goal of reopening the park at its current size.

And thank you again for your consideration.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Pardon me to the speaker just one moment.

I'll just remind those of you who were potentially not here earlier no support

noises if you do support someone just sort of wave your hands in the air as

such thank you kindly welcome to our speaker thank you good afternoon

supervisors my name is Lauren Chang I am land use counsel for the project sponsor

this appeal involves an already approved 100% affordable 70 unit SB 35 project

The city approved the SB 35 entitlements on October 30th, 2024, and then again on April 16th, 2025.

The matter before you today is only on the tentative map approval, which was also processed under SB 35 and not the scope of the project or proposed uses like the park.

The entitlements are final and cannot now be subject to an appeal process under state law.

The timeline for the city to determine whether the project is in conflict with objective standards

or meets the eligibility criteria under SB 35 have also long elapsed.

The tentative map at this point is deemed approved.

An appeal of the tentative map and any other future permits covered under the project's SB 35 application

is incompatible with the streamlined ministerial approval process and is unlawful.

On behalf of the applicant, we respectfully request that the board deny the appellant's appeal for the following reason.

Next slide, please.

First, this appeal shouldn't be heard at all.

The state imposed strict timelines for the city to review the map, which have already expired.

The 90-day timeline includes appeals because our lawmakers expressly state that public oversight cannot inhibit, chill, or preclude the ministerial process.

That time period expired on October 12, 2025, 114 days ago.

The applicant submitted its MAP application last summer in July 2025.

Public Works approved the MAP on November 7, 2025, which was already beyond the 90-day review window.

Today's appeal is 204 days after the applicant submitted its application,

which is far beyond the 90-day period under SB 35.

Second, even if this appeal were not time barred, the city has failed to make any findings

that the map is not consistent with objective standards or any findings under government

code section 664-74 that would mandate denial of the map.

Third, as you heard from Gina, the applicant, while not required by state law, also completed

extensive community outreach efforts including to the appellant directly the applicant has a deep

desire to work with the community and the city to bring this project into reality and they've

worked incredibly hard to do so up to this point the redesign that resulted in the april 2025

approval was due to incorporating feedback from the community and it's important to highlight that

Coleridge Park is privately owned, and I highlight that because, as you've heard, the main issue of the

appeal is the park. However, the applicant is committed to redesign the park in a more efficient,

safe, and be more engaging for the community. The reduction in the overall park size was necessary

to accommodate additional affordable housing units and make the park more usable.

Retaining the park size directly affects the number of affordable units.

And this project is exactly the type of project that we need to see more of in this state.

It's 100% affordable.

It provides housing for seniors.

It uses streamlining tools created by our lawmakers that exempts it from CEQA

and requires shortened review time.

It's near transit.

and it also allows, it's taking advantage of the density and height incentives to increase the number of affordable units.

And the development team is made up of members of the community who care deeply about the neighborhood.

So I implore you to uphold state law and deny the appeal.

Thank you.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President Maneman.

I have just a couple questions for the project sponsor.

I can attest that there were community workshops that were widely publicized, and my legislative team went out there as well.

I'm just wondering, was the decision around park size and affordable units and that tradeoff communicated in the workshops?

And I want to reiterate that this is not a requirement under SB 35.

And so this is going beyond the requirement of the law.

Absolutely.

So we, throughout several meetings, we communicated.

And actually, I think, believe the July meeting, when we agreed, based on the appellant's feedback on the Virginia neighbors,

to give them about 10,000 square feet of a setback on the property line

so that the site didn't impose on their backyards.

We communicated what all the changes meant, including the park size.

We were also told when we gave all the concessions

that it really didn't even matter because they didn't want it there

and we should just look downtown.

So that's how that discussion ended,

and there wasn't any other time to, we couldn't move on from that.

And you touched on it in your presentation, but I wanted to have it clarified.

Any further design changes would require you to resubmit and basically go through a lot more process?

And also, what is the relationship to the funding for this project?

Okay.

Okay, so when we initially looked, well, so let me just explain to you, the park is a podium park.

It's not a regular park, and I've now known podium parks probably should be banned from San Francisco based on this experience.

But in either case, it's a podium park, so it's connected to all the properties.

And so in order for us to address the park and the podium and the development, we were combining it to creatively address the funding that would come with it.

And so because the podium would have to be replaced, we could replace the park at the same time as we built the housing.

So that's how that came into play.

The other piece is that when the architect said that they would need a portion of the park, they originally had it extended even smaller.

And I challenged them to move it back.

And if the park and the units were close to the park, we would explain that those units, people that moved to those units would understand that they live by a park.

So we only took what we absolutely needed.

So any changes that we start to make to adjust this very complicated space that's shaped like an L would cause a lot of different challenges.

And it would impact downstairs, and it would impact every floor, and it would remove about 36 units, and it would not allow us to have the community room,

and it would not allow us to have the space that is now called the lobby because it was a shell.

but that's also going to consider private services offices,

which we don't have at the other site next door,

and other amenities for the residents that will live here.

These residents at our Colbert site are from 70 to 100 years old.

So disability forward thinking is critical for senior housing in San Francisco,

but we already have an example next door.

So the amenities that we've designed in the space are to benefit the people that live there.

and um is there more opportunity in the near future for neighbors to contribute to the existing

design and preservation and just general ongoing upkeep of the park itself absolutely we invited

the community to vision with us about what could be in the space and then we brought our landscape

architects out with pictures of what those things would look like and people put dots next to the

things that they wanted to see, like multi-generational interactivities and exercise equipment for the

seniors and space for the toddlers. And we told the community that once we get through all the

entitlement and we start moving down the funding path line and when it's time for the requirements

of the design for the park, we would invite the community back in. We don't have a vested interest

on telling the community what this park should look like. It's been said that we're VHNC,

but we are Bernal. We've been here for 49 years. Our board members are residents of this community,

so we are part of the process with community. And then just lastly, the park was closed during

COVID and has not been reopened since due to safety concerns. Is that because it is a platform park?

That's because the trees have also grown into the platform park and have lifted up the cement.

I invited Park and Rec out to the site.

I had a dream that they would take this park from me and help solve this problem.

But as we know, Park and Rec and the city does not have any money for parks.

But they were good because they brought the entire team out

and pointed things that I needed to consider around safety,

around when we touch one item, how it would trigger ADA and all the other items.

And so that's when this park discussion and the dollars associated

started moving into the millions.

but we are inviting the community to come back come out with us we've asked park and rec could

they come and sit at the table just to give us input and advice and we they haven't committed

to it but they said they would think about it but we are a little ways away from that we started

this discussion a month after we closed on the property that is so early to plan all these very

details out and we've tried to be as transparent as we could based on where we are in the process

But yes, the community is invited back to the table, and we want to design another amazing park in Bernal Heights.

And just lastly, I would say the size of the park is about half the size of this room.

And it would take millions to get it to where folks want it.

If we are just considering the park by itself, this means that we would be replacing the podium.

That is where the expense is not the expense of replacing the play equipment that still starts at about 100 K.

Right. It's the actual podium itself and everything that came with that, which is why the conversation became complicated.

And this is something that we have shared repeatedly.

Thank you. Those are my questions.

Thank you.

All right.

Seeing no one else on the roster, we will open up public comment in opposition to

the appeal and in support of the project. And so if folks would, so Madam Clerk,

could you please welcome people. Thank you Mr. President. All right, thank you.

You're already lining up on the right-hand side of the chamber. Thank you

Bill Barnes for guiding people in that direction. If you'll use the taller podium, it does have a

clock on it, which will tell you where you are at in your two-minute presentation. At first,

you'll hear a soft bell that lets you know you've got about 29 seconds left to finish.

We always hate interrupting people, so welcome. Thank you. My name is Emily Hagen. I live in the

neighborhood about a two-minute walk away from the site on Winfield Street and I am against this

appeal. I have two kids who are nine and six so when my oldest was three I think one was was when

this park closed we never got to try it out but we're really excited to see the park renovated

to see the whole senior housing built and I don't see any reason to delay this further. I want it to

get done so that we can enjoy it and I think the thousand square foot public space amenity space

is also going to be a great feature that we're excited to use. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome to the next speaker.

Hi, everyone. My name is Alanya Green. I have been living in Bernal for 10 years.

My husband and I own a home and are raising our toddler in Bernal.

I live just off of Coleridge Street, and I am here to strongly support this project

and urge you to reject the appeal.

My family is deeply committed to this neighborhood.

We're moving in my 78-year-old mother to live in a multi-generational home,

and that's why I feel so strongly about this project.

Most families don't have the space or the resources to do something like this,

and that's why this matters so much to me.

This project is 100% affordable senior housing for vulnerable seniors.

These are seniors who help build this neighborhood, help build this city,

and are now being priced out of it. Many can't afford to live with their adult children and

could be forced out of our community. This appeal before you claims to raise concerns, but in reality,

it blocks a fully approved and thoughtfully redesigned project. The building height was

already lowered, units were reduced, and extensive community outreach was done. This appeal isn't

about improving the project, it's about blocking it.

My son and his friends need playgrounds,

there's no arguing about that.

But blocking this project doesn't protect the park.

The only mechanism to restore and reopen the park

is tied to this project.

Bernal's built very little affordable housing

in recent decades, and the consequences are clear.

Blocking housing for seniors is not progressive,

and our seniors are worth more than property values

and parking spots and views,

and denying housing leaves vulnerable seniors

without secure housing and puts them at risk of homelessness.

As a homeowner, a parent, and a neighbor,

I urge you to reject this appeal.

This is the right decision for Bernal in San Francisco.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome the next speaker.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Oscar Benitez.

about four blocks away from the park. My day-to-day work, I'm an advisor to state and county governments

on housing and homelessness. It's suffice to say that the example that BHNC is setting should be

held as a standard. Not only is this project late and the park should be opened, but they've also

provided the concessions on taking away housing that should be available for senior citizens that

require it. Number two, you know, there's been a lot said about outreach and community engagement.

Just because folks don't agree with the results of community engagement does not mean that community

engagement did not occur. I think it's an important fact that just continues to be restated over and

over again. Number two, there are a number of parks. In fact, there's a park that's about half

a block away. My three-year-old and his grandmother walk up there, currently use it in anticipation for

this park to open. I want to end maybe with just one other point, which is I spent about almost 15

years as a broadcaster for the NFL. This is what a Hail Mary looks like. This decision has already

been approved. We are spending a lot of time, effort, and resources to litigate something that

isn't required. So please, we are looking forward for BHNC to continue to set a standard for other

We're nonprofit affordable developers, and we encourage you all to ensure that loopholes

that could be approved like this one does not continue with the type of legislation

that was introduced at the state.

Thank you for your support.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, Boards and Supervisors.

My name is Sam Moss.

I'm the Executive Director of Mission Housing Development Corporation.

We're a 55-year-old nonprofit affordable housing developer and a longtime ally and supporter

of Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center.

I cannot stress how awesome they are at what they do.

I'm here to speak in as much opposition as humanly possible to this appeal

and as much support as humanly possible for low-income senior housing.

I have this whole speech, and I just, I can't,

how are we not more outraged that we lost 38 units for seniors?

You know, Bernal's already made concessions, and here we are again,

the second time in six months that 100% affordable housing buildings map issuance is being appealed.

Not the building, not the design, the issuance of a new map.

You have the power, the Board of Supervisors, you have the power to plug this loophole.

You can do it.

You are duly elected.

You can do it.

And any time you want to, the affordable housing community is here to work with you.

And I just hope that you reject this appeal because having it in the first place sends a message that when 100% affordable housing is approved, it's still not really approved.

And that's not good for anyone, especially the seniors who may not have a home now because of it.

And I just, again, I want to applaud Vernal Heights Neighborhood Center and thank them for their patience and their perseverance and to everyone who supports them because housing is actually a human right.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome to our next speaker.

Hi, my name is Brian Bronlich. I'm a member of District 9 Neighbors for Housing, and I'm speaking today, oh, and I live in Bernal Heights.

I'm speaking today both in support of 3333 Mission and vehemently against this appeal.

While housing in the city does draw strong reactions with many perspectives, a desire to build more subsidized affordable housing has, in my experience, united virtually all San Franciscans, as you've heard today.

but many who claim to support affordable housing seem only to offer surface-level theoretical

support and they don't acknowledge or consider the way that bottlenecks like these prevent that

housing construction. Appeals like this one are one of the most substantial bottlenecks preventing

affordable housing construction. This appeal, of course, has delayed 3333 emissions construction

but it has also driven up the cost of each new home there, funneling money toward subsidizing

lawyers fighting appeals rather than construction workers building subsidized homes.

It's no wonder it takes two years longer and costs more than twice as much per square foot

to build affordable housing here compared to states like Colorado. Appeals like this also

have a chilling effect on future affordable housing throughout the city, highlighting yet

another loophole, a new obstacle affordable housing developers must consider, plan, and

budget for when deciding whether to move forward with a project. It does not just make it harder

to build affordable housing in Bernal Heights.

It provides a roadmap for driving up costs

and preventing affordable housing across the city.

In the meantime, it's caused nearly four months of delays to this project.

That's four months with 70 fewer homes

for low-income seniors in my neighborhood.

It's also a four-month delay to our neighbors

getting their park back on Coleridge.

Too often in the city, we let perfect be the enemy of good,

and we end up with something bad.

This appeal is bad, and I implore the board to reject it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon.

Bill Barnes on behalf of NPH, the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California.

Since 1979, we've been the proud voice of affordable housing in the Bay Area.

This appeal sets a very dangerous precedent.

Public works took more than 90 days to even approve the map submitted by the applicant.

After that, it was appealed.

Now it's been here that the board continued and being heard.

There are funding rounds in the state that groups like Bernal Heights, Neighborhood, etc.

are not as competitive for because they're a small nonprofit organization here in San Francisco,

they're missing those funding rounds.

As these delays continue and people say they're for affordable housing,

it really disadvantages building the project and getting the funding

because we're not actually working on the spirit of SB35,

which is let's make sure 100% affordable gets approved in this timeline.

So there are lots of issues that were raised,

but I did want to associate NPH with the project sponsor

in terms of the question of whether the matter should even be before the board

or whether it's time-barred.

I think that's an important precedent.

I would note that Bernal Heights does a really good job of community outreach.

Not every developer who's a member of ours has community meetings.

Not every member agrees to concessions, and they're not required to.

But in this instance, they did, and we're still continuing to be here for an appeal.

Last thing I would note is the RENA goals are real.

We need to build 100% affordable, very low-income housing in San Francisco.

We're not meeting those goals.

We certainly don't meet them when we have a project starting at 108 units that then arrives at 70 units.

And as we try to meet our arena goals across all of the income levels, it becomes crucial that we approve projects like this that are so needed in San Francisco.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Hello, my name is Micah.

I live in Bernal Heights down the street from this project.

And I speak only for myself when I say how shameful it is to have an appeal and to treat us all like we're stupid, like we can't see what's happening here, when the appeal has already taken away 38 units from the project in a neighborhood that has built seven units of affordable housing in the last 20 years.

It's unbelievable.

and furthermore how selfish it is to come up here in front of all of us and say that the people who

are most affected by this housing project are the homeowners that live nearby and not the people

that intend to move into the project that's all i have to say you should be ashamed of yourself

please reject this appeal okay so let's have our next speaker welcome

Hello, my name is Ruth Ferguson. I'm a trustee for the City College of San Francisco. Today,

I'm here speaking in a personal capacity. Every day I take the bus or hit up my favorite

restaurants on Mission Street, I pass by this vacant lot. It is just a few blocks away from

my house. Right now, we have an opportunity to fill it with 100% affordable, low-income senior

housing. My heart swells every time I see it for what it can become and what it represents for our

community. Right next door to this vacant site, 56 low-income seniors currently call our neighborhood

home in a building operated by the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, the same non-profit developer

who's ready to build this project. 56 seniors who have contributed to the fabric of our city,

our community. The people who live here are my neighbors, some of whom are living at the poverty

line, this housing gives them the opportunity to build a stable future. We should be celebrating

this special opportunity to welcome 80 more low-income seniors to our community in Bernal

Heights. In neighborhoods like ours, newcomers and young families who want to purchase a home

are required to spend an average of $1.7 million. This is because of scarcity of resources,

because Bernal Heights consistently ranks dead last across the entire city for new housing built.

Bernal Heights also ranks dead last in affordable housing construction.

This isn't a coincidence.

It's a policy choice.

Building affordable housing changes people's lives.

The ability to age in place changes people's lives.

It is not something we should take for granted.

This is our community, and these are our people.

Let's show up for each other, especially right now when the world is so dark.

Let's come together and build a better world.

In this vacant lot in Bernal Heights, let's build a better future for our elders and a community that stands up for each other when we need it most.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, board.

My name is Honest Charlie Bodkin, and I'm on the leadership of the District 5 Democratic Club.

I'm also the co-founder of San Franciscans for Social Housing.

Excuse me.

Seniors make up a disproportionate share of homelessness in San Francisco and across our state.

That's why projects like 33-33 Mission and the work of BHNC are critical.

About 1,000 San Franciscans for social housing have recently signed a petition calling on this board to fund social housing, including housing built and maintained by nonprofits.

it's reasonable to say that these San Franciscans stand in solidarity with

affordable housing developments like 33 mission particularly for seniors in my

neighborhood hate Ashbury we added a 100% affordable housing development at 730

Stanion and it's enhanced my neighborhood in both measurable and

immeasurable ways and I know that when this project is brought to completion

and neighbors meet their new neighbors, there will be smiles, joy, and a sense of a stronger,

more united sense of community, just as we have felt in the heat.

When I spoke to this board during the upzoning hearings in the fall, Supervisor Melgar reminded us

that the city lacks a dedicated fund for affordable housing.

This is why we need this project.

I'm urging you to reject the appeal and support this project.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

Shidak Bhakta with Mission Housing Development Corporation, urging you to deny the appeal and support the affordable housing at 3333 Mission Street.

You know, we really have to stop calling into question the issue of affordable housing.

Along with Sam, who was up here earlier, and a few other folks,

we were here just six months ago defending affordable housing,

and we're back in the same district on Mission Street, about 20 blocks up.

San Francisco needs thousands of affordable housing units.

Not hundreds, but thousands.

Not just to meet our goals, but most importantly,

to meet the needs of the people who are desperately seeking housing solutions in this city.

Struggling families, seniors, people on the street, those living in SROs, families in overcrowded conditions, all need thousands of units of affordable housing in San Francisco.

We already understand the benefits of supporting projects like 3333 Mission.

And we also understand the consequences when we don't support these projects and when we don't have strong city policy that doesn't allow for delays like this to occur over and over again.

So just please deny this appeal and support the affordable housing.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Hello, Supervisors.

Peter Stevens, Build Affordable Faster California.

Just here to say, please reject the appeal and support the housing.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome.

Hello, Supervisors.

I'm Sarah Rogers with District 9 Neighbors for Housing.

We urge you to reject this appeal.

The subdivision appeal isn't a valid mechanism to rehash arguments against the project.

Bernal Heights has a long progressive history and a well-deserved reputation for neighborliness,

but over the past 20 years, according to the city's housing inventory data,

it has built just 230 units of housing total and only seven units of affordable housing.

During that time, it has moved from majority renter to majority homeowner.

We now regularly see homes sell for $3 to $4 million,

and even quaint little Bernal cottages are the object of bidding wars and go for eye-popping prices.

People who bought their homes decades ago and have seen the values multiply many times over

may not fully appreciate how hard it is to afford to live here.

Over my 18 years in Bernal, I've heard my otherwise really amazing and wonderful neighbors

object to housing over and over because of traffic, parking, shadows,

the hills being too steep, the sidewalks too narrow.

Perhaps most memorably, I heard that building two new homes would cause a PG&E pipeline

to explode and incinerate the neighborhood.

It was appropriate for state law to intervene and streamline approvals for developments like this.

When we get so focused on what we think we will lose in terms of views or parking,

we fail to see all that we will gain by having new neighbors and by welcoming our elders

from preserving the remaining diversity of our community and bolstering its vibrancy.

This particular development is in a great location on one of the best transit corridors in the city.

Housing like this is long overdue and should really maximize the number of neighbors who can live in the community.

There should be no further delays.

We urge the board to reject this appeal and the project sponsor in the future to maximize the affordable housing allowed under state law on similar sites.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman and Board of Supervisors.

My name is Laurel Muniz, and I moved into Bernal Heights in 1975.

Before that, I learned to bowl on that very property that we're discussing tonight.

So I go way back.

Raised two sons in Bernal Heights and watched 190 being built.

I want to encourage you to vote against this appeal.

We need this affordable housing.

Unfortunately, it's already been reduced to 70 units when they could have built 108 units on the property.

And the way it got reduced was listening to the community, listening to the appellant who didn't want a certain height of a wall built near his home.

The project lost 10,000 square feet by pulling back the property line.

I also want to speak to the people that were talking about the park.

I want to encourage them to come to the nice meetings that Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center has and give their input.

We can make this a top-notch park for our community with your input.

what's happening is we're going to take the the project won't have the broken up concrete

or the little postage stamp grass area that nobody could play soccer on trust me

there's also going to be a community space an indoor community space which our neighborhood

really really needs there's very little place where we can come together and have meetings

have birthday parties, that kind of thing.

So again, please deny this appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, President Mendelman and members of the board.

I hadn't planned to be here today.

I was at an executive board meeting of the United Educators of San Francisco Retired Division.

But I listened to it on the radio, so I figured I have to get up here.

I have to. Some of my friends and neighbors are part of the appeal and I

sympathize with some of their concerns but I am asking you to reject it. I could

do no other. When I first moved into the Mission Bernal area in 1980 there was a

movement against gentrification because in the Mission before Bernal I think

there was a steep rise in the cost of housing and many people were being

driven out of the city because of that rounded gentrification. I said I just left the UESF

Retired Division Executive Board meeting. Well, you know what? It's darn hard for teachers in the

classroom now to afford to live in San Francisco, even on their salaries, and maybe that's one of

the reasons we have a little crisis in the city. But number two, consider a teacher or paraeducator

trying to stay in San Francisco on their retirement.

Not going to happen.

It is not going to happen.

So I just think on the moral weight,

you have to push the project forward.

And I thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Vincent Diaz.

I'm a longtime San Francisco resident.

I've been living here for 73 years.

I'm a native.

And years ago, about 12 years ago, my wife, we were all evicted to the Ellis Act.

So basically, we had nowhere to live.

Over a year, we struggled looking for housing.

Fortunately, we came upon 190 Coleridge, which I felt was truly blessed and very happy there.

And I like the same for other people in my same position to be able to afford and stay here.

in the city, because this is the city we love, San Francisco.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Quinton Meckie with the Council of Community Housing Organizations,

of which Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center is a longstanding member.

We should be really clear about this.

There's no part of this process should make any of us happy.

Our member agencies are on the thinnest of threads right now economically.

Construction costs, labor costs, land acquisitions.

To even put together a successful capital stack,

to put together this type of development,

takes time, effort, and money.

And the concessions that Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center made,

in good faith, 35% of the units that were originally proposed.

And where did it get them?

An appeal that sits before you, now for the second time.

You all sat for an appeal of the DPW map in the mission.

We're doing it again here.

This needs to be the absolute last type of this appeal

that is allowed in the city and county of San Francisco

for affordable housing.

They followed every part of the process

that we have been asked to follow.

They dealt with the neighbors, they collaborated,

and yet still were here trying to satisfy

some last-minute requests and it's cost money it's delayed housing and 38 units

are now no longer going to be built for seniors in Bernal Heights they're not

going to be made up someplace else this was the opportunity to have them we're

not going to have them but moving forward it is incumbent on this Board

of Supervisors to close this loophole there should be no more DPW map appeals

Thank you for your comments. Welcome to our next speaker. Good evening, Supervisors.

Whit Turner on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in strong support of

the project and strong opposition of this appeal. This is a critical moment for

D9 to support affordable housing for our seniors being led by the great Bernal

Heights Neighborhood Center. This has been a trusted local partner for almost 50

years. The appeal before you today is is meritless and intended only to

obstruct while a small group of neighbors have raised concerns about the park.

The reality is that this project will provide the necessary funding to

redevelop and reopen a park that has been shuttered since 2020.

Um, it's received ministerial approval twice.

The appeal does not challenge the project's entitlements.

This is just a tactical delay targeting a tentative map that simply

adjust parcel lines to reflect city approved uses.

Um, what are we doing?

Why are we not supporting our seniors?

We urge you to oppose this appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Novia Marshall, and I worked with Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center for 12 years.

And the CEO, Ms. Gina Dacus, has superheaded the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center for 13 years,

and she's worked hard to get the organization where it is today.

And she has a great team of staff and board members who support her

and keep the organization running smoothly.

As we know, homelessness continues to be a big problem.

People continue to be pushed out out of the city with no solution.

Well, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center combats that problem, homelessness,

which is to provide affordable housing in San Francisco.

This is 2026, and times are rough for everybody.

Any of us can be on the other side of homelessness at any time.

I'm honored to work with an organization who advocates for people in need

and keep affordable housing in the forefront.

This project of 3333 mission by Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center should be a win-win situation for affordable housing and the community to all work together.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

What are we doing here?

Denying an appeal is like shooting fish in the Dobon guy market.

The great, our own Randy Shaw, in his book Generation Priced Out, notes that the two prime

reasons we don't have enough housing are, number one, baby boomers sitting on vast appreciation

and profits, and number two, neighborhood activists.

What do the appellants look like to you?

I think some of them are even older than baby boomers.

This is 20th century thinking.

I want you to think about something.

Since I came into the world, 14 billion people have followed me, including everyone on this board.

And, you know, perhaps the problem is that only 7 billion have died.

God bless the billion who have died in childbirth or childhood.

2 billion there.

We've got to build housing.

We've got to build affordable housing.

Why don't we just let our successors, the people who come after us, decide whether or not what we did was opfenschizer?

Thank you for your comments.

Are there any other individuals who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal

and in support of the project?

Seeing none, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Public comment in opposition to the appeal and support of the project is now closed.

Lastly, the appellant will have up to three minutes to present a rebuttal argument.

You know, it's ironic because I believe in everything you guys are saying.

Everything.

We do need more housing.

We shouldn't stop.

We shouldn't get in the way of more affordable housing.

And we shouldn't have things like appeals that can delay that.

I am not looking forward to...

I did not look forward to...

Sir, I'm pressing your time.

if you could address the Board of Supervisors.

I know, but I kind of want to address them too.

Can they do that?

Thank you.

This is addressing the Board of Supervisors.

So, yes, I agree with everything you're saying.

And there's a lot of sense to what you're saying.

But these comments came out stating that almost everything

that we're suggesting is that we're trying to block affordable senior housing, and that was not

the case. And I made a comment in my initial statement saying we did not want to file this

because we knew it was going to delay this process, and we don't want to delay this process.

What we do want, and what we did want for two years, was an opportunity to speak about a myriad

things about these issues that we never got a chance to talk about and maybe

that's not the appeals part maybe that's SB 35 but there is something here where

just because you're presenting a case for affordable senior housing which I

think is very strong I would do that myself but they are doing something to a

community they are impacting a community and they can impact it in a negative way

they're going to do much better things for the community

but the things that they do impact

the things that only we feel

need to be addressed somehow

and we never ever got that opportunity

with this park I've heard countless stories

from our neighbors

that said how much this park means to them

and yes Gina you are going to fix the park

you are going to make it better and we do believe that

And we do want that.

But we wanted to not have to sacrifice such a large part of it.

And she says 36 units were going to be lost by that.

And that's not true.

If you look at the actual plans, it's about three units.

And those three units can be reincorporated into the plan very easily

by making small changes to what they have in those plans.

So I disagree with 36 units. I also disagree with the fact that they said it was 108 units,

and they got it down to 70. They never came to us and said it was 138 or 108, whatever it was.

That was never what we heard. We only heard 70. And when they did build 70, they were building

six stories just 10 feet away from our bedrooms. Now, I know that sounds like, okay, a selfish

thing. Affordable housing is more important. All right this public hearing

has been held and oh you were that was your that was the three minutes of

rebuttal so they nope the hearing this hearing has unless super us so

So Supervisor Fielder, is your comment for after the public hearing?

Yes, all right.

So the public hearing has been held and is now filed.

And we are now going to consider whether to approve or conditionally disapprove the decision of public works

and the tentative parcel map.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President Manelman.

Colleagues, I have met with both the appellants and the representatives

from Bernal-Hides Neighborhood Center or BHNC.

the project sponsor, I met with both parties several times. I met with Mr. Luchessi, the lead

appellant, and some of his neighbors at the site itself last month, where I listened to their

proposed changes to the new Coleridge Park design and their remaining concerns with the design of

this affordable housing project, specifically the size of the park, as they shared in their

presentation today. However, today's appeal is not and legally cannot be an appeal of the project's

design or the park's design, as we've heard from the city attorney and our city departments,

including the number of units or the size of the playground. This appeal and hearing are not the

proper venue for any of these design concerns. Those concerns should have been discussed with

the project sponsor themselves, including during the several outreach meetings that BHNC organized,

as they shared today. The appeal directly before us is challenging the ministerial subdivision of

the parcel map, a procedural step managed by the Department of Public Works and required for the

affordable housing project to proceed. The appellants' concerns would best be heard by

our planning department when reviewing the project, and as planning explained, they ministerially

approve this affordable housing application under state law, reviewing solely objective criteria

that the project sponsor has met. I understand and I do hear the appellants' frustrations that

Colorado Ridge Park has been inactive for over five years now, and I share these concerns and

echo the need to activate and utilize the green public spaces in the neighborhood. The fact is

that advancing the affordable housing project here is the most viable path to finally reactivating

the park, not further stalling the project. I won't reiterate all the reasons that our park

department has declined any interest in acquiring the park, but suffice it to say that despite my

efforts and despite those of my predecessors, the only realistic park operator remains BHNC,

who has found a path to do so through this project,

which will include financing needed for the necessary fixes

to make it sound and safe for the community's public access.

All of that said, I believe in the importance of community outreach and engagement

when undertaking any major projects in our communities.

I took the appellants' concerns seriously and in good faith

when they affirmed their support for providing dozens of affordable homes

to low-income seniors at 3333 Mission.

and solely want to ensure activation of Coleridge Park at its current size that can be enjoyed by

the entire community. And that is why I met with Mr. Luchessi and his neighbors at Coleridge Park

and why I brought them together with the project sponsor in the hopes of reaching a resolution that

would not necessitate today's hearing. I was actually pleased to see for myself, according

to BHNC's design plans, and we saw earlier in their presentation, that the majority of the square

footage of usable existing park would be preserved. In other words, the appellant's estimates include

square footage that is unusable, for example, shrubs. As well, BHNC shared today, they have

made several concessions to some of the concerned neighbors, including the 70 units of proposed

affordable housing from a maximum allowance of 108 units, bringing the building down to four

stories from six stories on Mission Street, along with other modifications with the project's

setbacks. Lastly, I do believe that BHNC made good faith efforts to consider design alternatives

despite having no legal obligation to do so. And the reality is that affordable housing financing

is extremely challenging, and further design alterations and approvals make the project

delivery here less and less likely, meaning delivering affordable homes to seniors at risk

of homelessness less and less likely as well. As we all know, we are in an affordable housing crisis

with high costs of living for those on fixed incomes, lack of health care access, and the

continuing dismantling of our social safety net, it's no surprise that homelessness among older

adults is on the rise. Today, nearly half of all single homeless adults here are 50 years or older,

and many of them are experiencing homelessness for the first time. I am proud that District 9,

and specifically Bernal Heights, is working towards solutions for addressing this crisis,

including the Senior Affordable Housing Project at 3333 Mission that is at the heart of this appeal.

I would also like to note that I am looking into whether the city can reform the types of maps that can be appealed.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the large numbers of Bernal neighbors who wrote and came in in support of this project,

and note that the appellants have also expressed their support for this critical affordable housing development.

I want to take everyone up on their good faith.

We all want to provide affordable homes for our neighboring seniors to age in place with dignity,

and I hope these shared values continue to guide productive dialogue around this project.

And with that, colleagues, I'm moving to approve item 34 and table items 35 and 36.

Is there a second from Supervisor Melgar?

I don't see anyone else in the queue.

I do want to thank Supervisor Fielder for your efforts to try to bring the parties to a resolution.

That's always something we hope for when there are appeals to the Board of Supervisors.

I don't fault the appellants for taking advantage of a pathway that is there to address something that they see as wrong and a problem.

It is peculiar, though, that we have this pathway that's kind of a pathway to nowhere.

And this is the second time we've seen this at the Board of Supervisors.

The legislature has basically taken away, I think, the ability of this board to do much in situations like this, whether or not we would want to.

And so I'm also grateful that you're taking a look at whether there may be some way of not providing this sort of false hope and opportunities for neighborhood conflict when by the time it gets to this board, it's pretty impossible for us to do anything other than what we're doing here today.

So with that, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

On the motion to approve item 34 and table items 35 and 36, Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Wong.

Aye.

Wong, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

Supervisor Chen.

Chan, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Milgar?

Aye.

Milgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter?

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

And Supervisor Cheryl?

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, item 34 is approved and items 35 and 36 are tabled.

Madam Clerk, that concludes our first 3 p.m. special order.

Let's go to our next special order.

Please call items 37 through 40 together.

Items 37 through 40 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the certification of a final environmental impact report for the proposed SFO RADP, the Recommended Airport Development Plan, issued by the Planning Commission dated November 20, 2025.

The proposed project would implement the RADP, which involves a long-range plan to guide the San Francisco International Airport's development.

The RADP serves as a framework for future development and identifies various projects.

Item 38, this motion affirms the Planning Commission certification of the final environmental impact report.

Item 39 is the motion to conditionally reverse the Commission's final environmental impact report.

and that would be subject to the adoption of written findings by the board.

And item 40 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Supervisor Cheryl, your staff is trying to get you out of here to other obligations,

so I understand that District 2 Supervisor Cheryl is going to have to leave us

and I will make a motion after you go to have you excused from the remainder of the meeting.

Get out of here.

Can I have a motion to excuse Supervisor Cheryl from the remainder of the meeting made by Supervisor Mahmood, seconded by Supervisor Chen?

I think we can take that without objection.

Supervisor Cheryl is excused for the remainder of the meeting.

Colleagues, as our clerk indicated, we have before us a hearing on the appeal of a final EIR certification for the SFO recommended airport development plan.

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

the Planning Commission's certification of the final environmental impact report.

Unless there are objections, we will proceed as we proceeded before with up to 10 minutes

for presentation by the appellant or their representative, followed by public comment,

two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal.

Then we'll give the planning department up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor.

Well I guess planning department and airport get 10 minutes.

And then two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal.

And then finally we'll have rebuttal from the, you know I misstated that.

We're going to have 10 minutes for a presentation from the planning department.

Then we go to the airport, the project sponsor, for an additional 10 minutes.

Then we do public comment of up to two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal.

And then we go back for three minutes of rebuttal by the appellant or their representative.

Any objections?

I don't see objections from colleagues, so seeing no objections, the public hearing will

proceed as indicated and is now open.

I will invite the appellant to come forward and present their case.

Oh, my gosh, it's my old boss, Rick Jarvis, 20 years ago.

Good to see you.

You too, Mr. President.

Take it away.

Okay.

So I'm here for the city of Palo Alto.

I'm their CEQA nerd council,

and I'm here to challenge the adequacy of the environmental impact report

that the San Francisco staff has prepared to evaluate

the long-term development plan for SFO

that plans for future expansion and improvements at the airport over the next 20 years

to increase the capacity, which will include a new terminal with I don't know how many passenger gates.

I've seen numbers between 8 and 13.

Palo Alto's primary concern is that the EIR does not analyze the impacts to the city of Palo Alto

of the increase in noise from the greater number of flights that will be accommodated by the ADP.

There's also concerns about air quality, but I'm going to focus on noise here.

And I say that it doesn't analyze it at all.

I didn't say it was not adequate.

There's no analysis of noise impacts on Palo Alto or anybody in the year 2045.

And I'm going to sort of do jump cuts of the chase here and do the spoiler alert.

There's a fundamental legal flaw in the EIR.

As we're going to talk about, the EIR takes the position that it can use the year 2045 as the baseline,

even though normally you're supposed to use existing conditions as a baseline, for its environmental analysis.

and it does that for the top of traffic, air quality, and noise,

or at least it purports to do that.

Because if you're going to do a 2045 baseline analysis,

the starting point of that analysis is you're supposed to actually describe

noise conditions in the year 2045 without the project,

and you compare that to the impacts that the project will cause.

That threshold presentation of baseline 2045 noise impacts

is completely missing from the document.

The document, the chapter on noise impacts,

has a discussion of a summary of noise conditions

that existed in the year 2019 through 2023.

There's a chart that talks about decibel levels,

not over Palo Alto, but in areas in the vicinity of the airport.

But there's zero discussion anywhere of future noise impacts

from airport flights in 2045.

And if you're really going to do a baseline analysis of 2045 conditions, you have to include,

start with a summary of what those actual impacts are.

And that's completely missing from the document.

That's a fundamental fatal flaw.

Even if you disagree with our other points, it would be a violation of CEQA to approve

certification of that document without that missing piece.

And I'm going to talk about this a little bit more in system, but I wanted to sort of

cut to the chase first.

Now, as we explained in our materials, the city of Palo Alto, as compared to surrounding communities, is uniquely impacted by noise from flights due to the confluence of three major arrival routes that converge at a low altitude right over the city of Palo Alto before veering out across the bay and then into the airport.

That's why Palo Alto is here, but Redwood City or San Mateo or other cities are not here.

There's a unique impact on Palo Alto.

Our evidence that we've submitted, picture is worth a thousand words.

You can look at the map that we've attached and included in our materials.

It shows how Palo Alto is uniquely impacted because these flights go right over the city of Palo Alto and impact our community.

And all we're asking for is for analysis and disclosure of noise impacts, including the noise impacts from the future growth in flights that will occur as accommodated by the ADP.

Now, the EIR seeks to rationalize its refusal to provide any information to the public on future noise increases based upon a fiction.

And it is stating that the ADP will not cause the development of these future expansion projects,

will not cause an increase in flights, but they're really only going to accommodate the flights when they occur.

And that this flight increase will happen regardless of whether the ADP is developed.

And the approach it takes, it looks at a 2014 estimate the FAA and SFO prepared

as to the maximum potential capacity of the airport.

And then it assumes that, well, that capacity is going to be reached

regardless of whether these projects are approved.

And nothing in the ADP is going to expedite

or change the timing of what's going to happen regardless.

It's a very passive and reactive position that it's taking.

And therefore, it seeks to argue that it doesn't need to analyze

or disclose noise impacts from future flights

because the ADP is not causing those noise impacts.

That's the rationale it uses.

So the major question for the board

is whether you find that position to be factually persuasive.

The staff response to what we've said

focuses on the legal question of substantial evidence.

It argues, well, there's substantial evidence supporting the conclusion,

and therefore the board should uphold our conclusion.

If we were in court challenging this,

that would be the standard of review.

That would be the question for the judge.

The judge would defer to the board's factual determination

and look, well, is there enough evidence to support it?

That's not the question before you.

The question before you is, do you actually agree

that these improvements will not have any contributing effect

to future noise increases?

And I would urge you to apply logic and common sense

and conclude that no, despite the attempted rationale

that they're trying to provide in the EIR,

that there will not be any future flights resulting from the project.

As a matter of common sense and logic, you can see that it will.

So think about this.

The purpose of the SFO management is to make the airport as successful as possible.

Of course, they're doing whatever they can to increase business use

and passenger use of the airport.

That's their mission. That's their goal.

That's why they're suing the Port of Oakland over its attempt to use SFO as its name.

I mean, every step that they take, their mission is to make sure that they are doing whatever they can to maximize passenger use of the terminal.

And the ADP is a part of that.

In fact, if the SFO management was serious that they weren't trying to do that, and I were in your position, I'd want to replace them with somebody who would be trying to actually make the airport as economically successful as possible.

And they admits that point in the EIR and the CEQA findings all throughout their analysis.

And I'm going to quote something here.

The findings and the EIR state that the ADP's central purpose is, quote,

to guide the airport's development as the premier long-haul and international gateway of choice,

facilitating economic growth of the Bay Area.

They admit in the document that the purpose of the ADP is to encourage people to choose to fly there.

They're thus admitting that they're trying to increase flights.

that shouldn't be a surprising or shocking conclusion,

but that's right there.

They have some rationale in their appendix C.

I'm running out of time, so I'm not going to go too much into it,

but they cite federal cases involving NEPA

that say, well, if you build it, it's not necessarily true.

They will come in the context of airport facilities,

but even those cases, as I quoted in our supplemental materials,

acknowledge that, well, yeah, these improvements will have some tendency

to increase passenger use of the airport.

And even that language refutes the argument being made in the EIR.

So under CEQA, it's not enough for them to...

Let's say we agree.

Let's say you agree with them

and that this will not have a tendency to increase airport flights.

That's not enough to meet the standard for using 2045 as the baseline.

CEQA generally mandates that analyzing a project's impacts, the analysis must start from the existing conditions, except in very rare circumstances.

And the guidelines say that in order to justify using a future baseline, here they're trying to justify 2045,

they have to demonstrate

I'm mostly quoting from the guidelines here

with substantial evidence

that use of existing conditions

would be either misleading

or without informative value

to decision makers and the public

and they further state

the guidelines state

use of protected future conditions

as the only baseline

must be supported

by reliable projections

based on substantial evidence

in the record

so there's the requirement

But right there, you have to have projections as to the future, which are completely missing.

You look in the EIR, they're not there as to future noise.

If you compare it to the traffic chapter, the traffic chapter does have a section on that.

But this EIR does not.

We don't want to be here.

The city of Palo Alto would have loved to have a meeting with SFO.

We tried to have that meeting to try to resolve our concerns without having this board to decide our appeal.

We're continuing to be open to that.

And I'm out of time.

All right.

Thank you, colleagues.

Any comments or questions for the appellant?

I don't see any.

So then we will open up public comments specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal.

If there's anyone here to speak in support of the appeal, please line up.

Looks like we don't have anyone.

So then we will close public.

One person, Mr. President.

Yep.

Hi. My name is Jennifer Landesman, and I'm a resident of the city of Palo Alto,

and I've accompanied the situation with the impacts on Palo Alto from when several changes happened in 2014, starting in 2014.

I noticed that San Francisco provided a PowerPoint saying, listing things that they have done to address noise,

Well, all of them are inaccurate and as misleading as the current EIR is about impacts or what the airport is doing.

They mentioned the SFO roundtable.

Palo Alto has been rejected seven times from that body.

They mentioned noise monitoring.

They don't do noise monitoring in Palo Alto except on a temporary basis.

So because I am part of a grassroots group, I see a lot of the people that are impacted.

elderly, youth, and it's pretty serious, especially regarding nighttime.

So the worst part of this is that there is no conversation about actually doing better,

the solutions that exist and that the FAA has even proposed.

So there's no conversation.

I am among the people who are saddened that SFO management did not meet with our city,

and I hope you will ask your planning department to take a look at this report again

and to do the adequate analysis per the appeal.

Thank you so much.

Do we have any other speakers in support of the appeal?

All right.

Seeing none, public comment in support of the appeal is now closed.

and then I think we will have up to 10 minutes for representatives of the

Planning Department.

Good afternoon President Mendelman, members of the board, my name is Kei

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

Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer and Tanya Schoener, Principal Planner

also with the planning department.

The project site is the San Francisco International Airport, or SFO,

located primarily in unincorporated San Mateo County,

approximately 13 miles south of downtown San Francisco.

SFO, one of the city and county of San Francisco agencies,

proposes to implement the recommended airport development plan

or the project.

The project is a major long-term capital facilities plan

with an anticipated construction and implementation period of 20 years,

extending through 2045.

The project includes three main components.

First, it includes improvements and development of terminal facilities,

allowing SFO to modernize and better serve future passenger needs.

Second, the project involves modifications to certain non-movement areas of the airfield.

These are areas not used for aircraft takeoff and landing, but used for supporting overall airport operations.

Finally, the project includes improvements to land-side facilities, such as roadways and support infrastructure,

to accommodate long-term aircraft operations and anticipated passenger activity levels at SFO.

The Planning Department prepared a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, analyzing all components of the project.

The Planning Commission certified the EIR on November 20, 2025.

Subsequently, the Airport Commission approved the project on December 16, 2025.

The department's key responses to the appeal is summarized on this slide and discussed in our January 26 and February 2 appeal responses.

First, while the city acknowledges the lived experiences of residents affected by aircraft on communities such as Palo Alto,

These broader airport-related challenges that are not attributable to the project

are not issues required to be addressed in the EIR under CEQA.

Respectfully, this CEQA appeal constitutes an improper use of CEQA

and conflicts with the state legislature's explicit directive

provided in Senate Bill 131, passed in

2025, that

CEQA would not be used to gain competitive edge or delay

a project for reasons unrelated to environmental protection.

Here, I'd stated

in the appellant's letter, the appellant filed a CEQA

appeal to gain leverage in their ongoing request to

SFO regarding the Federal Aviation Administration's actions, known as Metroplex, taken in 2015

that modified certain flight paths over the city of Palo Alto.

Because the project would not result in any changes to aircraft operations, paths, or

noise or air quality emissions, the Appellants relied on some CEQA to raise concerns regarding

that FAA flight path modifications in 2015

is inconsistent with the legislature's explicit directive

that SIC would not be used to delay or challenge projects

for reasons unrelated to environmental protections.

The appellant disregards

substantial evidence in the record that the project would not

induce aircraft passenger demand and operations at SFO.

As discussed throughout the EIR, as well as the Department's January 26 and February 2nd appeal responses,

implementation of the project would not induce additional passenger demand or aircraft operations at SFO.

Airports are unique transportation facilities whose operations are highly regulated by federal agencies, including the FAA.

as detailed in Appendix C to draft EIR,

which contains an expert technical memorandum prepared by Rick Kondo,

a nationally recognized airport consulting firm,

runway capacity is the primary factor

that limits the number of aircraft that can take off and land at SFO.

Because this project would not alter the runway capacity,

it would not induce additional passenger demand or aircraft operations at SFO.

The appellant has not provided any substantial evidence demonstrating otherwise.

Rather, this appeal reflects a disagreement with the department's responses to the appellant's previous comments,

which does not constitute a basis for recirculation under CEQA.

The appellant misstates the law

regarding the use of future baselines in EIRs

CEQA guidelines section 15125

allows lead agencies to evaluate project impacts

using both existing and future baselines

when doing so provides the most meaningful framework

for evaluating a project's environmental impacts

As explained in the draft EIR and the Department's February 2nd appeal response, the Appellant's recommended approach comparing certain environmental impacts of the project against existing or 2019 conditions would be misleading to the public and decision makers.

The EIR uses appropriate baselines considering the nature and scope of the project's environmental impacts as required by CEQA.

The RADP is a major long-term capital facilities plan

with an anticipated construction and implementation period of 20 years

extending through 2045.

For this reason, comparing the RADP's air quality, noise,

and transportation operational impacts against a future 2045 baseline

provides a realistic and informative assessment

of the project's incremental effects.

In summary, the EIR fully complies of CEQA.

The appellant has not provided any substantial evidence demonstrating otherwise.

Thus, the planning department is not required to recirculate the EIR for public review.

Finally, the appellant misstates the law regarding procedural requirements

applicable to the Airport Commission's project approval on December 16, 2025.

Contrary to the appellant's assertion

the Airports Commission's December 16, 2025

project approval complied with all applicable

requirements under CEQA guidelines section 15090B

The section does not limit the authority to certify

a final EIR to a local agency elected decision making

body such as the Board of Supervisors. It allows the city

agency such as the Planning Commission to certify an EIR.

In addition, the Airport Commission's

December 16, 2025 project approval

complied with San Francisco Administrative Code, Section 31.16

B3. The section does not

prohibit a city agency such as the Airport Commission from

approving a project before the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors schedules

an appeal hearing related to the project.

Here, the Airport Commission approved the project

on December 16, 2025,

before the appellant filed this CEQA appeal

on December 19, 2025.

Thus, the Airport Commission's project approval

complied with Section 31.16b3.

The Planning Department therefore respectfully recommends

that the Board of Supervisor

uphold the Planning Commission's certification of the final EIR

and deny the appeal.

Thank you.

Staff are available here to answer any questions you may have.

In addition, we have a representative here from Recondo,

the consulting firm that prepared Appendix C to the draft EIR.

Thank you.

Colleagues, questions?

I will maybe just make sure I understand the issue and what I think our response is.

So it sounds like the issue that Palo Alto is raising is that this plan would allow for San Francisco

to accommodate additional flights over Palo Alto,

and that that would potentially create a significant noise impact for Palo Alto residents.

And that has not been analyzed in the EIR.

And the city's response to that is what?

Good afternoon, Mr. President.

My name is Steve Culberson.

I'm with the Recondo and Associates.

We are an aviation planning firm, work at U.S. airports throughout the country.

So that is correct.

So the project itself, because it's not changing the runway capacity,

it's not changing the configuration, it's not allowing more aircraft to land at SOFO,

it is not going to induce any additional flights.

San Francisco already operates, it has historically operated about 470,000 annual operations.

The ADP did a very extensive modeling analysis of the runway system and determined that its capacity is about 505,000 annual operations.

So they've already historically operated about 93% of what the runway system can sustainably accommodate on an annual basis.

So the delta we're talking about is pretty small, and the demand for flights, for passengers, for air service here is based on demographic factors.

It's not based on if you build a terminal, more people are going to come to your airport.

It's based on the economic factors.

That's going to occur whether you implement this project or not.

If you don't implement the project, what will happen is you'll have more congested conditions at the airport.

So today, during peak periods, you have congested conditions.

If you don't build additional gates or terminal facilities, you'll see those conditions on a much more regular basis.

and so the plan you're saying the plan to address that potential congestion of operating

essentially where we are or adding a little bit to it within what's currently allowed

is not going to result in any kind of intensification of flights over palo alto that

might create noise so the flights are going to happen regardless so those flights are going to

whether this project is implemented or not.

That is the...

And this project is not a piece of allowing for more flights.

Correct.

All right.

I don't see any other comments or questions,

so we will go to the project sponsor, the airport, for up to 10 minutes.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman and members of the board.

My name is Audrey Park, SFO Environmental Affairs Manager.

Ms. Park, can you speak directly as much as you can into the mic?

Thank you.

SFO Environmental Affairs Manager.

I'm joined today with Steve Culberson, Senior Vice President of Recondo,

who prepared the technical memo titled Airport Facilities to Accommodate Aviation Demand.

This memo is contained in Appendix C of the EIR.

SFO is located about 13 miles south of City Hall and contained entirely on land owned by the city and county of San Francisco and unincorporated San Mateo County.

SFO is the 13th busiest airport in the U.S., serving over 50 million passengers.

This is reflective of a strong return of demand for air travel by people to and from the Bay Area after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The airport is a major employer and contributes billions to the region in direct business revenue.

As a self-funded enterprise department of the city and county, the airport contributed $58 million in fiscal year 25 to the city's general fund.

Today, I'll go over the airport's long-range plan called the Recommended Airport Development Plan.

So what is the RADP?

The RADP contains the vision for how the airport would provide orderly development of facilities

sized to accommodate 71 million passengers at an elevated guest experience.

The RADP is a comprehensive update to the 1989 master plan that provided for facilities

sized to accommodate 51 million annual passengers.

The master plan is sunsetting with implementation of long contemplated projects, such as the

airport hotel opened in 2018 and the Harvey Milk Terminal 1 opened fully in 2024.

So what's in the RADP?

As Kay mentioned, it's primarily landside facilities, including terminal and boarding

areas.

In the airport world, we call everything outside of the airfield landside, different from an urban context.

Parking garages and other landside facilities colored in teal.

As passenger demand for air travel grows over decades, it would trigger certain RADP projects for development over those decades.

The RADP is about as this growth in passenger demand grows,

How can the airport accommodate that demand in a way that elevates passenger amenities and services that is reflective of San Francisco?

Under the RADP, there would be no changes to the existing runways, which determines an airport capacity.

In fact, these projects are sized to match the capacity of the existing runway system and their existing configuration,

and there would be no changes to the existing aircraft flight paths and procedures established and managed by the FAA.

The new boarding area H is envisioned to provide contact gates capable of accommodating both international and domestic flights,

and the number of aircraft that we can accommodate depends on the size of it,

where our airport guests can conveniently and safely board an aircraft by passenger boarding bridge.

This is a contact gate.

If we did nothing as studied in the EIR, the airport would instead have to accommodate future demand through what we call remote gates, where we have passengers bused from the terminals to an aircraft parked on the airfield to then board by an exterior ramp or stairway.

Remote gates are common in other countries, but this is not the guest experience we want for our passengers.

Busing to remote gates can be time-consuming and difficult for some passengers, especially during inclement weather.

And while contact gates in the U.S. are the norm, they are not required for airlines to schedule flights and operate.

If an aircraft can land on the runways and the tower clears them to land, then airports must, by federal regulations, accommodate them.

To reject them is discrimination.

It's important to note contact gates do not increase airport capacity.

So the question has been raised, does adding airport gates create demand or induce growth?

The answer is no.

Passengers drive demand, and absolutely, if people in the Bay Area choose to fly, we

want you to pick us.

And sometimes you may not have a choice because airlines have select routes depending on the airport.

But if there are choices, we want you to pick us.

Socioeconomic factors are the primary indicators for people's propensity for air travel.

Bay Area residents have a strong propensity to fly and travel.

The Bay Area also has many destination locations and events such as the Super Bowl that increases demand.

Airlines add flights in response to that realized demand.

Similarly, airports develop facilities to accommodate that demand.

The old adage of build it and they will come is not true for airports.

In fact, it's don't build it and they still come.

I want you to consider your own travel experience, particularly in the East Coast where we have more population.

And there are many U.S. airports that are congested and people still fly.

The terminal space does not have sufficient passenger lounge areas, insufficient bathrooms,

all of those things that don't make traveling pleasant.

So that's what the RADP is about.

It's important to note that if an aircraft lands, U.S. airports must accommodate them.

We can accommodate passengers with a substandard guest experience,

or we can provide exceptional guest experience.

And through the RADP, the airport can provide exceptional guest experience.

And that's what we mean by guest experience with we don't want crowded terminals.

We want you to have comfortable lounge areas, sufficient seats so you're not sitting on the ground.

We want you to have charging ports, all of those things, sufficient bathrooms available for all of our passengers.

That's what we mean by guest experience.

Those are things that we have direct control over.

Lastly, what does the airport do about existing aircraft noise concerns?

And to be clear, this is separate from the RADP.

Noise concerns have been raised much further away from the airport and outside the federal

and state-recognized noise impact areas.

The airport will continue to actively engage our noise-impacted areas and also inform the

community on what the airport can and cannot do under the current legal framework.

So, for example, local government agencies like the airport cannot change FAA-prescribed flight paths

or the frequency of aircraft operations that airlines schedule.

But we can continue to facilitate dialogue.

SFO has been at the forefront since enabling federal legislation in the early 1980s

to proactively engage the FAA and local cities near the airport

and noise impact areas to abate and mitigate aircraft noise.

And some of the airport's longstanding activities are listed on this slide.

I also wanted to clarify that all items on this slide is absolutely true.

With regard to the roundtable membership,

that was something that elected officials of San Mateo County voted on

and decided not to include the city of Palo Alto in the roundtable.

SFO is also a non-voting member on the roundtable.

We just provide.

Hold on.

I'm pausing the speaker's time, Mr. President.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Please continue.

Last slide.

The RADP is a long-range plan to accommodate future demand with facilities sized to accommodate

71 million passengers as they occur over decades with an elevated guest

experience. Thank you.

Supervisor Melgar. Thank you. I just wanted clarification on that last point

you made about Palo Alto not being included in the community roundtable

because it seems like that was a point of contention during the presentation of

of the appeal. So Palo Alto is actually in Santa Clara County, right? Correct. So why would San

Mateo vote on the inclusion of Palo Alto or not? The city of Palo Alto requested membership in the

SFO Airport Community Roundtable, and it's chaired by all of the, it contains members of

the elected local cities of the county.

And it is subject to

vote according to their rules, and the

members decided to not accept the city.

All of the San Mateo County members decided to vote not to include the Santa Clara

County member. Correct. I see. Okay. And the SFO

is a non-voting member of that roundtable. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Melgar.

I guess I want to just...

That presentation felt a little...

I thought that the answer, or at least the presentation,

was slightly different from what I had understood

from my prior question to planning.

So when I had asked how is this plan not going to be part of adding

to the intensification of flights and noise over Palo Alto,

if that is what's happening.

It sounded like the response from planning was,

or from the consultant was, well, we're pretty much at capacity.

We're not going to see much increase in use.

This is sort of better accommodating and planning

for basically the airport we got now,

but into the future without significant changes

to how many flights are coming in and out

or how many passengers are coming in and out.

But the response from the airport was that this is a plan for growth

or that we needed to be able to accommodate more passengers

and that if we didn't implement this plan,

we would be having to wheel out,

not that we wouldn't be having the growth necessarily,

but the growth would be, I don't know, more unpleasant for passengers.

Is there a difference between those two statements or those two perspectives?

So the forecast, so a constrained forecast was done based on the capacity of the runway system,

And that constrained forecast looked at, you know, how many operations, you know, the runway system could accommodate,

and it's about 505,000 annual operations in a sustainable manner.

We also looked at the fleet mix.

You know, what are the trends with the airlines?

How are the aircraft changing?

How many seats are in each aircraft?

What are the load factors in terms of how many people are actually on those planes?

And when you look out in the future, when you look at the trends on what the airlines are flying, starting to fly here, starting going to be flying in the future based on their airline orders, you come up with a passenger number that is associated with that 505,000 annual operations.

And that's the 77.1 million that Audrey referred to.

So the passenger growth will happen, and that is what was evaluated in terms of some of the employee changes and stuff in the EIR.

But the 77 million passengers and the 505,000 annual aircraft operations are the constrained forecast.

So that is what is going to come regardless of what happens with this project, whether you build this project or not.

that is what the airport can accommodate.

And this plan just makes that a more pleasant experience?

Yes. Without this plan, you'll have crowded terminals,

you'll have crowded roadways, you won't have enough restrooms,

enough concessions, etc.

But you are saying this plan is irrelevant to whether that growth,

which you're describing as fairly modest, happens.

The growth is going to come.

If you look at the long-term projections for the region, they're way higher.

I mean, the unconstrained forecast for passenger and aircraft operations is way higher for the region.

San Francisco's capacity is this, and this is what they're going to be able to accommodate.

All right.

If there are no further questions or comments, we will now hear from members of the public

who want to speak in opposition of the appeal.

So if you are here for that, please line up over on your right or left.

All right.

Seeing none, public comment in opposition to the appeal is now closed.

and then we will give the appellant three minutes for a rebuttal argument.

Thank you.

So what I didn't hear during the presentation from the other side

is any meaningful response to our point that the EIR does not identify any,

provide any information about noise levels in the year 2045

and CEQA mandates that if you're going to use 2045 as the baseline,

you've got to provide that basic information as to,

well, what is that noise going to be?

And if they provided this information,

I did hear from them that, well, you know,

flights are at 93% of capacity,

so not a big deal when they get to 100%.

But the EIR is supposed to say, what does that mean?

What is the decibel difference going to result from that growth?

And the EIR fundamentally does not include that basic information

as to, and again, it's required to,

if you're going to use 2045 as the baseline,

you've got to set forth what those impacts,

what those noise levels are.

And if they did have that information,

then they would have some evidence

that they could use to explain

why they can or cannot justify 2045

versus existing conditions as the baseline.

But until you have that basic information there,

they don't have the substantial evidence

to even support the approach that they've taken.

and they've clearly not complied with the mandate in CEQA to present that information.

The one other point I heard was that Palo Alto is filing this for non-CEQA reasons.

I'm flabbergasted by that.

I think that's a point that's just a misfire on their part.

Obviously, we're concerned about increased noise from increase in future flights over Palo Alto.

That's a quintessential CEQA question.

That's why we're here.

Obviously, there's some existing noise issues we want solved, but this plan exacerbates those existing noise issues,

and we are legitimately under CEQA asking for those to be addressed.

And I don't think I have anything else to add.

I'll ask.

I mean, I'll ask.

So I think you're saying there's no noise in that.

There's no analysis of the noise impacts.

Of future noise baseline conditions from air traffic.

It's completely missing.

But if there were, they would be based on this 2045 baseline,

and you're also challenging whether that's the right baseline.

Yes, there's two aspects to our challenge.

One is there's not enough evidence to justify using 2045 as the baseline.

The challenges are related to each other.

And the second challenge is even assuming that they properly could do that,

In order to do that type of analysis, you've got to provide the information as to what the noise impacts are going to be in the year 2045.

Or at least, and I read to you the CEQA guidelines that mandate, you have to have a reasonable projection of what that baseline is.

And then they would have that information as the baseline to present their analysis.

So these two kind of dovetail together, but there are two conceptually distinct CEQA violations here.

One is factual.

I disagree.

We disagree with them.

and the other is legal, they need to have the 2045 noise information.

And it's completely, I mean, this is an emperor has no clothes type of situation here.

There's completely, they say they're doing this 2045 analysis and it's not there.

But even if the position is that there isn't any noise impacts at all,

there could not be because this project is not adding to noise,

you would still need to do that 2045?

Yes, to justify using the year 2045 as the baseline, you have to present what are those baseline conditions.

You have to describe noise level.

It's their choice to use 2045 as the baseline.

What are the noise conditions in the year 2045?

There are no projections whatsoever.

That's a fundamental CEQA violation.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, maybe I mean, I guess I do have one more question than for planning.

Can you try to address that issue of whether there should be a justification of a 2045 base?

And I'm not quite following maybe, I guess I'm asking you, you're not the right person to explain this.

But there seems to be an argument that there should be a noise analysis of the differential

between what would otherwise be the 2045 baseline

and the noise we're going to get under this plan.

And I think the city's position is there's no difference.

But...

Hi, President Malumann.

KZUC planning department staff.

I'll try to answer your question.

It's a little complex question.

But from the department's point of view,

the EIR fully addresses future conditions

for the purpose of impact

analysis. So we don't agree with the

statement that EIR completely lacks 2045

future baselines to the extent they were used in the

analysis. Also

2045 aircraft emissions were certainly considered

in the EIR.

And also the department had difficulty

in coming up with exact amount of

aircraft emissions in 2025,

excuse me, 2045, because it becomes a little

speculative to figure out how many aircraft operations

would occur in 2045.

So that may be the reason why appellant's pointing out that the future baseline's missing,

but that's not entirely accurate statement, if that answers your question.

I would add to Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer.

I would add to my colleague's summary there that it's important to note that we did characterize

2019 conditions and the project as we have explained would not result in any

increase in an aircraft flights and so the project's impact in that regard is

is no impact so if the increase from existing conditions is no impact the

increase from 2045 conditions is no impact so the Delta is very evident so

So the appellant is focusing on a nuance here about a baseline,

and it's evident that a reader can easily discern the important goal of CEQA environmental impact analysis,

which is to understand the impact.

So regardless of which baseline you choose, we've clearly explained what the project's effect would be with regard to aircraft,

And that effect, the emissions that would result, is zero.

So I think they're kind of focusing, kind of grasping at something here and overcomplicating something.

And I think that's making it, again, more complicated than is necessary.

Okay. Thank you. Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you so much, President.

so while we were listening to the presentations I got the roster from Madam Clerk we do have a

representative seat on this SFO roundtable community a community roundtable and it is

unfilled so perhaps given that we have a political problem with the you know city of Palo Alto we

one of us could do that. And, you know, I see the city of East Palo Alto is represented,

which is, of course, in San Mateo County, but Palo Alto is not being in Santa Clara County. So

we could perhaps work this out through that avenue. But given the presentations that have

been made by the planning department and the appellant, I actually don't see a reason to reverse

the final environmental impact report certification.

I am not convinced that this is an argument that would cause me to vote for it.