Good afternoon.

Welcome to the February 10, 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 present.

Supervisor Chen.

Chen present.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey present.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder present, Supervisor Mahmood. Mahmood present, Supervisor Mandelman.

Present. Mandelman present, Supervisor Melgar. Melgar present, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter present, Supervisor Cheryl. Cheryl present, Supervisor Walton.

Walton present, and Supervisor Wong. Wong present. Mr. President, all members are present.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors

acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone,

who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards

of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush 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 Ramatusha Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign

rights as First Peoples.

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

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

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

On behalf of our board, I'd like to acknowledge the staff at SFGovTV, and today that's particularly

Kalina Mendoza.

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

Madam Clerk, do you want to take us to our 2 p.m. special order?

Yes.

The special order at 2 p.m. is the appearance by the Honorable Mayor Daniel Lurie.

There being no questions submitted from eligible members, the mayor may address the board for

up to five minutes.

Welcome, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Board President, and members of the Board.

This morning, I visited Youth First in Ingleside, a city-funded organization that is helping to take care of 65 public school students today while schools are closed.

Yesterday, the city served thousands of meals to students, and our community-based organizations care for thousands of kids.

I visited sites in the Mission, the Tenderloin, and the Outer Sunset.

The staff at these organizations and our city employees have really stepped up and I'm grateful to all of them.

As the school district and union continue negotiating, we are continuing to provide support to families today and monitoring constantly to prepare moving forward.

I am glad that both sides are at the table today as they were yesterday.

I will say here what I have said to both sides day after day.

Let our kids get back to school where they belong.

Our kids deserve schools where they can thrive and their educators feel truly supported.

I firmly believe that if both sides stay at the table, they can come to an agreement.

I've encouraged them to do that as quickly as possible so we can get schools back open and kids back in the classroom.

Now on another topic, this past week, San Francisco hosted nearly 300 events across the city, the Pro Bowl and Moscone Center, concerts at Bill Graham and Pier 80, community activations like NFL Play 60, the Ferry Building Light Show, and more to celebrate Super Bowl week.

We welcomed visitors from around the world with an estimated $440 million in economic impact to our city.

From just Tuesday through Monday, SFO saw roughly 800,000 arrivals and departures.

As I traveled across the city, I heard from visitors, media, and locals alike.

San Francisco was shining.

None of this would have been possible without our city workers.

Our public safety teams, SFPD, the Sheriff's Office, Park Rangers, the Department of Emergency Management, Fire Department, EMTs, and paramedics were deployed across the city to keep residents and visitors safe.

SFMTA muni operators, parking control officers, and frontline staff kept our transportation system safe and reliable.

On average, this is a wild stat, we carried 17,000 more passengers per day than the previous week,

totaling 2.7 million trips during the weekdays.

I want to thank as well Public Works and Rec and Park for supporting Operation Citywide.

We also had support from regional and state partners.

I want to thank the governor for additional support from California Highway Patrol as well as BART Police and

Caltrans who helped maintain transit and roadway safety throughout the region

San Francisco showed what we can do when we work together

Thank you to every city worker and partner who helped make this successful and helped make it a proud weekend for San Francisco

and I want to thank also all of the members of the Board of Supervisors for

your constant support of that event and it was one that will long be remembered

so that is that is all I appreciate the opportunity thank you mr. mayor thank you

for all of your week all of your work over Super Bowl weekend both on on the

Super Bowl itself and on trying to bring resolution to the school district

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

You're out of order.

Okay. Madam Clerk, let's go back to communications. Thank you, Mr. President. The San Francisco

Board of Supervisors welcomes your attendance here in person in the Board's Legislative

chamber room 250 second floor of city hall when you're not able to be here the proceeding is

airing live on sf gov tv's channel 26 or you can watch the live stream on the go at www.sfgovtv.org

if you'd like to submit your public comment in writing you can send an email to bos at sfgov.org

or use the postal service just 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 need to make a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disability Act

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

by calling 415-554-5184.

Thank you, members, Mr. President.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's go to approval of our meeting minutes.

Yes, approval of the January 6, 2026 board meeting minutes.

Colleagues, can I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented, moved by Chen and seconded by Melgar?

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

On the minutes as presented, Supervisor Wong.

Wong, aye.

Supervisor Chen.

Aye.

Aye.

Supervisor Chen.

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

And Supervisor Walton.

Walton, aye.

There are 11 ayes.

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

Madam Clerk, let's go to unfinished business.

Item number one.

Item one.

This is an ordinance to amend the business and tax regulations code to revise how the

alt or the access line tax applies to the VoIP, the voice over internet protocol services,

to require collection and remittance of the alt on VoIP services using the lower of the

number of telephone numbers provided to a subscriber and the number of calls that the

subscriber can make and or receive at the same time using those telephone numbers.

Please call the roll.

On item one, Supervisor Wong.

Wong, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

Supervisor Chen.

Aye.

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

And Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call item two.

Item two, this ordinance accepts and expends a $7 million grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies

to fund the Mayor's Office of Innovation January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2028,

to approve the associated grant agreement and to amend the annual salary ordinance contained in 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.

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

Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call item three.

Item three, this ordinance amends the planning code to permit parking of up to two operable vehicles,

not including boats, trailers, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, or buses,

in driveways located in required front setback, side yards, or rear yards,

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

Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call item four.

Item 4, this ordinance amends the planning code to make various clarifying and typographical changes to prohibit massage establishments and massage sole practitioner uses as accessory uses to residential uses to affirm the secret determination and to make the appropriate findings.

Again, same house, same call.

Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call items 5 and 6 together.

Yes, item five is an ordinance that amends the planning code to add a new appendix P to article 10 preservation of historical

architectural and aesthetic landmarks to create the Chula Abbey early residential historic district and item six this ordinance amends the planning code

to add a new appendix Q to article 10 preservation of historical architectural and aesthetic landmarks to create the alert alley early residential historic district and for

both items to affirm the secret determination and to make the appropriate findings.

And I think we can take these items, same house, same call, without objection.

The ordinances are finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call item number seven.

Item seven, this ordinance amends the police code to expand the current Tenderloin retail

hours restriction pilot program under which retail food and tobacco establishments in

the restricted area are prohibited from being open to the public from 12 a.m. to 5 a.m.

or from 2 a.m. to 5 a.m. if subject to regulation by the California Department of Alcoholic

Beverage Control to encompass high crime area across the Tenderloin and south of Margit

neighborhoods and to extend the duration of the pilot program currently set to expire

July 2026 to instead expire 18 months from the effective date of the ordinance.

Please call the roll.

On Item seven Supervisor

Aye

Aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

Supervisor Chen.

Aye.

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, no.

Supervisor Mahmud.

Mahmud, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

And Supervisor Walton.

No.

Walton, no.

There are nine ayes and two nos.

with Supervisors Fielder and Walton voting no.

The ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, let's go to new business.

Please call item 8.

Item 8, ordinance to amend the police code

to revise the procedures for alarm companies

and alarm users to claim refunds or credits

of overpaid alarm fees under the police emergency alarm ordinance.

Please call the roll.

On item 8, Supervisor Wong.

Wong, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Chen.

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Sherrill.

Aye.

Sherrill, aye.

And Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call item 9.

Item 9, this is an ordinance to deappropriate $250,000 from general city responsibility

and to appropriate $250,000 to the Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families

to support the District 10 safety plan to include services at the Hope SF sites,

violence prevention events, safe passages, response to schools,

and as-needed support to the youth and residents most impacted by violence

in fiscal year 2025-2026.

Let's take this item, same house, same call.

Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call item number 10.

Item 10, this is a resolution to approve the terms and conditions

and to authorize the general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

and or the city's director of property to execute certain agreements

with the city of Daly City for sale of easements for stormwater facilities at Lake Merced and

license agreements and a purchase and sale agreement.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 11.

Item 11, this is a resolution to authorize the tax collector to sell certain parcels

of tax-defaulted real property at public auction and sealed bid auction.

same house same call without objection the resolution is adopted madam clerk

please call item 12 item 12 this resolution approves and authorizes the

city and county acting through the sheriff's office to enter into a

professional services contract with connections CA LLC for operating the

rapid enforcement support evaluation and triage center a safe alternative to

incarceration for individuals brought in by law enforcement for public

intoxication or drug use, submitted as a core initiative contract

for a total not to exceed amount of approximately $14.5 million

with an initial term of two years and two months

to commence on February 1, 2026 through March 31,

2028 with an additional option to extend for one year.

Supervisor Fielder. Thank you, President

Manelman. I have a question for the BLA. Can you

explain the part in the fiscal impact analysis

in the BLA's report. In fiscal year

25-26, the contract is funded by a general fund work order from DPH to the Sheriff's

Office. Sheriff's Office is requesting funding for the

contract in subsequent years. However, at least $3.1 million in contract

costs are not budgeted in fiscal year 26-27.

So where is this funding

coming from?

Nick Menard from the Budget Legislative

Analyst's Office. So we

don't know. It'll probably be

the general fund. So the

sheriff is going to request the full cost

of the contract next year in their

budget of $6.3 million.

There's $3.1 million

in DPH's budget

next year. That could

probably offset at least a part of that.

But the remaining cost

would need to be our new general

fund cost that will need to be funded in the upcoming budget.

Okay.

Thank you.

Colleagues, first off, I have concerns about this contract as I understand the Reset Center

may or may not be subject to state standards around these kinds of facilities, and we don't

actually know the answer to that at the moment.

Secondly, at a time when DPH is making $17 million in painful budget cuts to programs

in the community that serve some of the most vulnerable people,

like Healthy Steps at the Children's Health Center,

organizations that serve trans and elderly communities,

communities of color.

This agreement would transfer around $3 million a year,

it sounds like, from DPH to the Sheriff's Department

for a completely new program run by out-of-state providers.

And so I will not be supporting spending city funds for new share facilities that come at the expense of community health programs.

Chair Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

You know, first and foremost, during budget committee time, we have this discussion about the funding.

I think we intended to, at that time, was to put the dollar on reserve, or I should say actually only release for a certain dollar amount, and then we want to withhold the remaining of the contract.

But according to the city attorney, we couldn't do that because then it would be the board amending the specific contract term.

And what we have ended up settling is that we know that it's not a fully funded contract.

It will come to the board, I should say the budget committee, during the budget process,

at which time it was, we had articulated that it was our intention to withhold or to put the funding remaining of the contract,

funding for the remaining contract on reserve until we understand what the center, like what's the pilot, more details.

However, I have now received additional information that I did not have during the budget committee.

And the additional information that I received, I find it troublesome and problematic about just a model of the center.

And I just think that this is problematic.

I think that this information really should have been provided to the budget committee prior to it going through the budget committee.

So I also see that Supervisor Dorsey is on the docket.

and I wanted to kind of open up the conversation

about the additional information

that this body ended up receiving

before the budget committee.

It's really not traditionally what we would have.

Like these information we should actually have

before coming to the full board

and allow some discussion.

So now I'm just concerning

about how this was all coming together.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

So as I said in the committee hearing, this item matters a lot to me, and not solely because

the facility is in my district, and not solely even because this is an issue that's a priority

to me as a recovering addict myself.

It matters because, in my view, this is the single most important drug policy innovation

San Francisco has offered since the advent of the fentanyl crisis.

I think this will work.

I think it imposes a much needed measure of accountability that has been too long missing

in our approach to public drug use and its myriad related harms.

I think it will help start to shut down the magnet San Francisco has become as a national

and even global destination for drug related lawlessness.

And I think it will save lives.

For too long when offenders are arrested for public drug use or intoxication,

our only real options have been jail or an emergency room, both of which take police officers off patrol for several hours.

Neither option works well.

Both of us keep stuck in the same cycle, and frankly, the same cycle is something that we can ill afford in today's fentanyl era

with a drug overdose crisis that is still setting records.

Reset is an innovative approach that will improve efficiencies and outcomes scaled up.

I think this is the model for how we will finally make progress toward ending the phenomenon of public drug use in San Francisco.

It is an involuntary custodial intervention for people engaged in illicit drug use in public.

It will reduce from several hours to 15 minutes the amount of time police need to make an arrest,

to confiscate users' drugs and paraphernalia, to get drug use off the street,

and to put drug users in a supervised and coercive setting to hopefully make better choices.

or to face escalating consequences that are themselves foundational elements for most people to have successful recovery journeys.

Substance use disorder, the clinical term for drug addiction, is a medical condition.

But it frequently also results in crime and not solely the crime of using illicit drugs in public.

It fuels retail theft, street disorder, and no small number of episodes of serious property and violent crime.

It is also among our leading causes of preventable death.

And if we are serious about saving lives, we need better, more consequential, demand-side interventions,

like the Reset Center, that give those with addictions a real chance for recovery

and that recognize illicit drugs are a public health and a public safety problem.

I know we've heard from some advocates who feel our criminal justice system has no role to play in addressing public drug use,

and I would say that they are free to petition our state legislature to repeal our drug laws.

But until and unless that happens, San Franciscans have a reasonable expectation to see their state laws enforced.

We owe San Franciscans nothing less than to take every step we can to make our city a destination for recovery

instead of a destination for drug-related lawlessness.

The Reset Center alone won't accomplish this,

But I have every confidence that it reflects the bold approach our city needs that will and I hope it earns everyone's support

Let's go to supervisor Cheryl and then we can circle back to Fielder and Jan

I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor to this measure. It's time to save some lives. Thank you supervisor Fielder

Thanks president man I

Want to see a successful

Reset Center, this is a huge need in the mission for people who are using drugs in public to be

somewhere. And I understand from DPH, from DEM, DPW, SFPD, this is a huge need and want for a long

time. And if we don't do it correctly, this price tag is going to go way up. Way, way, way, way,

way up. And I'm concerned that there's going to be very few outcomes to actually show that it was

worth it. It's not about an either or harm reduction, enforcing drug laws. It's actually

none of that. It is about having somewhere for people to go. But if we don't do it correctly,

if we don't abide by state standards, when we're talking about coercion, we have to be so careful.

and I am just not sure that it is worth the cost of also cutting off other parts of our critical care system,

again, like community programs serving some of the most vulnerable people

that also could be overlapping with this population.

And again, I remain very concerned about doing this correctly, and I'll leave it at that.

Chair Chan.

Thank you.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

And I think that because of the additional information

that we all received,

I just find that that is material

and I think I would have a very different perspective

about the Reset Center last Wednesday

when it was discussed and ticked upon.

In fact, I think if I had that information

even before putting that item on agenda,

I think I would have viewed it very differently.

because my assumption has been the fact that there's a lot of issues operationally were solved, I should say,

that I thought that on many levels that is solved, vetted, and well thought out.

But with the additional information, I just think that it's not,

and that there are still challenges that we haven't completely vetted.

And then also, I think I could at least last Wednesday felt that, you know,

while it's not fully funded, but majority, two-thirds of the funding was made available,

you know, maybe roughly a little bit more than $3 million was provided,

we could actually have that conversation in the second year and during the budget process

and potentially release certain dollars and then withhold some waiting for results of the center.

But with additional information, it made me deeply questions the operation model and its legitimacy.

So with that, because of the new information that was provided literally just a day ago, less than 24 hours, I regrettably, I mean, I think that we need an innovative approach to what we're seeing as a public health crisis on our streets.

But now I think it just threw me off, and then I have a whole set of new questions about this.

so regrettably I will be not supporting this

simply because of the information that I receive on Monday

thank you

Supervisor Melgar

I just wanted to ask a question of the chair of the budget committee

because usually you know

like those of us who are not on the committee rely on the committee

you know doing the work

and it comes out with a recommendation or not

and so do you think that the outcome

and the recommendation of the committee would have been different if you had had this information last week.

And then my other question was, would it be helpful to send this back to committee rather than voting on it today?

Thank you.

I think through President Mendelman, I think what I would have done probably is during the presentation of this center,

I think I would have probably died deeper into just the process and really the process itself.

Meaning, let's call it what it is, right?

Right now, this motto as it currently is, is that people will be detained in this space.

and it's not voluntarily to be detained in this facility.

My expectation is that we would have worked out many legality with that operations

to ensure that we can keep this operation going.

but I think with the new information that clearly

either we ignore that or we

didn't figure out

the operation model.

The second question is would it be helpful to send it back to committee?

I personally would think that

I think that this is a moment where

I don't know even if it's sent back to the committee

that it will change the operation model.

I think that this is collectively we all should decide that.

I mean, I wish we were having a closed session right now.

Actually, you know what?

I'm going to answer this question.

I think that this is one of those questions

that I would love to send it back to committee

but also allow committee of the whole.

I should say I would love to send it to committee of the whole

and then to allow a closed session for us to have these type of discussion.

We have similar ideas in the past, frankly, in a different kind of way,

like safe ingestion site.

We have very similar ideas floating around.

In the past, we decided that we're going to have a closed session and discussion.

So I am just going to leave it like that.

Supervisor Dorsey.

So I would be disinclined to send it back to committee or to have a closed session on it.

One of the things that I would just remind colleagues is this is a 25-bed facility.

This is a pilot program.

As things go in the drug policy realm, this is something that we are trying.

And one of the things that I think really distinguishes drug policy in the fentanyl era that has bedeviled a lot of things is we need to try different things.

And a lot of things that worked back in the good old heroin days aren't working in the fentanyl era.

We're not alone among cities in dealing with this.

this is an approach that I'm satisfied reading the city attorney advice and

talking to the mayor is gonna be doable I don't think that it would I think we

have time before this opens to hammer out any any issues that may come up but I

don't think that there is a reason not to approve this contract as it's

presented to us

Supervisor Fielder.

I would just say respectfully that is our role at the Board of Supervisors

to iron this out before it's approved, to iron out these questions.

And I think wherever it is here or back at committee,

a closed session would be absolutely appropriate.

I was going to ask board procedure-wise and rule-wise,

what I could do to make the motion to send it back to committee.

You just made a motion. Is there a second?

I'm having a motion then.

Oh, you don't want to make that.

At some point you could make...

I'm sorry, are you making...

Well, I would like to move to send it back to committee.

Okay, so is there a second?

Second.

All right, so there's a motion from Fielder to send it back to committee.

There is a second from Chan.

I believe that the board liaison would like to be recognized

is Mr. Tonksavot.

Thank you for the questions, board members.

I'm going to actually ask Sheriff Miyamoto and Under-Sheriff Johnson

if they could come up to the podium and help shed a couple more thoughts

on maybe the questions that the supervisor Chan has on this.

Thank you.

Hi.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I appreciate the opportunity.

come and clarify some things. I hear the discussion. I understand what some of the concerns are.

I want to paint a very simple picture, though, of what we're talking about. This center is designed

as an alternative to bringing somebody to jail for a health reason. Being under the influence

in the public is an offense. The jail, when individuals are arrested and detained and

brought in under this circumstance, has limited conditions in which they can accommodate the

individuals who are coming in that are intoxicated or under the influence. The holding cells are

just holding cells. There is access to medical care and jail health services, but it is not

to a degree that it is nurturing or therapeutic or constant care

because our jail health services staff deal with the entirety of the population in a jail.

This center, the RESET, is designed to be an alternative location

to bring an individual who is being compelled to come with us

because of the public offense to a more therapeutic environment.

and the ability to have that option to place them in a reclining chair,

to place them in a place where they can sober up in a safe environment,

not on the floor of a holding cell or on the bench of a holding cell,

is my interest as the sheriff to have that space for them to come to.

This same individual would be picked up in the public by police, by sheriffs,

arrested and detained under those circumstances,

and without this center would be brought to either jail

or if their condition necessitated it to the hospital.

And this is the option right between a jail

and right between a hospital that we are asking for

as an option to help people that are under the influence.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Sheriff.

Chair Chan.

Well, I mean, I think since I didn't have the opportunity to ask these questions without, you know, with some of the new information, then I would like to ask this question.

So is this center a detention facility or is it not?

So we requested an evaluation from the Board of State Community Corrections.

Their evaluation ascertained that this is not a detention facility, what we call a type one holding facility.

To paint the picture again, this doesn't have bars.

This doesn't have locked doors.

This is an open, almost dormitory-like environment, similar to 820 Geary, where there is immediate access to care.

The intention is to make sure people have the opportunity to sober up.

And then what we do after they are sober is, and they are able to care for themselves,

or at least are in the process of becoming able to care for themselves,

we issue a certificate of release right there.

So they're not booked into the system,

and they're still given the opportunity to rest up to care for themselves

under the supervision of health care personnel, clinicians,

and people who have connectivity to other services outside of the center.

And so what you're saying is that we have received a formal determination

from the Board of State and Community Corrections

that this is not a detention facility?

Yes, we asked for that not just verbally but in writing,

and we did receive that in writing.

So we saw that in writing?

Yes.

Okay.

That's not what I'm being told.

And so have we then been formally determined

that the facility is a temporary holding facility?

No, actually it's not a temporary holding facility.

And it's a sobering center?

For lack of a better term, yes.

But how do people get to the center?

Are they, the population that end up arriving at the center is voluntarily or after they were detained?

They would be compelled to come to the center under our custody because they're being arrested on the street for being under the influence.

So the only population or the individuals that will be arriving at the center are the individuals that will be detained and arrested?

Yes, correct.

We have all the other options currently available for individuals for varying degrees of voluntary access to services.

for being supported by street crisis response teams, by our ambassadors, by our volunteers out there.

The one step that this, this one gap that this fills is instead of having somebody who is arrested or detained under the influence being brought to jail,

they're being brought to this facility to sober up.

But then this would not consider even as a temporary detention center?

No, it would not be.

Under the evaluation of the Board of State Community Corrections, this is not a Type

1 holding facility, a detention facility.

And we have written documents by them saying that they have deemed that this is not a detention

facility.

I have actually seen the emails that were written by our representative from the Board

of State Community Corrections, which clearly state that this is not a type 1 detention

facility.

I would like to see that information, and if that city attorney also agree that considered

that is a formal assessment from from from the board states and communicate

community of Corrections you want us to come back to this we could do our 230 to

come back okay so we will before we do Supervisor Walton we have a motion on the

floor but we can when we will take that up when we come back we can do that yeah

All right.

So we are going to take a little break to go to our 230 special commendation.

Madam Clerk.

This is the recognition of commendations for meritorious service to the city and county of San Francisco, special order 230.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And we will start with District 2, Supervisor Cheryl.

Well, colleagues, today I am honored to commend the Animal Care and Control ACC team who recently did our community a great service by safely capturing and relocating a roaming mountain lion on January 27, 2026.

They include officers Peter Quirk and McKenna Tumath,

sorry if I mispronounced your name,

Lieutenant Stephanie Ryer, Lieutenant Jason Kent,

who couldn't join us today, Captain Rebecca Fenson,

and Deputy Director Amy Corso.

Please come step up to the dais right meow.

Supervisor Cheryl.

First of all, thank you. From all of us, thank you.

As you may have seen, local residents first sighted a mountain lion early.

You know, it says pause here in my remarks, but it's spelled P-A-U-S-E.

Oh, God.

So the mountain lion was sighted early on the morning of Monday, January 26, close to Lafayette Park,

and immediately the animal care and control team leapt into action.

First, the ACC team issued a statement to the public educating all of us about what to do to stay safe.

Then, the officers, along with Rec and Park Rangers and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife,

patrolled Lafayette Park, the surrounding area, responding to tips and calls from the public.

These officers were stationed all night in order to ensure the safety of the public and the mountain lion.

And even after locating the lion, they strategically waited for the animal to be in a position where the ACC team could safely,

tranquilize him, successfully securing him for relocation at 10 30 a.m. on Tuesday, January 27th.

Now for those who are worried, the ACC team then coordinated with a biologist from the California

Department of Fish and Wildlife and the San Francisco Zoo chief veterinarian, Dr. Adrian

Mutlow, to ensure that the young lion was in good health, equipping him with a new tracking collar

and sending him back to his habitat in the Santa Cruz Mountains. This team's readiness, coordination,

and execution were truly perfect, and we are all grateful for their quick work to capture the

mountain lion just 30 hours after being notified. It turns out the lion was originally tagged by the

Puma Project, but he'd lost his original tracking collar as a kitten, which allowed him to wander

from the Santa Cruz Mountains to San Francisco without being noticed. And while this event is

normal for male lions at around two years old who are trying to claim their own territory,

it is positively not normal for these lions to arrive in San Francisco.

That's the last pun, I swear.

For these lions to arrive in San Francisco.

And this lion seems to have found the city's inclines too mountainous.

But above all, one thing is very, very clear.

We all have to expect the unexpected in San Francisco.

And you all were remarkable in your quick ability to do just that.

The staff at ACC are unsung heroes of this city, not just last month, but all year round.

You provide vital care for our beloved pets, and you ensure public safety in, frankly, wild instances like this.

And with that, I am so grateful for the proactive, informative, careful, thoughtful manner in which you all acted to ensure both our community and the wildlife that calls a barrier home safe.

It is my honor and pleasure to commend your actions here today at the board, so thank you to all of you, and I'd like to invite Deputy Corso to share a few words on behalf of the group.

Thank you, Supervisor Cheryl, for this honor.

I'm proud to be standing here with four of our animal control officers who represent a small but mighty ACO team.

We currently have 14 officers who serve the entire city from 6 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week.

Now, this job can often be a thankless job, but they do it because they love it and they truly care.

The events of January 26th and 27th perfectly highlight the dedication of this team.

These officers worked tirelessly throughout the night tracking this lion, working extra hours on top of an already long 10-hour shift.

And then they showed up the next day for work, no complaints.

So this was actually the fourth incident of a mountain lion since 2017 that ACC successfully coordinated a multi-agency response to relocate.

and they did it successfully and we prioritized public safety while maintaining the welfare of the lion.

And while we don't do this job for the recognition, this acknowledgement means a great deal to us all.

So on behalf of the entire team, thank you.

And I'd also like to recognize ACC Director Virginia Donahue, who I believe is here with us today.

Thank you for your leadership, Director.

Thank you.

District 10, Supervisor Walton.

Thank you so much, President Mandelman.

Colleagues, today as we continue to honor the contributions of black people here in San Francisco,

it is truly an honor to recognize and celebrate a remarkable leader, advocate, and community pillar,

Ms. Chablis Scott.

As you walk up to the podium, for more than three decades, Chablis has poured her heart,

her time, and her unwavering commitment into the Bayview-Hunters Point community.

Chablis' dedication to our young people is especially powerful.

during her 10 years with Hunters Point Family and Girls 2000,

first as a case manager and later as program director.

She helped guide, mentor, and uplift countless youth,

ensuring they had the tools, confidence, and support needed to thrive.

Her work was never just a job.

It was a calling rooted in building stronger futures for the next generation.

Her leadership extends far beyond one organization.

Chablis has played a key role in environmental and neighborhood beautification efforts,

working alongside community leaders like Jafria Morris to advance the 9-for-1-2-4 Parks Grant proposal,

an effort focused on improving and preserving the public spaces our families rely on every day.

Chablis has also been a consistent presence in youth sports and recreation,

contributing her voice and energy as a football announcer with the Brown

Bombers and supporting adult softball programs. Through sports she has helped

foster teamwork, discipline and joy for residents of all ages. An alumni of

McAteer High School and San Francisco State University, Chablis continues to lead by example

as president of Black Women Investors, an all-female African American investment organization

dedicated to building wealth, hosting community-centered events, and creating financial opportunities

that strengthen both families and neighborhoods.

Through this work, she is helping redefine what collective empowerment and economic justice

look like in real time.

Currently she is also, I'll wait, I'll wait for the supervisors.

Thank you.

Currently, she is also 13 years with MTA's Department of Traffic degree.

And now serves as a supervisor.

But beyond her many titles and accomplishments, Shibley is most proud of her family.

She is a devoted mother to her sons, Kareem, a recent graduate of Jackson State University, and Amir.

She is deeply supported by her husband, Mr. Amy O. Robinson, whose love and partnership have been a cornerstone of her strength.

Today, we recognize not just the work Shibley Scott has done, but the lives she has touched, the doors she has opened, and the lasting legacy she continues to build in Bayview-Hunters Point.

Her commitment reminds us what true community leadership looks like.

Thank you for your service, your leadership, and for continuing to inspire us all.

Today, Chablis, we honor you.

You make me sound hecka good.

All right, so thank you to everybody.

I'm going to be short and sweet.

Anybody who knows me know I'm definitely never short and sweet, but I'm going to keep this simple.

Shemai, you made me sound excellent.

I feel like Michelle up here.

I'm not a rock, right?

But no, thank you to everybody that came out.

Of course, I'm supporting my community as much as I possibly can, always and continuously will.

But I want to say thank you to my community.

You see my people in here supporting me?

I got my mother.

I got my mother in here, my two sons in here, my stepmom, my mother-in-law, my auntie.

I got three best friends that's been my friends for over 40 years.

And my PCOs.

Look at my stand-up PCOs.

People still getting tickets.

People still getting tickets, I promise.

But thank you, guys.

So I just want to say thank you to my community, if that makes sense.

It takes a community to build a community.

And Shimon, thank you for all your taking care of my boy, Percy SJ.

Just a major love to everybody.

Thank you so much.

Everybody come on front.

I know Supervisor Walton wants to be part of the conversation about item 12, so we're

going to go to item 13.

This resolution retroactively authorizes the police department to accept and expend an approximate $1.1 million grant

from the California Department of Justice for the 2025 tobacco grant program

to fund personnel and operating expenses for the SFPD's DMACC,

the Drug Market Agency Coordination Center, project term beginning on November 21, 2025, through June 30, 2029.

Please call the roll.

on item 13 supervisor Wang Wang I supervisor Chen Chen I supervisor

Dorsey Dorsey I supervisor Fielder Fielder I supervisor Mahmood Mahmood I

supervisor Mandelman I Mandelman I supervisor Melgar Melgar I supervisor

Sauter Sauter aye supervisor Cheryl Cheryl aye and supervisor Walton Walton absent without objection the resolution is adopted

Madam Clerk please call item 14

Item 14 this item was referred with that recommendation from the budget and finance committee

Item 14 is an ordinance to approve a hotel development incentive agreement between the city and county and bespoke hospitality

hospitality LLC for the Hearst Hotel development project to provide 40 million in financial

assistance in net present value over 20 years calculated for measurement purposes only as a

percentage of new transient occupancy taxes the city actually receives from occupancy of guest

rooms in a proposed new hotel related to the development and operation of a project on certain

real property known as 5 3rd Street and 17 through 29 3rd Street to waive chapter 21 g of the

administrative code and certain sections of the labor and employment code and to

ratify past and to authorize future actions in furtherance of this ordinance

and to make the appropriate findings. Chair Chan. Thank you, President Mendelman.

I first really want to thank Vice Chair Dorsey for just all the conversation

during the budget committee. I know that Vice Chair Dorsey, this is not only a

project that he supports, that he's a co-sponsor, but also with the willingness to have the open

discussion about not just about this project and with the understanding that my question

really mainly focused on the investment, again, in downtown and in the area, that we are putting

a lot of resources in this space and that be it around most recently last week colleagues

the downtown revitalization financing plan that dedicated 610 million dollars of future revenue

that for the over 45 years investments in that area not to mention the impact fee waivers

inclusionary waivers allowing commercial spaces to convert into residential and I

think that here we are another property within that zone this time it's a hotel

development with 40 million dollars dedicated again future revenue of the

40 million dollars dedicated over 20 years of time in the hope that this will

again, boost that corner, specifically at Third Street and Market.

While I really think that downtown is critical to San Francisco's local economy

and how we can bounce back,

this is something that we must do in terms of investing in downtown.

I begin to have more questions than answer to Mayor and his team about this investment and how these investments actually all going to come together.

I would like to have a better understanding of a vision for the entire zone before I continue to support these type of piecemeal projects, so to speak.

I would like to have a more cohesive investment plan for downtown so that we can collectively and comprehensively calculate and project both our investment dollars from the public dollars,

and then as well as the type of revenue that we expect us to generate

so that we have a better idea but also better metrics to measure that success.

Clearly, these are long-term investments, typically more than a decade, up to 45 years,

but I still would like to have a more comprehensive evaluation and comprehensive analysis

and that allow us to make a better determination

whether these type of investments will yield the results that we are looking for.

And so for that, I would not be supportive of this item 14,

although I think that that is not to say that I will not change my mind down the roll

when I have a better understanding of the information that I have just mentioned

from the mayor and the mayor's team.

Thank you.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

The Budget Committee sent this out, as you know, without recommendation.

And as I said in committee, I tend to view doing that as a courtesy that we send from the Budget Committee to you when there's an active contention or issue.

And I know Chair Chan had concerns, including concerns, by the way, that I share about being maximally transparent.

Whenever we're doing something that is committing resources, or in this case, denying ourselves resources, if we have an obligation to be transparent with the finances on that, I am 100% on board.

That said, however, this is something that I feel very strongly about.

This is the kind of incentive that we need for projects like adaptive reuse projects that are uniquely important.

I personally am strongly enthusiastic about adaptive reuse projects like this one's and others that I may talk about even today.

Office conversions like this project enable us to retain the rich architectural heritage of our historic assets,

which make our downtown streetscape such a globally admired destination,

but it also enables us to facilitate new uses that reinvigorate our downtown for 21st century economic imperatives.

This is an intentional incentive, like the $40 million credit fills the project feasibility gap,

and we have guardrails in place to exercise fiscal oversight.

The program will expire in 20 years, even if the hotel does not succeed,

and the benefit will cut off sooner if it's a success.

The conversation at the Budget Committee centered on the need to have a comprehensive vision for downtown

and our use of financial incentives.

I don't disagree, but I think this agreement is part of a policy framework from OEWD

to specifically incentivize hotels, which I think we need.

An individual agreement like this one is tailored in a way that strikes a balance

between kick-starting a project and retaining as much of our tax benefits as we can,

and this will be a project-by-project call.

So, colleagues, I hope to have your support on this fair agreement that will bring 150 jobs downtown, preserve a historic resource, and invigorate a part of Market Street that I represent.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

I'm looking forward to supporting this as well.

This hotel sits just a few feet out of my district, and I think it's a really important space on Market Street.

You know, I've looked at the numbers here, and I'm very comfortable with the numbers.

the proposed development is projected to provide net general fund revenues of approximately $713,000

per year compared to the existing land use. When you look at what's there right now,

70-80% office vacancy on that site. You compare it to what will be there, we're looking at a 10x

increase in property tax revenue each year. We're also looking at approximately $157,000

in net revenue to the MTA each year.

That is money I think we can all agree that we'd like to see put into transit

and invested into our public transportation.

The structure of these incentives and deals means that we look at these one by one, one-off.

That's what we're doing here.

And this particular development is a good deal for the city,

and I look forward to seeing it built.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President Malamon.

I have a quick question because I know there's talk about the increase of property tax revenue.

Who can tell me how much of that goes to the developer and how much of that goes to the city?

Does who has a potential BLA?

You want to try, Mr. Menard?

Yeah, Nick Menard from the Budget Legislative Manalist Office.

So this agreement rebates the hotel tax, not the property tax.

And so the hotel tax generated by this project will be about $3 million a year.

That would be the city giving that back to the developer.

But the city would retain its share of the property taxes under the agreement.

So it's not like a—

But we don't get any of the hotel tax.

Correct.

But we get our regular traditional property tax.

Until the city pays $40 million or the payments happen over 20 years.

And then how does this increase property tax revenue?

Because the value of the hotel is projected to be higher than the vacant office building that's there now.

So they're going to pay more property tax than they pay today?

Correct.

how much more off the top my head I believe it's about five hundred

thousand dollars a year additional thank you okay if there's no more

comments or questions madam clerk please call the roll on item 14 on item

14 supervisor Wong Wong I supervisor Chan Chan no supervisor Chen Chen Chen

Aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, Aye. Supervisor Fielder.

Aye. Fielder, No. Supervisor Mahmood. Mahmood, Aye.

Supervisor Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, Aye. Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, Aye. Supervisor Sauter. Aye. Sauter, Aye.

Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, Aye. And Supervisor Walton.

Aye. Walton, Aye. There are nine A's and two No's, with

Supervisors Chan and Fielder voting No. The ordinance is

passed on first reading.

All right, colleagues.

We've got a couple of 3 p.m. or a few 3 p.m. special orders.

We will get through those.

Then we will come back to item 12.

And then we will make our way through the remainder of our items.

So with that, Madam Clerk, I think

we're going to take our 3 p.m. special orders not

in the order that they are in our agenda,

because I think we think we may be able to relatively quickly dispose of items 27 through 30.

So could you please call items 27 to 30 together?

Yes, item 27.

This is a public hearing of persons interested in the de facto denial of a conditional use authorization

for a proposed project at 524 through 526 Vallejo Street and 44A San Antonio Place

to legalize the merger of three dwelling units on second and third floors into one dwelling unit

and to reinstate one dwelling unit on the ground floor within an existing four-unit residential building.

Item 28, 29, and 30 are the motions associated with that public hearing.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

On these items, in the last day or so, new information has come to light that I think both parties and this body should have more time to digest.

And so given that, both the parties involved here have agreed to a continuance,

and I would like to make a motion that we continue this item until March 10th.

March 10th, seconded by Walton.

All right, I think we need to take public comment on the continuance before we vote on it.

So, Madam Clerk, do you want to call for public comment on the continuance?

Yes, the president has now opened public comment on the continuance for items 27 through 30.

This is the appeal of the conditional use authorization de facto denial for the Vallejo Street Project.

If you're here, now is your opportunity to come forward.

All right, Mr. President.

All right, public comment on the continuance is closed.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the motion.

On the motion to continue items 27 through 30 to March 10, 2026, Supervisor Wong.

Wong, Aye.

Supervisor Chan

Without objection the motion is approved and these and items 27 to 30 are continued until March 10th

All right, madam clerk that takes us back

Let's go to our first two 3 p.m. Special orders. Please call items 19 through 26 together

Yes, I will group items 19 through 22 first

They comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, issued as a categorical exemption by the Planning Department on May 29, 2025, for the proposed project at 350 Amber Drive to install a new AT&T macro wireless telecommunications facility on an approximately 104-foot-tall monopole consisting of 12 new antennas and 9 new remote radio units.

and ancillary equipment within the P public zoning district and the OS the

open space height and bulk district item 20 this motion affirms the planning

department's determination that the proposed amber drive project is

categorically exempt from environmental review item 21 is the motion to

conditionally reverse the determination subject to the approved findings by the

board in support of that determination and item 22 is the motion to direct the

preparation of findings the second grouping this is item 23 through 26

comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a

conditional use authorization for the same project at 350 350 amber Drive

again issued by the Planning Commission by its motion dated September 25th 2025

to install the aforementioned wireless telecommunications facility from AT&T

Item 24 is the motion to approve the Planning Commission's decision to approve

unconditional use authorization. Item 25 is the motion to disapprove that

decision based upon approved findings by the board and item 26 is the motion to

direct the clerk to prepare findings. All right colleagues this will be a

little bit repetitive but as you heard we have before us two appeal hearings

with one appellant on the proposed project at 350 Amber Drive. Items 19 to

22 comprise the appeal of the determination of exemption from environmental review, and

items 23 through 26 are the appeal of the conditional use authorization.

After the hearing, the Board will vote on two things.

One, whether to affirm or conditionally reverse the Planning Department's determination that

this project is categorically exempt from environmental review, and two, whether to

approve or conditionally disapprove the conditional use authorization for this project.

consistent with past practice.

Unless there are objections, we will proceed as follows.

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

Then we will open the floor for public comment with two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal.

Then we will hear from the planning department for up to 10 minutes.

Then we will hear from the project sponsor for up to 10 minutes.

That will be followed by public comment.

Again, up to two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal.

Finally, we'll bring the appellant back up for three minutes of rebuttal, and then we

will deliberate.

Colleagues, I don't see any objections or questions, and seeing none, the public hearing

will proceed as indicated and is now open.

All right, and I will invite Catherine Dodd up to present on behalf of the appellants.

Thank you, Supervisor Mantelman.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

My name is Catherine Dodd.

I'm a city and county retiree, a former aide to supervisors, former chief of staff,

deputy chief of staff to Mayor Newsom, and former director of your health service system.

I've lived and served San Francisco for 49 years.

Today I speak as a member of the Diamond Heights Community Association.

We request that the board uphold both appeals, the CUA and the CEQA exemption,

and deny this project or remand it back to planning, find that the application is incomplete,

and order additional environmental review.

A 104-foot macro tower would be the tallest structure in the area

and therefore not necessary or desirable or compatible with the neighborhood community.

Moreover, the proposed tower is not consistent with the city siding guidelines for wireless facilities.

Remanding back to the Planning Commission would be appropriate as the applicant has received

The applicant has made significant changes to the project since the Planning Commission approved it.

Several recent appellant and trial case rulings have found that towers are not a small structure and exempt from environmental review.

AT&T has numerous alternatives for providing wireless service that don't involve constructing a 104-foot, 10-story tower.

The board should deny the project and order the city to consider alternatives.

The request is squarely in the board's discretion.

We're not asking you to negotiate wireless service or RF emissions.

We're asking you to exercise core legislative authority over land use, aesthetics, and environmental review.

Federal law preserves this local control so far.

In 2018, the California Supreme Court unanimously upheld San Francisco's personal wireless facility ordinance,

confirming your authority to consider aesthetic siding impacts and neighborhood compatibility.

Fairness of this process was undermined by AT&T's late submittal of final arguments.

Our attorneys submitted information on time by January 30th,

and AT&T submitted theirs five days later,

specifically responding to our filing and introducing new information

that we did not have sufficient time to respond to.

Bias has been shown in the findings documented through public information requests

that planning staff requested AT&T to help draft the findings

that were ultimately approved by the Commission.

This collaboration gave AT&T advantages that residents were denied.

The conditional use authorization falls squarely in Section 303 standard requiring projects

to be necessary or desirable for and compatible with the neighborhood.

This massive 10-story tower on the boundary of open space parks surrounded

by RH1 residential zoning does not meet that test.

And AT&T's preferences for necessary and desirability should not be taken into consideration.

Overwhelming, 83 letters were sent to the Planning Commission expressing substantial, specific aesthetic and safety concerns

that demonstrate that it's not desirable or necessary.

For example, residents wrote, the view of the trees comforted me during chemotherapy.

My kids play at Christopher Park and I want them in nature, not dominated by an industrial tower.

I moved here for the open sky preserved by underground wires,

and watching a red-tailed hawk sitting on the police academy fence is magical.

Since September, another 75 comments were submitted, which include brown paint won't camouflage a structural tower 20 feet above the tree line,

Or, a 700-cubic-foot antenna atop the tree canopy array is unacceptable whether it's painted brown or blue.

And the newly announced street-level transformer will be visible and noisy,

contradicts the Planning Commission's findings from September 25th that all equipment would be behind the police academy and not visible from the public street.

It's not compatible with the nature of the neighborhood.

Diamond Heights was designed in the 60s by famous modernist architects to preserve views of the park and open sky.

A 10-story structure 20 feet above the trees in open space, surrounded by RH1 zoning of maximum four stories,

violates the character as well as the general plan's goal of preserving open space and protecting parks from development.

Our parks are a focal gathering place where families seek nature experiences, not industrial structures.

It also violates the citywide biodiversity policy by endangering wildlife in our forests in Glen Canyon.

Scientific literature documents bird deaths from tower collisions.

Both planning and AT&T claim that animals don't move around more than 200 feet.

Even a five-year-old would dispute that.

Further, the general plan calls for the police academy to be moved and centralized.

Research shows property values decline near antennas.

That will affect the police academy's property value as well as ours.

In a meeting, Supervisor Manelman asked whether AT&T would compromise on size, alternative networks, or location.

They refused, stating this project is necessary for our business goals.

The statement matches AT&T headquarters' comments in December of 2025 on FCC regulations

proposing to eliminate all local control, wherein they said,

we support the proposed regulations.

They will allow us to densify our macro tower network and advance our goals.

AT&T, in that meeting with Supervisor Manuelman,

also refused to agree not to add a second level of bulky antennas.

AT&T misled four of the seven planning commissioners

and convinced them that this tower was necessary for safety,

specifically for FirstNet safety.

FirstNet emergency communications are used only by first responders.

Right now, FirstNet is the communication used by ICE,

and AT&T was given additional funds to track undocumented immigrants with it.

We do not need FirstNet in San Francisco.

Fire Chief Crispin and Ingleside Captain Newbeck stated at an October 25 community meeting

that FirstNet is optional.

It's not required for our first responders.

A Department of Emergency Services manager said she didn't even know what FirstNet was.

AT&T requested support letters from the fire chief, interim police chief Yip,

and sheriff Miyamoto and provided each a draft letter.

Fire chief Crispin declined to send a letter.

Chief Yip didn't respond and didn't send one.

Only elected supervisor Miyamoto sent a letter drafted by AT&T.

AT&T also misled the commission about 911 services.

Chief Christman and Captain Newbeck confirmed to us that 911 calls from any carrier reach the nearest tower.

AT&T's tower doesn't change 911 access.

Everyone already has it.

Most importantly, a giant macro tower isn't required to strengthen signal strength in specific areas in our neighborhood.

Verizon and T-Mobile use unintrusive small cell networks throughout the neighborhood.

AT&T refused to consider these because their business plan is to reach far beyond our neighborhood.

Planning approved this location is preference one under the city's wireless siting guidelines.

Preference one is for facilities mounted on public structures, fire stations, utility structures, community facilities.

This macro tower is not mounted on an existing structure.

It's a new freestanding 10-story foot macro tower in a lot zone for public,

but it's surrounded by residential and bordering parks.

Therefore, it should be classified as preference 6 or preference 7.

Preference 6 is limited.

Preference 7 is a disfavored location specifically for residential neighborhoods and parks.

This misclassification allowed the project to bypass heightened scrutiny required for new ground-mounted installations in residential areas and natural areas.

This appeal, if denied, sets a dangerous precedent for towers throughout the city.

The secret class 3 exemption is improper.

This is not a small structure.

Planning relied on an inaccurate articulation that doesn't match the statutory test.

The project also triggered exemptions, including fire hazards, historic neighborhood status, and threats to biological services.

AT&T made significant material changes after the Planning Commission approval.

Their late February 2nd submission reveals drawings labeled Future Antenna, Second Layer.

The second layer was not approved by the Commission.

If one layer that they've proposed is enough to cover the currently weak signals, why plan for two?

because AT&T will generate funding from rental agreements on the second layer.

Additionally, it would expand coverage beyond our neighborhood

and let them better compete with cable providers.

On January 12th, AT&T notified our association of a new noisy transformer

planned for in front of the police academy.

We like to listen to the birds in the park, but now there will be a noisy transformer.

This addition contradicts both the CUA and CEQA findings.

What does that mean?

You have 28 seconds left.

Okay.

I'll say that the project is not compatible with the planning code or general plan.

It will have environmental impact, and it will not contribute to neighborhood character or stability.

It constitutes a beneficial development only for AT&T's business goals, not our community.

We urge you to uphold these appeals and protect our neighborhood and other neighborhoods from this unnecessary incompatible project.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, do you want me to caution the audience that we don't actually

have applause? Yes, Mr. President. All right. So we have roles in the chamber that we're

not supposed to applaud. But visual manifestations of approval are okay. There we go. The clerk

has demonstrated. All right, colleagues, I do not have any questions for the appellant

at this time, although I may later.

And so seeing it looks like no one else does either.

And so Madam Clerk, let's open up a public comment

in support of the appeal.

If folks could line up over on your right, our left,

our clerk will take us through public comment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

We are setting the timer for two minutes.

You'll first hear the soft bell.

All that will let you know to wrap up your comments as you'll have 30 seconds.

And once the second timer does ring, I do apologize if I interrupt you, but please try to keep your comments to two minutes.

Welcome to our first speaker.

Thank you for having me, and good afternoon.

My name is Daniel Sherrick, and I am president of the Diamond Heights Community Association.

I'd like to be clear.

This appeal is not about a prohibition of service.

It's about how that service is delivered.

A large monopole covered in antennas isn't the only way to provide coverage, but it is the most visually and environmentally intrusive option.

It should not be allowed.

There are viable alternatives that would easily allow AT&T to expand its business goals while also delivering on the needs and rights of Diamond Heights residents.

Here are two simple examples.

First, distributed antenna systems known as DAS.

DAS uses multiple smaller towers with smaller antennas, either mounted on existing infrastructure

or small purpose-built towers to provide area-wide coverage.

Instead of concentrating massive impacts in a single location, DAS distributes service

discreetly and is perfect for dense and hilly neighborhoods like ours.

The impact of small towers on the community would be minor.

A second option are just small antenna cells located on existing utility poles or street

light posts.

These facilities are compact, low-profile, and designed specifically to avoid the need for giant towers.

They're literally everywhere in San Francisco right now, and virtually no one cares about them.

Small cells are a spectacular solution not just for Diamond Heights, but any residential neighborhood in San Francisco.

Community impact is extremely low, but still it unlocks lucrative business opportunities for AT&T and other wireless carriers.

Moreover, they avoid the headache of community opposition and appeals against monopoles

that every single district supervisor in this room is going to have to contend with in their own districts

if AT&T is able to build their tower in Diamond Heights.

There are alternatives that are technically feasible, economically viable, legally permissible, and active today.

You have the opportunity to drive innovative, nearly invisible solutions here in San Francisco

and set the tone for decades to come. Thank you.

Thank you, Daniel Sherrick, for your comments.

Let's hear from our next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm Betsy Eddy, former president of the Diamond Heights Community Association,

and I'm speaking on the fire danger that is implicit in this proposed cell phone tower.

AT&T's late submittal disparages Susan Foster by saying she provides no evidence that she is a fire expert.

Ms. Foster has been a noted fire consultant for 20 years.

Recently, she wrote the new fire regulations for Los Angeles after the Palisades fire.

AT&T submitted other inaccuracies.

Fire Inspector Oldidge states that Ms. Foster's description of fires, quote,

high winds and nearby receptive vegetation were the contributing fires in those fires that she described.

both of which occurred in conditions that do not occur in San Francisco.

Mr. Oldridge is unfamiliar with the proposed site,

where winds are regularly 20 to 40 miles per hour and reach 80 miles per hour in fierce storms.

The proposed location would sit very close to a grove of combustible eucalyptus tree.

AT&T states as well, a fire involving a self-tower is not a frequent or requested occurrence.

As the founder of Resilient Diamond Heights that has been working for 18 years to prepare Diamond Heights for all types of emergencies, I strongly disagree.

In your board packet, there is a link that shows multiple fires in California and across the United States that were started in telecom communities.

We are already fearful of a fire in Glen Canyon Park by fireworks, a cigarette, or an unhoused person's camping fire.

And we feel that a branch could...

Thank you, Betsy Eddy.

Thank you for your comments.

Okay, welcome to our next speaker.

My name is Holly Newmark.

I'm reading this letter from Evelyn Rose, founder of Glen Park Neighborhood's History Project,

who could not be here today.

Dear Honorable Members of the Board, Diamond Heights, a mid-20th century redevelopment project,

was intentionally designed by landscape architect Vernon DeMars with a low-profile footprint

that is aesthetically synchronized with the surrounding landscape.

The 360-degree visibility of the AT&T 104-foot macro tower is expected to have a negative

impact on the intentional low-prow contours and unique history of Diamond Heights.

Yet, AT&T and the Planning Department have failed to address what impact installation

will have on the historical built environment.

The Planning Department's own citywide cultural resources survey is currently identifying

sites that are eligible for the Article 10 Landmarks Work Program and other historic

preservation protections and incentives.

Diamond Heights residents deserve equitable opportunity to access Article 10 protections and other benefits.

Installation of the AT&T macro telecommunications tower has potential to exclude Diamond Heights residents from any future consideration.

I therefore strongly urge the Board of Supervisors to overturn the CEQA exemption for AT&T's 100-foot macro tower

to enable a proper evaluation of the potential impact on the historical integrity of Diamond

Heights. Sincerely, Evelyn Rose. Thank you. Thank you, Evelyn Newmark, for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Kevin O'Connor,

and I live in Mariloma Park, a neighborhood of 2,200 homes located along Mount Davidson

on the west side of Glen Canyon, just across from the Diamond Heights neighborhood.

I'm speaking today on behalf of the Mariloma Park Improvement Club, a nonprofit serving our neighborhood since 1934,

and for nearly 90 years, we've worked closely with the city agencies on planning, public safety, resilience, and community well-being.

We support the appeals of both the CEQA exception and the conditional use authorization.

This massive tower does not meet CEQA guidelines nor planning's siting guidelines.

This is the first massive tower exempted by planning in a residential neighborhood bordering two parks.

This approval sets a dangerous precedent for macro towers to proliferate in residential neighborhoods citywide.

AT&T says this macro tower is necessary, desirable, and compatible with the neighborhood.

We disagree.

Allowing the exemption sets a dangerous precedent for all neighborhoods.

This massive tower is not a small addition to an existing structure.

It's 12 bulky antennas towering 20 feet above trees atop a 104-foot pole visible throughout the neighborhood overlooking Christopher Park and Glen Canyon.

There are no freestanding towers of this height existing in residential neighborhoods next to parks.

The Planning Commission approved this tower for publicly used structures like police stations and utility buildings.

However, this new tower is behind the police academy.

Massive towers don't belong adjacent to parks, playgrounds, and homes.

We urge the board to grant the CEQA appeal and require a full environmental review and grant the conditional use authorization appeal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Kevin O'Connor, for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Hi, I'm Deborah Murphy, president of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods.

And it's a tough act to follow with Catherine's wonderful speech.

My only criticism is she covered all the points I wanted to make.

but I'm going to emphasize a few things.

There's key safety issues in this location,

the fire risk, seismic landslide risk, natural resources,

the approval made based on misleading claims.

For these reasons, this project does not qualify for a CEQA exemption.

The tower would only help AT&T customers.

T-Mobile and Verizon have good cell phone coverage in Diamond Heights

without the 10-story towers.

AT&T refused to consider other alternatives.

I don't give in to corporate greed and let AT&T have this tower.

I was at that meeting when Fire Chief Crispin said they didn't need it.

So please, listen to your constituents.

Look at all the people who come out here on a cold, rainy day

because they're opposed to what AT&T wants to destroy their neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Vladimir Kostyukov, and I'm a longtime San Francisco resident.

Came here in 2013 for the job and stayed for the city that I now proudly call my home.

My family purchased our first house last year in Diamond Heights on Ember Drive, just a few

feet away from the proposed project site.

The place seemed perfect to raise our kid in.

It's a lot of parks around.

It's very safe.

It's very quiet.

Now, the proposed project, if built, will have a long-lasting effect on insurance costs,

property values and safety.

I am unfortunately no longer sure that would be the right place to raise our kid in.

My community has been voicing their concerns about this project very strongly and very consistently.

More than 80 letters submitted in opposition to the public commission.

More than 20 people stayed in line to speak their hearts against this project during the

planning commission hearing.

But we weren't heard.

And now we're here today, our last chance to speak our hearts in front of the board of

supervisors.

we're hoping you hear us and support our appeal

and require corporations to build something

that makes our parks nicer, not worse.

We all live in a city that's very expensive.

San Francisco is pricey.

Everybody knows that.

We all pay the premium for that.

Why don't we require corporations to do the same

and build something that's not a giant corn-off monopole

in front of our parks,

but do something that makes it nicer?

Thank you very much.

Thanks if you may speak.

Thank you, Vladimir Kostakov, for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tim Wolfrid.

I'm a 40-year resident of Diamond Heights and a former trustee at City College of San Francisco.

I believe rejecting our appeals sets a dangerous precedent for San Francisco.

The planning department has asserted, I think mistakenly, that the three towers approved in this last year with a CEQA exemption are comparable to

and set a precedent for the planned one in Diamond Heights.

We don't believe they do.

The first example of the three is a 40-foot tower

to be installed at 1475 25th Street.

It's sited on a hilltop overlooking a large industrial area

between highways 101 and 280.

No trees, very few residents nearby.

The second example they raise is a 60-foot tower

adjacent to the athletic fields at the west end of Golden Gate Park.

No homes nearby.

The third example or precedent they exert is a 90-foot tower in the Palace of Fine Arts parking lot,

which is surrounded by warehouses and Highway 101.

None of these locations match 350 Amber.

The new tower on Amber Street will be the first 10-story tower in a residential neighborhood and right above two parks.

Only four macro towers this size or taller exist in San Francisco at this point.

Two are attached to downtown buildings.

One is in the Presidio Sports Basement parking lot, and the fourth is at the Balboa Park Park Station.

If these appeals are denied, the new giant macro tower will be a precedent cited when AT&T seeks approval for towers in other neighborhoods.

We bring it to our benefit in those neighborhoods benefits. We ask that you

Accept our appeals. Thank you. Thank you trustee Wilfred for your comments

Welcome to our next speaker

Hello supervisors, my name is dr. Candace Lowe. I have a PhD in ecology and evolution

I'm also a native San Franciscan

Currently, I'm living in the notorious D4, but I'm here as an ecologist, and I want to talk about my experience in Glen Canyon Park and the importance of preserving that entire area.

What I want to address is what the planning department at AT&T did in terms of measuring the distance of the proposed 104-foot tower to the mapped habitats that are really effectively an intact ecosystem because it's part of our native significant natural areas of San Francisco and should be well protected.

So my basic problem with that premise and that fact is that the organisms that you're talking about in Glen Canyon are not conserved to a two-dimensional space.

And so when you measure on a map 150-foot space, you're measuring a boundary that's on a piece of paper, essentially.

So my point is that that fact in itself is on its face proof that we need more research and more assessment before going forward.

So yeah, so essentially I think it is a false premise to assert that animals and birds ignore fences.

They may be trapped by the fences, but they're not ignoring it.

And then what is being ignored is actually the tower itself and the impacts,

the negative impacts of the tower.

It's going to go beyond the fences.

So it's not going to protect the community, the natural community that we aim to protect.

So in my scientific opinion, the statements from planning and AT&T are not credible.

Their responses demonstrate exactly why this exemption appeal must be approved

and a full environmental impact report is required.

Thank you, Dr. Candice Lowe.

Let's hear from our next speaker.

My name is Maggie Hoppe, and I'm a longtime resident on Diamond Street.

I'm speaking today about the danger to trees in Glen Park for the proposed Seltar location.

I will read from my words and those submitted by Jocelyn Cohen, a qualified ISA certified arborist,

an arbor ecologist, APA-certified aesthetic pruner, and a tree risk assessment qualified certification person.

The location for the proposed macro tower is surrounded by tall trees.

This 100-foot tall tower will weigh many tons and will require digging most likely between 30 and 90 feet

to find bedrock to stabilize the structure.

Digging and drilling to these depths is not the only concern for the trees.

It is additionally hazardous to the surrounding landscape,

which will forever be devastated in our lifetime and for hundreds of years beyond.

Heavy equipment used in root protection zone is a death sentence to trees.

And the tricky thing about root disturbance is the effects do not sometimes show up

for as long as a decade, and by then people have forgotten who was responsible for the loss

of a natural ecosystem in an urban area. Even vibration structures from the high winds,

which is a known weather event in Glen Park, will disturb the soil and the tree root systems.

Putting a cell tower amid significant habitat area is an irreversible mistake.

Thank you.

Thank you, Maggie Hoppe, for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

My name is Leslie Detayende.

I'm a District 3 resident.

I'm here to ask you to imagine what San Francisco will look like if these appeals are denied

because the consequences extend far beyond 350 Amber Drive and Diamond Heights.

This will be the first macro tower of this height and mass in a residential neighborhood bordering two parks.

AT&T operates on precedent.

When they get this approval for a macro tower at a residential park border using flawed environmental review, they will replicate this citywide.

Let me be specific.

Edge of Stern Grove, RH1 homes.

Mount Davidson, residential neighborhoods.

Natural area designation.

McLaren Park, border near Visitation Valley, Richmond and Marina districts along Golden Gate Park's edges.

Every single one becomes a likely macro tower location using the exact rationale planning used here.

This isn't speculation. It's AT&T's business model to densify their macro tower network.

They prefer city-owned land because it's cheaper.

and they've discovered planning will approve residential and park borders without serious scrutiny.

The secret violations here are particularly dangerous as president.

Planning approved a categorical exemption for a structure five times taller than surrounding homes,

ignoring migratory bird collisions, 24-7 transformer noise heard across the street,

and conducting zero alternative analysis.

that same exemption claim can now be copied and pasted into application citywide.

By granting these appeals, you stop this cascade before it starts.

Require planning to follow the city's wireless sitting guidelines.

Conduct proper environmental reviews and demand real alternatives analysis.

Protect San Francisco's residential neighborhoods and park borders citywide.

Grant the appeals.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Leslie Tadayadea, for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Jay Wagner.

AT&T claims that there's no proof that cell towers reduce property values.

But the evidence is clear.

California law recognizes cell towers as risks.

The California Association of Realtors Disclosure Forum lists them as neighborhood nuisances that sellers must report.

Studies confirm this impact.

A University of Kentucky study found homes within 1,000 feet of a tower

sold for nearly 2% less of the comparable properties farther away.

A University of South Alabama study of over 23,000 home sales

found values dropped 2.65% within .72 kilometers

and 9.78% if the tower was visible to sellers' property.

Federal authorities treat towers as hazards. HUD requires appraisers to flag nearby properties,

report on marketability, and check the tower's fall distance. Government agencies, including

Maryland's Property Tax Assessment Appeal Board, have formally reduced home values due to nearby

towers. For nearby neighbors, this tower threatens real financial harm. Homes will be harder to sell

and worthless while AT&T profits, the homeowners lose equity.

Also, I wanted to, if you could please just imagine waking up in the morning

and going to your window and looking across the street

and seeing this 100-foot eyesore.

It's looking back at you, and I don't think it's a good feeling,

and I hope you remember that when you vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Wagner, for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

My name is Betty Peskin, and I've called Diamond Heights my home,

where I serve on the board of the Community Association.

Thirty-four years ago, my spouse and I moved from Noe Valley

to the 800 block of Duncan Street,

just one block from this proposed tower,

because we were seeking more open space, public parks, and the natural beauty of Glen Canyon Park.

Diamond Heights, as you know, is also known for its strong, persistent winds,

which make fire safety a critical concern.

Introducing a 104-foot tower and its fuel tanks to the edge of a wooded park

raises serious safety risks that should not be ignored.

As a retired school teacher with a 44-year career, home ownership was a hard-earned dream.

After more than 20 years of renting in Noi Valley, we were able to purchase a home.

And like many other residents, we are still paying for it.

The possibility that this tower, built as proposed, could significantly erode the value of our home threatens our financial security and retirement stability.

Each of you has received letters from six licensed real estate professionals who have all warned of the financial consequences to the value of nearby homes.

All of them have opposed this tower.

One realtor with 50 years of experience states that homes near cell towers can lose up to 10% of their value,

while the others have stated they could lose between 8% and 12%.

People don't want to live near them.

By placing that huge macro tower in a residential view corridor would signal a shift away from the thoughtful planning

and environmental sensitivity that makes Diamond Heights so livable.

Thank you.

Thank you, Betty Peskin, for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

My name's Shana.

I was born and raised in the inner sunset and now live in Diamond Heights.

I ask you to imagine this decision not as a policy question but as a personal one.

Imagine a 10-story industrial tower rising beside your home.

above your trees, your views, and the place where your family feels safe.

This is what's being proposed for our neighborhood.

Diamond Heights is a quiet, nature-filled residential community.

The monopole would be placed in a windy, grassy canyon

in a wildfire-prone and seismically active area

with a diesel-fuel tank at its base.

That combination raises real safety concerns

for the families and seniors that live nearby.

This project would also significantly impact property values.

For many of us, our homes represent our life savings.

An industrial tower of this scale, next to residential homes, would inevitably reduce

home values and make it harder for families to sell or invest in their future.

We are not opposed to connectivity.

We are asking for a responsible placement and consideration of less harmful alternatives.

Please uphold the appeal and don't allow a project in our neighborhood that you would

never accept in your own.

Thank you for your time and service.

Thank you, Shana, for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors.

My name is Robert Orrin.

I'm a 50-year resident of San Francisco and I've resided at 266 Amber Drive for the past

20 years.

I urge you to grant both appeals.

Denying them sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the Planning Commission to rely on findings shaped by AT&T

without the community input required under San Francisco's 2011 Personal Wireless Service Facility Ordinance,

upheld by the California Supreme Court.

AT&T justified this tower by invoking emergency communications and FirstNet.

Yet FirstNet is currently used by ICE, ICE, through an AT&T contract.

And all four commissioners who voted in favour relied on this claim while ignoring three critical facts.

A tower of this size is not necessary to improve AT&T coverage.

Boosters are available for FirstNet, and the fire chief and Ingleside captain confirmed that FirstNet is optional and that 911 calls connect to the nearest carrier regardless.

This approval is based on flawed analysis that AT&T can now replicate citywide.

Planning and AT&T point to similar towers, but none are located within residential neighborhoods, and no approved park towers reach 100 feet near homes.

Planning improperly used a categorical exemption to bypass CEQA, despite clear environmental and wildfire risks in a wildfire urban interface area.

This approval sets no meaningful limits, and AT&T can expand with minimal oversight, harming neighborhood character and exposing the nearby Noe Valley Nursery School to routine diesel generator testing.

Granting these appeals affirms San Francisco's laws and environmental protections.

Less intrusive alternatives exist. Other carriers do not require macro towers here.

Please, please stop a precedent that turns residential park edges into industrial zones.

Thank you.

Thank you, Robert Oren, for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Gerald Porter, and I live at 266 Amber.

I'd like to urge you to grant both appeals, because this is not just about one tower.

Rather, it's about whether San Francisco keeps any legal authority to guide where the wireless infrastructure goes into residential neighborhoods

and along park borders.

Right now, the city has clear legal tools.

Our wireless siting guidelines designate RH1 areas

as disavowed locations.

CEQA requires environmental review

when projects may have impacts.

Planning Code Section 302 requires findings

that projects will not harm the neighborhood character,

public health, environmental quality,

and specifically protects nature.

If these appeals are denied, you validate planning's decision to ignore the protections.

AT&T will cite this approval in future cases, arguing that the board already determined that RH1 neighborhoods and park edges are not disfavored,

and exemptions are appropriate regardless of scale or location.

Federal law does not prohibit requiring alternative analysis, environmental review, or compliance with local settings.

Those are the tools that allow the city to steer the facilities toward appropriate locations like industrial areas, commercial corridors, and existing utility sites.

San Francisco has successfully defended these tools before.

Our wireless ordinance was upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court in 2018.

It is now a national model.

Getting these appeals to preserve the city's authority affirms that our guidelines and protects city neighborhoods and residents.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joe, for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors and staff.

My name is Bart Fisher, and I've lived in Diamond Heights for over a quarter century.

During that time, I don't believe any issue has galvanized our neighborhood

and gotten us as upset as the plan to build this 100-foot monstrosity

in the middle of our beautiful and historic community.

I believe the four planning commissioners who voted for this

were negligent in upholding their duties to our laws,

meant to protect our neighborhoods from such detrimental changes.

At this hearing, not a single resident spoke in favor of this AT&T handout,

while there were dozens in attendance who spoke against it.

I ask each of you to reflect in your heart how you would feel about having a 10-story cell tower being installed in the center of your community.

Imagine the tall, ugly eyesore looming over your neighborhood, visible from almost everywhere, inducing additional potential dangers, and being built right next to the park where your local children play.

I believe if you are honest with yourself, you would behave exactly like me and my neighbors and do everything you could to stop it from being built.

You would be praying that those you've elected will find the courage to do the right thing and stand with you by stopping the project.

Since once this is done, there is likely no going back.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Bart Fisher, for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Hi, supervisors.

Can you grab that microphone really close so we can hear you best?

Thank you.

Sorry, I'm only 5'1".

Hi, my name is Elena Ponte. I came to San Francisco in 2003. I came for nursing school. I'm a nurse. I'm a mom.

And after I finished my education, I thought, I'd like to stay in San Francisco. I'd like to give back to the city that educated me.

and since then there are a lot of reasons to leave San Francisco we all know it's in the doom loop

but when there are a million reasons to go for families another one is just another straw on

camel's back to leave and if we want to make a city that feels

inclusive of families, of little ones, of people staying.

I think listening to the residents is a good way to do that.

My daughter loves that park.

Sorry, I'm nervous.

Yeah, that's her go-to.

And it just so happens to be within walking distance of a property that I was lucky enough to get

when I, when, during the pandemic.

So to have a place of my own for my kid to grow up in

and just to have another one more reason to, you know, leave.

Sorry.

I just think it's unfortunate.

And I really hope that the supervisors today

would really, really listen.

Thank you.

Thank you, Elena Ponzi, for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Hi there.

My name is Thea Selby.

I am a co-founder of the Lower Hate Merchant and Neighbor Association.

I have a small business a block away from Union Square.

I am a former trustee of the board of San Francisco City College.

I am also a co-founder of San Franciscans for Local Control.

And what San Franciscans for Local Control was about was urging our board of supervisors

to take the very little power.

You have very little power on this particular thing, and I happen to know that.

But to take the very little power that you have and use it for the people of San Francisco.

In 2010, John Avalos introduced the Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permits Ordinance

requiring antenna applicants to consider the visual impact, this is about the only power you have,

of any new installation citing the need to regulate placement that will diminish the city's beauty.

Some people say the city is about tech, others government.

I would say tourism is very high on the list.

The ordinance was challenged at court, and it was upheld, and it's still in effect today.

In 2025, John Avalos wrote the Planning Commission and urged them to reject the cell phone structure

because it would dramatically change the aesthetic character, which is about all you got, guys,

of the neighborhood, including Glen Canyon Park and George Christopher Playground.

This proposed facility will ruin VISTAs.

You've heard that over and over.

And this is one of the things that you have the control to decide

that you will not allow AT&T and others to do.

He stated that approving the CEQA appeal is a must.

The project fails the core metrics required.

It is not desirable.

It is not necessary.

It is not compatible with neighborhood character and fundamentally inconsistent with the general plan and the intent of the open space designation.

Please use the power you have. Thank you.

Thank you, Trustee Selby, for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Hi, I'm Chanda Williams. I've lived in Diamond Heights for 25 years.

And I just have a more emotional appeal.

There are a lot of people on my street who couldn't be here today that would like to be because they're at work,

or they have kids they have to pick up at this hour, or whatever else.

But we're all scared.

We're really frightened.

I'm not the only one.

There are several people in our neighborhood who've been evacuated from fires.

I was evacuated from the Palisades fire last year.

These fires go fast.

the winds in Diamond Heights and all of our wood houses butted up against each

other and all that brush down in the park. It's scary. It's really scary to us. So

please consider protecting the safety of your constituents rather than lining the

pockets of a multi-billion dollar corporation. Thank you. Thank you for your

comments. Are there other speakers in support of the appeal or against the

project this is your opportunity to provide comment all right mr. president

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

hear for up to 10 minutes from representatives of the Planning

Department could we go to the sides please good afternoon President Mandelman

and members of the board my name is Josh Pollack Planning Department staff

joining me today are Joy Navarrete and Elizabeth Gordon-Junkier. The item before

you is the appeal of a categorical exemption issued by the Planning

Department for the 350 Amber Drive project pursuant to the California

Environmental Quality Act or CEQA. Our December 1st appeal response is

included in the board's packet. In this presentation I will highlight the

department's main responses to the appeal but first I want to acknowledge

the testimony today from the speakers and supplemental correspondence received

from those who are concerned about the potential environmental impacts of the project.

These issues have been addressed in the department's appeal response.

The project is located at 350 Amber Drive with frontage along Amber Drive to the northwest,

Turquoise Way to the west, and Duncan Street to the north.

The property is owned by the city and county of San Francisco and is under the jurisdiction

of the San Francisco Police Department, or SFPD.

The total lot area is about 195,000 square feet or roughly four and a half acres and contains three one to two story buildings currently occupied and used by the SFPD as its police academy.

The parcel is adjacent to Glen Canyon Park and Christopher Park.

The proposed project would construct a new AT&T macro wireless telecommunications facility

on a new approximately 104 foot tall monopole located at the rear of the San Francisco Police

Academy over a paved parking area with a footprint of approximately 550 square feet.

The new facility would consist of 12 antennas, nine remote radio units, three tower mounted

surge suppressors, one global positioning system unit mounted on a proposed outdoor equipment

cabinet, one walk-up cabinet, and one 30 kilowatt direct current backup generator with a 190

gallon diesel fuel tank on a concrete pad. The ancillary equipment would be surrounded by an

eight-foot tall chain link fence. The project meets the definition of a class three infill

exemption as it meets all criteria identified on this slide.

In addition, none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption apply,

including significant effects due to unusual circumstances.

The appellants allege that the proposed project would have substantial impacts

with respect to seismic hazards, fire risk, air quality, and biological resources.

This is not the case, as I will address for informational purposes.

The project site is not in a seismic hazard zone for landslides.

Rather, it is located approximately 50 feet from an area

that is deemed a seismic hazard for landslides.

The project would not result in significant impacts related to fire risk

due to accidental fires or wildland fires.

San Francisco is not located in a wildfire hazard zone as shown

in the fire hazard severity zones map, which is mapped by CAL FIRE per mandates

under the California Public Resources Code.

The project would not result in significant air quality impacts.

There are no unusual circumstances surrounding the project related to air quality impacts.

All of the monopole facilities in San Francisco include diesel-powered backup generators,

similar to the proposed project.

The proposed project would utilize a 30-kilowatt diesel-powered backup generator,

which does not require a permit from the Bay Area Air District.

The appellant claims that fuel tanks are known to leak air pollutants

and that the project would create exposure to air pollution,

but does not provide substantial evidence to support this assertion.

The project would not result in significant biological resources impacts.

The Recreation and Parks Department previously completed an assessment of significant natural resources,

which included a detailed evaluation of Glen Canyon Park.

The assessment found that the interior portions of the adjacent park support sensitive species.

However, in evaluating the assessment, the planning department found that the natural area boundary

in rec parks evaluation is over 100 feet away from the project site.

In addition, the area closest to the project site falls under least sensitive management area.

Due to the distance from any sensitive areas, biological resources in the park could not be reasonably affected

by construction or operation of the proposed project.

Therefore, the project would not result in any significant impacts related to biological

resources.

In closing, the department has substantial evidence to support the determination that

the project qualifies for a Class III categorical exemption, and no exceptions apply.

The appellant's arguments do not meet the legal burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise.

There is no basis for requiring preparation of a mitigated negative declaration or

environmental impact report. Therefore, we ask that you uphold the Class 3 categorical exemption and deny the appeal.

Thank you. This concludes my presentation. Elizabeth Gordon-Junkier will now address the conditional use appeal.

Thank you, Josh, and good afternoon, President Manelman and members of the board.

My name is Elizabeth Junkier of planning department staff, and I will very briefly address the second appeal before you.

the Planning Commission's approval of the conditional use authorization for the wireless facility at 350 Amber Drive.

On September 25, 2025, the Commission conducted a public hearing and voted 4-3 to approve the project under conditional use.

In their Motion 21-825, all conditional use findings were made in the affirmative.

As part of the Commission's deliberation, the Commissioners referenced the need for additional coverage

provided by the project and the benefit to emergency services.

My colleague Josh has adequately described the location and the facility itself

and many of the concurrent environmental health and safety arguments

that are similar in the conditional use appeal.

So I will not address those at present aside from stating that as part of the permitting process,

the project would be required to meet rigorous state and local fire codes and conditions

and the building permit application would be reviewed pursuant to state and local building codes.

Also, in its deliberation, the Commission found the project consistent with the recreation, open space,

and safety and resilience elements of the general plan,

indicating that improved cellular coverage would be necessary and desirable to the community and greater city

and allow for better utilization of the playgrounds and parks.

Because the proposed project is in an existing parking lot and zoned public,

At the rear of the existing San Francisco Police Academy, it is not accessible to the public or residents.

It is not located on Rec and Park Department land.

It is not identified as existing or proposed open space in the general plan.

It is identified as a preference one wireless location.

The June 9, 2025 Rec and Park Commission hearing per resolution confirmed that the net new shadow cast by the proposed project was limited.

Finally, the proposal is consistent with the safety and resilience element, which specifically

states that private communication systems are critical facilities in the city's communication

system, and redundant networks will help ensure that incidental failures do not have grave

impacts.

In conclusion, the Department recommends that the Board uphold the Planning Commission's

approval of the conditional use.

This concludes the Department presentation.

my colleagues from the department and I are available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have questions, but should I go first?

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Supervisor Chan.

Let's start with the CEQA, Mr. Pollack.

So I have two thoughts about the CEQA appeal.

On the one hand, the appellants are arguing that this project should be subject to an environmental impact report,

which strikes me as odd.

I mean, that would be many hundreds of pages with lots and lots of analysis of all sorts of things.

So I am sympathetic to the department's feeling that that's not appropriate for a project like this.

And I understand relying on the CEQA exemption, but I do wonder, I mean, this is not a big facility, but it is a very tall facility.

So how do you think about height in weighing whether something fits within the small facility exemption?

Thank you for the question.

So considering the height, we looked at the context that the tower was in.

So the tower itself is 104 feet, and the nearby trees are—

Which is tall.

Which is tall.

Ten stories.

And the trees that it would stand adjacent to are approximately 90 feet.

So considering the context that the tower's in, we determined that it was small in that context.

Is there, I mean, is...

What would make it big?

I mean, is there a telecom facility that would not fit within the small facility exception?

If it was substantially larger than the surroundings, if it was a large facility which there was nothing of comparable height, I think we would consider that to not meet the categorical exemption.

But generally the department thinks, I mean you've approved a number of telecom facilities based on this exemption.

The difference that I'm hearing from the appellants is that this is quite a bit taller, and that's true, right?

I mean, I think considering the categorical exemption that was done for the cell tower that was adjacent to the Palace of Fine Arts,

it was around a similar scale, 90 feet in height.

So I think it's been used in a similar way before in other parts of the city.

Okay. All right. I have more questions about the conditional use. And I think, I guess I am trying to understand, and if you have some thoughts about the, you know, relationship between the traditional conditional use approval standards, whether something is necessary and desirable,

and the ongoing ability, I guess, of cities to apply that.

I mean, I guess under this 2018 Supreme Court case,

the ability of cities to evaluate at least some of the impacts of telecom facilities

and deciding whether to approve them or not.

But that's, you know, on the one hand we have that.

But on the other hand we have the Telecommunications Act.

And can you explain the relationship between the kind of limitations on a city's ability to say no under the Telecommunications Act and the standards that exist for conditional use?

I mean, I can ask the question again in sort of a different way.

I mean, the public and the appellants are generally arguing that this project is not necessary and desirable.

And that would be the traditional argument under, you know, about a conditional use.

And I'm gathering from the documents that I'm reading about this, you know, from the argument that the appellants and the city and AT&T are having that that's not the only conversation you have when you have a telecom facility.

You're also having and having to evaluate adequacy of coverage, evaluation of potential alternatives.

so is it possible that something could be not necessary necessary and desirable but the city

would still have to approve it thank you supervisor Audrey Merlini planning department staff I think

generally you are correct that there the telecommunications act does require us to

consider other factors and it does not necessarily limit but it reshapes what we consider to be a

discretionary in terms of what can be approved and what can be limited when it comes to telecommunications facilities.

And so then there's this sort of two-prong test that we have to look at, I think.

And you should tell me if I'm getting this wrong.

But it seems like you're then looking at, one, whether there's a gap in service.

and then if there is a gap in service

and there's evidence of a gap in service in the record

whether the telecom company has adequately looked at potential alternatives

to do it in a different way that would be less intrusive.

Thank you, President.

Sylvia Jimenez, Department staff.

And to answer your question, it is a two-part question.

I think the first one you're referring to is coverage maps.

As part of the conditional use authorization application, applicants are required to submit documentation verified by a certified engineer that shows the level of coverage in the area that they're proposing to install their macro site.

In this scenario, the applicant did submit such coverage maps.

It shows anything from inadequacy, from not being able to take a phone call in a moving vehicle,

to just not being able to make a voice call.

And all of those things combined determined that there was inadequate coverage.

This information was provided.

So, again, the onus is on the applicant to submit that information, and they were able to demonstrate that.

As far as the alternative site analysis, that is only required for sites that are considered preference five and above.

So the city has a ranking system of hierarchy when it comes to locating these macro sites, the rating being one through seven, one being a preferred site.

Typically, those are public uses, fire stations, police stations, areas of that nature.

and a preference seven being a disfavored site, mostly residential areas,

which I know there's a little bit of an argument that this is a residential area,

but the actual site itself is a public use.

Therefore, because it is considered a preference one site,

an alternative analysis was not required.

However, the applicant chose to conduct an alternative analysis

and present it at the Planning Commission for discussion and review

as a voluntary way of responding to the neighbor's concerns.

Okay, so let's talk a little more about each of those two.

Because there's an argument in the documents between the appellants

and the project sponsor in the city about what is a gap.

And I think, although we're going to hear from the appellants on rebuttal, but I think that the appellants are saying that because AT&T has not shown that there is a complete gap in service,

that there is a spot where you cannot get cell service ever,

that that doesn't adequately meet the service gap prong.

I assume the city disagrees,

and I'm curious if you want to explain

why you think weak coverage is enough to justify a telecom company being able to put in a facility

even were it otherwise not necessary and desirable?

Yes, I think our department policy has always been to determine not just non-existing coverage,

but the quality of the coverage is important as well.

And I think some of the examples that were given at the planning commission

after being prompted by some of the commissioners was in case of an emergency,

would somebody be able to just use their phone and call emergency services,

whether it would be being attacked at the park or in an emergency scenario such as an earthquake.

and we determine, at least our department policy is,

unless we're given different direction,

is that inadequate service is considered a coverage gap.

The trouble with that answer is then you're saying it's up to the city

and the kind of standards we are locally setting around this

and this happened in the Planning Commission presentations

that there was this sort of centering of this argument

about whether there was a danger in an emergency in the canyon.

I'm not sure about this, but I actually think that this,

and the appellants are welcome to argue with me about this,

and I'm curious if this is the position of the city.

I think that the standard is basically if they're not able to provide the service

that they think they should be able to provide,

and they can demonstrate that, that it's not good service basically,

that they've met that first prong.

That is correct.

That's the city, I mean, that's the planning department's view of this.

Okay.

Okay, and then, so then there's the second question,

because even if they could meet that,

they would still be out of luck if they weren't doing an adequate,

I mean, we'd be back into looking at whether things are necessary

and desirable and that kind of weighing,

where I think the neighbors have a much stronger case,

if they weren't looking at less intrusive ways to do this.

And I think AT&T, they've gone ahead, they've done that analysis,

and they have a story about how they've looked at all these other sites

and there's not the other sites, and they've tried,

and really the only way for them to do this type of facility

is to build this type of 100-foot tower,

which may or may not be a small facility,

but if it is a small facility exempt from CEQA,

but that they have to do this tower in this way because that's the only way to do that kind of facility.

And I think they could probably support that if we forced them to litigate it.

So, but there seems to be a different argument coming from the appellants,

which is, but you also have to look at alternative technologies,

and they haven't looked at alternative technologies.

And my question is whether that is something that's been litigated

or that we have a sense of whether we can tell them that they have to look at,

for example, distributed antenna systems rather than this type of facility?

The way that the alternative analysis requirement is currently written,

it speaks to location.

So exploring other types of technology that could achieve the same amount of coverage

is currently not something we require,

especially not for a preference one site.

It would be great to know whether that's because we can't.

It could be.

I mean, I would have to consult with our wireless attorneys.

Why don't you all chat amongst yourselves?

Sure.

Okay.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

I'm just kind of curious.

a project of this size with the footprint of 550 square feet,

but also it has a backup generator and a 190-gallon diesel tank.

Is this something that we have seen before in San Francisco in this size?

They're chatting about my question, and it's the CEQA people who are still there.

So the question from Supervisor Chan was related to the generator and the fire risk, I think, right?

Well, generator, like there's a backup generator, and then you also have like 190 gallons.

Well, there's some discrepancy.

I think the AT&T say it's 150 gallons, but according to planning department, it says 190 gallons,

so up to 200 gallons of diesel tank.

And then you also have a base, though.

The base looks like it's a footprint of 550 square feet.

So the question is, have we seen a size of this type of antenna for any, actually, just AT&T, but for now for AT&T, anywhere in the city at the moment?

Have this been done before?

Yeah, thank you for the question, Supervisor.

So my understanding is that the proposed facility that's adjacent to the Palace of Fine Arts is comparable in terms of footprint and height,

and that it's standard practice for similar size monopoles to include a backup generator in the case of emergency events,

so the antenna could continue to provide service.

What is the size of the Palace of Fine Arts?

Here I'm looking, I don't know if this is the accurate information that I'm looking at.

It says it's about 78 feet, and interestingly so that somehow it's like a fake eucalyptus tree, like cell tower looking.

My understanding is it's approximately 90 feet tall.

I'm not sure on what the footprint is on the ground, but I think it would be approximately similar to what's being proposed here.

but I don't know if my colleagues have any specific recollections about that project.

Sorry, here it says it's like 924 square foot concrete pad, but go ahead.

Please continue.

We will endeavor to get the answer on the size of the concrete pad for the Presidio site.

No problem. I understand.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Thank you. But that right now, so we have now one in Palace of Fine Art,

and then this is the second one that is proposed by AT&T.

Yes, that's correct, Supervisor.

Thank you. And then I think I do have that question, too,

like about the CEQA exemption.

So clearly you have a precedent, you know,

before that you issue a CEQA exemption

for the one in Palace of Fine Art.

Seems like it is similarly.

You also have, I'm just kind of curious,

having a diesel tank, which is permanent,

and a backup generator also permanent once it's there,

but they don't, but they can receive a CEQA exemption.

thank you yes that's correct so the Bay Area air quality management district is

the agency that's responsible for permitting the backup generators and if

a generator is less than 50 horsepower which it is in this case it does not

require a permit because the air district has determined that generators

that size do not have significant air quality impacts.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Chan.

I do not see any other colleagues in the queue,

and so I'm going to invite the project sponsor, AT&T,

up to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Okay, I was going to do a PowerPoint,

but instead I'm going to use the overhead projector.

Can you see?

Okay, Cammie Blackstone, hello, supervisors and President Mandelman.

I'm Cammie from AT&T, and I'm going to be joined today by Amanda Monchamp, who is our legal counsel.

I just want to kind of speak to why we need this site.

So this currently is our coverage in the area.

So what this means is all of the blue and the yellow means that it's like good coverage outside, sometimes inconsistent, but no indoor.

And then these white areas, there's no coverage whatsoever.

And AT&T is committed to delivering reliable, high-quality coverage to all our customers, especially our first responders who depend on FirstNet.

But in addition to that, there is an expectation in San Francisco to have indoor coverage.

Like you're driving home from work, you're on a call, or you're walking from the bus stop, you're on a call, and you expect to kind of have it indoors.

In addition to that, 25% of the homes in Diamond Heights are BMR residences, and a lot of people actually use their phones and depend on that wireless coverage for their Internet searches,

whether it is finding out what their assignment is for school the next day or applying for jobs or checking their bank balances, everything that you would do on a computer.

So this is how it is now.

No indoor coverage except for over here, which is our other site that's a mile or so away.

So once we do build this site, if we get to build this site, this would be the coverage.

All of that green would be excellent indoor and outdoor coverage.

Of course, there'll still be some yellow there, which means good outdoors but not reliable indoors.

So that's kind of the coverage argument there.

I do want to say that although first responders are not mandated to have FirstNet, they do have it.

In fact, 99% of our police officers with the SFPD use FirstNet.

Every single fire truck in San Francisco has a SIM for FirstNet,

and our Department of Emergency Management uses FirstNet as their primary carrier.

In addition to that, we have been looking for 10 years for a site in this area to cover this area and address this coverage gap.

We've approached many buildings, including the two churches that continually come up, St. Aidan's and St. Nicholas.

And we have not been able to find a suitable site or a willing landlord.

So this is kind of our last hurrah.

This is the last site, and we came to this site because the police department, Captain Felzon at the time,

who was the captain at the academy, begged us to come take a look at this site.

It's a preference one.

We thought it would be good.

We did everything we were supposed to do with this planning application.

We did have a community meeting.

I did exchange many emails with different neighbors from the Diamond,

including folks from the Diamond Heights Community Association.

And then we met, of course, Supervisor Mandelman with you in your office trying to kind of come to an agreement.

So AT&T in our application, we did everything that was required by the planning department,

and we intend to do everything that's required by the building department as far as working with every relevant agency

and abiding by every city regulation.

Is there anything else?

This is an important site.

I want to turn it over to Amanda.

It is a very important site, and I really hope that you will support it, and I will let Amanda respond to the appellant's brief.

Good afternoon, board. Thank you for your time.

There we go. Hi.

So I'm going to address some of the specific questions you all asked, as well as specific comments made today by the appellants.

So to get right to the letter that was filed yesterday by the appellants, they cite two cases, and I just want to briefly address them.

Neither of them are published cases, which in California law means they are basically nonexistent.

They are not part of the body of CEQA law.

But I just want to address that they are factually also distinguishable and different from the site that's before you today.

the only published case that addresses

standalone wireless facilities is cited in our letter. It's called Don't Sell Our Parks.

That is a standalone facility that is in a residential neighborhood

in a park in a canyon, a vegetated canyon, very much on point.

The cases they talk about are light standards, several of them, not just

a single site. And the other is an unpublished

trial case that was based on a very different record. I was involved in that.

So very different cases, also not part of the actual body of CEQA case law.

You raised a concern about the height.

So the exemption does not speak to height.

It speaks to square footage.

So when you look at the mass of a building, that would be a 10,000-square-foot building,

which is the size of a building that can use a small facility exemption,

if you compare the mass of a 550-square-foot wireless site, even at its height,

It's about 5% of the mass that could be exempted with a 10,000-square-foot building.

So it doesn't speak to height.

It doesn't give any parameters around what is small.

But when you look at the size and scale of the building or the size and scale of a wireless facility,

this falls within what is a small facility.

I also just want to briefly address, because I just feel bad,

someone mentioned that AT&T was untoward in providing draft findings to planning staff.

that is part of an application that's common,

that is not untoward of planning staff to ask for that

or receive that from AT&T.

It's part of the application.

So as to the specific issues that have been raised,

today no one really spoke about geological issues.

It was discussed previously in a bunch of letters.

The site where it's located is outside the landslide zone.

We have an expert geological engineer that explained

that there will not be impacts to slope stability,

groundwater fill soils.

Historic resources.

The nearby church is not a historic resource.

The neighborhood is not a designated historic resource either.

Today, a lot of concern was raised about biological issues.

Josh already explained there's no substantial evidence of an impact to biological resources.

The project site is not in the MA3 area of Glen Canyon Park.

Even if it was, we'd contend that an MA3 area is not an area of critical concern,

which is the language that precludes the exemption under CEQA.

There's also just a discussion that animals don't know where zones go.

They could be outside of the zone.

That's true, but that the only reason you can't apply an exemption is if you're within

a designated area of critical biological concern, which, again, this site is not.

As to concern about the trees, we have a certified expert arborist who looked at the impact of

the site, including the construction, including the use of construction equipment, and concluded

that there's only one tree close enough to maybe be affected,

and that tree's root structure will not be adversely affected

by construction of the site.

Some other issues that recently came up,

the general plan talking about the police academy moving.

There's no specific plan for the police academy to move.

There's a discussion about the impact on parks.

The site is not in a park.

It's in a public facility, but not in a park.

There are multiple other instances of wireless facilities near residences, near parks.

Two of those that they site, one in Golden Gate Park, one near the Palace of Fine Arts,

that's been discussed, which I believe one facility is 80 feet tall and one is 130 feet tall.

There are other examples of similar siting that have already occurred,

and like the Don't Sell It Park in other areas of California as well.

Moreover, residential areas commonly have wireless facilities in them.

San Francisco is not alone in permitting wireless facilities in residential areas.

Just to give you two examples to have them in the record, 2919 South King Street in San

Jose is an example, and 23500 Cristo del Rey in Cupertino is another example.

We agree with planning staff that this is a category one site.

We did go ahead and produce an alternatives analysis that was already discussed.

So this is, in fact, necessary technology.

You all rely on wireless facilities.

It is necessary and desirable to have wireless service.

As to fire, as the appellance letter admits, this is not in a wildfire urban interface

area.

As to Fire Investigator Oldag's declaration that was submitted, his point was not that

San Francisco was not windy.

His point was that the wind in those other fires that the appellants had cited is very

different.

Those were dry, hot Santa Ana winds.

San Francisco experiences very cold, wet coastal winds.

I live six blocks away from the site.

I will attest, very cold, very windy.

What he was also explaining is that the reason those fires started have nothing to do with

wireless equipment.

In each of those cases, it was in either Edison or other power provider, their wires, either

sparking dry grass, other poles, other loose wires.

In every single one, there was no equipment from a telecommunication provider involved.

Lastly, because I think I'm going to get cut off, the concern about the Telecommunications

Act that you guys have raised, the standard is in terms of a gap in service, if there

is reliable in-building service, that is what federal courts recognize as a gap in service.

It's not a complete lack of service.

It's not if you have a weak service.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Don't go away.

Although this might be a Cammie question.

But this question I was going back and forth, why doesn't AT&T's alternative analysis also look at alternative technologies?

So under federal law, alternative technologies is not an alternative that the agency can require be considered.

But the other reason here is because you can't use DAS technology distributed antenna systems for FirstNet.

And AT&T does have a mandate to provide FirstNet technology, which I know there's been debate as to whether it's used or not.

it is used I think there's someone from FirstNet who will speak to that but that

is one of the main reasons you cannot use that and provide FirstNet and this

might be more of a question for Ms. Blackstone but I've heard that there's

very obvious large facilities generally in the neighborhood there's Sutro there's

Christmas Tree Point, why are those not adequate to reach these areas?

Either they're not available, because we have been looking for 10 years, and if that were possible,

we definitely would have considered it. I will say the areas that we need to cover,

I don't know that, I know, I don't think that Sutro would, but I don't know Christmas Tree Point.

That, I'm sorry, I can't help you there, but this was the only site that we could find where we had

somebody who not only encouraged us to site there but would allow it.

Available includes whether or not it can be leased.

And we do pay. And the city is a very expensive

landlord.

Thank you.

We will, I don't think I have any other colleagues in the queue.

So if there are members of the public

who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal,

please line up over at your right, my left, and Madam Clerk.

Let's start public comment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

If you come up to the podium,

you will see that there is a timer on the podium to help you.

The first bell will let you know you have 30 seconds to wrap up your comments,

and then the final bell will ring.

Please keep your comments within that two-minute time frame.

We hate to interrupt you, but we will.

and again as the president spoke this is for those who are in opposition to the appeal or

in support of the project this is your opportunity to provide comment to the board welcome to our

first speaker thank you good afternoon board of supervisors my name is christy mercato

i represent first net for the state of california i'm here in front of you today in support of this

tower because public safety has asked me and i'm responsible to make sure that they have the

coverage they need when they respond to disasters in the state of california in this particular area

has been a known gap for public safety.

As you're probably aware, FirstNet is the only public-private partnership,

the only public safety network in the United States, which is codified by law.

It is not best effort. It is not a commercial network.

FirstNet is part of AT&T, but once again, it's the only public safety network in the nation.

With that being said, in this area, several law fire EMS currently do not have the resources

they need to perform their job duties in a disaster or a simple 911 call.

So I'm here to ask you to support the tower moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Christine Mercado.

Let's hear from our next speaker.

Welcome.

Hello.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman and members of the board.

My name is Mustafa Khan and I'm a local resident and an engineer

I want to speak in support of the proposed AT&T installation at 350 Amber Street from a reliability and public safety perspective

In San Francisco, we've all seen situations where powder outages or grid disruptions happen

And when these situations occurred whether that be due to weather or maintenance issues

Communication systems become even more critical

Cellular networks are often the only way people can receive emergency service receive alerts or coordinate with family and neighbors

from an engineering standpoint modern wireless sites are designed with backup

power and redundancy so they can continue operating when the electric grid is

stressed in an area like diamond heights filling coverage gaps makes the entire

network even more resilient this project isn't just about convenience it's about

ensuring our neighborhood stays connected when it matters most I

encourage the board to reject the appeals and approve the 350 amber

application. Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker. Hi all. My name is Maya

Waldman and I'm a proud San Francisco resident. I'm here in support of the AT&T installation at

350 Amber Street because reliable wireless service has become an essential utility,

especially at times when other systems aren't always dependable. Thanks PG&E. When there are

power outages or grid issues, people still need to communicate to access emergency information,

manage payments, coordinate transportation, or simply check on loved ones. Strong cellular

infrastructure helps ensure that one system doesn't fail just because another one does.

For a modern city, resilient communications are a matter of equity and preparedness.

This proposal is a practical step toward keeping Diamond Heights and the surrounding neighborhoods connected and functional, even during disruptions.

I urge the city to move this forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Maya Waltman, for your comments. Let's hear from our next speaker.

I just want to remind the public there are no outbursts, please, that would put you out of order.

Welcome, sir.

Good afternoon supervisors. My name is Ricardo Suarez, San Francisco resident for the last 50 years, Diamond Heights resident for the last 24 years.

I love our neighborhood. The only problem is that we have the worst cellular coverage anywhere.

I'm a longtime AT&T subscriber, and I'm very excited that we'll be getting a wireless site server area.

So I'm here today in strong support of this new infrastructure.

My apartment complex is a few blocks from the planned site,

and I couldn't be more excited about finally getting service around the Safeway store on Diamond Heights Boulevard.

Not only is it problematic, sometimes on Uber and Lyft, drivers lose their coverage and they can't use their GPS,

but it's also a huge public safety issue.

We have a number of schools, daycare centers, retail spaces, and churches in the neighborhood.

We need to have reliable cell phone coverage.

In the event of an emergency, which is currently not the case, I urge you to support this wireless site.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nicasio Suarez.

Let's hear from our next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Steve.

I am a 40-year-plus resident in San Francisco, and I support this project for many reasons, both professionally and personally.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Are there any other members of the public here to provide comment to the board in opposition to the appeal or in support of the project?

Now is your opportunity.

All right, Mr. President.

All right, public comment in opposition to the appeal is now closed.

And we will invite the appellant to present a rebuttal argument.

You have up to three minutes.

Thank you very much.

Catherine Dodd again, Diamond Heights Community Association.

Let me address first some of the issues that were raised.

The sight of the pad that it's on is not the issue.

The sight of the giant antenna structure above it is.

Currently, it's 700 cubic feet, sitting 20 feet above the trees.

You can't ignore that sight.

AT&T, in their plans turned in on February 2nd,

looks like they intend to add a second antenna structure.

That would double that bulky sight.

So that's one thing.

In terms of the natural resources, we submitted two naturalists.

Today you heard from a Ph.D. prepared ecologist and biologist.

Birds fly and live in those bushes.

No, they don't necessarily live within that boundary area,

but those trees surround the police academy.

and bird collisions are a serious problem.

They're documented in the literature.

The question's about similar towers of this size.

The tower that was just approved at Palace of Fine Arts

is in the parking lot behind it.

You can't even see it as you drive toward the Golden Gate Bridge.

It's not on the residential side.

It's in the parking lot side.

It's not near residences.

And frankly, the Palos of Fine Arts is surrounded by a lake, so it's not a comparable comparison.

The other site that was identified was the Golden Gate Park near the soccer fields.

Again, no residences nearby, which is why you hear so much from the residences.

The site that was brought up by the attorney said that they presented a San Diego case.

That's a 40-foot pole on a canyon, but it's a 40-foot pole covered in plastic fake tree.

Not comparable to a 104-foot pole above our parks.

The alternative analysis, they didn't consider the corporation yard across the canyon

at the end of the parking lot for the athletic fields,

where there's lots of room, no trees, there's no one living above it.

it's not near any people or structures or children.

They didn't consider looking behind the juvenile justice system

where there's a lot of public space. The idea that we're getting a lot of money

from AT&T, the average rent is about $31,000

a year. Just imagine how much money they're going to make. I'm going to limit

my comments on the

other things at this point. Oh, the map you saw

has those blue areas, the majority of those are Glen Canyon and Christopher Park. We don't need

indoor cell coverage in Glen Canyon and Christopher Park. You're not looking at the maps. You're being,

again, misled by AT&T's propagated maps. Complaining about coverage near the church

and Safeway, they declined. Both Safeway and both churches declined having an antenna,

so they're obviously not worried about it.

So let me just say this.

As volunteers and as neighbors,

we have worked to speak truth to corporate power

and misleading information.

The whole issue of FirstNet,

FirstNet sells boosters for rural areas.

They don't have macro towers in all rural areas.

They sell boosters.

We don't need a macro tower to get FirstNet,

which is part of AT&T's business plan.

The planning commissioners were misled about, first net, they were misled about 911.

Verizon and T-Mobile managed to have coverage without giant macro towers.

Is that it?

28 seconds.

Okay.

Let me just end by saying they accepted AT&T's statement as they've exhausted everything.

We rely on our elected officials for more.

The board has a clear authority and discretion to reverse the projects and grant the appeals in our group's appeals

and preventing macro terror densification throughout the city.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Ms. Dodd, before you run off,

I think you heard sort of the tenor of my questions to planning staff,

and so I think probably have a sense of where I'm inclined to go with this.

I don't think this is, as I've said,

exactly a traditional conditional use necessary and desirable question.

I think it really is.

I think we are in telecom act land,

And so I do think that these two questions that I'm sort of asking about are like probably the core of whether we would have any shot in defending this in a lawsuit, which would be likely, I think.

And so the first of them, you know, is this question of the gap in coverage.

And I don't think it quite satisfies it to say the gap in coverage isn't that great or it's only in these particular areas or it's worst in the Safeway parking lot.

And they sort of deserve it because they're not allowing.

I mean, I think the test from a court, I mean, I'm not a judge.

I don't know.

But I think that what AT&T would be asked would be, did they in the record show that there is an actual gap in the areas that they're trying to cover?

And it seems to me like they've shown that.

And before you respond to that, on the other prong, then they have to show whether they've looked at alternatives.

And they definitely have shown in the record that they've looked at alternatives.

They've looked at other sites and they've gotten a lot of no's.

there seems to be some suggestion I think from from the appellants that they

should have looked at alternative technologies we've heard two things

about that one we've heard from AT&T's lawyer that no we don't need to look at

alternative technologies that's not the test the test is location and we've also

heard from them and from FirstNet that no they they can't do what they're

supposed to do using say distributed antenna systems that's not viable they

have to do it this way if they're going to meet their obligations under their first net,

as a first net provider.

So I guess I just, to me, those are pretty compelling and is sort of, I mean, I just

wanted to give you the opportunity if you want to try to address either of those two

things that seem pretty important to me.

Thank you, Supervisor Melleman.

First of all, the alternative analysis, they looked at private sites, and they got turned down by private owners.

They did not look at all the public site that was available.

I just cited one across on O'Shaughnessy and the area above the juvenile justice system.

Regarding FirstNet, FirstNet on their website, you can buy a booster for your FirstNet product.

So it doesn't require a 10-story macro tower and next, literally on the fence line of two parks.

We're not talking in the parking lot.

We're talking in parking spaces behind the police academy on the fence line of the border of the parks.

I'm forgetting the other question.

I apologize.

It was gap in coverage.

Oh, gap in coverage.

So we identified that Hammett and Edison said they did a drive test,

because I don't believe the computer fabulated maps,

because if you look at the websites for AT&T, for Verizon,

you look at what AT&T submits to FCC, they all say there's 100% coverage.

And then AT&T says, oh, well, that's just what we submit.

That's what they said in the Planning Commission meeting.

And I've been told that the court will uphold that a very relatively weak signal,

which is what Hammett Edison identified in some areas, is considered a gap in coverage.

There are other ways to boost that gap in coverage.

The police academy begged us to come.

Well, the police academy is in the shadow.

The police academy could have put a booster inside the police academy years ago

that would have improved their service.

So this is not the only way to do this.

And I just feel like the...

Did I answer your question?

Oh, in terms of lawsuits,

this decision should not be made on

we're afraid that we're going to get sued.

San Francisco got sued by the tobacco industry.

We got sued by the alcohol industry.

We've been sued by the plastic bag industry.

we're likely to have to fight the ultra-processed food industry.

We are a city that stands up for people, for their health and welfare and well-being.

We are not supposed to bend over and say, oh, no, no, President Trump, please don't sue me.

This is a – we need to stand up for the neighbors.

We elected you.

You're sworn to defend us, and you're not sworn to defend corporate telecom.

Thanks.

All right.

Thank you, Ms. Dodd.

Hold your applause, please.

All right, unless colleagues have any further questions,

I'm inclined to close the hearing.

Should I close the hearing, or do you want to leave?

Did you want to make your comments and say your things

during the hearing, or should I close the hearing,

and then we'll talk?

Either way, let's say that these hearings have been held

and are now filed.

I, sure.

OK.

All right, Supervisor Chan.

You know, I just wanted to say I do understand the dilemma here.

Clearly, when I first took office, we had neighbors, in reality,

having AT&T want to install an antenna in a private residence

with the agreement that was actually with a private property owner.

And we, through the same process, the neighbors appealed this,

and I was in support of the constituents who did that

because it was a private residence too.

And so I think that I am sensitive to the community input,

but I do recognize what President Mendelman you indicated.

It did result in the settlement,

but it also resulted that that very antenna is still not installed.

I just want to say you know while that AT&T probably was permitted to do so it

would it no longer seems to in express or moving forward with the installation

so I just want to put it out there that I am always inclined to fight and push

back in these instance to allow the opportunity to sort of have those

conversations so thank you thank you supervisor Chan one to ask planning if

you wanted to say anything more about any of the things that I asked about

thank you president and we do have an answer to supervisor Chan's question on

the size of the pad for the Presidio site it's approximately 600 square feet

600 square feet is the footprint.

Yes.

That's correct.

And then we do have City Attorney Brad Russey available if you had further questions on

the Telecommunications Act.

Deputy City Attorney Brad Russey, I don't, the lawyer for the project sponsor answered

your question about the ability to require them to look at different types of technology,

and I agree with that answer.

You agree with their answer.

All right.

Thank you.

Don't see anyone else in the queue.

All right.

So, I mean, I think I've sort of indicated how I'm thinking about this.

I did vote, along with Supervisor Chan, for that, to grant that appeal, and that story

has actually influenced my thinking.

I did not realize until this moment

that it still hasn't been installed.

But I do know that AT&T,

notwithstanding our voting to grant the appeal,

a year later we approved a settlement

giving them the ability to do

what they had been trying to do

in an appeal pretty much like this.

So I do think that ultimately,

AT&T may choose not to install that.

They may find that this facility is too expensive or they run into too many problems along the way installing this.

But I do think it is quite hard under the Telecommunications Act to effectively prohibit AT&T or any other telecom provider from putting in telecom facilities.

I think if we were just having a, well, there's different issues here.

There's a CEQA appeal.

On the CEQA appeal, and I said this earlier, the notion that this project should require an EIR seems really weird and not correct to me, and so I can't really accept that.

Whether it falls within this exemption exactly, I tend to believe that our planning staff do a pretty good job on their CEQA analysis and they're being advised by good lawyers.

It is tall, and I think that maybe requires a slightly heightened level of analysis, but

even with that, I think I can accept that this still falls within that exemption.

So I'm not inclined, at least for myself, to say that we should overturn the CEQA determination

here.

I think that CU is a much more complicated and harder question, and I think if it weren't

for the Telecommunications Act.

I actually still think it would be a hard question

because I do think that there's a,

I think it is a known thing that service in the hills

above Noe Valley and Castro is pretty bad.

And I hear from a lot of constituents

who express frustration about the difficulty

of keeping cell service as they're either driving around there

or in their homes.

And that's just a thing that comes up.

So I think arguing that there aren't gaps in coverage,

it sort of flies in the face of like the lived experience

of a lot of my constituents.

And I think that the record, you know,

probably meets any kind of requirement that AT&T would have

to make to show that there is a gap.

Even so, there is an impact.

I don't think it's a significant.

There is an impact, a visual, mainly I think visual and aesthetic impact,

particularly for people who live up around the facility,

and I think it's totally legitimate and reasonable for people to be objecting to this.

But that would be the traditional balancing that we would be doing under a regular old CU.

The greater negative impact on people closer,

the broader benefit to a larger community further away

that would be benefited from the improved cellular service.

I don't think we even get necessarily to that question

because I think the telecom test for me probably settles this pretty much in AT&T's favor.

Now, I have looked at this, looked at this with planning and with the city attorney

and tried to figure out whether, you know,

without rejecting the AT&T project,

if there were any ways to address any of the other issues

that have come up in this appeal.

And I guess I would ask that our Sergeant-at-Arms hand out

some proposed additional conditions

that could be put on this project.

I'm going to ask that my colleagues

grant the appeal, I guess,

but only for the purposes of making the amendment

to add these additional conditions.

One related to additional fire department inspection

and requiring that they inspect the project

and that the applicant complete any reasonable fire safety-related recommendations

at the fire department and restating that the project,

including the power source and cooling facility, be operated at all times

within state and local fire codes, including the specific requirements

for cellular antenna sites and placement of diesel generators.

I feel like that's about as belt and suspenders as we can get

to put a fire code and fire safety provision into the planning conditions of approval.

I'm also going to ask that the project sponsor hire an arborist

to prepare a tree protection plan that includes best management practices

and that there be a, they say there will be no trees removed.

We're going to ask that, and they should be held to that,

if somehow it turns out that a tree is removed,

it would have to be replaced three to one with new trees

as required, and the arborist would sort of, I think,

provide recommendations on how to implement that. And then lastly,

I'm going to ask my colleagues to require that the project,

including the power source and cooling facility, be operated

at all times within the limits of San Francisco's noise control ordinance

so that any noise here, that it is also a condition of disapproval that they meet the noise standards,

that would apply anyway.

But again, it's sort of a belt and suspenders to make sure that that would apply.

I thought for a long time about trying to include some sort of aesthetics requirement

and round and around and around with planning and AT&T about whether this is really the best that can be done

in terms of making this as non-obnoxious as possible.

Planning seems to believe that the tree idea,

hiding this with a tree is a bad idea.

I have no basis to argue with that.

They've also required that this be painted brown

and that that would be potentially less intrusive than a white pole,

poll and that seems reasonable. AT&T, I had asked about alternatives for the antenna, the sort of

facilities themselves and whether, you know, there could be film that was put on them that would make

them less visible or would be other colors. They submitted a proposal for that yesterday to

planning. We could require it here but I don't really want to do that without consultation

from the, you know, with impacted neighbors.

So I'm not going to put in an aesthetics requirement,

but I would ask, actually, if someone from AT&T could come forward.

It's probably Ms. Blackstone.

Yes, supervisor.

Yeah, so, I mean, until this point, and it may be going forward

because there are other potential other appeal opportunities,

I think, you know, appellants, the neighbors who oppose this,

have been mostly focused on trying to kill this project.

And so a conversation about how to make the poll as non-obnoxious as possible has not been one that I think might have gone very far.

I would like a commitment from you that if that is a conversation that neighbors want to have,

that you and AT&T would be willing to have that conversation with me and my office and the neighbors going forward

to look at the other potential alternatives around things like film and coating

that could be put over the facilities around the color of the pole,

around any of that stuff, to the extent that the neighbors have a consensus position on it.

Yeah, absolutely.

We're willing to discuss any options that won't hinder our focus,

which is to get the signal out,

but we're happy to work with them on paint, color, film,

whatever we can do to make it less offensive to them.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for that.

All right.

So the first thing that I think I need to do,

and I'm going to look to the city attorney to make sure I get this right,

is I think I need to amend item 25.

Is that right?

25, disapproving conditional use authorization.

I think I need to amend that in the form that I have handed out

to include these additional conditions.

So I would like to make a motion to amend it in that, you know, I would like to move to make that amendment.

I would seek a second, seconded by Dorsey.

Can we take that motion without objection, colleagues?

Without objection, the motion to amend passes.

Okay.

And then I would like to, oh, Mr. Russi.

Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi.

Yeah.

I think you should dispose of the CEQA appeal first before issuing the final permit.

Brilliant.

Thank you.

So, all right.

So on the CEQA appeal, I would like to make a motion to affirm the categorical exemption

determination by approving items 20 and tabling items 21 and 22.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Chen.

Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on that motion?

On the motion to approve item 20 and table items 21 and 22,

Supervisor Wong.

Wong, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

No.

Chan, no.

Supervisor Chen.

Aye.

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter aye. Supervisor Cheryl? Aye. Cheryl aye. And Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton aye. There are 10 ayes and 1 no. With Supervisors Chan voting no.

All right. Item 20 is approved and items 21 and 22 are tabled.

And then that brings us back to 25, 26, 24, 25, and 26.

25 has been amended.

And so I would like to make a motion to pass item, to approve item 25 as amended and 26 and table 24.

Is there a second for that?

seconded by Dorsey. Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on that motion.

On the motion to table item 24 and approve item 25 as amended and 26, Supervisor Wong.

Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor Chen. Aye.

Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Fielder, aye. Supervisor

Mahmood. Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl aye.

And Supervisor Walton.

Walton aye.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, item 24 is tabled, and item 25 is amended, and item 26 are passed.

All right.

Madam Clerk, let's go back to item 12.

Item 12, Mr. President, is the reset item.

Supervisor Fielder.

And, Mr. President, I should say there is a motion on the floor.

Seconded by Supervisor Fielder.

Seconded by Supervisor Chan.

Thanks, President Manelman.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I had some questions for the sheriff or DPH, whoever is present.

The sheriff is present.

Great.

Hello.

I'm sorry.

What was the question again, Supervisor?

Sheriff, I will have a series of questions, so thank you in advance.

So first off, what kind of intoxicated individuals will be taken to this site?

Is it people intoxicated with alcohol or opioids or something else?

An assessment will be made by the officers or deputies that encounter the individual.

Usually they exhibit signs of being under the influence of either alcohol or drugs.

There's a series of tests that we conduct.

There's field sobriety tests.

There's 11-5-50, which references the health and safety code.

A series of tests which you look at the nystagmus in an individual's eyes.

There's a seven-part test that is conducted to determine whether or not somebody's under the influence currently.

It's not like a measurement of how much is in their system.

It's just an assessment of their current state and their behaviors.

So individuals who are intoxicated in any which way that sheriffs deem?

The arrest, yeah, the law enforcement officer on the street, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Will arrestees be detained at this facility?

So the facility is designed so there's no doors, bars, holds.

The deputies are actually outside the facility once they take the individual from the police.

They aren't present inside.

That's the purview of the actual caregivers and the people that are monitoring their conditions as they are allowed to sober up from their state.

Okay.