Good afternoon.

Welcome to the April 7th, 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 not present, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey present, Supervisor Fielder, Fielder not present, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Mahmoud present, Supervisor Mandelman.

Present.

Mandelman present, Supervisor Melgar.

Melcar present, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter present, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl present, Supervisor Walton.

Walton present, Supervisor Wong.

Wong present.

Mr.

President, you have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaktuchalone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.

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

Underground indivisible with liberty and justice.

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

Today, that is particularly Suze Enos.

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

Madam Clerk, do you have any communications?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

The Office of the Clerk of the Board is in receipt of a memo dated April 7th, 2026 from Supervisor Fielder requesting to be excused from the meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Government Audit and Oversight Committee, as well as the LAFCO meetings between April 7th and June 30th.

And for today's purposes, a motion will need to be made in order for her to excuse her from today's meeting, as well as for future meetings of the board and the GAO.

Additionally, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors welcomes you all to be present in the legislative chamber.

Here we are in room 250 on the second floor of City Hall.

And when you're not able to be here, we ask that you watch the proceedings that are airing live on SFGOV TV's Channel 26 or catch the live stream at WWW.sfgovtv.org.

If you have public comment that you'd like to submit in writing, just send it to uh the through the U.S.

Postal Service to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the number one, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlitt Place, City Hall, Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And if you'd like to send it via email, you can send it to email address at BOS at sfgov.org.

If you need to make a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disability Act, or to request language assistance, please contact the clerk's office at least two business days in advance by calling 415-554-5184.

Thank you, members.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, could I have a motion to excuse Supervisor Fielder from today's meeting made by Supervisor Mahmoud seconded by Walton?

And I think we can take that without objection.

Without objection, Supervisor Fielder is excused.

Madam Clerk, let's go to approval of our meeting minutes.

Yes, approval of the February 24th, 2026, and March 3, 2026, Board Meeting Minutes.

Can I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented?

Moved by Chen, seconded by Cheryl.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

On the minutes as presented, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I, Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, I, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter, I, Supervisor Cheryl, Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton, Walton, I, Supervisor Wong, Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

Chen I, Supervisor Chen, Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey, Dorsey, I, and Supervisor Mahmoud.

Mahmoud I.

There are 10 ayes.

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

And I would like to acknowledge that we are joined here in the chamber by a former member of the Board of Supervisors, Bevan Dufty.

Welcome, Supervisor Dufty.

All right, Madam Clerk, let's go to our consent agenda.

Please call items one through nine together.

Items one through nine.

These items are on consent and considered to be routine.

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

Please call the roll, Madam Clerk.

On items one through nine, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I, Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar I, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Walton I, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey I, and Supervisor Mahmood.

Machmood I.

There are 10 ayes.

Without objection, these ordinances are passed on first reading and the resolutions are adopted.

Madam Clerk, let's go to unfinished business.

Please call item 10.

Item 10.

This is an ordinance that amends the health, business, and tax regulations, the public works code, uh regarding compact mobile food operation definition and fees.

Colleagues, I think we can take this item, same house, same call without objection.

The ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call item number 11.

Item 11.

This is an ordinance to de-appropriate approximately 34.36 million from permanent premium and comp time salaries.

And to appropriate approximately that same set amount to overtime salaries in the police department to support the department's projected increases in overtime as required per administrative code section 3.17 in fiscal years 2025 through 2026.

And let's take this item.

Same house, same call, without objection.

The ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call item number 12.

Item 12, this is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require the Department of Public Works to perform evaluations and report periodically on mechanical street sweeping operations to include submittal of written performance reports to the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor and to amend the health code to revise and clarify outdated terms concerning refuse receptacle requirements and to affirm the CEQA determination.

And again, same house, same call, without objection.

The ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call item number 13.

Item 13.

This is an ordinance to approve the police surveillance technology policy for electronic location tracking devices and to make the requisite findings.

Please call the roll.

On item 13, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, I, Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, I, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter, I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Walton, no, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen, Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey, Dorsey, I, and Supervisor Mahmoud.

Mahmoud I.

There are nine ayes and one no with Supervisor Walton voting no.

The ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, let's go to new business.

Please call item number 14.

Item 14, this is a resolution to approve the third modification to a contract with Hallmark Aviation Services LP for Airport Information and Guest Assistance Services to extend the term for one year for a total term of July 1st, 2024 through June 30th, 2027, and to increase the contract amount by 10.4 million for a new contract amount of 30.4 million.

Please call the roll.

On item 14, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I, Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, I, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Walton, I, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, I, and Supervisor Mahmoud.

Mahmoud I.

There are 10 ayes.

Without objection, uh, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call items 15 and 16 together.

Items 15 and 16 are two resolutions that approve agreements.

Agreement amendments for the Department of Public Health.

Item 15 approves the second amendment to the agreement between the city and county and the San Francisco AIDS Foundation to operate a health access point and provide capacity building services.

Item 15 approves the second amendment to the agreement between the city and county and the San Francisco AIDS Foundation to operate a health access point and provide capacity building services, a four-year term extension now through January 1st, 2023 through June 30, 2030, and to increase the amount by 11.9 million for a new total of 21.8 million.

And item 16.

This approves the second amendment to the agreement with the Rafiki Coalition for Health and Wellness to provide health access point services, a three-year term extension, now January 21st, January 1st, 2023 through June 30th, 2030, and to increase the amount by approximately 10.6 million for a new total amount of 20 million.

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

The resolutions are adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 17.

Item 17.

This is a resolution to authorize the Office of the Assessor Recorder to execute the second amendment to a contract with Sapient Corporation for the implementation and maintenance of the property assessment system replacement project to increase the contract amount by 6.7 million for a new total amount of 33.9 million and to extend the contract duration from nine years and two months to 13 years and eight months for a total term through June 30th, 2032.

Chair Chan.

Thank you, President Amendoman, colleagues.

And this item came out of the budget with a recommendation.

Even though the project itself by its implementation has almost a five years delay.

What we really asked for during the committee, though, is for us to understand the specific and details of that $15 million of staffing worth, whether that we we can independently verify that dollar amount that results in the type of staffing.

We have yet to receive that information.

I think that they just need a little bit more time.

The assessor recorder has agreed for us to continue this for a week.

It will not uh impact their contract amendment.

Um so I would like to move to continue to for us to vote on this uh to next week so we can have all the information on the record before we we cast our vote.

Thank thank you, Chair Chan, for your uh motion and your work on this, seconded by Walton.

Um colleagues, I can think we can take that without objection.

Ms.

Mr.

President, that would be continued to April 14th.

Great.

Um we can take that without objection.

The motion is approved.

Um Madam Clerk, please call 18.

Item 18.

Item 18 is a resolution to approve the second amendment to the agreement between the city and county and the Department of Public Health with Instituto Familiar de la Rasa Inc.

to operate a health access point service to extend the term by three years from June 30, 2027 for a new term of January 1st, 2023 through June 30th, 2030, and to increase the amount by approximately 9.2 million for a new total of 17 million.

And let's take this item, same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 19.

Item 19, this is a resolution to retroactively approve a contract between the city and county and the San Francisco Marin Food Bank for the provision of the CalFresh Stop Gap Emergency Gift Card Initiative for a two-month term, October 30th, 2025 through December 31st, 2025, and a not-to-exceed amount of 9.1 million, and to retroactively approve the first amendment adding repayment instructions as well as revised repayment and reporting effective January 30th, 2026.

And we'll take this item, same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call items 20 and 21 together.

Items 20 and 21 are two resolutions that pertain to the Wisteria Lane Affordable Housing Project.

Item 20, this is a resolution to approve and authorize the Department of Property and the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development to enter into a ground lease for real property owned by the city and located at 105 Westeria Lane, known as the Balboa Reservoir, Building A with Balboa Gateway LP for a 75 year term for the lease and one 24-year option to extend with an annual base rent of 15,000 in order to construct a 100 percent affordable 158 unit multifamily rental housing development, affordable to very low and low income households, plus one managers unit to approve and authorize as uh an amended and restated loan agreement for 29.3 million for a minimum loan term of 57 years to finance the development and construction of the project and to adopt the appropriate findings.

And again, same house, same call, without objection.

The uh resolution is adopted resolutions.

Mr.

President, and I will call 21.

Yes, my apologies, members.

Item 21, this resolution uh is to approve for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended and authorized the execution and delivery of a multifamily housing revenue note in an aggregate principal amount of 112 million uh to finance the construction of the 105 Wisteria Lane.

And now we can take these two resolutions together.

Same house, same call, without objection.

The resolutions are adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 22.

Item 22, this is an ordinance that approves the airport surveillance technology policy governing the use of the transportation network company virtual queue technology same house, same call without objection.

The ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call item 23.

Item 23, this is a resolution to authorize the director and the deputy director of the mayor's office of victims' rights to solicit donations to benefit survivor victims of crime from individuals, nonprofits, private organizations, and foundations for six months, notwithstanding the behested payment ordinance.

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

Madam Clerk, please call item number 24.

Item 24, resolution to urge the mayor to issue an executive directive to establish a citywide women's advancement and gender equity action plan led and coordinated by the San Francisco Department on the Status of Women with full cross-departmental participation and dedicated budgetary support to ensure effective implementation.

Same house, same call without objection.

The resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 25.

Item 25, resolution to authorize adoption of the San Francisco Behavioral Health Services Act, annual update for fiscal year 2025 through 2026.

Same house, same call, without objection.

The resolution is adopted.

And Madam Clerk, please call it number 26.

Item 26, this is a motion to approve the mayoral reappointment of Anna Vandegna to the redevelopment successor agency oversight board for a term ending January 24th, 2030.

And we'll take this.

Same house, same call, without objection.

The motion is approved.

Madam Clerk, please call items 27 and 28 together.

Items 27 and 28 are two motions that approve the mayor's nomination for the appointment to the Treasure Island Development Authority Board of Directors.

Item 27 approves Eric Dazmalke, term ending February 26, 2030.

And item 28 approves Timothy Kojo Minta, term ending April 28, 2030.

Same house, same call, without objection.

The motions are approved.

Madam Clerk, please call items 29 and 30 together.

Items 29 and 30 are two motions that approve the mayor's nomination for the reappointments to the municipal transportation agencies board of directors.

Item 29 approves Dominica Henderson and item 30 approves Stephanie Cahina for a uh term ending March 1st, 2030.

Same house, same call, without objection.

The motions are approved.

And then Madam Clerk, I think we have committee reports.

Please call item number 35.

Item 35 was considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on Monday, April 6th.

It was recommended as a committee report.

Item 35 is an ordinance that amends the environment code to update the city's climate action goals and planning process and to update City Department's roles and responsibilities pertaining to the city's climate action goals and to affirm the CEQA determination.

Same house, same call, without objection.

The ordinances passed on first reading.

Item 36 was considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on Monday, April 6, 2026, and was recommended as amended with a new title to approve the appointment.

Item 36, uh it now reads uh the word rejecting was struck and currently reads motion to approve the president of the Board of Supervisors, Raphael Mandelman's nomination for the appointment of Lily Wong to the Board of Appeals for a term ending July 1st, 2028.

Same house, same call, without objection.

The motion is approved.

And Madam Clerk, let's go to roll call for introductions.

First up to introduce new business, Mr.

President, is you.

Thank you.

I have uh an item of legislation and two in memoriams.

Um, I'm introducing legislation to clarify and define what constitutes electrical work under the San Francisco Building Code and to specify that this work must be performed by properly certified contractors in accordance with the California labor code.

This clarity is especially important as San Francisco continues to advance policies around building electrification and modernization.

As we transition more buildings and systems to electric power, the volume and complexity of electrical installations will increase, and having a clear and forcible definition of electrical work will be helpful.

This legislation aligns our definition of electrical work with the realities of modern construction, supports our electrification goals, and provides clarity for contractors and property owners.

I want to thank uh our deputy city attorney, Rob Kapla for his work on the legislation.

Um I want to thank John Doherty from IBEW Local Six for his input.

I want to thank staff from the Department of the Environment and the Department of Building Inspection for their feedback, and I want to thank my Chief of Staff, Sophie Marie, for all her work on the ordinance.

Umly, colleagues, uh I am asking that we adjourn today's meeting in memory of Andrea Shorter, who died far too soon on March 19th, 2026.

She was a true force and a friend.

She was born on October 14th, 1965 in Indianapolis, Indiana, and moved to California as a teenager, graduating from Paris Union High School before earning her degree in sociology from Whittier College.

She began her career in Riverside County working on a successful state assembly campaign.

Thereafter, she moved to San Francisco in 1991.

Over the next decades, Andrea would carve a role for herself as one of the most influential pol political strategists and public policy voices in the city.

Her areas of advocacy included criminal justice reform, voting rights, domestic violence prevention, and marriage equality.

In leadership roles with organizations such as Equality California, Out and Equal Workplace Advocates, the NAMES Project, AIDS Memorial Quilt, and the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.

She helped drive systemic reforms while always centering those most impacted.

Andrea served on a number of city and nonprofit commissions and boards, including City College's Board of Trustees, and 20 years on the Commission on the Status of Women, where she served multiple terms as president.

In 2009, she was honored as Grand Marshal of the San Francisco Pride Parade.

She was a trusted policy, a trusted advisor and strategist to many of our most successful San Francisco political leaders, including Vice President Kamala Harris, Mayors Willie Brown, and London Breed, Governor Gavin Newsom, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, and Congresswoman Latifa Simon.

A co-founder of the Byred Rust and LGBT coalition, Andrea was deeply committed to building bridges between the LGBTQ and black communities, believing that progress depends on coalition building and shared purpose across identities.

Beyond her professional accomplishments, Andrea brought joy, creativity, and warmth to those around her.

She loved music and played guitar each evening, often writing songs to share with family.

She had strong opinions about pop culture as well as politics, which she shared freely over meals with friends.

She's survived by her partner, Lubav Smith, her mother Karen, brothers Lawrence and Aaron, her nephews Khalil and Lucas, and a wide circle of family friends and colleagues, some of whom are here today, and all of whom will miss her very, very much.

Rest in peace and power, Andrea Shorter.

May your memory be a blessing.

Secondly, I'm also asking that we adjourn today's meeting in memory of Brixton, a golden retriever and therapy dog who served the people of San Francisco for more than 12 years.

Brixton was adopted by Linda Gordon, who I think is here also at six months old, and began his career as a therapy dog just two months later.

He was a founding member of the San Francisco International Airport's Wag Brigade from its launch in 2013, greeting travelers and easing pre-flight anxiety.

Over the years, Brixton spread smiles across San Francisco.

He worked in schools from kindergarten through college at San Francisco State University, UC San Francisco, Lowell, and George Washington High Schools, among many others.

He fostered a love of reading in young San Franciscans through the public library's puppy dog tales program.

He brought comfort to medical staff at Zuckerberg General and to ill children and their families at Family House.

Brixton was a proud ally of San Francisco's LGBTQ plus community and could often be found in his signature sunglasses and colorful outfits at uh events including Pride Outside Lands, Hardly Strictly Blue Bluegrass, and the Giants opening days.

Brixton died peacefully on Chrissy Field, surrounded by those he loved.

Linda Gordon described what she learned from her years with Brixton, how to not take life so seriously and how love can be shared so easily.

San Franciscans whose lived lives he improved.

Rest in peace.

Brixton, may your memory be a blessing.

The rest I submit.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Supervisor Milgar.

Thank you.

Uh Madam Clerk.

Uh colleagues.

Today I am introducing legislation to close a loophole that has long been in our city's health code regarding smoking in outdoor spaces of bars and restaurants.

According to the U.S.

Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization, secondhand smoke has no level of safe exposure.

The World Health Organization recommends that individuals should be exposed to no more than 15 micrograms per cubic meter of fine particulate matter, averaged over 24 hours.

Shift workers, waiters, service personnel, even in outdoor spaces, are still exposed to the daily accumulation of secondhand smoke.

In 2022, air quality measurements taken by UCSF researchers in San Francisco's bar patios determined that six of the nine patios visited had peak readings in the EPA unhealthy air range.

One patio was found to be in the hazardous range where people were smoking cigars.

San Francisco has long been a leader in public health by passing strong protections for smoke-free places and fighting against the vaping and tobacco industries that preys heavily on young people and communities of color.

Over time, our code has become outdated, and even the state has passed stronger regulations.

This legislation will align us with at least 400 cities and counties nationwide, including San Jose, Oakland, and more than 50 Bay Area cities that have ordinances prohibiting smoking in bar and restaurant patios.

I want to thank my co-sponsor, Supervisor Sauter, the Department of Public Health's environmental health team for their collaboration, the City Attorney's Office, the San Francisco Marine Medical Society, LGBTQ's minus tobacco, and other passionate advocates for their tireless efforts to close this loopholes.

I'm also introducing a resolution along with supervisors Chen, Walton, and Sauter in support of Senate Bill 1091, which was authored by California Senator Ana Caballero.

This bill would establish a state community anti-displacement and preservation program, which seeks to tackle the housing affordability and housing shortage crisis in California.

This continues to be one of the most urgent and pressing issues, especially here in our city and in the Bay Area.

The Bay Area in California are some of the most expensive places to live in the entire world.

Renting, staying at long-term residents, residences, and the possibility of owning home are out of reach for so many people.

However, this issue is disproportionately affecting low-income and moderate income residents who are at risk that of displacement more than ever.

Last year, tenants in San Francisco experienced more than 3,740 evictions over a year-long period, the highest number over the last 10 years.

The community anti-displacement and preservation program creates a state fund that would finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing unsubsidized rental housing.

The acquired housing would then be converted into long-term deed restricted and affordable housing units with displacement protection for current residents.

This would create affordable housing from housing units already available, limit costs and barriers that accompany construction, and ensure that long-term tenants don't get kicked out of their homes.

Additionally, this bill would require the California Housing and Homelessness Agency to grant prescribed funds to the program manager to support the execution of this program.

The funds would also allow project managers to issue grants and loans to eligible borrowers, including nonprofit organizations, mission-driven housing providers, and local jurisdictions.

California is in need of affordable housing, and we are hopeful that the community anti-displacement and preservation program will allow people to live, work, and thrive, regardless of income.

I hope to count on your support for this resolution and that the state will pass this bill.

The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Milgar.

Mr.

President.

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

Yes, this is for the recognition of commendations for meritorious service to the city and county of San Francisco.

And uh first up, District 4, Supervisor Wong.

Okay, we'll hold on for a minute until they come on up.

It's like Molly Burke has many friends.

Okay, you can come closer.

Okay, colleagues, I'm honored to recognize Molly Murphy Burke for more than 35 years of service to her communities and to millions of riders who lie on BART every day.

Molly has been a constant and trusted partner to this board and to neighborhoods across San Francisco.

For many of us, she has been the person we call when something needs to be get done or when our communities need to be heard.

She has consistently shown up with clarity, responsiveness, and a deep understanding of both the system and the people it serves.

Throughout our career, uh Molly has helped lead outreach for major system expansions and guided BART's engagement through different administrations and moments of change.

She has played a role in some of the system's most significant milestones.

But what truly defines her work is how she has done it.

Molly approaches public service with a strong sense of responsibility to the community.

She understands that behind every project, every station, and every decision are real people, whether supporting residents through construction impacts, working with small businesses, or ensuring clear communication.

She has built trust through consistency and follow-through.

She also brings something invaluable to her role.

As a longtime daily writer, she understands the system from the perspective of the people who depend on it.

That perspective has shaped her work and her and strengthened her ability to connect policy with lived experience.

Here in the Sunset and across the West Side, we have seen firsthand the impact of her partnership.

She knows our communities, she listens carefully, and she works to make sure we stay informed and connected.

Beyond her professional role, Molly and her husband Mark have contributed meaningfully to community life, helping bring people together and support spaces that include strengthening neighborhood connections, especially during challenging times.

Molly, thank you for your leadership, your partnership, and your lasting contributions to San Francisco and beyond.

On behalf of the board, congratulations on your well-earned retirement.

We wish you continued joy, good health, and many new adventures ahead.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong for Yeah.

Thank you so much.

But before Molly, just before you speak, I just want to thank Supervisor Wong for doing this in memoriam.

We love you.

You have been pretty much.

Nope.

Still there.

I'm not going away.

This special commendation.

We uh BART has been through a rough number of years.

Um you have been such a great face and voice for that uh for BART, especially particularly I think in in the tough times.

And so um I'm if if if Supervisor Wong was not gonna do this, I was gonna do it, but I'm glad that he did.

So um so thank you so much.

Thank you.

Oh, this is just uh an amazing moment for me.

I've been in these chambers hundreds of times and listened to you, and um you know, really before I begin, I just really want to thank the board uh, but mostly all of your aides who have been tremendous.

They have gotten me through my job.

They are amazing people over decades.

I mean so many that I've known.

So with that, uh I'll I'll make my comments and thank you.

Thank you both so much.

Um good afternoon to Honorable Mayor Lurie, who may not be in the room, but wherever you are, I know you're out there.

Um, President Mandelman, my friend, and uh distinguished members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I would like to begin with a special thank you to District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong for inviting me here today and for for this wonderful honor.

And thank you to TIF Lee for your coordination and your kindness, TIFF.

You're amazing and you make this office happen.

Um I am deeply honored to be recognized today for my 35 years of service with the BART district and four decades in Bay Area Transportation.

Attending with me today is my fan club.

Um attending our members of my own family along with members of my BART family.

Um my sisters, Carrie and Peggy are here.

Um they where are they?

And my brother, unfortunately, is not here today.

He is serving the city.

He is working hard for San Francisco, so we'll miss you, Mike.

Also with me is my brother-in-law Frank Hagen, married to Carrie, and my cousin, Paul McCann, who represents all of my cousins throughout San Francisco, and there are hundreds.

He is my favorite BART director, Director Bevan Dufty, former director, and my manager at BART, who is Bradley Dunn, who's a great manager, and I do miss him.

And along with Mark Nogales, my colleague who took over my work when I left in February.

And last but not least, I love her with all my heart.

She is my co-worker and friend Anna Duckworth.

So with that, I would like to go on and most especially thank my husband.

My husband, here he is.

He and our two daughters who live in Chicago and can't be here today.

Their names are Maggie and Maureen Burke.

They have been a constant support throughout my career, and I want to recognize my mom as well, who is here today.

Thank you, Mama.

You were my strength and my wisdom over all these years as a working mom, and you always reminded me that I was setting a good example for our daughters.

It has been a tremendous privilege to represent BART in both San Francisco and San Mateo counties throughout my career.

But working in San Francisco has always held a special place in my heart because this is where my story began.

I proudly come from the Sunset District of San Francisco, from a large Irish American family with deep roots throughout the city.

Standing in this chamber today is especially meaningful to me.

If you haven't heard it before, served as the Sheriff of San Francisco for many years.

So I thank you, Supervisor Wong.

And also my Uncle Dan, who carries the name Daniel Cornelius Murphy still today, is live lives in Noe Valley and is the patriarch of the Murphy family.

He is 90.

My career in transportation began in 1986 when I took a job in San Jose, working in the early days for the South South Bay Light Rail System, followed by a stint at Caltrans on the 680-24 interchange.

Those experiences ultimately led me to BART, where I spent 35 incredible years.

To the East Side Walkway, the walkway leading from Ocean Avenue to the BART station, allowing students to get to and from class.

And recently, the housing development at Balboa Park as well.

The ongoing neighborhood outreach in Glen Park and Daily City, and the list goes on.

My work is not about communication.

It was about listening, because when you listen, you learn.

And when you learn, you can better serve.

A passion that began on May 1st, 1990, and will come to a close now.

Over these years, it has truly been a pleasure to inform and educate the public on BART's expansions, modernizations, technological changes, and our challenging pandemic.

It was an honor to support six BART general managers, work under eight San Francisco mayoral administrations.

I will never forget the BART anniversaries from our 20th to our 50th, even though I look 28.

I'll always be proud of the early mission plaza renovations with Bevin.

I helped implement those and always remember the mission street great project where I walked block to block to block keeping businesses informed.

My mind will recall the thousands of traction power upgrade meetings to discuss what was happening underneath Market Street and the project across 50 BART stations where we replaced new Fairgates, completed in record time and prioritizing the rider experience.

And my feet will not soon forget the hundreds of fairs and festivals that I worked across the Bay Area, sharing the BART story, thanking loyal writers, and encouraging new ones to please come on board.

I'm almost there.

BART has been my second home, and it will remain in my heart forever.

This is where I get a little teary, so hold on.

I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to serve the people of San Francisco and to have worked alongside so many of you to improve transit, resolve issues, and support major moments in this city and across the Bay Area.

As I move to retirement, I look forward to traveling with my husband, spending more time with my family, and staying active in our Irish community through music, culture, and service.

Woohoo!

So thank you, Supervisor Wong.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

You both are in my heart.

And thank you, members of the Board of Supervisors, and my friend up there, Angela Calvillo.

I've known you for years.

Thank you all so much for this opportunity to serve the people of San Francisco and the relationships that each of you and your staff have meant to me.

Thank you.

Love you all.

Bye.

Oh, we got more.

Oh, yeah.

All right.

Next up, District 7 Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you, President.

Luceto, if you could come up, please.

Colleagues, at today, I am thrilled to recognize and honor La Casa de las Madres on their 50th anniversary, which is truly an amazing milestone.

Yeah, Lucette, whoever, if you somebody on your board wants to come up with you or your staff.

Thank you.

This is truly an amazing milestone that we're celebrating here today.

La Casa de las Madres began in 1974 when a group of passionate women were determined to create a place of safety for survivors of domestic violence.

These women tirelessly researched how institutions handled domestic violence, interviewed law enforcement officials, and collected all the information they could on the then current data and support available to survivors of domestic violence.

They found that there was an insufficient and wholly inadequate amount of resources for survivors and their kids.

This encouraged these map passionate women to develop funding proposals to testify at local hearings on marital violence to raise awareness on the issue.

In 1976, La Casa de las Madres was officially founded as an established organization.

Over the last 50 years, La Casa de las Madres has served over 14,000 domestic violence survivors.

They have grown tremendously in not only their reach across the community and capacity to serve, but the critical services they provide people.

Today we are joined by founders, staff, volunteers, supporters, and survivors.

I'm so honored to commend La Casa de las Madres today at the Board of Supervisors meeting.

Later on in our agenda, we will officially proclaim today April 7th, 2026 as La Casa de las Madres Day in the city and county San Francisco.

And now I'll turn it over to uh Lucero to share a few words.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you, uh, Board of Supervisors for this recognition.

My name is Lucero Arias, and I have the honor of serving as the executive director of La Casa de las Madres.

Standing with me today are our leadership as well as our founder and board member Sonia Melada.

This year marks actually today, April 7th, marks 50 years of La Casa de las Madres.

Fifty years ago, a group of women in San Francisco came together with a simple but urgent belief that no one should have to choose between staying in violence or having nowhere to go.

From that belief, La Casa de las Madres was born.

Since then, thousands of survivors and their children have come to La Casa in some of the most difficult moments of their lives, seeking safety, support, and a chance to begin again.

And what they find is not just shelter.

They find someone who answers the phone, someone who believes in them, someone who walks alongside them as they rebuild their lives.

This recognition is not just about La Casa.

It reflects the city's long-standing commitment to survivors and the partnership that make this work possible every day.

Earlier today, we gathered on the steps of City Hall to mark this milestone, not just to celebrate, but to reaffirm our shared commitment to survivors and the work ahead.

Because even as we celebrate, we know that the work is far from over.

Too many survivors still face barriers to safety, whether in housing, economic stability, or access to care.

And it is our shared responsibility to ensure that our systems are responsive, coordinated, and centered on dignity and healing.

So today we accept this commendation not only with gratitude, but with renewed commitment to prevention, to equity, and to ensuring that every survivor in our city has access to safety and support.

Thank you for this honor for standing with La Casa de las Madres in the communities that we serve the city of the city of the city of the city of the city.

All right.

Madam Clerk, let's go back to roll call.

Next up, Supervisor Sauter to introduce new business.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Thank you, President.

Colleagues, today I have one resolution.

It's a resolution in support of HR 2410, which is the Revitalizing Downtowns and Main Streets Act.

This bipartisan bill, authored by U.S.

Representatives Mike Casey and Jimmy Gomez, would provide a federal tax credit to facilitate the conversion of office and other commercial buildings into housing.

It's no secret that we have been focused on this work here in San Francisco, be it the 2024 passage of Prop C or our recent establishment of the downtown revitalization financing district.

But we welcome all support from our Federal partners, and this new Federal tax incentive, modeled after the historic historical preservation tax credit would help offset prohibitive costs so these projects can contribute to easing the housing shortage here in San Francisco and the rest of the United States.

Last month in Washington, D.C., alongside Supervisor Melgar, we had the chance to speak with Representative Gomez's team about this bill and to give feedback to improve its impact for San Franciscans.

So I want to support or I want to thank Supervisor Melgar for her co-sponsorship of this resolution as well.

I appreciate Representative Gomez's steadfast work in housing.

In 2023, he launched the Congressional Renters Caucus, the first time such a body had existed to give voice to renters across the country at the highest levels of government.

It is my hope that we can support this bill to show that San Francisco needs as many tools as possible to create new housing, and we embrace ideas from mall partners to do so.

And the rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

Supervisor Sheryl.

Submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Pacific Islanders have always been a part of this city.

Their history here is rooted in resilience, cultural contribution, labor, and community building.

And yet their community has been subjected to a pattern of targeted threats and false narratives designed to diminish their presence and undermine the legitimacy of their institutions here in San Francisco.

This is unacceptable.

No community should have to fight for their right to exist in their own city.

This afternoon, the Pacific Islander community, as well as several members from community, marched to the steps of City Hall and hosted a rally at Civic Center Plaza to say loud and clear that they will not be erased.

This resolution is the board's answer to that call, and we stand with San Francisco's Pacific Islander community.

I'm also introducing a resolution along with my co-sponsor, Supervisor Melgar, as well as Supervisors Chin, Chan, Dorsey, and Wong, a resolution declaring April 11th through April 17th as Black Maternal Health Week here in San Francisco.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Black Mama's Matter Alliance, and this week matters more than ever.

The data we are presented with is not improving fast enough.

Black birthing mothers making up just 4% of births in San Francisco, but account for 50 percent of pregnancy-related deaths.

Rates of very premature births among black babies, those born at 32 weeks or earlier, increased by 71 percent between 2016 and 2024, rising from 2.1 percent to 3.6 percent of births.

That is a continued crisis.

While outcomes for black birthing parents and their babies have been declining, an investigation found that San Francisco has underspent its budget to address maternal inequities by at least $8 million since 2021, returning the highest portion of its prenatal equity initiative funds back to the state.

We cannot talk about commitment while leaving money on the table that was supposed to be dedicated to reducing black pregnancy related deaths.

Nationally, while maternal mortality rates have declined for white, Hispanic, and Asian women, black women's rates have held steady or worsened, with black women dying at more than three times the rate of white women.

The Center for Disease Control confirmed that the maternal mortality rate decreased for every racial group except black women in San Francisco.

We are in fact one of the worst examples.

That means the pressure on cities like ours to step up is even greater.

The good news is that solutions exist here, and we just need to invest in them so that they have adequate resources to address this problem.

Our resolution affirms San Francisco's commitment to the health, safety, and joy of Blackbirthing Mothers.

Every person in this city deserves a joyful, healthy pregnancy.

And colleagues, my last order of business today is an in-memorium for Anderson J.B.

Williams.

JB was a native son born in Hunters Point in 1958.

Passed away Sunday night.

He graduated from Mission High School, served his country in the Army, came home, started a family, and built a life rooted in this city.

For 40 years, JB was a barber.

And if you know anything about a great barber, you know it is never just about the haircut.

For three decades after opening the shop on Leland Avenue, JB gave free haircuts to students who earned a 3.0 GPA, who showed progress on their report cards, who walked across a graduation stage, who showed up to prom.

He believed in young people before they believed in themselves.

He understood that it takes a village to raise a child, and he was honored to be a part of that village.

We were the ones who were honored.

Recently, my legislative aide chief of staff Percy Birch and I had the pleasure of honoring him at the Veterans Hospital.

We had always planned to honor him here in the chamber, but we got news that his time would be short, so we wanted to make sure that we took the time to do that with community.

And so we brought the honor and community to him.

He was looking forward to celebrating 30 years of business with the Block Party on Leland Avenue, and we're still going to make sure that that happens.

The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton.

Supervisor Wong.

Submit.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, today I'm introducing a memoriam for John Alberling.

John Alberling passed away last week at 79 after decades of advocacy as one of the most passionate and influential affordable housing and community champions in San Francisco.

You know that he was a force of nature in the city when even his foes didn't wait to announce his passing online.

Many know John Alberling as the president of Tenants and Owners Development Corporation, also known as TOTCO.

He joined the group in 1978 when it has started construction on one of its first senior housing buildings.

Today, Taco owns about 1,000 units of low-income housing in the Souda Market, where John dedicated his legacy, ensuring that there is a place for low-income families, seniors, and artists to thrive as they continue to face gentrification and real estate speculation.

After joining Taco, Alberling worked on the 1980s Prop M, Proposition M campaign that fought excessive office development.

It shaped San Francisco's skyline today, slowed down the loss of our low-income housing stock, and aimed to protect the city's character against uncontrolled redevelopment.

John saw value and the essential role of art spaces, light industrial facilities, and cultural preservation infrastructure, and got proposition X to pass, which protected those spaces, requiring developers to find new space and pay for relocation, especially within the Central Soma plan.

John is an elder early adapter of development agreement that puts community tenants and small business owners in the driver's seat.

If it were not for John, your Burboina Gardens, as uh that we see today, would be a privatized asset, and the Eastern Neighborhood Plan wouldn't have had community benefits requirements for developers like parks, health clinics, libraries, and pedestrian safety plans.

I want to take a moment to share what Mayor R.

Atnos wrote about John from their time working together to complete Muscone Center.

This is from Mayor Atnos.

John Alberling will be remembered as the fierce, brilliant champion for the poor in San Francisco and in the South Market in particular.

He was one of the first advocates I met when I came to San Francisco in 1966 for a job as a social worker at San Francisco Public Housing.

He blew me away with his one-of-a-kind blend of organizing strategy, financial acumen, and of course, bad language reserved for powerful people.

In 1988, the Muscone Convention Center was periodically referred to as the longest stalled urban renewal project in America.

John Alberling was an important part of a citywide group of advocates led by leaders like Susie Behrman, Sue Hester, Calvin Walsh, Doug Emman, and others who accepted my invitation to finally complete the new convention center we needed to complete for our city.

Young, up and coming, ideal idealistic and aggressive, John always insisted that every part of the community, the elderly, children, families be considered in all Southern Market Planning.

And he and the committee were right.

Hence, in addition to the customary convention facilities, Muscone Center is the only convention center in America that includes a wonderful merry-go-around for children, a superb indoor ice skating facility for San Francisco youth and adults.

As John continued to grow into a top-tier low-income and affordable housing developer, he invented new strategies to support Taco aims and objectives.

John convinced us the strict streets redevelopment project reflected the power of community vision for our city and the South Market in particular.

And he was right.

Everything that he did was to empower the community.

He believed in a city that is supported by everyday working class people.

He did not live in a life of luxury and chose to reinvest every penny into community, fund ways to uplift tenant voices, and to compete with and refute multimillion dollar special interest political messaging.

And so for that, I say John Alberling rests in power.

The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Chan.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I also want to express my deep condolences for the passing of John Alberling.

I didn't know John personally, but I do know that his contribution to community development, affordable housing, and anti-displacement work in San Francisco is considerable.

Many projects in San Francisco has been transformed for the better because of his advocacy.

San Francisco takes pride in the legacy of our community development movements.

And this week we lost a community warrior.

Next, I want to introduce two hearings.

Colleagues, last month I held a hearing on the conditions for women in custody of San Francisco jails.

The community test testimony was incredibly powerful, but also very hard to stomach.

Countless formerly incarcerated women recounted their lived experiences in the jails.

They detailed memories of trauma and abuse.

Many women in particular said that they were released from the jails at hours of the evening, sometimes as late as 2 a.m.

without clothing, connections to a safe place to sleep, or access to a wraparound services needed to keep them stabilized in their transitions.

For many, this means being released back to an abusers.

This is unacceptable.

San Franciscans deserve public safety and system that adhesive to minimum standards of humane care.

I'm calling for a hearing on the systems and case management that our city provides to unhoused it or housing insecure women.

When we know that women are more likely to experience abuse, especially when unhoused it.

Women carry their own complex needs around safety, mental, behavioral, and physical health, and more.

And women experiences an array of trauma at different levels of a city.

And it's our responsibility to analyze if the systems that we put in place are flexible and robust enough to provide the dignities, services, and safety required.

We need to understand the shelter system and the policies that are it's that are set in place by the departments that release or transition women from city holds.

We are also needed to understand the shelter system as a whole, where there are challenges, where we are succeeding to connect women to a safe spaces and we and where we need to expand.

Next, I'm also introducing a hearing on family affordability.

We are facing a massive structural deficit and difficult decision needed to be made.

At the same time, families have been sounding the alarm about how unsustainable their family budgeting decisions have been become.

For me, our values are best represented by the budget commitments we make and services that we provide to the working family and val and vulnerable population that makes San Francisco run and endure incredible hardship to survive in our city.

This hearing will address two things.

First, we will analyze the impact of proposed budget cuts from the mayor's office of housing and community development on vulnerable communities, including low-income individuals and immigrant communities.

Second, it will consider the role that community-based organizations have played in maintaining housing stability, workforce participation, and access to essential services.

CBOs are core to our social safety net.

The case management and connection to services has protected countless families and communities from being pushed into homelessness or forced out of our city.

And each budget year, we asked CBOs to do more work for less money.

Now we are cutting their budgets.

At a time when working families rely on the most at a time when working families rely on them most.

And this will force multiple CBO closures at a time when we are facing unreliable state and federal support.

This discussion will be difficult, but it is necessary.

And the rest I will submit.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen.

Supervisor Mark Mood.

Colleagues, today I'm introducing legislation to prohibit the sale and delivery of uncertified lithium-ion batteries and powered mobility devices in the city and county of San Francisco.

This measure is intended to prevent dangerous and fast moving fires before they start, particularly in dense residential buildings where a single battery failure can threaten dozens of residents.

We have seen firsthand the consequences of these incidents.

The recent fire at 50 Golden Gate displaced more than 130 residents and required a large emergency response.

Fires like this spread quickly, produce intense heat, and are extremely difficult to extinguish.

But these incidents are not isolated.

Lithium ion battery fires are increasing across the city, where there were over 120 building fires in the last five years caused by lithium ion batteries.

And with a significant concentration in District 5 and the tenderloin, where residents often live in multi-unit housing with limited fire separation.

According to the fire department, many of these fires originate from uncertified replacement batteries used in e-bikes, scooters, and other powered mobility devices, often purchased online and stored or charged inside small living spaces.

This ordinance takes a preventative approach.

It prohibits the sale, offer, or delivery of powered mobility devices and replacement lithium-ion batteries that are not certified to recognize UL safety standards.

Anyone in San Francisco shouldn't have to be worried about purchasing unsafe batteries or being displaced by a fire due to a neighbor charging one of these.

They should trust that they are purchasing safe and certified batteries.

It also gives the San Francisco Fire Department clear authority to enforce this law and includes the ability to issue citations and penalties for violations, ensuring accountability.

It also gives that authority to the City Attorney's Office to go after bad actors that may be violating this law as well.

By ensuring only certified batteries are sold in San Francisco, we can significantly reduce the risk of catastrophic fires and protect tenants, first responders, and surrounding buildings.

I want to thank our drafting of city attorneys, Hugo Hoprera and Sarah Fabian for their thoughtful collaboration.

I want to thank our partners at the San Francisco Fire Department for their leadership and expertise, including Chief Dean Crispin, Fire Marshal Law, Assistant Fire Marshal Gower, and Adrian Sims.

Their insight into how these fires start, how they spread, and how they impact residents and firefighters was critical in shaping a policy that is both practical and enforceable.

I also want to thank my chief of staff, Sam Logan, for her diligence on this issue and for helping shape this legislation.

This proposal will help prevent displacement, protect residents, and address a growing fire safety risk before another building is impacted.

I want to thank Supervisor Sherrill for his early co-sponsorship, and I respectfully submit this ordinance and ask for your support.

The rest the rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Mark Mood.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Um colleagues, I am today submitting a hearing request to address ongoing police staffing challenges in the Southern police district.

Simply stated, Southern is not staffed at levels that reflect its workload or its complexity.

When scrutinizing police call volume, response times, population density, and the concentration of commercial and nightlife activities, as many of my constituents routinely routinely routinely do, it has become evident that Southern is stretched far too thin far too often.

Even as SFPD's citywide recommended staffing levels saw significant increases this last year.

Southern is failing to keep pace with other districts that face similar and in many cases lesser demands, according to the 2025 SFPD staffing analysis.

Southern Patrol officers respond to 390 calls per officer, the second highest workload in the city, and its sector patrol is currently staffed at only 78% of its recommended level, while other districts meet or even exceed their recommended number.

This imbalance has real consequences.

It means longer response times, fewer opportunities for proactive policing, increased stain strain on the officers who are assigned there.

No public safety imperative, whether it's police uh policing drug markets, responding to violent crime or enforcing traffic laws is well served by an understaffed station.

It also makes more difficult to build the kind of consistent community-based presence that residents and businesses in District 6 expect and deserve.

Many of my constituents are voicing serious concerns too that the existing challenges will be exacerbated later this year when Southern Police District expands to take on even more territory that includes Market Street.

During the police redistricting process, I was clear that the community and uh department have expectations that increased call volumes will come with commensurate increases in additional officers.

District 6 stakeholders deserve transparency about SFPD's plan to not only increase staffing to meet the new workload, but also to address uh systemic understaffing that has plagued this district before its boundaries were expanded to include the Market Street corridor.

Every neighborhood deserves a level of police service that matches its need, and I yield to no one in the work that I have done, much of it unsuccessful to increase police staffing citywide.

But right now I don't believe Southern is getting the level of service commensurate with its needs.

I'm committed to working with the department and others to develop a strategy that closes that gap in a meaningful and lasting way.

My constituents deserve nothing less.

Second, I also want to express my gratitude to President Mandelman for his beautiful in memorium for Andrea Shorter.

There are so many LGBTQ plus siblings, I recall fondly throughout the years, but especially during the nine-year legal battle for marriage equality.

That was a roller coaster ride that began in 2004 with Mayor Gavin Newsom's issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

It included many wins and losses, including winning marriage equality rights themselves, only to lose it just months later with Proposition 8, and then years later to finally strike down Prop 8 and set the stage for marriage equality nationwide.

These are battles that were particularly emotionally fraught for those of us whose own rights were at stake in these cases.

And through it all, I will never forget that we supported and sustained one another.

Um and I'll never forget Andrea Shorter.

My condolences to her and her uh her family and loved ones and friends, and I would ask to be included among those memorializing her.

Um third and finally, I would also like to express my gratitude to Supervisor Chan for her um lovely memorial for John Elberling.

Although others knew him better than I did, I would be remiss as the District 6 supervisor not to acknowledge the outsized role John Elberling played in shaping neighborhoods.

I represent and far more importantly, serving residents and families I represent.

Countless hundreds of whom likely would not be my constituents today, uh, but for the passionate advocacy that was John L.

Bernling's life work.

As a District 6 supervisor, I have come to appreciate Todd COVID-managed and forging cooperative relationships with uh with its neighbors.

Um I have also come to know many Todd Co residents as friends, neighbors, and fellow parishioners at St.

Patrick's Church.

I think our former colleague Aaron Peskin said it best when he called John the Conscience of Yerba Buena, and on the occasions I had to talk with him, I too valued his commitment to social justice and to ensuring that his residents were always well served in his unmatched institutional memory about San Francisco, its politics, um, not just Yerba Buena, by the way, but also Treasure Island.

So my condolences to John Elberling's family members and loved ones, and I would ask to be included among those memorializing him as well, and the rest I submit.

Noted.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey.

Mr.

President, saying no names on the roster, that concludes the introduction of new business.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, and I would also like to be added to that, John Alberling in memorial.

Thank you as a idea factory, relentless in his uh effort to find um sources for affordable housing and to push the city uh to uh produce housing for um for all of our residents.

So thank you, Madam Clerk.

Let's go to our 3 p.m.

special order.

The 3 p.m.

special order items 31 through 34 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the de facto denial of a conditional use authorization for the proposed project at 524 through 526 Vallejo Street and 4-4A 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 located within RM-1 zoning district, Telegraph Hill North Beach Residential SUD Special Use District, the priority equity geographics SUD and 40X Height and Bulk District.

Item 32, that is the motion to approve the uh planning commission's decision to de facto deny the conditional use authorization.

Item 33 is the motion to disapprove the Commission's decision.

Uh, that would be uh to appro uh uh to make the appropriate findings, which are the subject matter of item 34, which is the motion to direct the uh preparation of findings in support of the board's decision concerning the CU authorization.

Thank you, uh Madam Clerk.

As you described, uh we have before us a hearing on the appeal of the de facto denial of the conditional use authorization for the proposed project at 524 to 526 Vallejo Street and 4A 4 to 4A San Antonio Place.

After the hearing, this board will vote on whether to approve or disapprove the planning commission's de facto denial of the conditional use authorization for the proposed project.

Uh since the appellant is also the project sponsor, we will hear hear from the appellant at the beginning of the hearing.

And unless there are objections, um, we're gonna proceed as follows.

We're gonna give uh up to 10 minutes to the appellant for their presentation.

Then we're gonna hear public comments up to two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal.

Then we will give the planning department uh up to 10 minutes for their presentation.

Um, then we will hear public comment in opposition to the appeal, again, up to two minutes per speaker.

Um, then finally we'll go back to the appellant for th up to three minutes of rebuttal.

Um, unless there are objections.

Uh Supervisor Sauter is in the queue, but I don't think he's objecting to that uh matter of proceeding.

So since there are no objections, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open.

Um and Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, President Manelman.

Um, you know, this property sits atop Telegraph Hill in my district, and it is a complex one, as I think we'll find out.

So before we begin the proceedings, I wanted to uh briefly share some background and lay out some facts.

Um I first want to emphasize why this is before us.

Um it is because the planning commission wrestled immensely with this project.

It was a tie vote, three to three, which means it is de facto denied and why it is before us today.

Four different commissioners in that meeting used the exact same word, tragic, to describe the situation.

To the family before us today, they said the situation was quote, not fair, and that they are the victim twice removed, and that they are not at fault here.

One commissioner said that the case had them particularly sick.

One commissioner even suggested this case had her reconsidering her service on the planning commission itself.

She said, quote, I cannot continue to sit here and reflect on other people's destiny, disappointment, and destruction of dreams when we need to put the brakes on earlier.

I am exhausted, I am hurt, I am disappointed.

And that same commissioner said that, quote, this issue should not be considered by us and pointed fingers elsewhere.

Commissioners expressed that we should be spending our time going against the developer, the real bad actor here, two owners ago, who got everyone into this mess.

One said at best, quote, our hands are tied.

So here's what all of that means.

It means that the planning commission was desperately looking for someone else to make the right decision here.

And that is now the opportunity that we have as a board.

It is our job as supervisors to not only consider the code, but also consider our constituents and how they're impacted by the code when the code does not work the way we hope and expect it will.

Some brief facts to keep in mind as we prepare to hear from the appellants in planning today.

We're not here today because of any active evictions, not because of any danger, not because of any building violation from these owners.

We are here today solely because a few years ago, an anonymous neighbor made a complaint about actions that happened under the direction of someone who owned this home in 2010.

That someone is not here.

They're off the hook, and yet we're all here to try and clean up the mess.

Some basic facts about this building and property.

The structure was built in 1909 as a two-unit home.

We're gonna hear about four units today, but it's important to note that four units do not exist today, and it's unclear if four code compliant units have ever truly existed here.

And as for the family, there have never been in four units, three units or two units under this family's ownership.

The merger from two owners ago included two unauthorized dwelling units or UDUs.

It's unclear if four code compliant units have ever actually physically existed in this building over its 119 years standing.

The two UDUs referenced in the 2010 listing were referenced in a 2010 listing saying that toilets for those units were located outside the unit in a backyard shed.

They shared a kitchen and that there were no written leases.

The merger in question happened under a previous owner in the early 2010s.

That previous owner is a serial evictor and has flouted the rules for decades.

He is the true bad actor here, and I wish we would put our resources towards holding him responsible.

The family before us has no connection to that development, to that developer or the merger.

The property was sold to someone else before the family for a five-year period, and then it was sold to this family.

So uh to summarize, what's before us today is a family of four asking for approval to add a new unit of housing.

They are not asking to convert a home.

That action was taken two owners ago.

They are not asking to get off without taking any responsibility.

Anything we weigh today comes with immense work in a price tag in the million dollar plus range.

They're asking to return their home to what it was for the vast majority of its entire history, a two-unit home.

And I think I'll leave it there for now and let the proceedings begin.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

Um, let's hear from the appellants for up to 10 minutes.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Caitlin Holloway, and that's my husband Ben Ramirez.

We are the homeowners at 524 Vallejo Street.

Before we begin, we want to thank the members of this board and your staff for who have taken the time to meet with us to better understand the details of this case.

We also want to acknowledge the planning department.

We appreciate the effort they have put into this process.

I want to start by saying something that I fear isn't obvious.

We are not here in opposition of the city to housing policy or to the goals that many of you are working towards.

Ben and I share in these goals.

We have supported them as members of this community for many years, and we come here today as partners in this conversation, not as adversaries.

We are here because the situation could not be fully resolved through a standard process.

A three to three tie vote at the planning commission led to a de facto denial, demonstrating the complexity of this case.

A large part of the contention here is because this case has been reduced to a decision on merging units.

That framing is incomplete, and for those that have read the facts leads to a very conflicted position.

Do I vote blindly for a city mandate that I support, or do I vote with a fact, a set of facts of individual case that may not lead to the conclusion I want?

I believe a more nuanced framing of the decision today will allow us to better assess the appropriate path forward.

This is not a case about removing housing.

This is a case about a four-unit designation that was never lawfully granted, was never physically built, and cannot be feasibly constructed under the current code.

This is also a case about accountability, whether the city will continue to enforce that designation at the expense of a family or find a proportional path forward.

Over the past few years, we have worked with the city through this process transparently in good faith and through the proper channels.

When framed strictly as a policy issue, it puts everyone in this room on the defense, but framed as a conversation about accountability, we're able to have an appropriate dialogue about remedy.

And so through these years, what we've ultimately uncovered is this.

The four-unit permit at the center of this case should never have been issued.

As in the units it authorized were physically never constructed.

What we are asking for is a resolution that reflects the reality of what exists, acknowledges how we got here, and does not read result in the permanent displacement of our family.

With that as context, here is what the record actually shows.

Built in 1907, this building functioned as a two-unit property for nearly 80 years.

In the mid-1980s, two unauthorized units were added at the rear of the home.

In 2010, developer Peter Escander purchased the property.

In 2012, DBI's own record management division reviewed it and issued a written determination, legally two-unit building.

That same year, a zoning review noted no change to unit count.

Oddly, eight weeks later, with no new application, no public hearing to expand the unit count, DBI issued a permit for a four-unit building at the request of the developer.

This four-unit approval sits at the very center of this entire case.

The architectural and structural evidence, along with the city's own permit records, overwhelmingly shows that the four-unit layout in those approved plans were never actually constructed.

Despite the paper designation of four units, the building was completed with one kitchen and a contiguous layout and has functioned as a single family home from that point forward.

Despite this fact, DBI issued in 2016 the certificate of final completion, accepting the building in its as-built condition, not in its approved on paper condition, in its as-built condition.

And that condition did not reflect a four-unit apartment building.

A gaping hole connecting two units with an open floating stairs, a shower built in place of an elevator shaft, a stairwell built in reverse configuration, and yet no violations and no deviation for plan were noted.

At this point, the home was then listed for sale by the developer across several MLS real estate listing pages as a single family home.

The misaligned structural components clearly photographed and documented.

And then, almost a full year after the public listings were published, a DBI inspector conducted five final inspections on the property, top to bottom.

Same condition, same contiguous layout.

This was one month before the property was sold to the next owners for a nearly four million dollar profit to the developer.

The next owners lived in the home for four years as a single family residence.

We purchased the home in 21, inheriting exactly the same layout after nearly a decade from the developer's remodel.

Shortly after moving in, we were told we had to reinstate four units.

The city's current enforcement position that a four-unit building exists was unlawfully removed, is directly contradicted by the city's own records at every stage of this property's history.

It is also built on a foundation that was never legally established.

The 2013 permit that created the four unit designation was issued without a public hearing, conditional use authorization or neighborhood notification that San Francisco Planning Code requires for changes to a building unit count.

The designation the city enforcing today was never subjected to the public process the city now demands for us to resolve.

Given those facts, here is the problem.

When this issue surfaced, we did exactly as the planning department suggested.

We hired experienced architects and engineers to reinstate the four units.

However, after years of good faith effort, we learned that it cannot be done in compliance with in the policies at play.

The planning department's own staff report confirms that our lot is undersized for four dwelling units.

Under planning code section 209.2, the maximum allowable density for this lot in the RM1 district is 2.4 units.

Not four, 2.4.

A four unit designation that the city is now enforcing exceeds what the planning code allows for this property.

It is, by the department's own finding, legal non-conforming.

And this is the code today, and more notably, this was the code in 2013 when the developers permitted was issued.

Which means the four unit permit at the center of this entire case was not just improperly processed, it was fundamentally prohibited by the zoning code in effect at the time it was granted.

A four unit approval on this lot should have never been issued.

It could not have survived public review process that was skipped because the density math would have rejected it outright.

The entire enforcement action, the violation, the CUA requirement, the hearing we are in right now, all rests on a permit that was unlawful from the day it was created.

In other words, if we applied to build four units on this property today, we would be denied.

And in 2013, we would have been denied then too.

And yet, under Section 317, we are being told that we cannot reduce the unit count.

But you cannot lose something that was never built and was never lawfully permitted to be built.

Forcing 1.6 additional units into a building that cannot support them does not produce housing.

It produces substandard unsafe living conditions that would not meet the city's own quality standards, and we believe that is ultimately why planning directed us to pursue the CUA.

These units that Iskander promised to build have never existed.

No one has ever lived in them.

No one is being displaced by their removal from a spreadsheet.

The only people potentially at risk of being displaced here are us, the family being told to construct them.

When we asked whether we could expand the building envelope to make four units viable and code compliant, that flexibility was not available.

We did not create this contradiction.

It was created when a four unit permit was issued on a lot that could never lawfully support four units, not under today's code and not under the code in effect when the permit was granted.

We are not here because we disagree with the policy.

We are here because the policy applied to the reality of this property produces an inherent gridlock.

And we are asking this board to simply help us find a way through.

I've talked a lot about accountability today, and I want to openly own our portion of it.

We purchased this home knowing it carried a multi-unit designation on paper that did not match the reality of what we are moving into.

That was our decision.

We made it with poor advice, limited understanding, conflicting city records, and the kind of optimism that many first-time home buyers in San Francisco are, to some degree, guilty of.

We understand now the implications of that choice.

We own that fully, and we are ready to accept our fair share of the consequence of that decision.

And yet, we are the only party in this entire chain that has been asked to own anything at all.

The developer who bought out tenants obtained four unit approval that violated the zoning code at the time was issued, and then built something entirely different, made four million dollars in profit and then walked away.

He has faced no consequence from any city agency for what was built, or rather what was not built, and at this address or any of his other properties.

DBI, the agency that conducted 21 field inspections and issued a CFC for a building that did not match the approved plans, has given no explanation, faced no consequence in connection with this property.

The prior owners lived in the home for four years as a single family residence, and they sold it at a profit and moved on.

Everyone upstream either profited or faced no consequences.

The full weight of the situation has landed on the only people who have come forward, engaged in the process, and tried to make it right.

We want the record to be clear about what a vote against us produces today, because it does not produce what the framing suggests.

A vote against us does not produce real housing because it cannot sustainably have four compliant units on the property, and it does not hold bad actors accountable.

The developer is not here before you.

DBI is not here before you.

We are asking that responsibility be shared proportionally amongst everyone who contributed to it rather than be placed entirely on the people for this removed from its creation.

And in the absence of that, we are humbly asking for partnership in finding a solution that works for the city and for our family.

We are asking this board to legalize the condition that has dominantly existed in this property for over a century, remedy a designation that was unlawfully granted in 2013 and return it to two units.

Thank you.

So we will open up public comments specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal.

Madam Clerk, you want to call for the first speaker?

We want to welcome you.

If you're here in the chamber and you'd like to support the appellant, please come on up to the podium.

This is your opportunity to speak.

In a moment further on down the hearing, there'll be an opportunity for those who are in support of the project.

Welcome.

We're setting the timer for two minutes.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

My name is Molly Jones.

I am a San Francisco resident as well as a business owner.

And I've lived here for over half of my life.

Before San Francisco, I actually grew up in Stockton with Caitlin and Ben, who I have known for over 40 years.

Once we all kind of finished school, we set our sights on San Francisco.

It was our dream to all live here.

We did so right after multiple jobs between all of us as this city is expensive, but in our 20s, we worked hard to be able to live the dream of being in San Francisco.

Caitlin and Ben picked North Beach from the very beginning.

They loved the neighborhood.

They have supported the retailers there throughout their 20 plus years of living here.

They attend community events there.

You know, San Francisco, a lot of the areas here is full of generational wealth.

But with Caitlin and Ben, this has been 30 plus years of savings and planning to be able to own their very first home in their neighborhood of North Beach that they absolutely love.

I understand while you guys are reviewing all of this, you're really looking at policies, but I wanted to kind of give you an idea of what I'm looking at as well, too.

I'm looking at two little boys who get to go to their neighborhood school, who get to live by their best friends, a home that is able to, you know, open their doors and hold neighborhood gatherings and to really always have their door open.

But if this fails, all of that is going to be gone.

They're gonna have to move out during construction, and they're not gonna be able to live in a quarter of this house when they move back in.

They have two parents that work from home children, and they also have elderly parents who are in need of assistance.

This isn't necessarily something that's unfair, it's really inhumane.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's hear from the next speaker who is in support of the appeal.

Welcome.

Good afternoon.

I go home.

My name is Jan Sai.

I'm a fifth generation Ser Franciscan, a father of four, and a neighbor and friend to the hallway premieres family in North Beach.

I'm here to come in favor of the conditional use authorization.

I've known Caitlin and Ben for 10 years.

We started our families together.

We grew our careers together.

And over that 10 years, as we've seen countless families flee San Francisco, I've seen Caitlin and Ben go the other way, putting down those roots, and not just that, actually making them really flourish.

They have become linchpins to our community, making countless investments into vitalizing the neighborhood, becoming community leaders, and most importantly, raising two amazing children who I should mention, as the appellant mentioned, have been in SFUSD every step of the way, raising them to become the next generation of civic-minded, engaged San Franciscans.

And it's in their family, the families like mine that the future of San Francisco relies.

But we know that it's not easy to raise a family in San Francisco.

We have no illusions about that.

But when there are challenges that are put forth by the city in the form of antiquated regulations and codes, and an inability to modernize in view of these situations that makes it ever more difficult to keep those roots here.

And I would say that the family that we see sitting here are the sort of families that we cannot afford to lose.

If they were to lose, and families like theirs have to lose because of situations like these will be a self-inflicted injury that the city cannot afford.

Thank you for your comments.

Are there any other members of the public who please come on up in support of the appeal?

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Jennifer, and I'm a small business owner here in San Francisco, and my husband and I became first time homeowners six years ago.

I've lived in this city for twelve years, and I've chosen to stay and invest here because I believe in San Francisco.

And that's why I'm here today.

Because what's happening to this family isn't just complicated, it's wrong.

A developer got approval to build one thing, built something completely different, and walked away with a multimillion dollar profit.

DBA signed off on it, and now both are under investigation.

And somehow the only people paying the price are these homeowners who bought this property in good faith and have spent the last four years trying to fix a problem that they did not create.

That is not accountability, that's punishing the wrong people.

Because this family had options.

They could have fought you, they could have dragged this out in court.

They could have walked away, and they didn't.

They chose to work with the city, they chose to try to fix it the right way.

So I'll leave you with this.

If doing the right thing leads to thank you, thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

If you have something you'd like to submit for the record, we're happy to take that for the file.

Are there any other speakers uh who'd like to address the board on behalf of the appellant?

All right, Mr.

President.

All right.

Public comment in support of the appeal is now closed.

And now we're going to hear from representatives of the planning department for up to ten minutes.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Sing Yu Liang, Principal Planners for Supervisor District 3, speaking on behalf of the planning department.

I'm accompanied today by Cali Wong, co-enforcement managers, Veronica Flores, acting legislative affairs manager, and Matt Greeny, Deputy Director in Inspection Services from DBI.

On December 4, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted considered a conditional use authorization request for this property.

The project proposed to legalize the merger of three dwelling units on the second and third floors into one unit and to reinstate one dwelling units on the ground floor within what's legally an existing four unit building.

The project also included a small horizontal addition at the penthouse level to accommodate an elevator.

During the hearing, a motion was made to deny the project.

The vote resulted in a 3-3 tie, meaning the commission failed to act.

Under the planning code, failure to act constitutes a de facto denial.

Moving on to the appeal, the appellants presented several claims, and their core argument is that the building has long functioned as a single family home, and there is insufficient evidence that the building was ever for legally for legally built.

The planning department disagrees with that assertion.

The department determined that there is substantial consistent evidence across multiple city agencies and documents showing that the subject property is legally a four-unit building.

Key evidence includes approved and issued building permit plans showing four units.

A 30-day neighborhood notification was completed between September 9, 2011 to October 8, 2011.

Multiple inspectors from DBI and Fire Department, not just one, conducted site visits throughout the renovation period.

Two official 3R reports issued in 2017 and 2020 before each sale of the property and listing four family dwelling as the legal unit.

Thus authorizing the proposed project would legalize an unauthorized merger, result in a net loss of two rent control units that conflict with the housing element and long-standing city policy discouraging the removal of existing housing.

Set a precedent encouraging similar after-the-fact request.

Therefore, the planning department recommends the board uphold the commission's de facto denial and deny the appeal.

This concludes the department's presentation and staff is available for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, President.

Okay.

Thank you.

So during the appellants presentation, there was a couple things that were put out that were not consistent with what I read in the voluminous materials that received on this appeal.

The first one was that two of the units were unpermitted.

And I'm wondering if you could tell us if you have documentation that you know could maybe lead us to think that two of the units were unpermitted, because when I read the three R reports and all of the other documentation, it seemed to me like they were both permitted in terms of the planning code and the building.

Sure.

I'm happy to answer that question.

So the two UDUs were initially found in through an enforcement case back in 2010.

And subsequently, there is a building permit applications submitted to legalize those two UDUs.

And through that building permit applications, those two units become legal dwelling units.

And thus for there is we believe there's four total dwelling units on this property.

And so when was that legalization?

What did that take place?

The building permit application was initially submitted in 2011 and it was finalized.

The certificate of final uh completion was issued in May on May 9, 2016.

Okay, thank you.

Um the other piece of information that the appellant made in their presentation was that today it would be impossible to build four code compliant units.

And so in the documentation that I reviewed with this appeal, uh it seems like right now there is a um single-family home on this property of 3,780 square feet divided by four, that's uh 945 square feet per unit, which is pretty generous.

That's you know more than twice as much as is legally required.

So can you uh tell us a little bit about uh whether or not um the department thinks that it is possible to build four code compliant units in this uh structure without adding bulk and height to the envelope?

Um so in your uh packet um in the last two pages.

Actually um there is plans um that was submitted in twenty I believe that's twenty twenty three by the a patlants to shows how the pro the property can potentially be converted back to four units.

Um unfortunately because those plans subject to SB 1214, they are protective plans.

I won't be able to share it over the projectors, but it does show the possibilities that how those units can be converted back to four units.

And the planning department did approved uh the plans at that time.

The plans just never being issued.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um and one last question.

Um, you know, uh this may be to Ms.

Flores.

Um as you may remember, I was on the planning commission for many, many years, and I remember seeing cases very similar to this one over and over and over again, which is why this is a policy issue and not an individual issue.

Uh I'm wondering if you could tell us just ballpark, how many of these cases do we see?

Veronica Flores, the planning department staff.

Um I I don't have a perfect number for you, but we do see a handful of these, and they're always as you know, very tough hearings and um very involved discussions.

Um I can confer with colleagues to see if we have a better estimate, but we we see a handful to a dozen and every year.

And that's is that just because that's when they're they're complaint driven.

These are our work, as you know, is complaint driven.

So as in the case here, we learned about this particular um property through uh site visit from an enforcement case.

Okay, thank you.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President Metaman.

I heard someone say during public comments something about an investigation.

Um I'm wondering what is being investigated.

I wasn't quite clear on that.

Somebody in public comments says something about investigation that may be happening.

Sorry, I'm Matt Green of the Department of Building Inspection.

Um I do know we've written a notice of violation and we are doing an internal investigation as to how what may have happened at the CFC.

And we're also discussing whether this is egregious enough to add the developer to our expanded compliance control list.

Um when does that decision get made?

Uh I'm working right now with our compliance officer.

But it it is after this hearing, like I'm not gonna have to do that.

Oh, sure, it's about the investigation.

And I have to make a decision right here.

Correct.

Yes, but this would be on the developer back in 20 the 2016 side off.

Thanks.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, President.

Um I want to um ask uh a little bit more um from DBI, if I may.

Um I guess you know, this this may be this my first question might be for DBI or for planning, but I do see conflict here between the information you shared with the assessor um noting four units, um, but then in particular this fourth unit of um for San Antonio Place not existing in a master address registry, not in any permit records, not in any property tax rolls, no voter registration files related to the property, uh not related to any census or postal database.

Can you help square that up?

Uh sorry, uh what are you looking at, Supervisor Sautter?

I think my my question is is um this fourth unit.

Um for me, there's pretty good evidence that there were I mean, there's evidence that there were two units here that were the authorized, and then there's two additional units which were in the back, which were unauthorized for a number of years uh in a storage shed.

It's my understanding that that storage shed has since been demolished.

So this current property that still stands today has never had four units.

I think that's a fact.

Um this fourth unit feels like it's it's existence and uh habitation is rests on pretty thin ice.

Um I I'm trying to understand because it says four units in the assessor role, but the four San Antonio place doesn't exist in any of these other databases that we look at that I mentioned.

Um I'm just wondering if you have more to square up that discrepancy.

And that can go to DBI or order to planning.

Well, I I would disagree that there's never four units there.

We have the fire department inspected the property in February of 2016 for the Sprinkler system.

They confirmed there was four units.

Uh separate fire inspector was back out there in April of 2016, confirmed the four units, and then our building inspector was there in May of 2016, confirmed four units.

Um as to the address, the the permit in question here was the building was originally a two legal two-unit building, and then the permit in question from 2011 was to legalize the existing the two illegal, the existing two, the two existing illegal units for a total of four units.

Um the address that I think you're talking about our three R report where it says four San Antonio Place and 5426 Vallejo Street has two addresses on it.

Is that what you're discussing?

That's right, yes.

Yeah.

Um I you know, I'm I'm not I'm not sure about that about the San Antonio.

I did try to find dig that address up myself.

I couldn't find and I and I think that's completely fair because it's um it appears to be a mystery to me as well.

Um I want to ask please, yes.

Yeah, could I could I also speak?

Um so Kelly Wong, code enforcement manager at the planning department.

So in the 2011 permit set, you will see the number four and four A, which I believe is uh referencing the ones um the four A San Antonio place.

Um in the drawings, you will see that the unit four and a unit four A are outlined in addition to 524 and 526 Vallejo Street.

Thank you.

That's the 2011, is that right?

That's correct.

2011 02049686.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then the I think another you know, critical piece here is the the 2016 action, which is um DBI signing a certificate of final completion in in 2016.

Um but it's my understanding that within 45 days of that certificate being signed, the home is listed for sale as a single family home.

And we know that you can't do that sort of work within a month.

Um converting a four unit home into a single family home in a month.

And I'm just left with a lot of questions about that timeline.

Um I'm just looking for any guidance or thoughts of how such a um series of of events could happen because it strikes me as that is at the heart of this is did that work actually happen?

Um and the validity of that certificate of completion in 2016.

And that's a thought and a question.

Um I I share your concern as well.

That does seem like a quite a quick turnaround.

Not saying it's impossible, but it is a quick turnaround.

Um I I will say there was three separate inspectors there within a two-month period, two fire inspectors and a one building inspector who confirmed that there was a four-unit building at the time.

Okay, so Kelly Wong, I just want to also add to the record that uh during our uh site visits and our code enforcement investigations.

We often do find we receive complaints for uh a merger uh because of real estate listings, and sometimes the listings are not accurate.

So we have uh investigated uh merger complaints uh and actually confirmed that the mergers did not occur.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um and then one last question.

Um can you give a sense to with this particular developer?

Um, you know the scope of any investigation at the moment or what might be considered um uh you know how many other properties they appear to have worked on any violations, anything to help illustrate that.

Um I I know of at least one other property that we're currently um trying to gain access to for an investigation.

Thank you.

Supervisor Chan.

I just want a clarification to help me understand the photo that in your presentation indicated there are four separate electrical meters.

And that's from your visit in 2022.

Why is that in porn?

Like what does that what does that photo actually indicate it and what does that mean?

Could you elaborate?

And then you see a fifth meter there for the the house meter, which would be the common lights and such.

Sorry, say that one more time.

It was not clear.

I'm sorry.

So you see there's four units in the vertical line there.

Those are four units for each one for each specific unit.

And then off to the right, there's another uh meter there that would be called the house meter for common lights and stuff like that.

But but why is it important to show that there are four separate electrical meters?

Like I said, it in it it it seems to indicate that there is four separate units.

I see.

And and this was and that uh sorry, and then I'm trying to, I'm kind of confused that about the timeline.

Um, and that it was indicated in your visit for 2022, and that what you're saying is that this work that it shows that there are four is this after the new owner occupied this space, or is it before I I'm trying to, I'm kinda I'm sorry.

I'm trying to understand better what why this is critical to include as four separate electrical meters.

And because I'm trying to understand, there seems to be a debate here that whether the uh currently the owner knows or knowingly or not knowingly that there were four units.

And I'm trying to understand both in the timeline and in your uh presentation here.

It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong and I misunderstand the critical photo of this or included this, is that what you're trying to present to us is that it seems like it was clear to anyone, including the owners that are currently occupying the space, that there were formerly four units because in order for it to actually have four it's it's because that that is why you would require to have four separate electrical meters because you have four independent units, residential units in that one space.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Thank you.

So what you're saying here is that you're showing to us as an evidence that both be it the developer or inclusive of the person that the the owners are occupying this.

I'm sorry, I'm just paraphrasing because I want to make sure I clearly understand what I am asking and but what I am seeing here is um according to the planning department um and the building inspection department um after your inspection and visit or after planning department visit here, is that it's there's a clear evidence that the current occupant knows that there were four separate residential units because based on the separate electrical meters.

This is Kelly Wong planning department, and I my answer is yes.

Uh from the 2013 sprinkler permit, and then another one in 2015 for the sprinkler um monitoring system um which was uh inspected by the fire department, uh they would have actually on their permits they show that there are four units.

Thank you.

And that there if if were there any records because if you require four uh separate electrical meters, it does indicate then you would have um previous utility bills indicating four individual households occupying that space, correct?

I'm just kind of curious if there was ever even such evidence.

None none were submitted to the planning department.

Thank you.

Ah, I see.

Um so and it so that means it doesn't necessarily have to be a residential unit.

It could, as indicated by Supervisor Souter assembly is storage units.

Would it be then required to have the electrical meters?

Uh no, the uh a common storage unit would be on uh one of the units meters, it wouldn't get a separate meter.

Like even if the store sorry, sorry, let me back up.

If the storage unit was attached to one of the units, it would be on that unit's meter.

But if it was sort of a common use storage room, it would be on that common house meter.

Thank you.

Supervisor Sherrill.

Uh thank you, President Mendelman.

Um I'm still a little confused about the 2016 sign-off and the timing with the four with basically DBI being in there around the time where it was being marketed as a single family home.

I I don't really understand it.

It seems like there were inspections after 2016 and 2017 as as well.

We basically suggest like are we saying that the listings maybe were just a lie?

Yeah.

I'm just confused as to why DBI would have been in there multiple times signing off on permits if the permits were for four units in the house was not.

Well, for the the 21 2011 permit that we're talking about, there was multiple inspections throughout the whole thing.

Well, I'm talking about the 2016, right?

You said in 2016 the four units were legalized?

Right?

That was under the 2011 permit.

The work was completed in May of 2016.

So you would sign off on a permit in 2016 without inspecting the building in 2016?

No, they no.

I said they inspected the building.

Well that's that's what I'm asking, right?

Like it seems to me that in 2016, and then I think there were other permits that were inspected in 2017.

And I just I'm confused as to why this wasn't caught back then.

That seemingly that's when the the shift from four units to one single family home happened.

And I'm just I just don't understand how we we missed that, or if that's not something we would have looked for.

I just kind of don't get how this got past 2017, I guess.

So there was a complaint about um work beyond the permit.

Um the building inspector who inspected that.

Um it was referred from the planning department, and we based on the emails from the planning department, we thought that the complaint was about the the roof deck and the inspector, the railing on the roof desk specifically.

And then the inspector did follow verify from the street that it matched the um approved plans for the roof railing.

And there weren't inspections in 2017 about a fire sprinkler system or anything else that I assume would require someone to go inside the building.

Oh, the 2017 the fire permit.

So unfortunately, the fire department's uh computer system is a little slack.

It takes a little longer for the permits to be actually completed.

I have the inspection history when they actually went out there.

Um they did the inspection on 218-2016, um fire sprinkler finaled uh pending water flow, and then a four five sixteen um water and tamper switches tested, and then the uh supervised the fire sprinkler flow and supervisor system was filed.

So basically what what I'm hearing is it seems like the developer when they first marketed this property as a single family home was essentially lying in the marketing materials.

Yes.

So also there's a three R report and the housing code requires that the seller provides a um 3R report, reported residential record, which lists the you know the legal use of the property and the entire permit history of the property.

So then why are we going after this bad actor here?

Like if we have a dozen of these every year, how many people get dinged for being total jerks?

I'll defer to the planning department for that question.

We don't have um specific numbers, uh, but we do find sometimes that current property owners are abating violations by prior property owners, but that becomes also a private matter because it's a business transaction of purchasing a property, and perhaps the prior owner did not disclose accurate information to uh the current property owner, but we would also never know what that private agreement would be.

But if it's pretty clear that a previous owner did uh previous owner did unpermitted work and then profited on it, is that is that a civil legal matter for committing fraud on the disclosures?

It's not it's not a criminal matter for defrauding the city.

Because it should be a civil matters if it's uh like false disclosures of documentations.

And I also want to please speak directly into the microphone.

Yeah.

Thank you.

It will be a civil matters like uh failure to disclose to uh to the current property owners about all the documentations that it is a full unit building.

All right, I'm not comfortable with us not going after these clear bad actors here from you know 15 years ago, but thank you.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you.

Um I want to return to the the question of the 2016 permit that was signed off on by DBI.

Can you share the inspector who worked on that permit?

Are they under investigation for any other permits that they signed off on or other work that they did?

Uh no.

Not at the time.

Not at this time, no.

Have they been under investigation in the past?

Uh yes.

Can you tell me more about that?

Uh I'm not sure that I can.

This was an internal um, so it's my understanding that we the individual who signed off on this permit in 2016 has been under investigation.

Um so this continues to make this 2016 sign-off, which is the crux of so much of this really, really difficult for us to consider.

We may have um we may have malintent from the developer.

We may have malintent from someone who signed off on the permits here, but a lot of this before us hinges on this 2016 certification, which I'm not comfortable understanding what actually happened.

There's a lot that is unclear here.

Can we learn a little bit more about what that would entail?

Would those four units be rent controlled?

Would they be occupied by someone else?

Um what would be required if we were to reject this and go down the path of four units?

They will need to the building would need to be converted back to four units.

We cannot definite say those units are rent controlled, but based on the records uh we have, we can uh it's those units are likely rent controlled.

And would they be required to be occupied by someone else?

No, uh we do not control who lived there.

The the planning codes uh regulates per property, not individuals, the tenants, all the owners who live there.

And I think there's a question of if these can just physically be constructed or if they can be approved.

Um I think maybe that's changed through time, but I mean at this point, would you be able to approve four units on this site, or would that necessitate an additional structure, right?

We there's this this unit in the back that has kind of been a quasi-storage unit where these UDUs may have existed.

Would it be an auxiliary construction required?

Do we know yet?

Um there is a building permit application currently submitted.

Um it's under a 2023 record, and planning department has already approved to revert the building back to four units.

And I think maybe later we want to hear from the um from the owners just to hear about those plans as well because I know there's some things you can't share.

Um that's all for now.

Thank you.

All right.

I think that is it from colleagues.

Um we will invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition to the appeal to line up.

They have already done that.

Each will have up to two minutes.

Madam Clerk, do you want uh can you please call the first speaker?

Welcome.

Come on up to the first uh first speaker.

Welcome.

We're setting the timer for two minutes.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Steven Torres from the San Francisco Tenants Union.

Uh the San Francisco Tenants Union stands with this coalition of organizations to emphasize our strong opposition to the C UA at 524-526 Vallejo Street and for 4A San Antonio Place.

We urge the board to deny the appellants' proposal to allow the continued use of the property as a 3,713 square foot luxury home.

There's a lot of intricately woven mischaracterizations being presented by the appellants, but let's be clear that these are attempts to obfuscate what is fact.

This was an illegal demolition of rent-controlled housing, and now the owners of this property want to be told they can keep it as a luxury single family home, and maybe an ancillary closet or two to tick the box.

This portends a dangerous precedent in legitimizing illegal demolitions of this kind as already happening across the city.

This body should perhaps be looking for ways to strengthen the ability to enforce against these instead of spending any time debating what is before you.

This is an opportunity to put your reputation where your mouth is and make it clear that no illegal demolitions, conversions, or whatever you want to call it will stand.

Many have cited flexibility as a word of the day when it comes to housing.

But who is the flexibility for?

The working class and most vulnerable of San Francisco or the wealthy and best connected.

Will you join your colleague in uplifting demolitions or look for ways to make San Francisco housing whole, affordable, and accessible?

Thank you.

Thank you, Stephen Torres, for your comments.

Welcome.

Fred Sherburn Zimmer from Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco.

I would hope that tenants matter too.

Thousands of tenants in the city live in units that are or were illegal.

And lots of landlords do unpermitted work.

And I would have to say lots of realtors lie.

The landlord who pushed out the last set of buildings, last set of tenants living in this building, Escandar was a serial victor.

He, like many others, knew he could make a lot of money.

We have seen before whether it's TICs or short-term rentals.

If we reward landlords and investors and realtors, if you tell them they can make millions, you encourage the LS Act.

You encourage the harassment of tenants.

If I buy a stolen car even unknowingly, I still have to give it back.

5,000 tenants come in desperate states.

Year after year, we hear stories of people harassed and evicted.

We watch those we love pushed out by landlords or realtors who encourage these evictions.

Don't tenants matter, don't we pay taxes?

We would like to have the choice to stay too.

And if you reward people and let them make money, yes, maybe they knew what they were buying, and maybe they should sue the people who bought it, but these tenants mattered too.

Thank you, Sheriff Sherburn, for your comments.

Welcome, Magic.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um in our current economic system, the more money you have, the less you feel obligated to follow the laws of the land.

These laws and regulations are social contracts that we the people have enacted to protect the places, people, and lifestyle we value.

All studies and experts agree that the housing that is needed is for our teachers, medical workers, artists, service workers, and so many more who make this great city what it is.

And yet, market rate housing keeps being proposed.

This couple already knows that they are violating community agreements, and the planning commission made that clear.

I'm assuming they're appealing because they can afford to pay a lawyer who knows how to attempt to circumvent the law to make this case.

The building inspector Matt Green has made it clear that there's more inspecting and things that need to be completed, from my understanding.

Unless some politicians interfere, hoping to garner some goodwill that looks like power and money down the road.

There really is no case here.

Uphold and respect our planning commission.

Supervisors, do your job.

Uphold the law and have them do the work needed to return this to a four-unit building to re-establish the kind of housing that we need in San Francisco.

Thank you.

Thank you, Magic, for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors Treza Flandrick, North Beach Tenants Committee.

I echo what Magic just said.

Thank you so much.

Again, it is unfortunate that Joe Padilla will not be here.

He is the former tenant at 4B, the official post office address was 4B San Antonio Place.

He was one of the two tenants in the rear.

And there have been two letters already, three letters submitted.

But a um a man behind me will be reading Joe Padilla's letter because he had to leave the city last night because his mom has had a stroke.

So down in Central California, so he will not be here today.

Unfortunately, he did try to come for the last two scheduled hearings, but since they were continued, uh I was able to catch him before he ran out the door.

So you will hear from this next person who will uh recite for Joe.

Uh again, these this was a site of four for four households.

Now it is for one household.

This is a policy issue.

This is this is the history of these kind of illegal mergers being done.

The owners may not have known that not have done that.

However, the current owners did know.

Contrary to what they stated in the planning commission hearing, December 4th, we didn't know.

Then you hear later, well, actually they did know there was clearly a declaration of it being a four-unit or a multifamily building.

So it's really hard to hear this misrepresentation, but we want to be sure you understand there were four units there, and we are so afraid of if this passes, it sets a horrible precedent.

We know that there are five building owners right now, hoping that this that you will pass this, that you will that you will not deny the appeal, but you must.

You must not be complicit in allowing the removal, the permanent rent-controlled housing that we have.

You cannot allow that.

So thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, super budgers.

My name is Lance Carnes, and I'm here to read the statement by Joseph Padilla, who was called out of town because of a medical emergency.

He writes.

I lived at 4A San Antonio Place starting in 1990.

When I became aware that the building wouldn't that would be placed on the market, I made the decision to transition my current address in Noe Valley in 2009.

I can attest that there were four individual rental units at 524 Vallejo Street, two full flats in the front at 4A and 4B San Antonio Place, which were two fully functioning and livable studio apartments attached to the back of the building.

I lived in one of the two identical studios, each of which was comprised of two rooms, a living area, bedroom, and a separate full-size kitchen, dining area, and a bathroom.

Each studio was larger than the 100 square feet referenced in the AppLence brief.

The studios included full functioning metered utilities, so were intended as dwelling units.

When I moved out, my unit was in a habitable condition.

After I left, it was my understanding that the studio was never reoccupied, and I was used as as a and it was used as a storage by the developer.

In addition, there was a small laundry room on the roof, as well as a two-car garage and basement storage.

I hope that my account provides you with some firsthand perspective and encourages strong stronger scrutiny of future housing proposals.

Thank you for your time and consideration, Joseph G.

Padilla.

Thank you, Lance Arnes, for your comments.

Welcome.

Thank you.

My name is Jerry Durantler.

The property owner's appeal is based on two false claims.

The property owners claim that units four and four-a San Antonio place are phantom units that were never constructed as a false claim that is refuted by a letter from John Grant, which is in the board package.

Mr.

Grant lived in Unit 4A, a rent-controlled unit for 17 years.

The property owners' second initial claim that they were unaware, they purchased a four-unit building with a single family floor plan is also false.

The property owners recently acknowledged they knew the house was a multi-unit building.

The planning department and the planning commission denied the property owners' CUA application for valid reasons.

The criteria for the board to overturn the planning commission decision has not been met.

There were no errors in interpreting the planning code, and the abuse of discretion by the planning commission did not occur.

It would be wrong for the Board of Supervisors to legalize the unpermitted unit conversions in a housing crisis.

If this were to happen, the public would view the board's action to be amnesty on unpermitted unit mergers, and there would be hundreds of property owners asking for the same relief.

In summary, two wrongs don't make right.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, I'm a lifelong North Beach resident.

My parents met in North Beach and all of my siblings grew up there.

Um in the last six years, everybody's been pretty much priced out of North Beach.

Uh 13 evictions between my sisters, my parents, and myself, between Veritas, developers, predatory landlords, real estate developers, just since 2013.

There's been a number of illegal evictions.

I mean, the number of service people that are pushed out of North Beach on a daily basis, over 200 people I wanted to invite today to this event have been pushed out at their career service workers that work in the neighborhood.

Um well and well, I feel bad for the buyer, and I I get that this like really sucks for you, but it sets an example that other people are going to continue to take advantage of.

And right now we continuously have bulldozers circling Washington Square Park.

We have the Verde building, which we're battling every day to be able to preserve.

It's embarrassing that our representative isn't fighting for us, and North Beach doesn't run without housing for service workers and make it right now, muddying the water and making this like intentional rather than supporting the constituents that feel so strongly that rent-controlled units need to be saved and taking any units at all off the market sets a very dangerous precedent.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Good afternoon, George Shutish.

Um, the uh issues with this appeal are very clear.

524, 526 Bileo Street and 4A for San Antonio Place uh is a legal four-unit building.

The board must deny this appeal, and here's why.

First, the planning department's recommendation to deny the CUA at the December 4th, 2025 hearing clearly states that this project proposed by the appellants would not comply with the housing element.

Second, the planning department clearly responds to the five issues in their memo to the board dated January 28th, 2026 on pages four through six.

The five responses are evidence in the record that this building is a four-unit building, including the written testimony from former tenants.

The denial at the commission hearing for the CUA was based on the objectives and policies of the housing element.

The 3R report unequivocally states that the building is four units and should have been in the disclosures at the time of sale to the appellants.

The appellants purchased a legal four-unit building that had been illegally merged, even if it appeared to be a single family home.

The proposal put forth by the appellants would only replace one of the three legal units that were removed.

So that's what's before you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

And so the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman and members of the Board of Supervisors, Chantal Laborinto with the Race and Equity and All Planning Coalition.

We are strongly opposed to the CUA appeal and urge this board to deny the proposal to approve this illegal conversion.

We share the deep concerns that the SF anti-displacement coalition has submitted in their letter.

And also want to strongly emphasize that approving this appeal undermines the city's own policies and violates the housing element and its stated goals.

As a staff report lays out in great detail, the planning department's opposition to the appeal is based on the objectives and policies of the housing element.

Given anything short of restoring the three loss units would result in a net loss of dwelling units, and could set a negative precedent where developers may merge dwelling units without authorization, knowing that a merger is likely to be approved and legalized after the fact through the CUA process.

I also want to emphasize housing element implementation program too, specifically the implementing action section 2.4 preserving rental unit availability.

Approving the CUA would clearly be a direct violation of the set of actions.

As this board of supervisors discussed at great length just in the past year, especially in deliberation over the family zoning plan and the tenant protections ordinance, we should be doing as much as possible to preserve our existing housing stock and protect homes and tenants, and actively challenge efforts such as this request that undermine these critical policies.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Peter Stevens build affordable faster California.

I think one thing we can all agree on is that Iskander is a jerk.

I couldn't put it better myself.

But the question before us today is very, very simple.

Will you, the board, create a precedence of performative negligence in our city's land use doctrine?

That's what's happening here today.

Is the assertion that someone who was blind, deaf, and dumb to the obvious issues and disclosures, but magically signed on all the proper dotted lines is a valid defense against our city codes.

If so, then what are the use of city codes?

I know that each of you understands what is at stake, and you have it in you to do the right thing.

Thank you all and have a good evening.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I am Meg Heisler.

I'm here on behalf of the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition to voice our strong opposition to the appeal before you today.

Um, not to beat a dead horse, but public records provide unequivocal evidence that the lawful and permitted use of this building was and is as a four-unit apartment building.

We know tenants lived in these units and that four rent controlled units were illegally demolished.

This is not conjecture, this is what happened.

So what you're weighing is whether or not to grant an exception to the laws on the books and approve the loss of rent-controlled housing while no doubt there are developers sizing up tenant-occupied buildings in each of your districts and fantasizing about what they can get away with.

This is a policy decision.

The stakes in this case extend well beyond one family.

If the board overrides the findings of planning staff and the planning commission, it would be creating a significant new loophole to our existing laws that protect rent-controlled units, the tenants who live in them now, and those who will need them that housing in the future.

As the city's real estate market for single family homes heats up, there is simply no way for tenants to compete against an industry of developers and realtors that profit off of their displacement, cannibalize rental units, and repurpose them as single family homes to be sold for millions.

In this case, there are no compromises that will not serve to undermine existing protections of rent-controlled housing and embolden speculators.

This board must send an emphatic message that you will not support the demolition of rent-controlled units.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, speakers.

I'm supervisors, I'm Mitch Lomerberg, Director of the Affordable Housing Alliance, and we work with the San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition.

And I do want to note that this is a policy question.

But I also want to just talk about what happened here.

There were flashing yellow, wait, no, flashing red lights.

Okay.

This was clearly legally a four-unit rate controlled building.

For starters, it has four separate street addresses.

Then we're learning today, it apparently had four separate electrical meters.

The three R report, which is your disclosure when you buy property that you need to look at, disclose that it was a four-unit building.

The property tax records and the property tax bill say that it's four units.

And then even today, you know, it would be a little bit better if they were a little more contrite, but even today we're kind of hearing that maybe there were never really any tenants there, but tenants from all four units have been identified by the North Beach Tenants Committee, and three of them have been contacted, and now we're sort of trying to erase that they ever existed.

Please vote to uphold the Planning Commission's rejection of merging four rent controlled units into a mega mansion.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, thank you, board.

Um, my name is Ramlund Schmaltz, and I've been in North Beach about 20 years as a renter.

This case is emotional because it involves us tenants losing more precious and infinite and finite rent-controlled housing, and a very wealthy family who doesn't want to lose what they have.

But to speak plainly, this couple knowingly bought stolen goods.

Goods stolen from the renters of the city, the majority of San Franciscans and your cons and your constituents.

We're the renters.

This couple is crying and acting like they're being evicted from North Beach.

They're not.

Um, although I mean how of the balcony they remain is another matter.

They can buy a different house in the neighborhood and their kids can still set attend the same schools.

They just can't keep their stolen goods.

We need leaders who do right by renters and by the law.

I'm not asking you to punish this family for knowingly buying an illegal mansion.

This family will be fine.

I'm reminding you that we have tenants who are on the record as having lived there and were squeezed out by whatever what our supervisor called the real bad actors.

But we tenants of North Beach strongly agree that knowingly buying illegal goods makes you a bad actor.

I've rented in North Beach for 20 years, and I've seen this shady work all too much.

I mean I've seen a lot.

There's yet another example.

Just one block up Baleho from where we are, from from where they are.

My friends and family in North Beach, thousands of renters are watching today, and dozens of them have already expressed utter disbelief that their representative on this board is siding with a couple over all of us, even when they are in the wrong.

We, you cannot send a message that this is okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

One of these states statements is true.

When this plan came through, either someone in the planning department was asleep or they were paid off with the hope that this project would slide under the radar.

Either way, the planning department officials who allowed this egregious malfeasance to go through do not deserve their place in office.

The fact that this project is even being considered is inexcusable.

The other truth is that our supervisor is a festering sore actively wounding North Beach, and the wounds he is inflicting will have a legacy of destruction for the entire city.

Our supervisor doesn't care about North Beach.

He doesn't care about housing, he only cares about real estate, biting at the coattails of Wiener and lining his pockets and the pockets of his developer buddies.

If the development for these wealthy, unscrupulous, unconscious, affordable home destroying arrogance is approved and allowed to proceed for any reason, even the most ridiculous lie of oversight.

Oh, whoops, we didn't know we could do that.

You are setting a very dangerous precedent.

And it would give our supervisor exactly what he wants to tear down all restrictions for development in SF because that's his goal.

That's the end game for this developer, his developer friends, and that's what Wiener's greedy pockets also want him to do.

And just to remind you, we all know what side you will sit on in the next election.

And if you approve this project, you will be a large cause of the ruin of our beloved San Francisco, and shame will be your middle names.

Thank you for coming as next speaker, please.

Wow, okay.

Um my name is uh again Fujioka.

I'm here on behalf of Chinatown Community Development Center, and um I want to um uh uh address uh or emphasize the point that the planning staff raised that approving this CU is going to create a a very damaging precedent.

And we're uh our organization councils tenants all the time threatened with buyouts, uh threatened development.

We have one right now where we know the owners are planning to merge the units, and the owners are gonna else it and they're gonna they're gonna try to jam it through.

And and approving this is going to give a signal that you can go forward and doing such behavior and then get away and sell the property off and let someone else pay a price for sure.

And I'm gonna get to the owner's situation too.

I'm I feel for them, but but we have to we we the concept we we the the consequence isn't just this family as someone else said before, but it is the there are 600 buyouts last year, uh threatened buyouts, more than half of them went through, and most of the tenants have no bargaining position because they get evicted, they get elist, and they go nowhere, or they leave the as in this case, two of the households left the city.

Uh and so that's the first thing.

I also want to say that I'm really troubled by the accusation based on no evidence that there was some kind of malfeasance on the part of staff in this case, whether it's DBI or planning staff, I mean, we have fire department, others, folks all witnessing three.

Let's blame the developer, yes, but we also need to hold uphold the rule that if you buy a four-unit building that says it's a legal performance unit, you that that's what it should stay, and we have to keep rent control housing available for people because that those are the folks who are losing out who are not being spoken about in the narrative of the owners.

Thank you for your comments.

Are there any other speakers who would like to address the board during uh in opposition to the appeal?

All right, Mr.

President.

All right.

Public comment in opposition to the appeal is now closed.

And lastly, uh, we'll have the appellant come up to present a rebuttal argument of up to three minutes.

Uh first, thank you to the planning department for your presentation.

We know that this has been an arduous process.

It's been four years, and we're really, really grateful for your partnership, and we're sorry that this has landed on all of our plates.

But collectively, we know you've spent a lot of time, so thank you.

Um, and uh thank you again to the supervisors for considering the facts of this case.

No matter the outcome, we are very grateful for your time.

I want to clarify a few points for the record before I hand it over to Stephen Sutra, our architect.

Uh the first is the RM1 designation allows for 2.4 units based on a 1,920-foot square foot lot.

This is based on the planning department's own staff report, not our interpretation of the report.

Uh so please note that.

The 2017 inspection included uh by DBI included five signal final sign-offs, interior and exterior.

Housing is absolutely a crisis in this community.

The position, however, only works if the situation is reputable repeatable.

This is not a playbook or a repeatable fact pattern, as demonstrated by all of the errors uh forced along the way.

This is a sophisticated developer who understands how to game and operate within the system, including installing meters and other things that give the illusion of four complete units.

You have a minute and ten seconds left.

Okay, thank you.

Hello, my name is Steven Sutro.

I'm the architect.

Um I am an architect here in San Francisco, and I was born and raised here.

I was hired by Caitlin and Ben when they were notified of the pen planning violation.

I just want to point out that the listing photos that were part of the packet match exactly what is there today.

No changes have occurred between the time that those realtor photos were generated and today.

The developer got four units approved and then only built one.

There are many physical elements in the building that are significantly different than his approved plans.

The main staircase is designed to serve multiple units as an exit corridor.

It has to have fire-rated walls around it.

Instead, it's built as a floating staircase, and that floating staircase is in realtor photos that were generated at the time one month after inspection.

That's just impossible.

It's just simply impossible.

I just want to point out that it physically could not have trans been transformed in that quick of a time frame.

So there's just a big discrepancy here from what was approved by the developer and what what was purchased by the owner just before Caitlin and Ben.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um thank you.

Um I think the the thing that I am most kind of confused and concerned about is this 2016 sign-off that legalized the change from two units to four units.

And you know, uh between the photographs of the apartment with a floating staircase, which I cannot imagine a DBI inspector would have signed off on as a standard means of egress, nor can I imagine that it would take one month or 45 days to demolish a central egress with fire-rated doors and install a floating staircase.

I don't know what contractor can get that done on time, but probably not one.

And then also the fact that this inspector was also under investigation at DBI.

How am I supposed to square all those circles?

I don't know.

I guess for yeah, sure.

Well, I think it's unfair to say that the inspector was under investigation.

He was an investigation completely unrelated matter.

Um, so he was, though.

I'm sorry?

He was, though.

Maybe not for this, but for but he was.

Yes.

All right.

Um, yeah, like I said, we've written an OSO violation.

We're going to be reaching out to the uh Iskander and uh Justin Yonker was another developer involved to see what exactly happened here.

I I it does sound incredulous that this happened in 45 days.

I agree.

I'm trying to look back 10 years and put the rest of the thing.

It sounds incredulous that the permit legalizing the four unit mix was issued properly.

And that's, I think the crux of where I'm struggling.

Your eyes make it seem as if maybe my analysis was off.

No, no, you're not.

I don't know if I'm misunderstanding.

Should I not?

Well, you're you're you say it's incredulous the permit was issued.

Right.

That's that's one stage of the purpose was issued.

And then we're also talking about the end five years later when the job was signed off.

It was not signed.

The accusations are that it was not built according to the approved plan.

I'm just talking about accrual.

I'm just talking about the the it seems to me like the permit for a four-unit legalization was signed off in 2016, right?

Correct.

And so maybe I'm misunderstanding here.

Is it such that the work did not was does that mean that the work for a four-unit building had to be completed then, or it could be started then and completed later?

That was the end of it.

That was when the work was supposed to be completed.

The permit was initially.

Right.

That's where I'm saying that's the crux of where I cannot I am incredulous that that 2016 legalization was signed off on correctly.

That's that's what I'm struggling with.

Um we have people in the queue, but I do have a question.

I mean so there's assuming that DBI inspectors are doing their job and that the fire inspectors are doing their job.

They're looking in 2016 and multiple times they're saying there's four units there.

MLS.

I mean, uh when this thing is listed, real estate industry says this is a single family home a few months, a couple, a month and a half later.

Is that is that kind of what we think is happened here?

We don't need to.

I guess my point is like you all, city staff have nothing to do with what a private transaction, what people are saying is there.

We know there's essentially a single family home there now in 2026.

We think if we trust multiple inspectors from different city departments going out in 2016, there were four units.

But there's not necessarily I mean, maybe someone didn't see an insane amount of un unauthorized work in a month and a half to get this thing closer to being a single family home, and the prior owner bought something that maybe wasn't didn't feel exactly like four units, or maybe it didn't feel exactly like one unit either, and then there's more unauthorized work that happens sort of while that prior property owner owns it.

I mean, you can come up with narratives about what has happened here that don't require, you know, some huge mistake by city staff in 2016, right?

Am I there's some nodding going on over there?

Uh-huh.

All right.

Uh Supervisor Melgar.

Uh thank you, President.

I just uh wanted to make a few points.

Um it is uh we've received a lot of information and uh nevertheless, this is pretty straightforward to me.

Um I think that this is not the only area of the code where somebody who purchases a property um is then responsible for the compliance.

Um we when we purchase the property, uh you uh usually, although in a hot real estate market, you skip that step, uh there is an inspection and you purchase the electrical, the plumbing, the sewer, everything that you know uh is touched by our building and planning codes that then becomes your legal responsibility, which is why under California law uh it is required before a broker signs off on the uh transfer of the deed that uh there be a 3R report pulled, which there was in this case.

So regardless of whether the listing said that or the other, that 3R report that says four units was included in the sale of this property, and the broker who oversaw and stamped this transaction had to vouch that the legal requirements for a transfer of title under California law were met.

And that included the 3R report that said it is a four-unit property.

So I just want to put point out a couple other things.

Last year uh this board passed legislation that I authored um dealing with uh UD use uh with the legalization of UDUs.

Um we clarified uh because under our rent controlled laws, UDUs are rent controlled.

Um we treat them as units regardless of whether they're unpermitted or permitted.

It is clear to me that these units were permitted, but even if they weren't.

Because there's been this, you know, over writing uh conjecture, even if they weren't.

We have legislation that deals with how we treat these things and we treat them as units.

You know, we are required to deal with them a certain way.

Two years ago, we actually you know, before this current board, but we also passed legislation that I also authored, um dealing with unpermitted units and the uh a path forward for folks who did not know that they were unpermitted when they you know purchased them uh and allowed a path for incorporated them, incorporating those units into the principal home.

So there is a path for doing that, but that was not that that's not what is in front of us uh today.

What is in front of us today is overturning the planning commission's determination.

And that um has a standard, which I think that the current appellant has not met as far as I'm concerned, uh, because I don't see any evidence.

I've heard questions, I've heard, you know, uh some conjecture about uh, you know, city staff uh acting one way or another.

There's no question in my mind that there was a bad actor here, um a developer who merged four units illegally and turned it into a single family home.

Um I can understand uh that a family wants a single family home in North Beach.

Uh I will also point out that we have an obligation under the state and law now to deliver 84,000 units of housing in over the next eight years.

Um and this policy decision will have an effect on that, and it's not one that I want to uh participate in.

Um I will also note that um, you know, we um have uh zoning for a reason.

So two-thirds of our uh housing stock in San Francisco actually is single family homes.

Um it is not North Beach.

And you know, I understand why somebody would want to have a single family home in North Beach, which is a very dense area.

That's not you know how we have um made these decisions, and we just famously went through a very arduous process to revisit uh those issues.

Um, but it was done deliberately and with lots of study and interaction with the public.

I am not ready to uh change the policy of the city and county of San Francisco when it comes to code compliance on these issues on illegal mergers of units.

Um, notwithstanding the hardship for this family, I I understand you know where they're coming from, and I I do wish that people had better training when they are purchasing you know their largest assets.

I did spend a bunch of my career doing that, homeownership training, and you know, you have to read everything before you sign it.

It is a legal responsibility that you're taking when that happens.

Nevertheless, this is still a very valuable property.

I um I think that we should uh keep to the policy that we've always had, and I will be um voting uh to uphold this decision.

Uh thank you, Supervisor Melgar.

We will continue our deliberations, but the clerk has pointed out to me that um I there's a little um I probably should say at this point that the public hearing has been held and is now filed.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you so much, President Mandelman.

Um this is probably what I always think is the worst part of our job to have to settle these disputes.

Um I think when you talk about reading the fine print, probably one of the things I didn't know we actually were going to have to do serving on the Board of Supervisors.

Um but the fact is of the matter is that we we are put in this predicament to make these decisions, and so I have to look at the facts that are presented.

I have to look at what's in front of me from all sides.

And I think a few things that I'm struggling with here is I don't know what else to do when the city assessor defines as four units when the planning department defines as four units when the San Francisco Fire Department defines as four units.

And then when I see that we would lose not just a net loss of two units, but very, very dear and important for what I see is also a net loss of two rent control units.

Um that's a hard pill to swallow to not have to go with the decision of what the department puts in front of us.

And then it's I think that I definitely sympathize with anyone who is put in a position to make a purchase of this size and have to not be able to move forward on some of the things that they want to do.

But most certainly when I hear from the property owner that the one thing they did know is that this was listed as a multi-unit home at the time of purchase.

Um that's another thing that aligns with everything that planning is presented before us along with all the bodies that make decisions about how we designate something as to be, and in this case, to be four units.

That's why I asked a question about what investigation is going on and what is happening in that case.

But like Supervisor Melgar, I I I can't see why I would not support what planning is put before us, particularly because the fact that the matter of we rely on these folks to make these assessments for so many different reasons, and not just the planning department, the city assessor, the fire department.

For me, there's no way with was presenting in front of me, I can I can go against that decision.

Thank you, Supervisor Wall.

Supervisor Sauter, is this your your wrap-up?

Because I do have questions and questions.

Okay.

Sorry, okay.

Um I I do have uh I guess a couple questions for the appellants, if they could come back up.

And I don't ask this uh to be mean.

I mean I I I have a lot of sympathy for your predicament, and I feel um bad for you.

So I want to start by that.

I think people are saying unkind things about you or um not doing their cause any great service.

But um and not to assume too much sophistication from you as buyers, but you what did you think when you were buying this property, which is described by addresses for different addresses in your um title report would have, you know, would have shown that, 3R report would have shown that, and presumably your realtor had some kind of conversation with you about this.

Like and maybe it's hard to take yourself back to 2021 when you were making this decision, but what did you think was going on here?

Yeah, I I think it's a fair question, and I appreciate the respectful opening.

Um I think the reality of this case is that we did know, which is why I owned it openly.

I also have the pleasure of now being on the record with the chronicle is calling myself a num nut, which is unfortunate for me.

Um I own it because I think accountability matters.

And um we are first-time home buyers, um, as someone pointed out, we're not from generational wealth.

That does not exclude us, though, from participating in lawful behavior and abiding by rules, um, which is why we've proposed a solution that we think is feasible and proportional, which is not to maintain a single family home.

Nowhere, not once have we ever asked for that.

Um what went through our minds when we we found this home was uh uh a home that we thought was too good to be true.

Turns out that's right.

Um we we didn't I I to say we didn't know, I believe is doing a disservice to your question, and that is um it was pointed out to us.

We did get the 3R report.

Uh and what it said at the bottom was uh the zoning or something may have changed.

Please call the planning department or look into city records, which is what our real estate agent did.

Um and when those records were pulled, they were very conflicting.

And so the reason I used the words we knew it was a multi-unit property, um, not we knew it was a four-unit property, it's because it wasn't clear based on city records themselves.

Right.

And so uh we did know, and that's what I'm taking accountability for.

And you thought somebody else has lived in this.

Absolutely.

There has not been a problem for them.

And and to be fair, those two former owners were both at the time, general counsel at Twitter and Google.

And I am not that sophisticated to your point.

I am a num nut.

Right.

Okay.

So then if we could talk a little bit about kind of the proposal that you've put forward as sort of the the path to legalization.

And again, I'm not asking this to be mean, but what is the square footage of your of your home that you're living in now?

I should have brought my notes up with me, but it is north of 3,000 square feet, and the lot size is south of 2,000 square feet.

And the proposal is for a new approximately 440 square foot um studio dwelling.

And do you know what the square footage of the prior units was?

Um I I roughly know that they were one was uh from the proposal sorry, excuse me, the proposal from Peter Escander that the plans on three.

I'm assuming those are like thousand square footy kind of units.

Uh one was to jump in.

One was sub-400, I believe it was 350-ish.

One was the 440, which is why we were proposing to reinstate that unit as the path of least resistance for our family.

And so when we were going to plan, and part of our our new knowledge now is how the system and the process works.

At no point after filing uh this the C UA on request of the planning department, was there an opportunity for us to amend the plan?

Which is why I tried to share today that we're very open to a reasonable proportional solution.

And we are more than happy to reinstate a unit.

But the circumstances are that a four-unit reinstatement, even the this the units that were unauthorized previously, those two, which to be on the record, I'm not denying the existence of the humans that lived in that building.

And we've talked with some of them.

Uh one of which is very who is still our neighbor, and she's incredibly supportive of us and understands the situation.

But those units were incredibly undersized according to today's standards for what is acceptable within a home, which is why I continue to report to point to the 3M uh density uh for the lot size, which again is is under three units at this point.

So we're comfortable exploring anything.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I will relieve you, you can sit back down.

Um I do I think these homeowners are are sympathetic.

I think it was not a great decision to purchase a property that, you know, and and I think it is important, pretty important for the city to stick by the precedent that it is not a good idea, buyers in San Francisco to be purchasing properties that purport to be uh fewer units than what is represented uh in the documentation for those for those properties.

If we are going to give our our rent-controlled unit protection legislation that has been adopted over um you know various periods, but but including the work that was done, you know, around family zoning, like that's gonna lose a lot of its effectiveness if it becomes clear that the city is willing to legalize if you wait 10 years.

Um that's just gonna be sort of a non-starter for well, it's gonna be a big starter for the loss of for the uh the uh I guess accelerated loss of rent-controlled units.

And the fact that, you know, developers and realtors, uh not all of them, but that some of them look for opportunities to uh make money, and that uh one way to make money is to sort of uh do things that are not plainly allowed or are quite disallowed by the law, but um you know, count on the city not catching it and the magic of uh capitalism to ensure that uh that everybody except the people who have been evicted um uh prosper from these transactions, like there's incredible power um in that sort of economic incentive to do things that are not legal.

And so that puts the planning commission and the planning department and the Board of Appeals and us uh and uh staff all in this uh unpleasant position of having to do unkind things to individual property owners because we're trying to hold back to the extent we can a flood of uh more evictions than we've seen and more displacement than we've seen.

And as you know, as uh I think sympathetic as this family is, I think if we lined up, you know, all the all the families and households, not just in North Beach, but in my district certainly, and uh you know, other districts that have seen uh their homes lost through uh illegal mergers and uh uh various, you know, uh means that either skirt the law or violate the law, um, those would be pretty compelling stories as well.

So I also um I don't know what the right solution here and balancing of the equities.

I don't think this proposal uh comes close to what we need to do to um uh preserve the idea that you can't just uh uh get rid of rent controlled units and then solve it, you know, a few years down the road with you know addition of a small unit that may or may not get rented out any time soon.

Um I think there has to be something more.

So for me, uh you know, I I'm uh you know another vote for approving the denial.

With that, Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, President Mentelman.

Um I did have a few more questions for the appellant and probably the architect if they want to come back up.

So the um the conditional use that uh is before us is asking for um permission to add one new unit of housing, takes it to two authorized units of housing, which is the most it's the same amount of authorized units of housing this site has had.

Um but the rejection again kind of sends us down this path, presumably where you're required to take it to four units of housing.

Um can you tell us both maybe from the the appellant financial family perspective and then the physical architectural perspective, is that possible?

Could you do 400 units of housing here?

It is possible.

And um we illustrated plans that show four units, uh, and they they match fairly closely the original developers' approved plans.

And so each is about uh, or three of them are about 400 square feet, 440.

Um we could look up the numbers, but they're they're uh studios.

And then it would be uh a fourth that is a little bit a little bit larger.

Um it's quite different than the building is physically because of the the two means of egress required for a building with three units or more.

So we'd have to do uh fire-rated corridor and staircases.

Um the one staircase in the rear does not meet code from uh height perspective, and the steps are uneven and so forth.

So that one would need to be rebuilt.

The one at the front is completely open to uh the upper three stories uh uh and so that would have to be completely reconstructed.

So it's a it's a major overhaul of the building physically, would require um life safety systems to be upgraded.

Um the wiring um is not succinct, it does not go to individual units as as laid out by the developer.

So it's a whole overhaul of the building, mechanical, electrical plumbing, staircases, walls, and things like this, as well as four kitchens.

Um how much that costs is somewhere in the range of maybe eight hundred dollars per square foot or something like this.

It's probably two million bucks or something like this.

Um maybe more.

Um there's another path of three units that is probably less invasive and and might yield something where uh uh uh uh a family of their size could stay.

I don't know.

Um but does that answer your question or do you have more?

Yes, thank you.

Um maybe for the appellant, um what is going down a path of four units mean for you?

Um and then how would that compare to not two, which is what you're asking for, but maybe a compromise at three.

Uh thank you, Stephen.

Uh four units means um a forced displacement of our family.

Uh again, pointing to the the RM1 density.

Uh the units that would be produced with a four-unit layout would not be sufficient to house our family.

I I recognize that uh the financial uh burden of this is not uh well-received argument, and so I won't make that.

Um it is meaningful to my family.

Uh, but the most important and most meaningful impact to our family is if we return to the four-unit configuration, either that were approved by these 2013 plans or some other additional configuration that we have worked very hard to try to make, simply will not house um a family of four.

Uh my husband and I both work from home.

We have two young grown children, and we have very imminently um an elderly disabled parent that will be moving in with us.

And so none of the units produced in a four-unit plan uh would be able to allow our family to stay.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

I um I want to organize my thoughts and then maybe make a motion for for folks to consider.

Um I do want to you know address some of the concerns around setting up a precedent.

Um we don't want illegal mergers like this to be forgiven or incentivized, and we don't want to send set a precedent.

Um but I would argue the time to set a president against this is 15 years ago when there was a known bad actor in the neighborhood who was the owner.

Um as we've discussed today, I do have concerns about the inspection history of this property that allowed the illegal merger to step to slip through the city's hands for the past 10 plus years until it was brought to the attention by an anonymous complaint from a neighbor.

And I um have concerns about the validity of situation where within 45 days in 2016, we went from a DBI signing of a certificate of final completion for a supposed four-unit remodel to the house being listed for sale as a single family home.

I don't believe it's physically possible to convert a four-unit building in the matter of 45 days.

Either the developer found a loophole in the permitting process that desk really needs to be closed, or the inspections were not conducted in the manner they were supposed to be.

I also understand there were follow-up permits issued by DBI while the home is listed as a single family home in 2017, and I have questions about that.

Um I would rather see us focus our efforts on fixing those gaps in the city's processes.

What we're considering today is permission for them to be required to add new housing.

This is something that has consumed years of their time, tremendous financial costs.

And regardless if you think this is entirely fair or it is too burdensome.

No one can look at the situation and think that we are letting folks off without intense scrutiny and costs, or that we are incentivizing or setting a precedent here.

We can't stop illegal mergers that have already happened, but we can prevent them from happening in the future.

And I believe that this board is doing that through the tenants protection ordinance, DBI corruption reforms through permanent SF changes, which will connect photos and videos to inspection records, which we don't have at the moment.

Um I'm also in conversations with DBI, City Attorney and Rent Board to look into more options to hold developers accountable who do mergers like this.

The irony is that by hoping for hypothetical future tenants, we are likely displacing the family living there right now, a family of four.

And I believe that a denial will result in this property being stuck in limbo for years to come.

Someday, maybe, four studio apartments might be built.

Four people might live there.

And by the way, we've learned today there's no requirement for those four units to be rented out, and there's no requirement around who lives in those four units.

I think as discussed today, it is very fair that the appellants should have been more careful.

They should have done more due diligence.

I believe they need to take responsibility, but do I believe that a lack of expertise in real estate should subject a family to being permanently displaced from their home and financially drained because we think they can afford it?

I don't.

I do think the family and the appellants before us are taking responsibility.

Again, they're asking for permission to add more housing.

Um they could have come to us with a C application to keep their home at as is, to not add additional units, but they chose this path instead.

And I think their city should bear some responsibility as well for not reviewing the merger a decade ago, not taking this bad actor seriously enough.

Um I am interested in a outcome here that keeps this family in their home, adds additional housing, and lets us move past this and direct our resources towards improving the building inspection process and the compliance process for bad developers.

So what I'm proposing is rejecting today's appeal.

That's the appeal that would add one new housing unit, and to instead urge the recommendation of two additional new units.

This is important because this would bring the property to three authorized units.

Three authorized units is a result of one net new authorized unit of housing here.

And I think this believe this means that the family can stay in their current home as well.

So that is my proposal, and um squaring that up, that means that I would like to move item 32, approving the planning commission decision, de facto denying the conditional youth authorization.

I'd like to move, also move item 34 to direct the clerk of the board to prepare findings in support of this decision.

I would like those findings to include a statement that a three-unit project may be desirable at this site, if feasible and properly designed, and urge the planning department and commission to thoroughly review a future application for such a project if one is submitted.

Finally, I'd like to move to table item number 33.

Thank you.

Supervisor Sauter has made a motion.

Is there a second?

It has been seconded by Supervisor Cheryl.

Supervisor Chan.

My apologies.

I just want a clarification of the motion.

Please.

Is the motion to move forward with approving item number 32, tabling 33, and also move forward and approving 34?

The motion would approve the denial, that is 32, I believe.

It would uh table item 33 and it would direct the preparation of findings wherein the board would express openness to a three-unit solution rather than a four-year.

Is my stating that correctly, Supervisor Sauter?

That appears that appears to be the motion.

And and in that event, if I understand it correctly, because the conditional use authorization, and please, Line Department correct me if I'm wrong, is that the conditional use authorization at the moment uh is a de facto denial of the CU.

And therefore, by moving forward and approving the motion to approve the decisions of the planning department, which is a de facto denial, you are basically denying the appellant.

Okay.

Yes, that is correct.

Well, it is it is go ahead.

Yes.

Yes, thank you, President.

Speak up staff.

Um Veronica Flores of Planning Department staff.

Supervisor Chan, that is correct.

If this body does not approve the CU, then we still have the violation on hand.

And then the appellant has the two paths to move forward, either legalize as is, this is the application that's in front of you right now, to um they can abate the violation by legalizing um the four units.

We do have a permit on file for such proposal, but um those are the two primary paths, but Supervisor Sauter mentioned perhaps there's another path on hand of adding uh having a total of three units on the property instead of the four legal units here.

So if you do not grant the CU today, the appellant still needs to abate the violation in their um the path that they choose.

And to add that if they were want to add for a total of three units, they still have to go back to planning commission for approval of the merger of two units.

So if I understand correctly, shall we uh support Supervisor Souter's motion today?

It what it leaves to for the occupants of this space and and for the appellants is then to go back to the drawing board with three sounds like three different options.

A C U to the a C for to apply another CU and that within that CU has three different options.

One is to apply for a C use that it remains as one single family home units as it currently is, or a CU for potentially a three units, uh, which is then they convert the existing single family home into two units plus a 450 square footage of a ADU, or that the third CU it will be then for them to convert back to the four units.

They wouldn't need a CU if to convert back to four units.

Uh that would just to abate the uh complaints.

But if they want to convert it to three units, then they will need to go back to planning commissions.

Okay, understood.

Well, in that case, then thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

I mean, the the wrinkle of Supervisor Sauter's proposal is just the this board.

I mean, whether I don't think there are the uh votes on the board to disapprove uh the planning commission's action.

So the question for this board is do we simply affirm the planning commission's action, in which case the applicant, the appellant needs to go back, either needs to abate the violation by recreating four units or start exploring other options with the planning department and the planning commission.

The slight variation in Supervisor Sauter's motion is to have us saying that perhaps three units would be enough to to abate the violation, not telling anybody what to do, because we can't, I don't think, but suggesting that for example, if a appeal of a CU for a three-unit um were to come back to this board, uh this board might be inclined to support the three-unit uh solution or answer.

Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you.

That is uh what I wanted to clarify on a procedural issue, um, because it is one motion to um deny the conditional use authorization and then to direct the um staff to um amend the findings.

And I'm not sure.

Um I mean, the regardless of whether these other findings are supportable, uh, because we are in fact contradicting uh, I think the general plan.

But um procedurally, um if we did not agree with that second uh part of the motion, would we then have to make a new motion or can those two items be voted on separately?

Typically, Supervisor Milgar through the President, this item is voted on as a package.

However, a supervisor could ask to have the elements separated.

So the question vote on the matter separately.

Alternatively.

I would ask the deputy city attorney if a separate vote uh outcome on either motion becomes problematic for the whole.

I've never seen this before, so a deputy city attorney Brad Russian I would I expect that this both of these motions require six votes to be approved.

Um if they were separated and these the motion to approve the findings were did not obtain six votes, then I think someone else will need to make another motion that's different.

But there needs to be findings in this case normally when the planning commission's decision is approved, um, it's not overturned by the board.

We don't need findings, but in this situation, because there are no findings from the planning commission because of de facto approval or depart de facto denial, the board needs to make findings so that if this matter were litigated, there's a decision with actual findings.

But it is possible for this board.

I mean, we could have a 5-5.

Right?

Oh, that's correct.

Today you could have a 5-5 vote.

And I would also add that the findings document, when it comes back, the the finding document has to come back to the board for approval.

And at that point, the board could amend it to remove language that it doesn't like at that time.

And Mr.

President, just to throw another wrench in this item 33, it requires an eight vote threshold.

32 and 34 are six vote threshold.

Right.

So there's lots of ways this could move forward.

Someone could vote to someone could make a motion to could ask to divide the question and have us voting separately on these three different things and figure out what out where we land on that.

Uh there's the possibility of uh if Supervisor Sauders motion does not pass, someone else could make another motion uh to deny the, for example, to deny the appeal without the change, without the specific direction around findings other than to prepare findings, um, which also might not have a majority.

So anyway, Supervisor Walton.

So just real quick, typically 33 would accompany 34, right?

We wouldn't typically um approve and inhabit.

Yeah, normally you would.

We wouldn't typically support planning and then have findings.

Yeah.

And then my last question: supporting his current Supervisor Sauter's current motion could possibly allow for the removal of at least one unit.

I want to make sure we're clear on that.

Yeah.

It actually would have to.

Yes.

If I mean we're not directing it, the supervisor's solder's motion doesn't direct anybody to do anything, but does say that this board is kind of open to the possibility of a.

We would be maybe saying we're open today.

Yeah.

Okay.

That is what would be happening.

Supervisor Jan.

Yeah, okay.

Um I I want to again once clarify is that by approving item 32, tabling 33, which the 33 requires the eight vote table, and what Supervisor Souter, and I need clarification on this, is then on item 34, which is the preparation of finding is now inclusive of language directing or urging the planning department to identify or approve pre-like authorizing the potential approval of a conditional use authorization for a three units.

That is which I am in disagreement with.

And so I just want to be on the record and to be clear about uh where I am.

Today I am prepared to vote in support of item 32, which affirm the de facto denial by the planning commission.

I am also ready to vote tabling item 33, which then will be tabling in the rejection of the de facto denial.

I will not be in supportive of item 34 with the amendments proposed by Supervisors Supervisor Souter.

However, I am prepared to vote in support of item 34 as it currently stands.

Because it's just simply like preparation of findings.

It doesn't indicate specifically how we want to f I relate it to the CU.

But maybe I'm c incorrect, and this is why I try to find clarification about item 34.

I am also confused because my little script here says that uh that the approval of the de facto denial of the CU is a con tells you how to approve, it tells you how to decide.

I mean, uh nothing I do up here is done without heavy scripting.

So uh, you know, I I need that.

But um the the uh the the formula for approval of the de facto de facto denial of the CU here as provided in my script is uh to approve item number 32 and table items 33 and 34.

What I'm hearing in real time, and the city attorney gets to do this to me because you know that's fine, but that the city attorney would be recommending the preparation of findings in any event.

Deputy City Attorney Brad Russie, yes, that's correct.

I did not review your script.

So I have nothing to do with that.

I would not expect you to, it would not be a good use of our city attorney's time.

So because there are no findings from below, if the board is gonna uphold the denial, it should adopt findings.

Yeah.

I would say if there is a tie vote on super uh supervisor Sauter's motion, that it is divided.

I would I would recommend I I think findings are necessary here.

So the board needs to reach a uh agreement on some form of direction to the clerk to provide findings.

So that why is that?

Because there needs to be a basis for this decision in case it's ever challenged in the future, so that there's a record to rely on.

The record of the planning staff's presentations to the planning commission would not be that.

I mean, I that could be part of the record in the end, but it but the it would be better, I think, advisable for the body to have its own um facts and law supporting its decision.

But if the but if this body can't reach a decision because we're deadlocked, this is my recommendation.

So you have to do that.

So we we don't have to take it.

All right.

Thank you.

Uh Supervisor Melgar.

Just uh procedurally, since uh given what the advice has been by our deputy city attorney, could we uh possibly sever the question and vote on the uh motion as has been posed by Supervisor Sauter for 34 first, because it needs a six vote threshold, and if that is not necessarily, then we move on to your script, which has uh 32 and 34 being voted on together and tabling 33.

If that is the will of the board through the president to take the vote in that order.

It could be done.

That could be a solution.

Happy to do it that way unless somebody really hates it.

Uh Supervisor Walton.

Thank you to Deputy City Attorney Russian.

So asking my question differently.

Um if we accept 32, we do not have to have findings for 34, correct?

So why so if we if we affirm he's recommending that we do, but we don't have to.

But when have we done that in the last eight years?

We don't usually have to do that.

Affirmed planning and then came up with the findings.

When have we done that?

I don't know.

We don't usually have decisions coming up to us on 3-3 splits, though, right?

Or are you saying we do?

What's going on over there?

Veronica Flores Planning Department staff.

It is rare that we have a de facto denial that is elevated to this board.

So that is the instance that W city attorney is advising to that we have these findings on record now.

So it is an unusual proceeding, Supervisor Walton.

That's why it's not the typical voting pattern.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Soder.

Thank you to my colleagues for navigating this with us.

I think it speaks to how unusual this is.

It is a it was a 3-3 tie at planning.

That is why we are in this unusual case where we have this wrinkle.

I think it is further evidence that this compromise of sorts that I'm suggesting makes all the sense in the world given the situation of this appeal in my district.

If we are to go down the path of separating these items just for the record, to um uh uh remind everyone of my motion on item 34, which is as follows.

It is to direct the clerk of the board to prepare findings in support of this decision, um statement that a three-unit project may be desirable at this site if feasible and properly designed, and urge the planning department and commission to thoroughly review a future application for such a project if one is submitted.

Um there is no such application at the moment.

This is um saying that that is a path we might suggest.

Again, I think given the circumstances here, that is a wise path.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

There's no one in the queue.

So I guess I will speak for myself and say that I am not sure what the right answer on balancing the equities here is and the um equ the sort of the fact of the fact that there is actually a family living in this building right now with their kids and their desire to stay there against the policy um imperative that I think a number of us feel to uh have our rent controlled unit protections have actual heft and uh force in the world.

It is conceivable that if an appeal came to this board of a three-unit solution that at that point I or my successor might be open to that.

It's a little weird to me to be making that decision right now when I have been asked to consider a one-unit 440 square foot solution.

Um I guess uh I I certainly understand uh your desire, Supervisor Sauter to try to resolve this and sort of show a clear path.

I just don't feel comfortable right now that I that I know that that is the right path.

I'm not sure it isn't.

I'd love to for the planning department to come up with something that works and adds units and does uh ideally get to four, and if not gets to three, but in a way that you know will strongly disincentivize people uh engaging in uh practices that result in the loss of rent-controlled units.

But I'm I don't think I'm in a position right now to support a finding uh that predetermines that and says three is fine.

It may be fine, but I'm not comfortable saying that right now.

So I'm probably a vote against.

Oh no, you put yourself in the queue, and now I'm not the last speaker, so I feel bad.

Supervisor Chan, go ahead.

I I think before we cast a vote to clarify, uh we do we so it sounds to me, if I understand it correctly, what Supervisor Malgar has proposed is to divide the question and allow us to move um to cast the votes on item 34.

Yeah.

Um and then we will then um go to the motion to cast the votes for approving item 32, tabling 33.

32 requires six votes.

33 requires eight votes to table.

Uh 33 is eight votes to approve.

Right.

I am I'm ready to cast my votes to vote to vote against the item 34 as it currently proposed by Supervisor Souter and be in supporter of moving forward with item 32 and tabling item 33.

Just a point of clarification.

I'm sorry, uh President and Madam Clerk.

Do we have to have a second motion to uh do you approve uh item 32 table item 33 and approve item 34 as it is not amended because the original motion was current currently the Supervisor Sauter's motion is on the table.

Okay.

But the only difference that has been divided.

The only difference is you are asking for a separate vote on item 34 first.

Okay.

If in fact you've made that perfect.

All right.

So on item 34 as amended by supervisor as proposed for amendment by Supervisor Sauter.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Yes.

On item 34 as proposed by Supervisor Sauter, Supervisor Mandelman.

No.

Mandelman, no, Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, no, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

No.

Walton, no, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

No.

Chan, no, Supervisor Chen.

Chen no, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey I, Supervisor Mahmood.

Makmoud I.

There are five ayes and five no's.

So the motion so that piece of the motion fails.

And then on items on the rest of the remainder of the motion, uh approving item 32 and tabling item 33.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

On the motion to approve approve item 32 and table item 33, Supervisor Mendelman.

I.

Mendelman, I, Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar I, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter, I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Woolton.

Walton, I, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey I.

And Supervisor Mahmood.

Machmud I.

There are 10 ayes.

So that part of the motion passes.

Mr.

City Attorney, do you want us to try to vote on uh preparing just 34 directing you to prepare findings?

Deputy City Attorney Brad Rusty, as I said before, it would be preferable if there were findings to support this decision.

Someone wanted to motion to make it to approve item 34.

Mr.

President, item 34 has been voted on.

You'd have to rescind the vote first.

Okay.

All right.

Do we should we try to do that?

Let's go.

Okay, we're done.

We're done.

Everybody wants to be done.

Okay.

Great.

All right.

Um Madam Clerk.

Let's go to the Where are we?

Public comment?

Yes, Mr.

President.

Let's go to we because we finished roll call.

Let's go to public comment.

At this time, the board welcomes your general public comment, as all other matters on the agenda have already been disposed of.

Please line up on your right-hand side of the chamber along the curtains.

You are able to speak to the minutes as presented.

Items 39 through 47.

These are the items on the adoption without committee reference calendar.

Other general matters as well are ill eligible to be the subject of your commentary.

However, the public hearing that we just held on the uh uh uh items.

I think we're looking at items 31 through 34 are not eligible for public comment at this time.

We're setting the timer for two minutes.

Welcome, Magic.

Thank you.

Well, I hope you find this uplifting.

At the beginning of each meeting, you have stated that we are on unceded Ramatush Alone land.

It is time to give weight to those words.

The indigenous peoples all over the world have always lovingly held Mother Earth as the source of life, not as property.

As scientists now know, the extraction exploitation system will soon make our beloved earth unlivable for many.

Species are going extinct at an unprecedented rate.

It is in the Constitution of Ecuador.

Since 2006, dozens of communities in ten states in the U.S.

have enacted rights of nature laws.

Over 40 countries have implemented around 500 rights of nature laws at various levels.

For example, if a business wants to dump toxic waste into the bay, we can implement these laws.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is E.K.

Keith, and I'm here to say happy poetry month.

Uh coming up on Friday, April 24th from 5 30 to 8 in the North Light Court is the 21st annual Poems Under the Dome, which brings poets from all of your districts here to City Hall to share a poem in a unique open mic.

I started this 21 years ago with our iconic late community organizer, Diamond Dave Whitaker.

And he's not with us, but the poetry stays.

And I invited all of you and your staffs this afternoon.

I visited all your offices, and I hope you will invite your constituents to come downstairs at 5 30 on April 24th and celebrate poetry month.

It seems clear that there's a lot going on in District 3 right now, but some of what District 3 is famous for is poetry.

But we have poets in every supervisory district, and I've been going around to all of our poetry readings, inviting your constituents to City Hall.

So thank you also for always supporting this event.

We got it started back in 2006 with a unanimous vote from the Board of Supervisors and a proclamation from the mayor.

Thank you all.

Happy Poetry Month.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Hi, my name is Richard Johnson.

I'm a co-founder of Google called HV Safe.

Um, once again, I'm speaking about the Hayes Street closure.

What's happening on Hayes Street with the closure is no longer just a permitting issue issue.

It's a question of governance and political overreach.

This closure has operated under a temporary permit, and over time we have documented lack of compliance, lack of enforcement, and real impet impacts to small businesses and residents.

Instead of addressing those issues, Supervisor Mahmood is advancing a study to justify making this closure permanent while those problems remain unresolved.

This is not a study informing policy.

It is policy being backfilled by a study.

At the same time, members of our community were subjected to a civil harassment petition simply for documenting conditions on a public street.

That petition bought by the permit holder cost over $50,000 and was denied by the court.

The court made clear this is protected civic activity, not harassment.

Because when residents and small business businesses raise concerns, they are not engaged, they are sidelined.

Stakeholders in Hayes Valley have been effect effectively shut out of this process.

And yet this continues to move forward as if there was consensus.

There is not.

This approach advancing a predetermined outcome while excluding large portions of the community reflects a failure of leadership.

Supervisor Mahmood has a responsibility to represent all constituents, not just a select group aligned with a single outcome.

Right now that responsibility is being ignored.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Richard Johnson for your comments.

Welcome.

Alors desolate France.

Donc il faut pas que tu blees Pascal qu'il va t'avoir fallu aborder le point essentiel de tous les problèmes connaissaux depuis des lustres, qui est en reality la liberté ne existe pas.

Donc forcément on a droit à l'échec parce que il faut se débarrasser de ce concept de liberté.

Comme si tu ne sais avec le droit de net, par exemple la liberté de net.

No.

Si j'avais la liberté d'avoir la plus belle femme du monde, t'inquiète pas, je la trouverai.

Donc Pad Liberty point à la ligne.

On attend donc pour finir là-dessus.

Je reviendrai probablement que ça soit la dernière fois.

On attend to boycott systematic mouths qui comportent QR.

Question reponse.

Tu sais QR code.

Boycott.

Systematic.

Any video you can see online that has some music behind it.

It's AI manipulation or subtitles.

Or you know that provocative titles in Capitol.

Don't waste your time watching this because it's gonna be for your own.

Problems coming up.

No, I'll go.

Welcome to our next speaker.

The mayor and other billionaires are enacting a corporate coup of our local government.

This didn't begin with the mayor, but he sure is speeding up the coup with the ch via the charter reform working group and the commission streamlining task force in parallel with him defending social services like housing vouchers, the shuttering of homeless shelters, while also criminalizing homelessness, replacing government with AI, and obscenely funding SFPD and his extensive joint surveillance.

Commission streamlining seeks to glue shut the mouths of the people by reducing commissions that serve the marginalized andor stripping them of power.

Do other departments delay rape uh rape kit testing like SFPD.

You cannot treat SFPD the same as other departments because the stakes are so much more personal, traumatizing, and deadly.

Because what will kill us are their policies that force people into poverty, mental instability, and homelessness, while defunding affordable housing and public health.

Just like how the military can kill masses of people from afar with a push of a sterile button, City Hall is doing the same via policies.

I have a few seconds left.

So we should also stop the war in Iran, free Gaza, stop all the genocides, stop the genocide of indigenous people here, black people here, uh the one against trans people that is in the mists.

Can we just like stop killing people and start caring for them?

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is Nadia Roman.

I am a San Francisco resident, and I'm here today on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of Care California, the Council on American Islamic Relations to give comment on the resolution recognizing American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month.

CARE SFBA would like to thank you all for recognizing this month and an extra special thanks to Supervisor Bilal Mahmood for introducing this resolution.

Last year, when the Board of Supervisors acknowledged this observance for the very first time, I came here to give public comment to tell you all about how Muslim communities have faced record levels of Islamophobia and discrimination, recorded in our civil rights report last year as the highest number of complaints in the organization's three decade-long history.

Today I return to you as you recognize this observance for the second time with an update from CARES 2026 civil rights report, which documented 8,683 total complaints nationwide in 2025, unfortunately setting a new record.

We know what is driving these complaints.

We have a federal administration that is openly targeting immigrant and Muslim communities.

We have elected officials engaging in hateful anti-Muslim rhetoric and propaganda without consequence.

And just this morning, the President of the United States declared his intent to commit genocide and use nuclear weapons against Iran.

This all has very real consequences for your Muslim constituents who are right here in San Francisco.

All of these things drive anti-Muslim sentiment and hate.

Recognizing American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month is a good first step.

And we thank you all for doing so.

Thank you, Nadia Ramah.

For your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, President and member of the board.

Asalamu Aleykum, meaning peace be upon you.

My name is Shaheen Sheikh.

I'm here today to strong support of recognizing April 2026.

Also my birthday month as an American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month.

I'm a San Francisco resident.

I believe in San Francisco and hence proudly served San Francisco for the past 30 years as a per public servant.

I've raised I started my career actually right here in the basement of uh uh city hall at the Department of Elections and um currently serving as um security operations center intelligence officer for SFMTA.

I've raised three boys, proud to raise all three of them born here and raised here in San Francisco.

And overall, a proud American Muslim.

First, I want to thank all of you for your hard work.

I see this beautiful bouquet sitting before me today.

And a reflection of diversity that makes our city absolute vibrant.

Whether it's running into our mayor at La Corneta, or seeing my own district supervisor Xiyan Chen wearing her absolutely beautiful red dress and um celebrating with kids at Easter, or uh Supervisor Mahmud being dunked by at Eid Festival by our uh children.

These moments deeply matter.

We thank Supervisor Mahmoud for his leadership, but all of you are the reason that he put this resolution on the table today.

And I'm confident that it will pass in flying colors.

As a mother and longtime teacher at San Francisco Islamic School Sunday School, this recognition is deeply personal to me.

I have seen it all firsthand.

It shows our children that they are seen, valued, and proud of who they are.

It tells every young person in San Francisco Thank you for your comments.

My apologies to interrupt anyone who goes over the two minutes.

We're setting the timer for two minutes.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Hello, everyone.

Hello, Board of Supervisors.

My name is Mohammed Yasser, uh SF resident, civil servant, labor leader.

I miss someone on this share.

We all miss you, Jackie.

Hope you feel better soon and join us.

I also give shout out and thank you to all the D9 team.

We all are here supporting you.

Thank you for working today and I'm here in support of the resolution for American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmoud, for leading it.

It means a lot for the community.

And the community, one of the marginalized communities in San Francisco.

And we we serve the city.

We contribute to the success of the city day and night on every level.

It means a lot for the communities like us.

And at the end, I want to remind some folks who still have doubt.

San Francisco is a sanctuary city.

Vote yes and property.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

And just for next time when you come to the chamber, sir, maybe just address your comments to the board as a whole.

Try to stay away from individual comments to members.

Just tell the board how great Mahmoud is.

Yeah.

I I I understand that.

Just let the board know that you appreciate Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Hello to all the supervisors.

First and foremost, we come from a sincere uh place of appreciation for even having this resolution be talked about.

Uh for me personally, uh well, my name is Jibril, and you know I'm a rever to Islam.

And this resolution also resonates with me because it's very important that not only for us to learn about our own religion ourselves, but also to have this month be aware a month of awareness and understanding for people not Muslim also looking in for to them to get an understanding of what it is that we do, the roles that we play in society, the way that we help.

Me personally, I work for the C C D C and the TLCBD and the 201 family uh 101 family housing and also for the youth uh safety pilot uh safety pilot uh program going on.

And it's really important not only for other people to get an understanding of what it is that we believe in, what is it that we talk about, but also to understand that all we want to do is build bridges with each other.

We're here to support one another, we're here to uh uh assimilate into each other's communities because at the end of the day, the whole goal is to enrich our city of San Francisco, our beloved city of San Francisco, and it also gives an understanding for other reverts as well, not only born Muslims, for maybe family members that aren't really that you know distance themselves from people that come to Islam or other things of the sort.

So we thank you so much for taking uh for taking your time today.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmoud, for uh for initiating this for initiating this resolution, and we hope that you take it into good consideration.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, welcome.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you so much for the taking the time to speak with us today.

My name is Amran.

I am a third generation San Francisco Muslim and a community organizer at Sabiel Mashid Nur al Islam.

And I want to begin by thanking Super Advisor, our supervisor, Bilal Mahmoud and the board of supervisors for taking this opportunity to recognize April as American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month.

American Muslims have always been deeply connected to San Francisco.

During Ramadan, our mosque across the city are filled every night, not only with SF Muslim families, but with Muslim public servants, educators, doctors, business owners, engineers, students, people who serve this city every day.

But beyond that, our mosques have also become a place of service, organizing food drives, supporting families in need, and opening our doors to neighbors from all backgrounds.

And for us, American Muslims, this service is not separate from our faith.

And Islam serving our community and city is part of serving our God and our religion.

The Muslim community has long been a part of this fabric of San Francisco, contributing to its growth and its diversity and its strength.

And moments like this truly matter because not only does it build understanding, but connection and a sense of belonging for free future generations growing up in the city.

We love this city and we are committed to it, and we will continue to serve it, and we appreciate being seen, recognized, and included.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

As salam alaykum, and good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Allah Al Dubai, and I am a Yemeni Muslim community member.

Too often, Muslims are are spoken about rather than heard from.

Yet our stories are often often overlooked.

I want to thank Supervisor Bilal Mahmoud for intro for introducing this resolution, which recognizes the involvement and presence of Muslim Americans in our city.

Recognizing April as Muslim American Awareness Month is not just symbolic.

It is a step towards visibility, understanding, and dignity.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Allah Dubai, for your comments.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Hello, Supervisor Zasil Farah from the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Commission.

I'm gonna be uh speaking on behalf of myself.

I want to let you all know.

I want to let the board know that uh I thank Supervisor Mahmoud for this effort.

Uh I feel as if you know these critical times, the federal administration is trying to divide our communities.

Um and in ways they have succeeded.

And you know, to repel that uh the answer is solidarity.

And in my faith, uh solidarity is everything.

In my faith teaches that if the arm is hurt, the whole body is hurt, that if the leg is hurt, the whole body is hurt.

And when our one member of our communities is hurting, that means that our entire community is hurting.

That's something that I take home every single day.

I also want to take this opportunity to you know appreciate our Jewish brothers and sisters, our Christian Catholic brothers and sisters, our Hindu brothers and sisters, uh of all faiths because San Francisco is a home for all.

Uh again, thank you to this board, thank you to Supervisor Mahmoud uh for this effort, and I look forward to doing more in the future.

Thank you, Commissioner Assil Farah, for your comments today.

Welcome, sir.

Uh my name is Richard S.

T.

Peterson.

One thing I'd like to caution the board uh about is to speak louder.

Uh it seems that all of the people who speak on the the the podium here uh are quite audible, but some of you supervisors seem to mumble, and uh I didn't really hear uh some of the things like uh oh we all miss uh one of uh the super the supervisors from district nine, but I didn't understand what was granted something about until the May meeting or in May.

Totally totally blew me by.

But that was a very important type of a thing because the missing supervisor from District 9 could have saved you a lot of time when you were doing that uh uh discussion on the uh salvage of the property down in um North Beach.

Uh she obviously uh is would have voted uh with the uh uh the group that wants to keep that apartment at least uh uh on the paper as a uh four unit apartment.

Um I know it's that's being redundant, it's already hashed out, but think of the time you could have saved if uh the representative from District 9 uh was here.

And unfortunately she's not here, but I don't know when she's gonna come back.

So uh please speak out a little louder.

Thank you.

Thank you, Richard S.

D.

Pearson, for your comments.

Are there any other members of the public who would like to address the board during general public comment?

Right, Mr.

President.

All right.

Public comment is now closed.

Um Madam Clerk, let's go to our for adoption without committee reference agenda.

Please call items 39 through 47.

Items 39 through 47 were introduced for adoption without committee reference.

A unanimous vote is required for adoption of a resolution on first reading today.

Any member may require a resolution on first reading to go to committee.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Uh can we sever item number 40, please?

Item 40 will be severed.

Supervisor Walton.

I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor to items 40 and 44, and I'm sending 43 to committee.

Okay.

Uh got that, Madam Clerk.

And uh Mr.

Supervisor Walton, which committee did you want to send to committee?

Uh, which item to committee?

43.

Got it to committee.

Okay.

But do not need to sever it from the rest of the with our friends calendar.

No, you can just send it to committee.

Yeah.

Yes, Mr.

President.

Yes.

Uh Supervisor Dorsey.

Uh separate 45.

Okay.

Supervisor Melgar.

I just wanted to be added as a co-sponsor to item 40 as well.

Thank you.

Noted, thank you.

Supervisor Chen.

Well, President.

Uh same thing as a co-sponsor for item 40.

Thanks.

Great.

Did I delete anybody by accident?

We good?

All right.

Uh Madam Clerk, so on the remaining uh balance of the items, I guess excluding 40, 45, and 43, which has been sent to committee.

So then I'm going to go.

Item 39.

41.

42.

Yep.

And 46.

40 and 4 is in there.

And 46 and 47, in addition to 44.

Supervisor Mandelman.

I.

Mandelman I, Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar I, Supervisor Sauter.

Solder I, Supervisor Sheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Walton, I, Supervisor Wong.

Wang I, Supervisor Chan.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey, Dorsey I, and Supervisor Mahmoud.

I.

Mahmoud I.

There are 10 ayes.

Without objection, the resolutions are adopted and the motions are approved.

Madam Clerk, please call item 40.

Item 40.

This is a resolution to recognize the month of April 2026 as American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month in the city and county of San Francisco.

And to celebrate the myriad contributions of the American Muslim community to San Francisco.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, President.

Colleagues, as a Muslim American, I want to speak on this resolution for the city and county of San Francisco, recognizing April 2026 as American Muslim Appreciation and Awareness Month.

Enriched by the unparalleled diversity of its residents, San Francisco takes great pride in supporting individual religious freedoms and is strengthened by the many very religious, political and cultural traditions and contributions of its diverse populations, including those that practice Islam.

California alone is home to nearly one million American Muslims.

Today, millions of American Muslims, both immigrant and native-born, represent a wide range of ethnicities, languages, and beliefs, united by their shared faith and civic engagement.

Our city is home to Muslim institutions that teach values of compassion, dignity, and love, such as the Islamic Center of San Francisco, Masjid Al-Tohid, Masjid Dar al-Salaam, Al-Sabil, Masjid Nur al-Salam, and the San Francisco Muslim Community Center, which also provide educational enrichment services, programs for youth, and foster principles of equality, justice, and peace.

We know that in this current climate, our diverse communities continue to face rising levels of hate and discrimination.

In 2024, the Council on American Islamic Relations received 8,658 complaints of anti-Muslim bias nationwide, the highest in its 30-year history and an increase from the year prior.

It is our duty as elected officials to uplift our diverse communities, fight against discrimination, xenophobia, and hate, and continue to show that we will support the fundamental right to practice religion freely.

Thank you to all the community members who came out today to demonstrate their support by speaking during public comment on this important item.

And thank you to my colleagues for your support and co-sponsorship as well.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmoud.

With that, we can take item 40, same house, same call, without objection.

The resolution is adopted.

And Madam Clerk, please call item 45.

Item 45.

This is a resolution to support California State Assembly Bill 2344, introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney, which would establish the California Animal Abuse Registry, strengthen animal welfare protections, and promote public safety across the state of California.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, President Malaman.

Colleagues said today ask you to join me in supporting Assembly Bill 2344, authored by Assemblymember Matt Haney to establish California's first statewide animal abuse registry.

This legislation will equip shelters, rescue organizations, and law enforcement with a practical tool to identify risk, prevent repeat harm, and make more informed placement decisions.

This legislation responds to a clear and troubling pattern.

Animal cruelty is rarely isolated.

We see it in locally occurring uh cases of neglect and abuse, and too often we lack mechanisms to make compassionate interventions before harms are repeated.

The registry contemplated in this legislation is a measured common sense approach to strengthen accountability and to better support early interventions in ways that protect animals from needless abuse.

As someone whose own family has grown over the last year to now include two young dogs, both rescues, one astray and the other abandoned as a young puppy on 6th Street.

AB 2344 will help to ensure responsible guardianship by keeping animals out of the hands of those who have already demonstrated a willingness to harm them.

Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey.

I think we can take this item.

Same house, same call, without objection.

The resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items?

I have none to report, Mr.

President.

Then could you please read the in memoriams?

Yes, today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals.

On behalf of Supervisor President Mandelman and Supervisor Dorsey for the late Andrea Schorter, and on behalf of Supervisor Mandelman for the late Brixton at large, the Golden Retriever Therapy Dog.

On behalf of Supervisor Woolton for the late Anderson J.B.

Williams, and on behalf of Supervisor Chan, Supervisors Chen, Dorsey, and Mandelman for the late John Elberling.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda.

Do we have any further business before us today?

Mr.

President, out of an abundance of caution, I just want to make sure the number the item number that Supervisor Walton sent to committee.

I want to just double check that I didn't have the board vote on that item.

I did not.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you, members.

That concludes our business for today.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

As there is no further business, we are adjourned.