Good afternoon, everyone.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the February 23rd, 2026 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I am Supervisor Mirna Melgar, Chair of the Committee, joined by Vice Chair Cheyenne Chen and Supervisor Bilal Mahmud.

Of course, we have uh Supervisor Cheryl here with us today as well.

Um, the committee clerk today is John Carroll, and I would also like to thank uh Eugene Libadine uh Libaria uh from SFGov TV for staffing us um during this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Please ensure that you've silenced your cell phones and other electronic devices that you've brought with you into the chamber today.

If you have any documents to be included as part of any of today's files, you can submit them directly to me.

Public comment will be taken on each item on today's agenda.

When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak along your right hand side of this room.

I'm pointing it out with my left hand.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

First, you may send your public comment to me via email at J-O-H-N, period C-A-R-R-O-L-L at SFGOV.org.

Or you may send your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

The clerk's office is room 244 in City Hall, and City Hall's address is one, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit Place, room 240 uh excuse me, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, 94102.

If you submit public comment in writing, I will forward your comments to the members of this committee and also include your comments as part of the official file on which you are commenting.

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of March 3rd, 2026, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

Um thank you everyone for being here.

I know there is significant interest uh in item 30, which is a fire code item.

Um while it may seem like it's a long agenda.

Uh I promise you we will get through it uh fairly quickly.

We're gonna call items through to 27 together.

So I think that this will take care of that.

But um, you know, there are a lot of people here in in the overflow room.

Uh so I will be limiting public comment to one minute per speaker uh for public comment, but we'll get through everyone who wants to use that one minute.

Um so with that, uh Mr.

Clerk, please call item number one.

Agenda item number one is a resolution adding the commemorative street name Carmen Johnson way to the 1100 block of Pierce between Turk and Eddie in recognition of her lifetime of service to the families of the Fillmore.

Okay, thank you.

Uh this uh thank you, Supervisor Mahmud, for introducing this item.

I'll turn it over to you and you can conduct the hearing.

Thank you, Chair Malgar.

Uh Victor, why don't you come up uh to the podium?

Last Thanksgiving, Victor Jones, who's here today, invited me to the community room at the MLK Marcus Garvey Apartments in the Western Edition to volunteer serving food to the community.

But this event has been going on for years and was started by his mother, Carmen Johnson.

I've known Victor for as long as I've been active in the district, and he's someone with a deep passion for the community and for bettering the lives of everyone around him.

And it's clear that he gets that from his mom.

Carmen Johnson dedicated her life to serving others.

She worked as a pediatric nurse and a mother to six children.

She also fostered over 60 children, and served as an unofficial mother to youth across the neighborhood.

She served on the board at MLK Marcus Garvey apartments, helping lead the community through difficult financial times.

When Carmen passed away in 2023, Mayor London Breed spoke at her funeral and talked about the impact she had supporting her and other women in the Fillmore.

She lives on in the hearts of all who knew her, who carry her spirit of neighborly love into all that we do.

It's an honor to ask my colleagues for your support for this street designation on Pierce Street, just outside her home.

So there will always be a reminder of her for all the lives that she has touched.

Thank you.

Pull up pull up the mictor, we'd love to hear your story as well.

Just a moment.

You it yeah, there you go.

No, it's not all.

Oh, there it is.

It wasn't on the phone.

Well, it's definitely uh honored to be here.

This is speaking in front of all you guys and an honor to be here because I know you got another another thing going on with the public as well.

And thank you.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, grandfathers, grandmothers for letting me allow me to speak.

I thank you guys.

But I just want to say I appreciate you, man.

You know, you knocked on doors.

Uh I think more supervisors need to get out and knock on doors instead of taking votes and saying vote for me, vote for me.

You gotta you gotta go around and meet the community.

You know, you gotta you gotta feel people, you know.

You gotta, you know, I mean it's just like one of those things you get some lemonade when it's hot.

You know, but I just want to say thank you guys and thank you for acknowledging my mom.

Um I am living on her legacy, and I'm gonna do the best I can and get the job done, and I just say, you know, that community right there, the street name, just you know, just to have that, you know, in place.

Uh I really appreciate that.

Um I'm an activist because of her.

I've stopped a lot of wars in San Francisco between film on Hunter's point.

I couldn't do without her just having her recipe and just her just co-harley having her.

But uh I appreciate that, man.

You know, it's I have I have real days.

I know if anybody lost a mom, they know what I'm talking about.

You know, crying and you know I lost my son, but at the same time, God is a good God.

Um, just started by going to church, and I have a good support system too as well.

You know, Pastor Airs right here, you know, he just shot me a flower.

So you're gonna get the flyer too as well.

We uh we gotta do a thing called stop the violence.

My mother was real genuine on that, bringing people together, especially she she was about the women, the women.

We couldn't do nothing without you women and period.

So I just want to say thank you, Supervisor Man, for giving me this opportunity, man, and being in my corner.

You never lied to me.

You never lied to me.

And I may and I'm so glad that you and Aries is sitting down talking now.

You know, that makes a difference in my heart.

You know what I mean?

Because without us communicating, we can't get nothing done.

So I appreciate the board and I appreciate you, Cole Harley and your assistant, because he stays at it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Victor.

God bless you, God bless your mom.

Yes, ma'am.

Anytime you guys want to come up there on the date, I'm gonna have the supervisor let him know that I'm um I'm doing her Thanksgiving thing.

No, hold on.

She might want some of the soul food.

I'm gonna do her Thanksgiving thing, and you guys are all invited.

Thank you.

Um, okay, so I I don't see any other comments uh from my colleagues.

I would like to be added as a co-sponsor on this item.

Thank you so much.

Um, and let's go to public comment on this item.

Thank you, madam chair.

Land use in transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number one, a commemorative street name for Carmen Johnson Way between Turk, sorry, on Pierce between Turk and Eddie.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the lecture now and I'll start your time.

Yeah, uh, again, the segments.

Carmen Johnson, um, agape, one of the agents she started was Agape Love, and uh I was able to attend my first giants game because of the gapy.

Uh I grew up near around King Garvey um co-op and uh if you think he's a giant, then you you would imagine what his mother looked like, right?

She's a she's a giant and in spirit and heart and uh she loved her community.

She loved it, and the Thanksgiving event uh was her baby.

You know, she made sure that she fed everybody, uh, not just on that day, but that was really her signature day.

It's Thanksgiving, but and also, of course, you know, uh we have a lot of challenges in the film or but this is a a way of remembering, you know, those and you know, commitment to the work that has been done over the years, you know.

So we look forward to the next couple of years, and you know, not only of street names, but hopefully we can preserve some of the African American people there also.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number one?

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Uh Supervisor Mahmoud.

I'd like to make the motion to vote this and uh the vote this item to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Motion offered by Member Machmood that this resolution be recommended to the Board of Supervisors, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I.

Member Machmoon.

Machmood I.

Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Thank you.

That motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, take a deep breath and call items.

Two through twenty seven together, please.

Agenda item numbers two through twenty-seven are twenty-six resolutions initiating landmark designation under Article 10 of the planning code for the following properties.

The Alexander Adams House at 1450 Masonic.

The Hinkle House at 740 Castro.

The Bourne Home, located at 99 Davis Darrow.

The Buena Vista Farmhouse located 11 Piedmont Street, Charles Katz Home, located at 1200 Dolores, the DeBose Triangle Greek Revival Home, located at 2173 15th Street, the Elliot M.

Wilson home, located at 1335 Guerrero, the Fernando Nelson House, located at 701 Castro, Engine Company number 44, located at 3816 22nd Street, the Floyd Spreckles Mansion, located at 737 Buena Vista Avenue West, Golden Gate Lutheran Church at 3689 19th Street.

The Guerrero Street Double Stick East Lake House, located at 1415 to 1417 Guerrero, the Henry Street Row Houses, located at 191 to 197 Henry, Holy Innocence Church, located at 455 Fair Oak Street, the James C.

Hormel Mansion, located at 181 Buena Vista East.

John C.

Clark House, located at 210 Douglas Street, the buildings located at 560 and 552 Noe.

The Lang House located at 199 Carl, the Mission Dolores Academy, located at 3371 16th Street, Lebanon Presbyterian Church, Noe Valley Ministry, located at 1021 Sanchez.

The Pool Bell House, located at 192 Ladley Street, the Power House, located at 1526 Masonic.

Second Church of Christ Scientists located at 651 Dolores Street.

The Shaughnessy House, located at 394 Fair Oak Street, St.

Aidan's Church, located at 601 Belvedere, and finally agenda number 27, the Teats Beneke House, located at 657 Chenery.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Mr.

Clerk.

We now welcome Board President Rathael Mandelman, who is the sponsor of these items.

Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Mulligar and committee members, and sorry, the members of the public who have to sit through my 26 items before we get to the um uh stuff that most of you are waiting for.

Um but uh I think these are important.

Um these this is part of our ongoing uh efforts in District 8 to uh I designate to designate and appropriately protect uh historic properties.

Um as we know the world has changed and we can no longer rely on things like CEQA or other discretionary processes to um protect historic properties uh if they are under consideration for development.

We need to do that work on the front end and identify the properties where it really would be a loss for San Francisco if they were demolished or significantly altered without some consideration of their historic merit on the front end.

So that's what we're trying to do.

Um colleagues, thank you.

Uh was uh I think it was just a couple of weeks ago that we finally passed the Chula Abbey and Alert Alley uh landmark districts uh near uh Mission Dolores.

Um we have previously advanced 16 individual uh landmarks uh that we worked with uh or that really planning identified, but we um we supported um and uh got those in the queue starting in October of last year, and they've worked their way through what is a very um uh process rich process.

Um now 14 of those uh have been considered by the Historic Preservation Commission and will be coming back to the Board of Supervisors for action on their actual landmarking.

Um, and then this is our next uh batch of 26 proposed landmarks, which uh Alex Westhoff will tell you more about.

Um they do represent uh some of San Francisco and district eight's most unique and cherished architecture.

Um, and I'm hopeful that uh you will agree that at least these should work their way through consideration for landmarking.

Um I do have a when after the presentation has been made and you've taken public comment, I'm gonna ask that you do a few things.

One is there's some very minor technical cleanup to some of the resolutions.

Um I've we've circulated that by email.

My office has.

I've also handed out those very small changes for your consideration.

I would ask that this committee make those uh changes.

And then item 26 is one that upon further consideration and uh analysis, planning no longer believes should be in this batch.

We concur.

And so I'm gonna ask that you table uh item 26, but that of the others you make the um modest amendments that we've put forward and forward those to the full board for positive recommendation.

A final word on these items coming to this committee at all.

As you know, I had tried to have these passed at the full board on our for uh assignment with without uh committee recommended or first, you know, uh the what we call the Fokker, just um to have them considered by the full board and passed as a matter of course because um this is such a time-consuming process, and so what we're doing now is just initiating that process.

There will still be much additional consideration of each of these landmarks.

It will, they will all still have to go to the historic preservation commission, and before these properties can get landmarked, they will be back in front of this committee with ordinances attached to them to do the individual landmarking.

So you're gonna get a lot, I think too much more than you should on um on these district eight landmarks.

And I would love uh I would love for this body, the board of supervisors to get comfortable with the idea that at least the initiation part of this does not need to go to committee, that that can be done uh just by an action by a motion at the full board and get the process going.

But uh we didn't we weren't able to do that with ease, and thank you for your patience in hearing in hearing this.

And thank you, uh Mr.

West for all of your um for all of your work on this.

Uh, want to thank uh as well your boss, Rich Sucre and uh planning department staff.

Um want to thank uh Renil B.Joy in my office and Calvin Ho, formerly of my office for all of their work on this, and then if it pleases the chair and the members of the committee, perhaps you should hear from Mr.

Westhoff.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Welcome, Mr.

Westhoff.

Thank you, President Mandelman, and good afternoon, supervisors.

Alex Westdoff planning department staff.

Um so I'm going to present the 25 properties that are reconsiderated uh for initiation as Article 10 landmarks as part of the family zoning plan landmark program.

Uh so President Mandelman already gave an overview, and I've presented to this committee before, so I won't get into all of the details specifically, uh, but this is an effort that is going in conjunction with the family zoning plan to ensure that uh San Francisco's properties with the highest historical architectural and cultural significance are elevated to landmark status to ensure protection that CEQA no longer affords.

Uh, thanks to President Mandelman's leadership, uh phase one in District 8 has already gone through the historic preservation commission uh just last month, as he mentioned.

Uh they approved 14 properties as landmarks, and those will soon be before the full board of supervisors, the ordinances.

Uh so in district eight, we're now on to phase two.

Um, and so this includes properties in the residential areas.

Uh, these are also existing category A properties that we've identified as having the highest level of significance and integrity.

Um, and I see you have a full house today, so I'll try and keep my uh talking points brief on each of the properties.

Um, but um just one slide per property and um uh the first one is the Alexander Adams House.

Uh, this is located at 1450 Masonic Avenue.

Uh, the property was originally constructed for Alexander P.

Adams of Coffee Roasting Company Alexander P.

Adams and Company.

The property is an expressive example of the Queen Anne architectural style, which dominated San Francisco residential architecture by 1890.

Uh, the Hinkle House, uh, this is located at 740 Castro Street.

Uh, this was constructed in 1898 in the Eureka Valley neighborhood.

The house was built by prolific Eureka Valley builder Charles Hinkle as his personal residence and is associated with the longest period of Hinkle's productive building career in San Francisco, also an expressive example of the Queen Anne style.

Uh, the Bourne home at 1990, sorry, at 99 Divisadero Street was constructed in 1905 in the Castro Upper Market neighborhood.

The home was designed by Dancin, who was an architect for the Southern Pacific.

The original residents were general contractors, George and Stephen Bourne, whose work included brick contracting and may have served as the builders.

The Born Home is an exuberant example of the Gorgian Revival style.

The Buena Vista Farmhouse, located at 11 Piedmont Street, was constructed circa 1860s in the Haight Ashbury neighborhood.

The building was once part of a prosperous dairy farm and remains a rare extant building associated with San Francisco early ranching and agriculture, which dominated the perimeter neighborhoods prior to suburbanization.

The property is also an early expression of Italianette architecture.

The Charles Katz home, located at 1200 Delores Street, is an exemplary example of Queen Anne architecture.

The property was built for real estate developer Charles Katz, who served as the original owner and his family resided there until the 1930s.

The DeBose Triangle Greek Revival home.

This is located in DeBose Triangle.

This is one of the earliest properties in the neighborhood.

This is a rare example of a Greek revival style property in San Francisco, which was more dominant prior to Victorian styles coming into fashion.

The Elliot M.

Wilson House, located at 1335 Guerrero Street in the Mission neighborhood.

The original owner of the property was Elliot M.

Wilson, president of the Pacific Coast Steel Company.

The home was designed by architect of Merritt or Arthur Bugby and includes intact features of the second empire style.

Engine company number 44/the Adams Van Huesen House.

This was constructed in 1910 in the Noe Valley neighborhood.

It has two periods of significance, the first being 1910, as an intact example of turn-of-the-century mission revival firehouse.

The second is the period in which well-known San Francisco-based artists Mark Adams and Beth Van Housen resided at for decades.

The property served as an art studio and residence for the couple for nearly 50 years.

The Fernando Nelson home, this is constructed in 1897 in the Eureka Valley neighborhood.

The house is associated with the productive life of Fernando Nelson, an influential and prolific housing developer in Eureka Valley and San Francisco, and is a distinctive example of the Queen Anne style of architecture.

The Richard Spreckles Mansion slash Buena Vista Studios.

This is located at 737 Buena Vista Avenue West.

The property is an exemplary example of a classical revival home designed by architect of merit Edward J.

Vogel.

And the home was built for Richard Spreckles, who managed the Western Sugar Refinery in Petrero Hill.

It has others layers of history, including having been home to Jack London, who wrote White Fang out of the property in 1906, and in the mid-1960s, the ballroom on the top floor was converted to the Buena Vista Studios, which was known as one of the first hippie friendly studios, and was used by a number of bands, including the Grateful Dead, who recorded their first demos there.

The Mission Congregational slash Golden Gate Lutheran Church.

This is in the mission neighborhood and is an exemplary example of a Gothic Revival Church.

The Guerrero Street Double Stick East Lake House.

This was completed in 1894 in the South Mission neighborhood.

It was constructed by Builder of Merit Fernando Nelson and is unique as a double stick East Lake House.

The Henry Street Row houses, 191 to 197 Henry Street.

This was in the DeBose Triangle neighborhood, representing the transition of the neighborhood from an ex urban neighborhood of large lot Victorian villas to a moderately populated middle class neighborhood of row houses with the occasional multifamily building.

The property is an intact example of the East Stick East Lake style.

The Holy Innocence Church.

This is an example of a carpenter Gothic church, built in 1890 in the mission neighborhood.

The original building was designed by architect of Merit Ernest Coxhead and was his first commission in San Francisco.

The Day Uriste slash James C.

Hormel Mansion.

This is located at 181 Buena Vista East.

The property was designed by architect Nathaniel Blizzdale.

The original owners of the property was the De Ureste family.

George de Ureste was appointed counsel of the Argentine Republic in November 1901.

And he was approached routinely throughout the decade of the 1910s by the city's newspaper as an authority on political matters in Central and South America.

The family owned the property for two decades before selling it to James C.

Hormel in 1986.

Hormel was heir to a meat packing fortune and was an important figure in the gay rights movement.

He established several significant national and community institutions, such as the Human's Right Watch and the James C.

Hormel Gay and Lesbian Center, and became the first openly gay United States Ambassador appointed by President Clinton.

The John C.

Clark House.

This is one of the earliest properties in the Corbett Heights neighborhood.

It was built in 1885, designed by architect John C.

Clark.

This is a good example of the Chalet style home in San Francisco with intact features.

The Kirby House and Phoenix Brewery Building.

These are two properties adjacent to one another at 560 and 552 Noe Street.

Thomas Kirby, an Irish immigrant, founded the Phoenix Brewery in 1876.

Kirby made ale, malt extract, and stout on the site.

The Kirby House and Phoenix Brewery Building are significant for their association with the early history of brewing and industrial production in Eureka Valley.

Relatively few properties associated with this period survive.

The Lang House, this was built in 1900 at 199 Carl Street.

The property stands on what was once part of a dairy farm and is associated with early Coal Valley history, designed by architect emerit August Norden and is constructed for the German immigrant Lang family.

The Mission Dolores Academy was constructed in 1932 in the Eureka Valley neighborhood.

This is a good example of a school building designed in the Mission Revival style by architect H.

A.

Minton.

As is common with the style, the building features a shaped parapets, ducko cladding, arched windows, and a large wooden door.

It also includes ornamental baroque columns that flank the main entrance.

This was completed in 1891 and is a rare example of Carpenter Gothic architecture in San Francisco.

It was designed by architect Charles Geddes.

The subject property is clad in wood siding with a gabled roof and has Queen Anne ornamentation as well.

The Poole Bell House at 192 Ladley Street was completed in 1872 in Glen Park, known as the Poole Bell House.

The house was built by attorney John Pascal Poole, whose widow Annie Poole lived there until 1906.

Teresa Bell purchased the property.

The Bells were associates of Mary Ellen Pleasant, a leading abolitionist during San Francisco's gold rush period.

The property is an intact example of an Italian at home.

The Power House, this is a rare example of a residential property that was designed by architect of Merit, Bernard Maybeck, who also designed the Palace of Fine Arts.

This was done early in his career and was built in 1910.

The second Christian Science Church at 651 Dolores Street.

The Shangnesty home at uh this was built in 1890 at 394 Fair Oak Street and is an exemplary example of a Queen Anne home.

And lastly, the Teets Benicky House.

This is significant as the oldest property in Glen Park.

It was constructed in 1886 at 657 Chennery Street, and it's a rare example of folk Victorian architecture in San Francisco.

So that's all I have, but I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Westhoff.

That was a lot.

And well done.

A lot of work went into this.

And thank you, President Mendelman.

So with that, I don't see anyone on the roster with comments or questions, Mr.

Clerk.

So let's go to public comment on this item.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item numbers two through 27 initiating various landmark designations.

If you have public comment for any of these 26 resolutions, please come forward to the lectern at this time.

And Madam Chair, it appears you have no speakers.

Okay.

Uh public comment on this item is now these items are is now closed.

Um so I would like to make a motion that we accept the amendments to items 19.

Uh file number 260062 initiating landmark designation.

Uh in of laying house and item 25.

Um, I have to approve the amendments.

Correct me, Mr.

Clerk, because I have something else on the script.

So uh Madam Chair uh Supervisor Mandelman has come with proposed textual amendments to agenda item numbers 19 and 24.

Okay, and item 24, not 25.

Let's do that first.

On the motion offered by the chair that the land use and transportation committee amend agenda items numbers 19 and 24 is presented.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I.

Member Machmood Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

I Melgar I, Madam Chair, there are three ayes on those amendments.

Okay, so those amendments pass.

Um I would like to make a motion that we table uh item number 26.

Let's take a roll call on that first.

On the motion offered by the chair that agenda item number 26 be tabled.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Mockwin.

Machmood I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I, Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Thank you.

Um, and then uh I would like to make a motion that we approve the rest of the items and send them to the full board with recommendations 19 through 24 as amended and the rest as submitted.

On the motion offered by the chair that the balance of the items be recommended to the board of supervisors, noting that 19 and 24 have been amended.

Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmood, Machmood I.

Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I.

Madam Chair, those 25 items are sent to the board of supervisors with a recommendation of land use.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Congratulations, President Mandelman.

Okay.

Now, let's go to item number 28, please.

Agenda item number 28 is an ordinance amending the administrative code provisions related to the shared spaces program to remove the planning department as a coordinating entity conducting design review, eliminate application requirements of documented community outreach and neighbor notice and eliminate public accessibility and alternate public seating requirements.

Amending the public works code to eliminate requirements of public notice for application and affirming the planning department's secret determination.

Thank you so much, uh, President Mandelman.

Again, this is something we considered a couple of years ago and weren't quite ready for, so thank you for seeing it through.

The floor is yours.

Thank you again, Chair Melgar and colleagues, and thank you for your um for uh your action on the prior um items.

Um this is a bit of parklet reform.

Um, you know, one of the good things I think to come out of the pandemic was uh as part of our renewed interest in um activating uh our our public spaces, um, creating a way through the pandemic for restaurants and other businesses to go out uh into the right-of-way to put up parklets.

Um but of course parklets didn't start during in San Francisco, didn't start with the pandemic, they actually um go back at least to 2005 when a group of friends fed the parking meter at a uh spot in Soma, rolled out a patch of grass, and reclaimed a small piece of the street, calling it parking day.

Um, and over subsequent years uh up to I guess prior to the pandemic, up to 75 uh parklets went out, and um many of them were delightful, um, and some of them were less delightful, but um but uh uh a lot of good came from that program.

Now, of course, during the pandemic, we wanted to get a lot more of these open very, very quickly to allow our small businesses to survive.

And so the rules that were put in place then and then after the pandemic allowed more than uh 300 to go out onto the streets.

As we made the program permanent coming out of the pandemic, uh then Supervisor Peskin and I and others on the board worked to make a permanent program that we hoped would be good and accommodate as many different um interests as we could.

I think that in the years since we rolled out that program, we have learned some things, and I think that we can make some positive changes that will allow this program to be uh easier for our staff to manage and make more sense to the public.

Um among the things that I think makes sense to address.

One is um administrative, but there was a fight when the original parklet legislation got passed about where it should live and who should be in charge, and there were some folks who felt very strongly that planning needed to be playing the main uh coordinating role uh in this program.

As it has rolled out, planning um has no staff working on this program.

That does not make sense, and that seems to me like something that we should change.

There are some other administrative aspects of the program that, as we've talked to staff and stakeholders, don't make a ton of sense, and um we probably should fix.

What brought me um to this legislation initially was two particular provisions that I wasn't sure about when we initially passed them, and I've become even less sure about in the intervening time.

One is a requirement that the commercial parklets for which people are paying have some kind of um public seating.

Um this is a hard thing for uh the folks who are um who are renting the space from the city to accommodate and doesn't make a ton of sense, in my view, for the commercial parklets.

So I think it makes sense to um to get rid of that requirement now.

There was also a requirement put in place um when we did the uh that original permanent parklet legislation that required that uh parklets be open um basically all day from early in the morning until midnight.

And the notion was that um you know we wanted to have this space activated and used.

The trouble is that in many neighborhoods, including neighborhoods that I represent, having these spaces open before there's anyone to sort of oversee them and care for them makes no sense at all and is actually damaging uh and bad for the neighborhood.

And so um it seemed, and and we basically don't enforce that requirement.

And so we see parklets that go for days and days and days never being um never being opened, which is also bad.

So what I am suggesting is that we change that requirement that nobody enforces and that is probably unenforceable in the real life world of San Francisco right now, and make it a requirement that these parklets be open during normal operating hours for the businesses associated with them, and then I'm hoping that the city will actually go to these owners and have them comply with that requirement.

Um I want to thank uh so many people who've helped along the way.

Um I see Lori Thomas from the Gold Gate Restaurant Association back there.

She's been uh part of the story very much from the beginning.

I think Lori and I and Ben Blyman uh wrote an op-ed and the examiner in the early days of the pandemic, uh thinking about how San Francisco could come out better.

As I said, I think parklets is one area where we've come out better, but I want to thank you for your partnership in thinking through how to make the program better.

I want to thank uh Annie Yolone in the planning department and Monica Munowich uh at the MTA for their assistance and insight.

I want to thank um uh Brian Manford from MTA, who I think will be talking to us in a moment.

Austin Yang and the City Attorney's office has tried to figure out the legalities of all this.

Melanie Matthewson in my office has worked on this.

And then, you know, a couple of former city staff who we should always just kind of like say nice things about when we talk about parklets are Andres Power, who worked on parklets when he was in the planning department, then worked on parklets as part of the mayor's administration, and Robin Abad, who's now a Board of Appeals Commissioner and works over in Oakland.

But when longtime San Francisco city employee who really was the person who kind of had to roll out parklets through all the challenges of the pandemic.

So I think those are my thank yous for now, but I do want to invite with the chair's permission, Brian Manford from the MTA to come forward and talk a little bit about this legislation.

Can you see it?

Oh, there we go.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, President Mandelman, for those comments and background.

Yeah, as mentioned, my name is Brian Manford.

I'm a senior transportation planner with the SFMTA presenting today.

I'll be brief on the history because I think President Mandelman gave us a lot of the context, but these amendments that we're looking at in this year and 2026 are really focused on cleaning up the code, low-hanging fruit, and better aligning with uh the day-to-day operations and sort of the lessons learned over the past several years as we transition from the pandemic permit, pandemic temporary program to a permanent one today.

There's two main themes that these amendments fall under.

As the program has evolved, so should the code.

And now that things have stabilized, um, can we simplify some permitting and address common operator issues and complaints?

Part of an effort to continually streamline our processes.

So the first code update, as mentioned, is the department consolidation.

This would remove the San Francisco Planning Department as a listed department from the shared spaces administrative code.

Um they were a key part of establishing shared spaces, but no longer staff the program today.

Um so this would update the code to reflect that.

Um, and then the second category of changes um is uh the application streamlining.

Um this would remove the requirements to submit outreach documentation as well as the 10-day public posting period.

These were already administratively removed for sidewalk tables and chairs permits, and this would make the shared spaces parklets consistent with that.

Um I do want to note that neighbor permission would still be required annually for parklets that occupy neighboring frontage, according to the program rules, and complaints received through 311 are enforced by public works as they are received, um, and we have the good neighbor policy that helps inform that.

Um then the last um kind of group of code updates um is intended to modernize operational requirements.

So this includes, as mentioned, removing the alternative public seating requirement for fixed commercial parklets as well as movable parklets.

Um part of the rationale for this is that parklet operators find them challenging to design and maintain.

There are often site conditions such as slopes, small parking space, and sidewalk elements that make it challenging to design for.

And also note that public parklets continue to be an option.

Um we have approximately slightly more public parklets today than we had during the legacy program before the pandemic.

And then the last change would be to add the requirement that parklets remain open during business hours.

I think President Mandelman spoke to that, but this would ensure that parklets contribute to the neighborhood activation as intended by the program.

And also has a note that they cannot be used for storage, which has been a concern.

And with that, thank you.

And myself and Annie Gay Long can answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

We do have questions.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Malga.

First, I want to thank for all the work.

I am supportive of our share space program and reflecting in District 11, you know, around our business corridor, we have very little public space for our consumer and also resident to enjoy.

Just want to clarify.

So does the change, under this change, would the police still be considered a public space that everyone can use, or this is not just limited to customers.

Good afternoon.

I'm Annie Aylon with Public Works.

So just to clarify, the public seating requirement as is in the code today, is pretty loosely written.

It just says there must be a public bench.

And so we administratively define that as being able to seat two individuals.

So it wasn't that the entire parklet, if it was commercial, only a portion of that parklet, that one seating area would need to be public.

But for public parklets, the entire, and that still remains today, the entire parklet will be open to the public at all times.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Before I go back to you, President Mandelman, I just wanted to give a few remarks because I was uh on this committee last time we approved these rules, and you know, it was um trial and error.

We were trying to figure out what worked during the pandemic.

Uh, Ms.

Thomas, of course, uh helped uh provide lots of real-world uh knowledge to inform our decisions, and we went back and forth on both of these things, both the um seating requirement and then the hours of operation.

There was lots of conversation in this committee about that.

Um, you know, we have some very successful um shared spaces that act as uh overflow for commercial purposes, both restaurants and others in my district.

Um, some of the more successful ones are in on West Portal and Irving.

Um there are commercial areas that I wish um had more.

Um, and I still don't know exactly why it is that we don't.

What it is about the design and the process that works for some and not for others.

Uh Ocean Avenue, which is a commercial uh corridor that Supervisor Chen and I share uh down the middle, um, is one that's pretty devoid of these spaces.

You know, during the pandemic, we stood up a couple and then they just kind of weren't worth it for them, and that is really too bad.

So I'm eager to improve the program to make it work better for folks who need it, because it could be it can be really transformative.

Um, all the time that I've been supervisor now five years, I've gotten complaints about some of the aspects of the parklets.

Um obviously the loss of parking is a thing, you know, it is what it is.

Um, you know, competing uses, but I've never gotten any um uh complaints about the public, you know, bench thing, you know, not not even once.

Um I have gotten lots of complaints about the hours and the fact that people, you know, feel some kind of way about having this responsibility, even if it's not enforced.

So I welcome that change.

Um, and the other thing I did want to ask you about that I've gotten complaints about uh a lot is about drainage, especially during the winter, when we see a lot of uh precipitation.

Um, and uh, you know, the way that DPW can or cannot um clean and the way water flows under or over the spaces.

So I wonder if you can speak a little bit about that, about the street cleaning specifically, and then how sometimes you know these spaces in the code that we use, um, may present a challenge for both cleaning and the flow of water when precipitation is really high.

All right.

Thank you for the question, supervisor.

Um, so there is a drainage requirement that comes into play um when the operator is building out their space, and that is a part of our inspections process for public works to inspect that drainage system and make sure that it can maintain uh water flow through the throughout and but it it is the operator's responsibility to really go ahead and manually clean that space.

The idea is with the drainage system to be able to you know poke a broom through it so you can remove debris easily, but um I would have to get back to you about the street cleaning operations specifically.

Um, so if if both drainage and street cleaning are the operator's responsibility, who enforces that?

We do, and we do rely on 311 complaints and we do um encourage members of the public to use that.

Okay, thank you so much.

And thank you, uh President Mandelman, for this next iteration.

I think it's an improvement.

Thank you.

Okay, so I think that's it for questions and comments.

Uh, let's go to public comment on this item.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation will now hear public comment related to agenda item number 28.

If you have public comment for this item, please come forward to the if you could please close that door.

I'd appreciate it.

Do we have anyone who has public comment for agenda item number 28?

Please come forward to the lecture, and I'll start your time.

Hi, everyone.

Uh good afternoon.

I'm Laurie Thomas.

Um, I run the Golden Gate Restaurant Association and have had restaurants in San Francisco for 30 years, and I just want to um one, thank you guys for thinking about this.

I know it's been a long time coming to really do a shout out to Supervisor Mandelman, who um when I personally had to close my two restaurants, um, panicked, like lost all sources of income, had to borrow a loan to make the payroll.

We reached out and he was super receptive.

I know um Supervisor Malgar helped as well.

Um, everyone else is too new to have been involved in that mess.

But um, and I do think it's really worth shouting out um to Robin and to Annie and to everyone.

We spent hours, hours, hours, hours on this.

Um, and supervisor Malgar, there is a really good requirement for drainage, but again, you have to like work at it.

But that was in the final 125-page operating manual that Robin did such a good job on, um, with diagrams and things, so that's there.

I do want to just support a couple things with this.

Um, I think it's really along the lines of what we're trying to do in the city, which is to streamline and make things make more sense and not just consider we passed an ordinance 20 years ago and we're gonna leave it there.

So I really encourage the iteration and re-looking at it.

I do want to say that we did have several conversations about keeping it open versus the closed, and I do think from a staffing perspective, especially in restaurants opening the park lit up when there are workers to open it up and keep it open and then closing it when it's closed is super important, and also the um streamlining from planning makes a lot of sense too.

So thanks again.

We're happy to answer any questions.

Appreciate it.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 28?

Madam Chair.

Okay, public comment is now closed.

Um with that, um, I would like to make a motion to send this item out of committee to the full board with a positive recommendation.

On the motion offered by the chair that this ordinance be recommended to the Board of Supervisors, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Mark Mood Machmud I, Chair Melgar.

I Melgar I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes.

Okay, that motion passes.

Congratulations, President Manelman.

Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues.

Okay, let's go to item 29, please.

Agenda item number 29 is an ordinance amending the planning code to allow additional uses as principally or conditionally permitted in historic buildings citywide, exempt historic buildings in certain eastern neighborhood plan areas from conditional use authorization.

Otherwise required to remove production, distribution, and repair, institutional community and arts activities uses, and from providing replacement services for such uses to make conforming amendments to provisions affected by the foregoing, including zoning control tables, affirming the planning department's secret determination, and making findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1, as well as findings of public necessity, convenience, and general welfare under planning code section 302.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Clerk.

We welcome Miss Lisa Glockstein here to present on this item.

Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

Mr.

Carroll, I have copies of the amendments.

I'll be there in a moment.

Yeah.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar, members of the land use committee.

Lisa Gluckstein, planning department staff.

I'll endeavor to keep my comments brief because I know there are many people waiting for another item.

But the file before you today is intended to support the continued use and preservation of San Francisco's historic buildings by standardizing and expanding the city's existing use flexibility programs for such buildings.

The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of this file on October 15, 2025, and the Planning Commission similarly recommended approval on October 23rd, 2025.

Since this item was last heard by this committee, we have worked to incorporate several amendments in response to comments received from members of the public.

The amendments for your consideration today do the following, and bear with me, it's a long and technical list.

In the planning approval criteria for subsection 2021, clarify that formula retail controls continue to apply under this program.

Two, restructure the permitted uses subsection D of section 2021 to create exceptions by use to maintain default use controls for cannabis retail, hotel, and most industrial uses.

That is to say, these uses cannot be approved under this flexible use program.

Create exceptions by use and district, which specify that in the 24th Street, Mission NCT, and Mission Street NCT, and the portions of the RH2, RH3, RM1, RM2, RM3, NC1, NC2, NC3, and PDR1G districts bound by Valencia 13th, Harrison, and Cessar Chavez, use controls remain unchanged for the following use types: adult business, adult sex venue, bar, chair and foot massage, electric vehicle charging location, fleet charging, fringe financial service, gym laboratory, life science, liquor store, massage establishment, nighttime entertainment office, private community facility, restaurant, and tobacco paraphernalia establishment.

In sections 209.1, 209.2, 209.3, 29.4, 210.1, 210.2, 210.3, 710, 711, 722, 752, 754, 757, 758, 763, 825, 830, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 839, and 840, and relevant sections of Article 7.

Make conforming changes to district-specific zone and control tables to reflect the aforementioned changes.

And in 202.8, eliminate a prior amendment that would have deleted specific PDR replacement language.

Instead, preserving status quo PDR replacement requirements in the eastern neighborhoods plans areas.

And update the findings in line with the above changes.

Thanks for bringing with that.

We're recommending these amendments for adoption with a positive recommendation.

Thank you to members of the community who have provided input and worked with us on these amendments.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Gluckstein, and also thank you so much for all your work, engaging community members and working out these amendments.

I really appreciate the openness.

Um, so I don't see any questions or comments from my colleagues on this one.

Uh so uh Mr.

Clerk, let's go to public comment on this item.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Land use and transportation.

We'll now hear public comment related to agenda item number 29, adaptive reuse of historic buildings.

If you have public comment for this item, please line up to speak along that western wall that I'm pointing out with my left hand.

And you may begin if you're at the lecture now.

Good afternoon, Chairman.

Chair Melgar, uh Supervisors Mahmoud and Chen.

Uh Peter Papadopoulos with the Mission Economic Development Agency.

And we do truly appreciate the work that we did together between uh USM coalition groups and the planning department and the mayor's office, and also our conversations with um Chair Melgar and her aide, Jen Lo.

So thank you.

Um, want to point out uh special appreciation for Lisa Gluckstein and also for uh Rich Sucre for their time and really diligent attention to our concerns and spending time sorting out this framework together to make sure that we're simultaneously um working to activate these historic spaces while also making sure we're keeping intact our mission action plan frameworks and our prior legislative goals that we had achieved through that work.

Um, and I also want to shout out the mission action plan team who uh took the pains to incorporate this legislation into the discussion there, despite being short staffed with our friend out there.

So we appreciate that.

So we look forward to continuing to work together in this way and to making the mission a neighborhood of culturally driven prosperity that provides opportunities for our families to achieve economic mobility.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Papadopoulos.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 29?

Madam Chair.

Okay, public comment is now closed.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair Malga.

Colin, I know that there are challenges with activating many historic buildings, and it can be very expensive.

I do want to make sure that as we open the door to more adaptive reuse, that we do not undo many of the carefully crafted land use controls in our neighborhood districts.

That is why I really appreciate the additional work conducted by departments since it was first introduced to amend this legislation to address some of their concerns, including restriction for restrictions of formula retails, cannabis retail, hotel use, and retaining publication X controls for PDI use in the mission, SOMA, Bayou and Potero.

As well, land use control to keep mission area, mission area plan frameworks intact.

In neighborhood commercial districts throughout our city, supervisors and their community stakeholder came to the conclusion that they wanted to prohibit or place additional control on certain uses.

This is especially important since this legislation would apply not just to register historic buildings, but also to a larger universe of those who are eligible for historic status.

So thank you for the additional one.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen.

Uh with that, um, I would like to make a motion to adopt the amendments as read into the record by Ms.

Kluckstein.

On the motion offered by the I'm sorry, did I close public comment?

You did.

You do okay.

Uh and yes, let's vote on that first.

On the motion offered by the chair to accept the amendments as presented by the planning department, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Mahmoud, Mahmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I, Madam Chair, there are three eyes on the amendments.

Okay, that motion passes.

So then uh I would like to send this item out of committee with a positive recommendation as amended.

On the motion offered by the chair that the ordinance be recommended as amended, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I, Member Machmood, Mahmoud I, Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I, Madam Chair, there are three eyes once again.

Okay, that motion passes.

Okay, now finally, uh, Mr.

Clerk, let's go to item number 30.

Agenda item number 30 is an ordinance repealing the existing San Francisco fire code in its entirety and enacting a new San Francisco Fire Code consisting of the 2025 California Fire Code and provisions of the 2024 International Fire Code, together with amendments specific to San Francisco, including provisions for fees for permits, inspections and various city services with an operative date of January 1st, 2026, adopting findings of local conditions pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7, directing the clerk of the Board of Supervisors to forward the amendments to the California Building Standards Commission as well as the State Fire Marshal and making environmental findings.

Thank you so much.

And I will go to Supervisor Cheryl first for some comments before I turn it over to Fire Chief Chris Ben and our Fire Marshal at Chad Law.

And also Supervisor Sauter wants to provide some comments before we get started.

So go ahead, Supervisor Cheryl.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Melgar.

Thank you very much for having us here this afternoon.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chen.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmood.

Chair Melgar, thank you very much for scheduling this important item today.

I'm extremely grateful that we're moving forward with this critical update to the fire code.

Colleagues, as you all know, I've been meeting with many of the buildings who've been impacted by the sprinkler retrofit requirement that was implemented during the 2022 update to the fire code.

And in those meetings, I've heard loud and clear that this sprinkler mandate has placed a significant financial and mental stress on residents of affected buildings.

And this stress is already being felt today.

As a result of these meetings, I've worked alongside Supervisor Sauter to ensure that this update to the fire code takes a key first step towards implementing a more reasonable fire safety requirement.

And I'm proud of the work done to get to this point.

But this is just the first step toward a better solution.

I look forward to continuing to work alongside my colleagues on this committee, the mayor's team, fire department leadership, who has stepped up a lot in the last few months, and I do want to thank you both very much for your hard work on this difficult item.

And also I want to thank the voices in this room that have helped come forward to achieve a better solution, one that does not displace residents in the name of safety.

So to all of you who are here and who are watching and who are maybe not here because we all have busy lives.

To all of you, to all the voices in this room who have opposed this approach this very emotional conversation with a deep amount of respect, even when you felt that you may not have been treated the same way.

To all of you, I want to thank you.

And I also want to thank my chief of staff, Lauren Chung, whose tireless efforts have been crucial in getting us here.

So with that, I know many of you are going to make your voices heard, but Chair Melgar, once again, thank you for opening this up today.

Thank you.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Chair Melgar.

And thank you to the committee members for your time on this today.

Um I too would like to speak on the proposed updates to the residential sprinkler mandate first passed in 2022.

It is hard to overstate the significance of this issue, and I think that's why we see a large crowd with us today.

The mandate touches 143 buildings throughout the city, and in my district alone, district three, almost 7,000 residents are impacted.

Let's first start by reviewing how we got here and how this retrofit law originated.

The law was introduced by the former District 3 supervisor in January 2022.

It required existing order residential high rises to be retrofitted with automatic sprinklers throughout the units.

At the time, if you remember of 2022, city hall meetings were hybrid.

Some people choosing to appear remotely, some in person.

The files and recordings show little public engagement about the proposal.

Only two public commenters spoke at the Building Inspection Commission and three at the board's land use committee.

We have more than three today.

At the building inspection commission hearing, the legislative sponsor acknowledged that a sprinkler retrofit would create, quote, would create, quote, some amount of costs and, quote, some element of disruption to existing residents.

But when the commissioners asked whether studies had been done on cost, tenant displacement, and implementation and enforcement timelines, the sponsors stated that they had difficulty getting input from stakeholders, but would be more deliberate in the future seeking out this information.

The retrofit law was incorporated into the fire code updates that passed in December 2022, taking effect in January 2023.

And so far I have found none of that follow-up work.

No record of the analysis or studies requested by the Building Inspection Commission.

In fact, the closest thing to that was probably the 2016 budget and legislative analysis report.

And anyone who's read that should have seen that as a warning sign.

It said in short that there was no comparable requirement found in any major U.S.

city comparable to this.

And if it were to move forward, it suggested a large package of items to try and offset some of the challenges, which would have included loans, um, guarantees of tenant relocation funding, uh, mitigation of tenant displacement risks, and also looking at other safety upgrades before looking at fire sprinklers.

But that brings us today to today.

We are now less than a year from the first compliance deadline of January 2027 when drawings and permit applications must be submitted to the Department of Building Inspection.

More than half the buildings on the list are located in my district, and for the last year, constituents have continually pleaded for relief from the significant and potentially devastating cost impact life disruption and displacement risk.

I want to thank all of you for being here today, but more importantly, for the many months before this that you have been active and been advocating for yourself and your neighbors.

Many of the residents in these buildings are retirees with limited incomes.

They're understandably upset at the prospect of finding and paying for interim housing, and owners have supplied us with retrofit quotes up to $300,000 per unit and are understandably grappling with how to finance these projects.

Meanwhile, property values are dropping, and we know that this is already a concern with the assessment of your buildings and the price of your buildings.

Our office has been working for this past year with the mayor, the fire chief, and supervisor Cheryl to evaluate the conundrum that none of us got us into, but we're all trying to find our way out.

As a first step, we agreed to give ourselves more time.

We are proposing to move the first two compliance deadlines by five years.

This allows time to conduct a holistic data-driven assessment of the circumstances when units should be retrofitted with automatic sprinklers.

We will look at fire department data on fire related injuries and deaths in buildings subject to this retrofit law.

We will analyze the projected cost, displacement, and implementation timeline, and resolve the conflicting reports on those metrics.

We will obtain and discuss studies that the Board of Supervisors did not consider in 2022.

Supervisor Cheryl and I will be also soon introducing legislation to create a technical advisory council to support this work.

And I want to be clear that I believe this is all very modest, and I believe that much of this should have been done either in 2022 or in the immediate passage and implementation of that law.

I'd like to thank the mayor's office and our fire chief and fire marshal for recognizing how important this is and for all their work and partnership on this in the past year.

A special thanks to the Deputy City Attorney Sarah Sarah Fabian for her tireless work on these amendments, Lauren Chung in District 2, and Tita Bell, my chief of staff.

Colleagues, again, thank you for your time and focus on this.

I hope to have your support on these amendments, which again I believe are modest and I believe are a first step towards a more balanced approach to fire safety.

Thank you.

Do you want to provide comments now before the presentation or after?

Can we leave those comments till after the presentation?

Let's do that.

Um, Chief Crispin.

Good afternoon.

Madam Chair Melgar, other committee members, thank you for allowing us to present on our 2025 fire code.

My name is Dean Crispin, Chief of Department.

Uh, high level summary.

The fire code is presented on a three-year cycle.

The previous fire code is then repealed, and the new code becomes law.

The code transfer transfers from the fire commission to this committee, then to the board of Supervisors, and the Mayor, and finally to the building Standards commit uh building Standards committee for final approval.

Today we'll go over the changes to the code from 2022.

I will focus on the changes to the sprinkler ordinance and then fire marshal law.

We'll discuss the other changes in the code.

The sprinkler ordinance was approved by the fire commission committee, uh, this committee, board of supervisors, mayor, and building standards commission in 2023.

This ordinance created a requirement for retrofit sprinklers to be installed on residential high-rise buildings.

Those above 120 feet in height and some between 75 and 120 feet in height if they do not meet strict criteria.

It also set several benchmarks that these buildings had to meet to stay in compliance with the final completion date of January 1st, 2035.

Upon our swearing in 2025, Fire Marshal Law and myself began engaging with district supervisors Souter and Cheryl and community stakeholders about the implementate implementation of this ordinance.

We received very valuable input from community about the potential hardship that this ordinance would have on residents and tenants of these buildings.

Many of the concerns were around displacement, cost, ability of buildings to physically install sprinklers, amongst others.

We began an engagement process with the supervisors in the mayor's office about ways to amend the ordinance in order to address the concerns of the community.

We held two community community meetings with community leaders.

We attended two town halls at Fort Mason and one in the Presidio and feel like we communicated well with the community.

After much input from building owners, managers and HOA officials, we came to the table and presented with the possibility of extending the next deadline, which was set for January 1st, 2027.

With that date fast approaching, and after hearing many concerns from the community, it was agreed upon to amend the ordinance in two major ways.

One to move the next compliant date, compliance date, which would be the requirement to apply for a permit with the city from 2027 to 2032.

And the second one uh requirement would be to further define hardship to include financial hardship and displacement.

That is located on page 93 of the four fire code, and the compliance date uh movement is on page 94.

Once this was agreed upon and in theory or in comp uh in agreement with the supervisors and the mayor, our department began the following.

We assigned an assistant fire marshal specifically to this project.

She is here in attendance, assistant fire marshal, Lorda Circos.

And we also assigned a concierge to this program, acting captain Al Joe.

He's also in attendance.

They have done some hard work to move this project forward.

We've exempted 17 buildings that either meet the SB 904 requirements or have an enclosed penthouse that has them not be required to have uh install sprinklers.

We also create a checklist to inspect the 53 buildings that fall between 75 and 120 feet.

So currently, we are creating a task force for inspections.

We're conducting water flow inspections of the five buildings determined to potentially be difficult to supply volume and pressure in a PUC recording from the letter of inquiry from Supervisor Cheryl.

We're also communicating with the Park Merced residents and building owners to schedule inspections and water flow testing there.

That is uh where we are at this point, and we're happy to answer any questions, and I'll allow fire marshal law to discuss the other areas of the fire code that have been changed.

Now, you chief welcome fire marshal law.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Melgar, Supervisor Chen, Supervisor Cheryl, Mahmoud, Supervisor Sider.

Um, I'm just gonna discuss a couple of changes from the 2022 uh fire code.

We actually only had two.

Um, the first is actually the compliance states that we just mentioned.

That is the other one.

That's one of them, and the only other one was the uh fee change for uh compact mobile food for um hot dog carts, legal hot dog carts that went from 436 to 95.

So if you were going, uh those are the summary of the changes.

That's all we have.

So it's 2022 fire code, and the two changes are the compliance dates and the mobile food cart fee lowering.

That's all I have for you, and I'm here for other questions as well.

Thank you, Fire Marshal.

Yes, okay.

Uh Supervisor Mahmood.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, firstly, I want to thank everyone in the well, especially those from District 5 who came out to speak today and came to our office and have brought this issue before us today about the sprinkler amendments as well.

Your voices matter, and I appreciate you sharing your plan to share your experiences as you have the last several weeks and going forward as well.

I want to thank Supervisor Cheryl and Supervisor Sauter for their work on figuring out a compromise measure and for engaging thoughtfully on a complex issue, as well as our fire department and fire chief Christman and uh law as well.

Um that's because I understand both perspectives on this issue.

I take this personally.

I've lived in a high rise that has caught fire twice due to lithium ion batteries.

And in both cases, sprinklers stopped the fire.

It's no question that sprinklers save lives and likely saved my life on more than one occasion.

At hand here, we have to also be honest about the impact and the board's own uh budget legislative analysts have previously noted that retrofitting existing buildings uh can be costly and disruptive to tenants that are all obviously here today as well, especially if not handled carefully.

Not every building is the same, and some already have other fire protections in place.

The amendments that Supervisor Cheryl and Sauter have worked on with the mayor's office, I believe will give us the time to do proper due diligence, uh, evaluate water system capacity, infrastructure needs, and existing safety measures so that the eventual solution in the long term is thoughtful and workable.

And I look forward to working and the work of the technical advisory committee that Supervisor Cheryl's office is leading along with community stakeholders and subject matter experts.

Uh, looking forward to seeing this uh and having district five residents continue to have their voices be heard so that this can move forward.

Um, and lastly, I'll be, unfortunately, have to head out um for another thing at 3 30.

But Supervisor Cheryl will be something for me at that point.

Uh thank you, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Uh, Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh also first, I would like to begin thanking the community member who uh taking time uh to come to uh voice yourself this afternoon.

Um I also want to express that I do take the issues of fire safety very seriously.

Uh, to this day, we continue to have many fire vulnerabilities facing our communities.

Fire in large apartment buildings in San Francisco have resulted in significant property damage, loss of housing, and in some instances, loss of life.

I appreciate the fire marshal for this annual update and for the co-amendments that I included.

I also want to appreciate Supervisor Cheryl Salter and the mayor's office, especially also with uh District 2's legislative aid, Lauren Chung, who has been working very hard to address the concern race about retrofitting homes in high-rise buildings with sprinklers.

When the board passed this legislation in 2022 to amend the fire code to require automatic sprinkler system in existing high-rise buildings, it was in response to our rigorous analysis and policy review conducted by the BLA.

I know that this mandate poses a significant financial burden to property owners and tenants in the building that are affected.

These are not simple fixes and require a substantial amount of retrofits.

And I'll be supportive of this legislation today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen.

Um, I was on uh this board uh and on this committee, when we approved the 2022 uh legislation.

Um I also take uh fire safety uh very seriously.

We have had uh a couple of fires uh in uh my district.

Uh I've worked one uh policy with Supervisor Mahmoud surrounding fires.

Um, they can be extremely financially disruptive for tenants and owners alike.

Um I am uncomfortable uh with uh some of the language in these amendments and remain open to um, you know, uh input from my colleagues and how we address these issues.

Um so to be specific, I uh wanted to ask uh the city attorney uh for an assessment on uh what the legal risk is to the city if uh we uh uh give the fire marshal discretion uh to uh waive the requirements uh while we are in the process of defining what uh hardship means.

Um and you know that that clause in itself, which is in the proposed amendments, makes me uncomfortable.

But I would like to really understand what it means and how I should be assessing it uh in terms of uh voting for it as an amendment.

Um I also want to thank you know everyone who's here engaging in this process, because I do agree it is very important.

Keeping ourselves and each other safe is really important, um, and also our firefighters who are risking their lives when they go in to save lives, um, and making sure that we minimize the risk to them and to their families as well is really important.

So all of these are very serious issues.

Uh, I'm glad people are engaging in it.

One of the things that I heard you say, uh Supervisor Sauter, is that we will have a robust process that you're involving some of my colleagues and experts.

I really appreciate that because I do think that um it needs some vetting.

Uh again, I have questions about what happens in the meantime until we get there.

One of the things that I didn't hear in the listing of the description of what this group will do is um what this uh could do possibly to the issue of fire insurance uh for owners, because I do also uh see um how uh the crisis in insurance in our state um has exacerbated all kinds of costs, including cost of property ownership, and I fear that this might make it this action may make it worse for these property owners as well.

So, like I said, I have uh questions and uh you know discomfort uh with uh some of these issues, um, but remain open to considering uh and to hearing from the public about how this is all playing out.

So if I could ask um city attorney Brad Rossi, and I, you know, I would have asked also uh Adam at Thongsavan, but he is unfortunately stuck in Mexico right now, uh, who has worked on these issues with uh the supervisors.

Deputy City Attorney Brad Rusty, just so I understand your question, supervisor, and I might have to get back to you after we take public comment on this.

Is the question whether the current language in the ordinance authorizes the fire marshal to completely waive the requirements, or is that something that you would want to see in the no?

So, as I read the amendment uh that is proposed, one of the amendments proposed, I think it was, I'm sorry, I don't have in front in front of me.

I want to say it was line 19.

Um it uh maybe somebody else has it up.

Uh it uh says that the fire marshal um has now the discretion to waive these requirements um, you know, uh when there's undue hardship on the property owner.

And so I'm wondering if you know that actually transfers liability to the city since the fire marshal is an employee of the city.

Okay, I think I understand the question now.

We've we've approved the ordinance as to form, so that means we have there's a defensible.

Okay, there's a defensible risk.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

So I don't see anyone else on the roster with questions or comments.

Um since I asked the city attorney, I do want to ask the fire marshal before we go to public comment um what you think about that uh provision, um, if it's if you will be guided by uh existing policy, or yeah, you might if I speak to it.

Go for it.

In the original ordinance, um the fire marshal is allowed to grant hardship, but this specific alteration uh adds definitions to find to hardship, including financial and displacement is my understanding of the changes, and the city attorney can clarify that.

But the original legislation did include a provision where the fire marshal has authority to grant hardship and exemptions.

Thank you, Chief.

All right.

With that, um, he's not on the roster, but thank you.

Uh let's go to public comment on this item.

Again, uh public comment will be limited to one minute per individual.

Uh please uh come up.

And since there are many folks who want to weigh in, let's um, you know, keep it moving.

Thank you, madam chair, land use and transportation.

We'll now begin taking public comment for agenda item number 30, repealing the 2022 fire code and adopting the 2025 fire code.

If you are here to give public comment for that, please line up to speak along this side.

We will hear from everyone who is here for public comment, but I do ask that we keep things flowing.

Do not interrupt the speaker with any kind of audible uh interjections of support or detraction.

We need to hear from each person, and the first speaker can come forward selector now.

Good afternoon.

My name is Robert Eaton.

I'm a retired deputy fire chief from Alameda County and currently work in San Rafael as a fire inspector with some plan checking responsibilities.

Uh I want to say right off the bat that I'm pro-fire department, and um there's no arguing that sprinklers are save lives.

The issue does not, the issue is whether the issues are four issues that I think are important to consider.

The first issue is cost, remains the largest obstacle.

Retrofitting older buildings, especially multi-unit housing, can cost tens of thousands of dollars per unit.

And when you get into street work, and when you get into devices, backflow devices, when you get into possible lead paint, when you get into asbestos in these older buildings.

I live at 1201 California, it's a hundred years old building.

It's probably not set up for ease of uh adding additional sprinklers.

Um the cost can skyrocket.

I've heard it was 300,000 dollars.

Speaker's time is concluded, we have to move on to the next speaker.

Thank you.

Thank you.

For future speakers, you're gonna hear a quieter claxon that goes off when you have 30 seconds remaining, and then you'll have hear a louder uh alarm when it's time for us to move on to the next speaker.

Please begin.

Hello, my name is Anna Abeda.

My family owns a one-bedroom condo in the summit at 99 Green Street.

There are a hundred and twelve units in this building.

While I'm I would prefer that the sprinkler mandate be removed, I do support the proposed five-year extensions to the first two compliance deadlines.

Back in the day, condos were not included in this study.

In our building, most of the units, probably all of the units have been remodeled.

There is not a single unit that looks like each other.

Every 112 units is different, and retrofeeding that is costly and time consuming.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments to the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Pierce Akel.

Uh, I have not heard my story told yet at the other town hall meetings.

I'm a teacher and a Hamilton resident.

I sacrificed to live in SF for a long time.

Moved here in 07, went to school here, have been a teacher and an educator here for a long time.

I've lived in a walk-in closet for five years.

Three or two of which I was a full-time teacher during.

I bought the cheapest studio that sold in the month that I bought, I believe in 2022, with 5% down.

This was a large commitment to the city and to my school, and this could be financial ruin for me.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Melga and supervisors.

My name is Jacinda McCann.

I live at 1333 Jones Street on Knob Hill.

In 2018, my condominium was stripped back to structure and completely renovated with all the ceilings replaced and lifted close to the other side of the roof slab.

My contractor estimates that to retrofit a sprinkler system in my unit would cost in the range of 170 to 200,000, take six to eight weeks at a minimum, and could require ceiling replacement again due to the shallow depths to work with and all of the other complexities.

The Comstock has external enclosed fire stairs located at either end of each floor, a very strong concrete structure, and internal concrete petition walls in each condominium.

Our building is well managed and complies with all city fire department requirements.

I cannot understand how this mandate passed in 2022 without an extensive outreach process and assessment of fiscal impacts.

This alone should have prevented the mandate from going forward.

I ask that your vote to pass the new fire code with the five-year extensions as a first step and work vigorously to accomplish a rational, safe and affordable approach.

Thank you.

So the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name's Robert Cosma.

I'm speaking on behalf of my neighbors, myself at 999 Green, the summit.

We agree with the purpose of the fire code, saving lives, the lives of firefighters, our neighbors' lives, our own lives.

We want to live in fire safe buildings that save lives.

Installing sprinklers is one way to do that.

But there are other means of making buildings safe and saving lives using nationally recognized standards to establish equivalence.

The San Francisco Fire Code allows for the use of these means and standards.

Yet there's no publicly stated mechanism in place for doing that.

Consequently, the this set vital section of the code is inoperable.

We propose language that strengthens this session to make it the primary approach for saving lives.

I'll retrieve those in a moment and pass them out.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker.

You can just leave them on the rail there.

Water can be a wonderful thing if you're thirsty or if you're fighting a fire.

But if you live in a high rise, water can be a devastating thing.

Several years ago, I came home one afternoon.

There's a half an inch of water on the floor, our toilet had overflooded, and uh poured it down into four units downstairs.

I saw the devastation, it was shocking.

Walls, fine art, furniture, rugs, floors, keepsakes, all ruined.

The damage ran into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Come to find this is a common occurrence in high-rise buildings, and in fact, a year later it happened in our building.

Now you want to put sprinklers in every single room in every single unit.

And with can you give me a guarantee that this technology is infallible?

I'd like to ask the fire department if they can guarantee that this is infallible.

One final thing there are 250 toilets in our building.

If those sprinklers went off and a false alarm, it would create millions of dollars of damage.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

First, I'd like to say this process is an embarrassment.

You should all be ashamed of yourself to give all these people one minute.

And this gentleman who was a firefighter didn't even get uh to speak as mine.

You should all be ashamed of yourself.

I want to say hello to the people in the overflow room.

I'm a lifelong San Franciscan.

I got my teaching credential from San Francisco State University after going to George Washington High School, Marine and Middle School, and elementary school in the school in the city.

My mother was a teacher in the city.

My sister had to move out of the city.

My brother had to move out of the city.

I live in a studio apartment like the gentleman who previously spoke.

I'm going to have to move out of the city.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hold your applause.

My name is Steve Stiller, and I'm the board president of the Heights, a 12-story concrete and steel co-op residential building.

We are one of the 29 buildings affected by the mandate that are working together to see safe and affordable solutions.

I wish to start by thanking the supervisors, the committee, and the fire marshal, for hearing our concerns.

Fire safety in our buildings are top priority.

It is our lives and homes that are at stake.

Our building has over 20 fire safety systems already in place, which mirrors most, if not all, of the affected co-ops and condos.

Those systems include spire fire sprinklers throughout our common spaces as well as in the residences at each exit to two fire escapes.

Outside each apartment are the following fire hoses, fire extinguisher, pool stations, fire horns, lighted fire exit signs.

Each apartment also has hardwired smoke detectors, low frequency sounders, and fire extinguishers.

It is clear that we have met or exceeded all of the fire code's mandates and have prioritized fire safety.

We look forward to working for the stakeholders to formulate an affordable and effective alternative to the blank.

Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee.

So have the next speaker, please.

Once again, do not interrupt the proceedings with the applause.

We need to move on to the next speaker.

Let's hear from the next speaker, please.

My husband and I bought our uh San Francisco condominium in 2015.

It has uh currently lost one-third of its value.

Um, despite uh the feeling that our building is being damaged, uh its reputation as a function of this mandate.

Despite our concrete wall, separating units, two concrete in case smokeless staircase exits, three fire doors backed by uh generators, standpipes, fire extinguishers, fire hoses on every floor.

The list goes on.

Our options now, despite that, the San Francisco Assessors Board has seen fit to continually assess me at the 2015 value.

The last data point, and I want you to hear this loud and clear, is on the San Francisco Fire Department's database.

My husband and I did a thorough analysis of the cases shown, less than 1.5% occurred in the buildings on this list.

I know high rises people like to throw that word out.

It's a dangerous fire.

I live in a high rise.

I'm very concerned about safety too.

But the point is if you look at the remaining 98%, thank you for a third of those are in multiple.

Next speaker, please.

Single-story units, wood structures.

Speaker's time, talk to them first.

Thank you for laughing.

Hang on one second before the next speaker begins.

We need to keep this flowing, please.

Respect the board rules.

Stop interrupting the proceedings with the applause.

We need to hear from the next speaker.

You may begin.

Thank you.

Uh this uh reminds me of the movie The Book the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

The ugly is the cost of construction and destructive, uh moving people out while during construction.

The bad is is the cost.

A lot of people just can't afford it.

The good is we have a lot of protective fireproof um safety items in place currently.

Um, and I would invite our fire chief and look them in the eye and say, come help us make it better.

I was walking over here today and I almost got hit um by a car.

I always look the person in the eye to see if they're gonna go or stay.

And I don't trust them, but I look at our fire department and I trust them.

You tell us to do something, we'll do it at a lower cost, we'll make it happen.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Next speaker, please.

If we have a speaker that's ready to come forward to the lecture, and please begin.

My name is Ren Rhodes.

I'm the homeowner association president and 1750 Taylor.

And I'm a member of the 29 building coalition that has been pushing back on this for the last 18 months.

Um I'm here today to ask you to vote to pass the proposed new fire code with its five-year-old.

Oh, sorry.

Let me put this up.

To pass the new uh fire code with the five-year extensions.

The imposition while the imposition of this mandate may be a financial hardship to apartment building owners.

The homeowners in the 3600 apartments in the affected condo and co-op buildings are in a different situation.

We're required to fund the cost of implement implementing this mandate out of our own pockets with no financing option, and we will have to relocate during construction.

You may have heard that we're all rich homeowners who can easily afford this expense, that the retrofit costs are not that high, and that no one will have to vacate their home for the construction.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

This false information is being provided by the building trades because they want the jobs that are one to two billion dollars citywide construction project, will bring them back.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the committee.

So the next speaker, please.

Hi there.

Uh my name is Richard Perillo.

I am your local neuropsychologist here, in case any of you need any brain analysis.

I'm, you know, I'm available.

In any event, I live, I've been in this city for um for 35 years and at 850 Powell Street for 25 of those 35 years.

Uh I didn't hear a lot of suggestions regarding construction.

My building is replete with steel and cement beams.

I just don't know how you're going to put pipes through these steel and cement beams.

I think that you're creating a problem here.

This could be really problematic.

And I'll just end with the building was built in 1922.

In those hundred and four years, I don't know of any instance where we had smoke or fire intrusion.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Joyce Click, and I just want everyone to know how pleased I am with the supervisors working on this.

I'll be really fast.

I want to know.

Do you want to know who we are?

Okay.

We are, and I'm going to talk about myself.

I'm a doctor of physical therapy for 50 years in our medical community.

I still make house calls in the tender line in the mission.

I know that I believe in housing affordability.

I I've worked so hard.

Um I moved here, went to UC Medical School Physical Therapy with a single parent.

I've worked my way up where I can afford to live in a building, one of the 141 buildings, and I am not a privileged person.

I would have to move and I'd have to be displaced.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, next speaker, please.

This mandate has the potential to displace the majority of your constituents from their homes.

And is this the legacy that this board of supervisor wishes to leave?

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, next speaker, please.

Hello, uh, my name is Nicholas Sook.

I am a homeowner at the Hamilton 631 O'Farrell Street, which is a 21-story building in the tenderloin where I've been living for the last 23 years.

We at the Hamilton take life safety seriously, but the thing is, this mandate has not been thought through.

When it was passed in 2022, the 2016 BLA report was ignored.

Proper outreach dialogue to community was not did not happen.

Uh a study of the water capacity for PUC didn't occur, and then there's a cost.

This is a huge financial hardship.

You know, we're hearing numbers of 10,000 to 300,000 dollars.

That's staggering.

Here at the Hamilton, we are residents who are working class.

Remember, this is the tenderloin.

We have nurses, teachers, government workers, and many retirees on fixed incomes.

Many simply can't afford the cost.

Now you know, we don't expect this mandate to be resolved right away overnight.

We need it, but we need to resolve this mess.

And to do that, we I kindly request that the commission pass the current fire code and extension.

Um but hang on, this is not a solution, right?

Speaker's time is concluded.

Thank you for sharing your comments with the committee.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hello, I'm Max Isaacman.

And uh I'm here uh because this mandate is poisoning our real estate market, and it's killing values of our apartments.

And if you can even sell them, and unless this mandate is cancelled, the sooner the better, I'll be forced to move out.

I can't afford this expense of the mandate demands.

Are you kidding?

It's a fortune.

Now, all I hear now is like San Francisco's burning.

This has a moderate to low chance to burn.

Check any studies because I have.

I'm a Vietnam era vet.

Don't scare me with I might be killed.

I might have a fire.

I'm sorry that if for people who got caught in a fire, but come on.

You're for you're telling me to move out of my apartment because there might be a fire.

That's not fair.

This is so unfair.

I'm here to ask you to do the right thing in cancel's terrible mandate.

I'm asking you to have empathy for me.

Which is something I'm not hearing.

I haven't heard anything.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Let's hear from the next speaker, please.

Thank you.

Let's have the next speaker.

I understand there's close to 200 people waiting outside to get in to give to the public comment.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Diana Heelander, and I live in the tenderloin at the historic Hamilton building, which has 186 units, and where I've owned a unit for over 25 years.

Our owners will somehow have to come up with these onerous additional funds, which in effect results in a large tax on all of us.

I respectfully ask you to take the first step to extend the time frame for this mandate.

I believe this is only the first step of several steps, which includes additional research on resources required by buildings and the city to support this, and not the ultimate solution we will need to support our building and our residents.

Thank you in particular to my supervisor, Mahmoud.

Thank you for your comments and so have the next speaker, please.

Moving as fast as I can.

I'm Eve Meyer.

I'm a condo owner at 66 Cleary Court.

I brought these along to represent the rest of the residents in the condo and all around the city.

Asking today for us to take three actions.

Number one, change the name of the proposed technical analysis commission to feasibility commission to broaden its scope.

Number two, eliminate the 2035 expiration date appearing on page 91, Part 1103.5.4 in the FIRE code to allow for future flexibility.

Three, make these changes immediately to avoid the major losses in valuation of our units that have been re that will result in property tax assessment lowering for the city almost immediately.

Where would everyone get 300,000?

Thank you for sharing your comments.

The speaker's time is concluded.

We do have to move on to the next speaker.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Yes, hi, Brian Hayes.

Uh, thank you for your time.

Uh we appreciate it.

Uh there was a quote by Will Rogers a hundred years ago.

It said, be thankful we're not getting the government we're paying for.

And um the problem is, my friends, it's very simple.

We can't afford this.

It's a they did studies throughout the United States, Maryland, and so forth.

The the key word came out we can't afford it.

It's not affordable.

We cannot pay for it.

We don't have the money, we don't have the resources.

So please uh consider this, because it's not affordable.

That's what you need to know.

We all support the fire police, uh, and uh we just can't afford it.

It's it's something that you have a lot of pie in the sky ideas, there are great ideas, like asbestos removal, we can't afford that.

Uh ADA compliance to every building in San Francisco, it just becomes you can't afford to do it, so you have to say no, and we're asking you to say no.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

Uh, my name is Joel Goodrich.

I live at A50 Powell Street, otherwise known as the Francesca.

And I think uh one of the earlier speakers made the most important comment of the afternoon.

No other major American city has any ordinance like this.

So I think that that we're all concerned about safety and saving residents' lives.

But in addition to that, that it appears to be unnecessary because of every other major American city.

It would destroy the historic nature of a lot of these buildings because of the intrusive uh construction.

And also, and also I've read that the city's infrastructure is not equipped to handle this in many of the blocks.

So the whole structure seems undoable, plus the undue hardship it would create on 26,000 San Franciscans unnecessarily.

So thank you and appreciate all your efforts to uh get this role back.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

My name is Harvey Matloff.

I reside at 1940 Broadway.

Two observations I would like to make, and I would like the council and the fire people to realize there isn't a single person in this room that wants to burn up in a fire.

Likewise, I am appalled by the fact that as a retired physician, we always dealt with a risk-benefit ratio.

We just heard from a layperson that they did the research.

It indicates that the risk is so low that it doesn't warrant the cost, which has never been analyzed except for 10 years or ago.

And I'd like to know why the council thinks something that was unfeasible cost wise 10 years ago would be more feasible now in view of inflation, etc.

etc.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much for your comments to the next speaker, please.

There is a real risk of fire-related death in these uh steel and concrete buildings, but it's a very, very rare risk.

As a physician like the uh former speaker just preceding me, I'm as concerned really about the health of the occupants of my building and these other buildings that are in this uh that are being judged by this this uh sprinkler mandate.

A lot of my uh friends in my building are elderly, they're senior.

They have spent months, if not years uh developing relationships with their health care providers here in the city.

Should the sprinkler mandate be instituted, these senior citizens, often on a fixed income, would lose their health care providers, whether it's physicians, uh home health providers, uh physical therapists like the uh person that spoke a little bit earlier.

Where would they get their medical care?

Uh, where would they go if they're forced if they're displaced from their homes?

Another issue is um if there if we do have to remodel our facilities.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Speaker's time is concluded.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Thank you.

My name is Karen Rose, and I thank supervisors Cheryl and Sauter and my friends and neighbors.

I would make all the same points that they have made.

I would just wish to emphasize the following, and that you do this.

Consider the impact, not merely to San Francisco's reputation as being unreasonable, but to the reality of San Francisco being unreasonable.

As has been said, nowhere else is this regulatory scheme in place, and it's not because other cedar city leaders are more concerned about their resident safety, and not because we're smarter than they are, it's because we are not reasonable.

Despite the comments, the very pious comments about concern for fire safety.

None of us here living in these buildings is unconcerned about fire safety, yet we understand what the implications are.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Susan Fish, and my husband and I live at 1201 California Street.

We are senior citizens, and I have to say being a senior citizen in San Francisco is not an easy task.

This mandate, if it's passed, will make it that much harder for us financially, displacement.

Where would we all go in a city that has no housing that is affordable?

Where are we gonna go?

Um I find it inconceivable that our elected officials who pride yourselves on upholding San Francisco values would allow this to happen to your constituents.

When Mayor Lori says San Francisco is a city that works, is this what he's talking about?

I don't think so.

You have to repeal this mandate.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Everyone, please withhold your applause.

You we can feel your support.

Don't interrupt the proceedings.

However, we need to get through everyone.

I understand that there's 200 people waiting outside to come in and give public comment.

Let's hear from the next speaker, please.

Yes, my name is Neil Bardak.

Uh I live at the Comstock.

I am the president of the board of directors, so I speak on behalf of all the shareholders who can't be here today.

And I want to cut catalog and quantify the hardship.

As an owner and a shareholder, I have to renovate my apartment and pay for the cost.

Let's say it's $300,000.

I also have to share in the cost of the buildings expenses.

The common areas that they have to be sprinkled, if they have to be asbestos revival, I have to spend my percentage share of ownership to pay for that as well, along with paying for the cost of moving out and moving back.

So when you talk about hardship, you have to go beyond the apartment cost itself and realize we are all responsible for the cost of re renovating the building as well.

So on top of insurance, on top of labor and all the things that will stay in place while this is happening.

So it's a tremendous burden that is being created far beyond just the cost of putting sprinklers in our program.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hi, I am Tanya Amochayev.

I've lived in my city, San Francisco, for over 70 years, and will always love it.

I lived in my home in Fontana Towers during the 1989 earthquake, which not everyone remembers, but which destroyed so much of our neighborhood.

It was the quality of our building that kept it from being damaged in any way.

That gave me the confidence to buy and plan to live here for the rest of my life.

I have already we have already done so much that our building needs to protect us from earthquakes and fires without, as this mandate will do, tearing apart every apartment and displacing thousands of people per months and imposing millions of dollars in costs.

We could just fight for an exemption, but that would be unfair.

There's an enormous community that will suffer.

I ask you to stand up for our population, cancel this sprinkler mandate.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Folks, I'm really sorry.

Mr.

Clerk, you know, the clerk has repeatedly asked folks to keep the noise down.

It is a board rule.

We have to enforce board rules.

It is fair.

You know, right now I'm appreciating democracy because in our country we're there.

But but please, please respect the rules.

I don't want to have to stop the meeting.

So let's just keep going.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

My name is Julie Tang.

Let's get to the point.

Collectively, the people who are here, for whom the benefit is supposed to inert, don't want this legislation.

We think this pup this so-called public health uh government policy is in fact destroying our public health right now.

Our public health is being destroyed, being demised, and we're suffering from stress, depression.

Some people is thinking about death when they have to move out because they're not well.

So this is a very bad piece of legislation.

Secondly, the cost just doesn't justify the benefits.

We don't see it.

We're rational people.

I tell you, there is a way out.

There is an option to this.

Adopt the Maryland plan.

Maryland vacated its mandate is um sprinkling mandate, scuttle it, did not uh implement it, and that's the way to go.

And the reason financial hardship, that alone itself should be the purpose and for which this legislation should be demised.

And I urge you to do so.

Thank you very much.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Andrew Halpern.

I uh think it would help the public to understand how many deaths or injuries uh have occurred in the last five years.

Do the fires or smoke in the 12 plus story buildings.

I think if the fire uh department gave us some statistics that would balance out where we go from here.

A number of the speakers have spoken about financial hardship, displacement, and also all of the other fire control mechanisms already in place.

There's a number of them in buildings.

Right now, the multi-unit uh real estate market is a standstill because buyers can't buy, sellers can't sell because you haven't solved this issue yet.

And this the city is losing tax dollars in revenue because the values that are uh recognized from sales in the new tax base is not recognized by the city, so the treasury and assessor's office is losing dollars.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

We have over 48 years we every speaker gets the same amount of time, so we'll move on to the next speaker after the time is concluded.

Good afternoon.

I'm Gina Ferrante.

If the sprinkler mandate is not amended, I won't be able to afford to live in my Fontana West home or San Francisco for that matter.

The life-altering impact would be utterly devastating.

This especially breaks my heart as I faith, as I have dedicated the past 25 years of my life faithfully serving the city of San Francisco in the capacity of K-12 public school site administrator.

I had a scrimpen's day for 30 years to even afford a down payment for a home in San Francisco.

A home, I hope to go all in.

As a retired public servant being forced to move out of my home, it would bankrupt me.

I have nowhere to go and do not do not have the funds to cover the expenses.

My association fees would be untenable, and I would be forced to sell my beloved home at a significant loss.

The idea of losing my home leaves me feeling absolutely gutted.

As a safety-focused, five-time nerd-trained citizen and nerd host.

I beg you, I implore you.

Please don't render me nor my neighbors victims of what feels like a form of senior citizen gentrification.

My future is literally in your hand.

We have to move on to the next speaker.

Sorry to cut you off, but everybody has the same minute to provide their public comment.

We need to move on to the next speaker.

Hi, I'm the resident in the 946 uh Stockton's G.

And uh our beauty, it's uh cement and the concrete, and uh uh, and the seating it's uh eight feet high, and uh as I note, uh uh way uh it's a pipe, it's uh 14 inches, so it's below the coat.

Uh so I have a question for everybody.

Uh why the government allow the manufacturer to make the car to sell it to the customer and don't let the people drive the car on the stage.

That's the that's all.

Thank you for your comments.

The next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Jim Edlin.

I live at 66 Cleary Court.

I am here to say for all the reasons that you have been hearing that extension is not the right move.

Repeal is the right move.

Uh, but if this goes forward, because the mandate has chopped hundreds of thousands of dollars off the value of our home, we plan to apply for an equivalent reduction in its tax assessment, and I expect thousands of other owners will do so as well.

In addition to flooding the assessor's office with reduction applications, if these are granted, it could result in an annual loss of tens of millions of dollars to the city and county's property tax revenues.

Please just strike the words until January 1st, 2035, when this exemption expires from the fire code that is up for consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

A retired school teacher.

That's 47 years of making kids love math.

Um, I'll cut right to um to the extension.

We appreciate very much your consideration of a five-year extension, but here's my reality.

I live on a fixed income uh with a very tight budget.

I cannot afford an extra quarter of a million dollars now, and I will not be able to afford it in five years or ten.

That's the way fixed income works.

If you I'm gonna pause the speaker's time for just a moment to request once again that people not interrupt the proceedings so that we can continue to hear.

If you applaud and jeer and whoop while the speaker is speaking, then you are taking the time away from them.

We cannot hear the words that they are telling us.

So please you have 18 seconds.

If the if the mandate is not reversed, there is no plan that I will be able to stay in the Fontana West.

I will have to leave the Fontana, and that will be heartbreaking.

Thank you so much for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Ramona Rideout.

I'm a 75-year-old retiree, and I own a condominium in one of the uh retroactive sprinkler mandate buildings.

Um, how did such good intentions go so wrong?

You may not have been on the board when this unworkable mandate was passed, but it falls to you now to fix it.

Due to my building's concrete walls, radiant heating, and asbestos ceilings.

The estimated cost per owner in my building is $300,000.

For seniors on fixed incomes like myself, this is a catastrophic amount.

I ask you to approve the five-year extension and commit to the announcement.

I live at Telegraph Landing.

And this sprinkler mandate retrofit will be a major problem.

It will be a huge hardship to relocate and simultaneously pay rent, pay our existing mortgage, and pay up to an estimated $300,000 in construction costs with its low concrete ceilings and embedded tension wires.

Our building was never designed and built to accommodate significant new water infrastructure in every room.

Moreover, retrofitting such infrastructure risk future insidious damage due to incidental water leaks from a new water system.

I urge you to pass the legislation before you today.

It is a crucial first step.

However, the mandate needs to be changed and repealed.

I'm a member of the Barbary Coast Northern Association.

They support my statement.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

I'm Ellen Boley and I reside at Fontana East.

And my question is before this mandate was passed.

Why wasn't there a statistical study done to come to determine the probability of harm versus the cost of the remedy?

How many people in San Francisco have died or been injured in 20 in the past 20 years in concrete buildings like Fontana East?

The fire department wouldn't have these statistics.

This needs to be done now again, and then consider those results determine if this is a reasonable mandate.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

To have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Victoria Pons.

I live at the Hamilton in the tenderline.

This expense will devastate my quality of life as I would have to move out of the city if this were to move forward.

And this will also devastate the community of my building, as we are, as my neighbors have said, full of senior citizens and other um low income or fixed income residents.

So I prefer the money to be repealed, but I ask that for the time being the time frame be extended so that we can work on a solution together.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Sandy Frank, and I live in the Fontiana Towers.

Some of us are sick.

Our doctors are in San Francisco.

Our infusion centers are in San Francisco.

If we are forced to move out of our homes and out of the city, it would be extremely stressful for us to get to our doctor's appointments and the medical teams we have close relationships with.

Finding a medical team you trust can take years, and it would be hard for me to get to them because I don't drive due to my health issues.

Please have a heart and think about those of us who are young and old and who can't leave San Francisco due to our health.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jenny Gelbard.

Three years ago, I invested my life savings into a condo.

Two weeks ago, I was laid off from my job.

When Mayor Lurie speaks of impossible choices, he is talking about me.

For an unemployed homeowner, a six-figure assessment is a financial crisis that threatens my ability to stay in the city that I love.

The current narrative that these retrofits are simple one-day affairs is false.

It dismisses the 9,800 families facing massive debt, invasive construction.

We do not need, we need more than a five-year stopgap.

We need an independent technical advisory committee mandated to evaluate proven performance based safety alternatives, which provide equivalent protection at the fraction of the cost.

For integrity, we request Form 700 disclosures for all committee members.

Public safety policy must be driven by data, not by industry interest.

There are 15,000 affected residents.

We are motivated.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Seppi Richardson Wood.

A couple of years ago, I fell very hard and broke my arms and my shoulder, and now partially disabled.

And then I saw I had to move out of my house that had lived there for a long time.

And I thought that I'm getting to have my forever home in San Francisco that I love dearly.

That's where I like to die.

So I put $350,000 to remodel my home so I don't have to repair or improve my home.

In my 70s, 80s, 90s, whatever.

But believe me, I have no more money.

I have no pot to piss on to give you.

So please repeal and support solder and share.

I appreciate that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Christopher Wood.

I'm a resident of District 3.

Thank you, Doctor.

Doctor, thank you, Supervisor Souter, for your very clear statement earlier.

I support that 100%, with the possible exception of I would really like to see repeal rather than a delay.

And I'd also want to say I'm a lifelong union man, uh stage hands local 16, and my son is a firefighter, unfortunately not in San Francisco, but uh I recognize the fire safety issues, and um I think that many people have said the um the personal issues would apply to me as well.

And uh please consider all that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

My name is Linus Stampujas.

I'm president of the homeowners association at 1835 Franklin Street.

And my comment really deals more with the implementation of whatever happens five years from now with the extension or tomorrow.

I don't think anyone's really thought through the implementation as a board.

We control what can happen in a common area, but we really have very little control of what happens to individual units.

That's private property for each homeowner.

What I envision is a whole uh an HOA applying for a permit for a sprint, providing sprinkler system into a building, but then that'll have to be repeated by each homeowner who has to hire their own architects, designers, engineers to submit a permit application for their work.

So you've got partial systems being submitted to the building department for approval, and I've never heard anywhere where that's even practical.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

My name is Madeline Tremley.

I represent the gateway.

1,258 units representing approximately 3,000 people.

28 to 30 percent of our residents on their 80s and 90s with many health issues.

We also have professionals working on visa that have to notify USCIS within 10 days of change of address.

How will everyone cope?

How is gateway management going to relocate roughly 3,000 people?

And how are these people that are on fixed income going to cope with no doubt the increase that will come once the apartments are renovated?

I understand that the fire departments loves our 1960 buildings.

We had a couple of fires and they were self-contained with no casualties.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

I live in Green Hill Tower.

My insurance company charges me extra $25 for lack of sprinklers in our apartment.

Apparently, they consider risk uh missing the sprinklers is not very high, and they are one of the best to access the risk.

Another thing I would like to point out that uh risk award uh consideration definitely does not justify hundreds of millions of dollars on it refeat.

Uh I in implore uh Board of Supervisors to repeal the uh mandate because it causes so much heartache today, and it will cause a lot of troubles in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

My name is Gerald Asher, and I'm going to just regard the notes that I've made because I'd like to answer a couple of points that were made uh this here.

Um the fire department said they would in fact consider cases of hardship.

Um, wouldn't it be better if I don't know how qualified they are to measure hardship, but they are qualified to look at buildings and check uh whether in fact there really is need for this.

Installing sprinklers throughout might mitigate physical damage in the event of a fire, but they wouldn't save lives.

Sprinklers are activated when the ambient heat is get to about 160 Fahrenheit, at which time anyone who is still around would have passed out because of a heat stroke.

I'm I'm 94, I've lived in my building for over 50 years, and this if this is passed, it would be ruinous financially for me.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Asher, for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Thank you.

Hi, supervisors.

I'm Eric Sandler.

I have an apartment at 1200 Gough Street, which is impacted by this fire sprinkler mandate.

I'm the retired assistant general manager and CFO of the San Francisco PUC.

So I'm no stranger to this room and no stranger to having to balance uh public health and safety against cost impacts to ratepayers and customers.

So I was so I went back to the administrative record in 2022 to try to understand.

I was reading, I was reading all of the fire code, and there was absolutely nothing about the financial impact of this measure on customers.

It was shocking.

I could not believe it.

If I had done something like that during my career, I'd be fired.

Um, I appreciate all of the work that the two supervisors have done to delay the compliance deadlines, but really, that's this is backwards.

All of the staff work should be complete, and then you should legislate.

Um that's thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good evening, members of the committee.

Rudy Gonzalez with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council rising to support the delay and to support the inclusion of HOA voices in any technical advisory council that's adopted by this body.

There's a lot of science to discuss.

There's a lot of real human impact to discuss.

I've heard that loud and clear today, and I think we should welcome more of this dialogue.

Uh, frankly, we should make it easier for people to find out about these things.

Um, I think you know, there's we're dealing with a piece of legislation that was signed by a mayor who's no longer here, that was administered by a fire department whose chief is no longer here, and by a fire marshal who is no longer here.

You are all here, and these folks are here, and technical experts are here, and I think we have to work collaboratively to find a true path forward, and I respect and appreciate the voices in this room being included in that process moving forward.

To the objective hardship analysis, I think that should be the first thing the TAC takes up.

It's really about feasibility and make sure that uh people are heard, considered, and that we move forward uh with a plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

My name is Chris Ingram.

I'm the CEO of Ingram Fire Protection.

I'm a fire sprinkler contractor.

I'm also a fifth generation San Franciscan and former resident of Golden Gateway 440 Davis Court.

Uh I come here for two main points I want to make to the committee.

That one, the requirement for as a contract or the requirement for the tenants to move out is absolutely false.

There is no need for that to happen.

There's been very considerable misinformation, and we've done multiple jobs, identical to these, where we have not had any tenants have to move out.

That's number one, and number two point, it's very critical.

The cost per unit is sixty thousand dollars, all in total cost.

I'm pausing the speaker's time.

And I will personally do any building in San Francisco for five million dollars.

So that's the cost, and any misinformation from that is otherwise.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Members of the committee, Dan, please.

I don't want to have to stop this meeting.

Please.

Thank you.

Members of the committee, my name is Chase Browning.

I'm with the National Fire Sprinkler Association, and we represent the industry.

We also represent residents, and as you've heard loud and clear today, there's a lot of concerns about costs.

We're concerned about the cost.

The numbers that we've heard in media here and the numbers that we've heard today are a far cry from what we've experienced as we've done case studies on this, and we have published information that indicates a number closer to what Mr.

Ingram was talking about.

We also know that there's a lot of noise about displacement.

And as a previous sprinkler contractor and a fire marshal, I've seen this happen where it's very rare that you have to displace.

Um, as uh Rudy mentioned, there is discussion about a technical advisory committee with encouragement to have HOAs involved.

There's a lot of energy about this discussion.

There's a lot of creative approaches to get the cost down, keep the discussion going, and let's find a way to massively reduce the numbers from what we're hearing today because it's totally feasible around the country.

It's happening.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Okay.

Hello.

Uh my name is Joan.

Thank you for hearing me.

I had the privilege to meet the kind supervisor Danny Saughter at Pine Terrace, who feels deeply for myself and many, many others and doing his best regarding this.

Not only am I not able to pay for the sprinkler assessments on top of my HOA, I will have to sell my unit at a drastic or total loss because the cost of an estimated 300,000 sprinkler is a third of my unit's value.

Please have compassion on our plight and repeal this mandate as one neighbor to another another under God.

I ask you to please have compassion.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Georgie Fane, 1200 Gough Street.

Um, I bought 10 years ago.

The value of my property is already less than it was.

Um I cannot go further underwater.

Um, I would just like to also point out that all of us when we purchased our units knew that it didn't have a sprinkler system.

We were willing to move into a building with no sprinkler system.

We continue to be willing to live in a building with no sprinkler system.

And so I think that we should be allowed to live in our homes as we choose, as opposed to have this forced on us, which will completely change our lives and probably mean that as you've heard, many of us will have to leave the homes that we planned to live out the rest of our lives in.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

I'm here to make two quick points.

One, a personal one.

We've been talking a lot about our senior citizens, but I wanted to give a different perspective.

I bought my unit in late 2024.

By middle of 2025, after scraping since moving to the city in 2014, I found out in less than a year of owning it, the property value had halved.

I can't afford the changes that the sprinkler mandate will require, nor can I offload my property because literally no one is buying in these units.

And you can ask realtors who are gonna make comments, including the realtors who told me my unit.

The second point that I want to make is this needs to be about repeal.

Like that is the thing that we're all here for.

There's no extensions, it needs to be about repeal.

Literally, no one was aware of this ordinance or what we were taking on, and this is just a rational policymaking in a city where it's already hard to for anyone to buy anything, just let sanity for once prevailing San Francisco politics, and please repeal this thing.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Olive Rubenstein.

I am 35 years old, and I live at 1333 Jones Street, the Comstock Building.

My building is steel and concrete.

We have electric stoves as well.

These sprinklers would cause medical issues, such as asbestos.

Please repeal this.

This is not worth it, and this is going to drown us all.

This is not worth it.

And this is going to make me and everyone else in here leave San Francisco.

This is not worth it, and you guys are gonna regret it.

Please do not let me leave this city.

I love this city way too much, and so does everyone else in this building and everyone else in this city.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Yorum.

Uh, I'm grateful the CEOs and industry reps making tons of money came all this way here today for fire safety in buildings that they do not live in.

Truly generous people.

Uh I'm joking, of course, but I just wanted to make one comment.

Uh, treat their numbers at the numbers that they cited with a lot of skepticism.

First, they said 12K as the cost, but then no one believed them.

Check their press releases.

Then they said 60K.

What will the next number be that they cite?

So please stand with us, the people of San Francisco and set up these crony capitalists.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

I'm Kimberly Wong.

I'm on the board with the San Francisco Association of Realtors, and I wanted to make two comments.

The um we not only do we want to repeal this, but it would we also would like uh the creation of a formal technical advisory committee, committee of engineers, architects, and other experts to assess retrofit feasibility building by building, because each building is individual and different, and also we would like a pause of an on enforcement until the committee releases its findings.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, Melissa Draper, 1001 California Street, and I am here representing the HOA as the secretary.

It seems San Francisco has made so many fabulous positive strides that this really is kind of a blemish that has started to intrude on how we feel about San Francisco.

Um I want to thank the supervisors and the fire department for doing such a great job.

Clearly, we're we're all moving forward in a positive way.

Our building just went through a four-year multimillion dollar renovation because it's over a hundred years old and needed to have many things addressed, including water intrusion.

I have to say the numbers talked about tonight probably are more correct in the higher range than in the lower, having just gone through a huge assessment for any work done in San Francisco, and I think we all realize that.

We call for repeal.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Hi, I'm Janice Lea, Realtor at Coal Banker, past president and board of director at the Chinese Real Estate Association of America.

The sprinkler mandate was not well thought out, and the public was not informed.

I also feel bad for the recent homeowners who bought without knowing about this potential huge $300,000 expense per unit.

Property values will go down, and many homeowners may go bankrupt or lose their homes and get foreclosed upon.

Please repeal this.

Please reconsider.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is John LeBert.

I am uh resident of 1200 Gulf.

My point is I don't understand why we'd have to go through this when there is no expert study done on all of this.

So why don't we sit down?

Nobody wants, everybody in this room wants a fireman to die, trust me.

But I don't want to die being broke.

So I'm asking you to please reconsider what you're talking about.

And then if it doesn't work like that, put it on the ballot.

We'll tell you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name's Donna Crowder.

I'm a realtor of uh 50 years in the city and county of San Francisco, and I'm here to support and sympathize with my neighbors.

The point that I want to make, um, of course, what everyone has said and the stories I've heard are heartbreaking, and they're true.

But the point that I want to make is that with a stroke of a gavel, you've taken money out of these people's pockets.

Um their values have gone down, they could be underwater, and this is today.

We can't sell the units or the buildings today without a very very significant effect on the value, and that's a fact.

Please reconsider uh extension, um experts, or just do away with it all together and find some alternative.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Susan, and I live in the Hamilton building in the tenderloin.

Um, just to add my own personal viewpoint to everything that's been said, I support the five-year extension leading to more study and ultimately the repeal of the mandate.

I'm a retired teacher on an extremely modest fixed income.

I simply could not afford to uh finance the installation of sprinklers.

I would have to leave San Francisco for all the reasons everyone has said, and if that's the case, I will take anyone's uh suggestion where I could move after having lived my entire adult life in this city.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Joni Lackman.

Um just personally, I have a daughter who is 25 years old, but she had four um brain surgeries last year.

She has to stay in the city to be near her narrow team.

She has to be near a uh trauma one hospital.

Um, so not only would this be you know catastrophic for us financially, but it's health-wise, it would there is there would be no way back.

There's no alternative.

So I really ask that you um repeal and um thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Alison Jacobs.

I'd just like to speak to a comment from the two fire sprinkler um professionals who said we don't have to move out of our buildings.

Our buildings have asbestos and lead paint.

The construction would take about 12 months.

I don't think it is reasonable to expect residents to live in a hazardous, active hazardous waste situation for 12 months.

Also, high tech solutions like fire fighting drones and in high rises as well as new fire sprinklers that are more effective than uh even then water are becoming available.

So, why force massive retrofits now when much more affordable options are coming soon?

Take and and in addition, sprinklers have can cause risks, such as during earthquakes causing leaks, and if components and a sprinkler system.

Thank you for your comments.

The speaker's time has concluded.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the committee.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

I'm Merle Friedenberg, and I'd like to ask each of the supervisors a favor.

Would you please just imagine a loved one of yours in the situation in which we are?

What would you say?

Would you say, I don't care?

Would you say, oh, that's too bad, but everything will be okay?

Or would you say, I will do absolutely everything I can to help?

Then imagine this loved one again.

In this situation, what would you think?

Would you realize that this loved one had no money at all to pay for this?

Would you realize that this loved one had absolutely no place to go?

Would you realize that this mandate has already caused loss of sales of units in my building?

Lastly, please remember that your role as a supervisor is to do what is best for your constituents.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

And remember that at the next election, we will remember how you vote.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the committee.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Steve M.

And I've lived here since 1975.

And for the past 25 years, I've been practicing as a CPA serving local business owners and uh San Francisco residents.

And this mandate is kind of ridiculous.

Uh and uh I would like to have it repealed or expedited so that the uh we would know the results.

But but going back to my story, um sure the same related to other people, and uh uh I put my property up for sale.

It's been four months, and it depreciated 100,000.

So I have to load the load to 100,000 for my original, and it's not getting any uh any interest from the buyer.

So it's happening already.

So I moved out, I moved to Thunnyville because I didn't like the part of the theater anymore.

I love the city, I love that uh third in various committees here with the Merit's office, and it just shows no it just shows no appreciation of residence by the govern local government.

This and my lastly for the construction.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Before we hear from the next speaker, I just want to mention we have folks who are observing the meeting in the overflow room, room 263.

I understand most of the folks that are in that room are just watching the proceedings, but if we have anyone in room 263 who wants to join the public comment line, we have space in the chamber right now, and you should make your way this way, and we're just gonna continue going until we hear from everyone.

Let's hear from the next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Kathy.

Um, I own a property free unit, and uh I don't think I need the sprinkling, and I couldn't afford it, and I'd retire now, and my mom led me to property, so it's like uh fixing up.

I couldn't afford it.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments.

Tear from the next speaker, please.

Hi, my name's Karen Franklin.

I live in the Hamilton building.

I'm a former public school teacher.

One thing I always had to tell my students every day is get off your phones.

This is humiliating.

This little buzzer, we have one minute to plead for our futures, for our lives, for our families, for our health, for our investments.

People are leaving.

They're not even bothering to look at us.

What the hell is going on here?

Anyhow, I'm angry.

I want this initiative to be dismissed completely and be like the rest of the states.

And really, if you're just too tired to be here, go take a nap.

Otherwise, look at the people who are standing in front of you and have something important to say.

This isn't a joke, at least for all of us.

Shame on you for being so disreprespectful on the person who just left.

Thank you for your comments.

To have the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Lindsay Robinson, and I live at 66 Cleary Court.

Thank you to the supervisors who are in the room and taking this issue so seriously, and thank you to the fire department.

I hope you can see and understand and feel the passion and the fear that our neighbors are bringing to you today.

I'm just one of hundreds, thousands of people who will be affected by this.

We each have a personal story about why this is painful for us, why this is not feasible for us, why we are scared that this initiative has passed, and we are all hopeful that it will we'll be able to work towards a repeal that is sensible.

And I stand in solidarity with my neighbors who can't be here.

We have dozens and dozens of elderly and disabled folks who live in our building who can't physically be represented.

So every face in this room, every face who has spoken here today, please know that they represent hundreds of their neighbors.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

So the first 11 floors of higher buildings should be also be exempt from this mandate, to be fair.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Dan Rabinowitz.

I'm here because my building has done a statistical analysis, which can help this discussion by quantifying the risk against which this ordinance was intended to provide mitigation.

We looked at 26 years of published fire department data of every call out, 25 years of published EMT data, cross-correlated both of those.

And what we discovered was that of the 126 buildings which were originally the subject of this ordinance, none of them in that 26-year period had a fire-related death.

Of the 126 buildings which were the original subject of the ordinance, 123 of them went through all 26 years of this recorded data without a single fire-related injury.

Three buildings out of the 126 subject to the ordinance had a total of nine non-mortal injuries, none of which involved a first responder or a firefighter.

And there's no homeowners able to afford 300,000.

If any plumber telling you that it's not 300,000, please be reminded the buildings built before 1975 that it may contain lead-based pain and also asbestos pipe and ceiling, okay.

And so, and also we need a place to um to live while they're doing construction.

Nobody wants to live in a place that uh doing construction with asbestos in there.

So, and don't forget there's also we need to be in compliance with the electrical stove and and what a gita.

How much more money did do we need to pull in for just one condo unit?

Okay, and you are forcing your constituent to be full close on their properties and forced to be displaced.

Don't do that.

We need your help.

Please remove and abolish this mandate.

We need your help.

I know D2D3 has been um helping us a lot working on this.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Gina Blancart.

I'm past president of the Women's Council of Realtors in San Francisco.

And I want to say thank you, Board of Supervisors, for working cohesively with our mayor and doing great things in San Francisco.

And that said, I believe in the positivity of San Francisco, and we are on the rise and we feel it worldwide, not just in our city.

And that said, it is never too late to do the right thing.

And the right thing is to repeal the sprinkler mandate.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Eva.

I'm a representing of a Chinese real estate association of America.

I'm here today to ask you to reconsider and appeal the proposed uh sprinkler retrofit mandate.

Many of the homeowners uh represents are deeply concerned.

Um they did not know how to uh live the uh lesson residents are and can realistically remain their unit while a full sprinkler system installation is taking a place.

The const the construction process is uh destructed, extremely stressful, especially for senior family and young children, and the residents with a medical condition even more concerning a financial burden.

We are seeing estimate uh special assessment, reaching approximately three thousand per month for up to five years for them.

They cannot afford it.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Roman Kanaki from Green Hill Towers.

I want to frame two things that we have just heard.

We heard from the gentleman in the construction company that he would be willing to do it for five million per unit back of the envelope, five five million uh per per building, five million per building, a hundred buildings, five hundred million dollars.

We also heard that there has not been one recorded death in these high rises that this is subject to.

So again, what is the return on this?

Why aren't you looking at wood framed buildings if it's truly about fire prevention, fire safety, and saving lives, as we've already heard.

Repeal this.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is John Parker.

I live at 1998 Broadway.

And they say a good listener is somebody who doesn't know what they'll say until everybody else has talked.

Um so I'll put down my phone and just say tell you a little bit about our building.

We have 84 units on 12 floors in a building that's the footprint about the size of this room.

And we have people that volunteer, we have people that shop, we have people that dine out and support our local businesses.

We're exactly the type of people you really want at the contributing to the city, and you're making it harder for people to stay.

Um, the other point I'll make it's true that no other city has this mandate, but many of them have passed legislation like this, and then step back and roll back, including San Diego, Los Angeles, further afield, Honolulu, the entire state of Florida, and the city of Chicago.

So this is not the first time cities have looked at this, and every time they have stepped back.

So I strongly encourage you to repeal this mandate at some point in the short time.

Thank you for your comments.

Do the extension.

Thank you.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name's David Thompson.

I live at 1170 Sacramento Street.

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard.

I particularly want to thank my supervisor um Sauter and Supervisor Cheryl for the excellent communication, which is um quite a contrast from how this legislation was originally rolled out.

I'm not gonna add a lot to what has been said today.

I'm here uh asking that you repeal this legislation, but as I listen, there's it's just uh absence of common sense.

Um, how are we gonna pay for this?

We're just not gonna write a check.

Where are we gonna go to live?

We just don't have a second residence.

Values are being reduced, and there's a lot of fear and upset in our community.

So thank you for taking that into consideration, and thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, I'm Sylvia Hughes.

I live in one of the buildings, and I think you need to repeal the mandate sooner rather than later, because prices will be depressed, and the and nobody will want to come to San Francisco while your study is going on for the next five years.

That's a long time in the life of an elderly person.

It's a long time in anybody's life, maybe.

But I think you started this backwards.

You need to repeal it completely, and then if you then start a committee that looks at what can we do for additional fire safety, not push it down the road now and leave everything depressed, and without without thought for what happens next to the people that are actually living in these buildings now.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Beverly Sutton.

I live at Telegraph Landing.

I was didn't intend to speak, but it struck me as I was listening that nobody is talking about the impact on the city infrastructure.

If this mandate goes through, do we have the water supply to support the sprinkler systems?

Will we have to tear will you have to tear up uh streets?

Uh I don't know.

But I think it's worth asking because you need to look at that before you start tearing up buildings.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

To the next speaker, please.

Afternoon, my name is Marilyn Breen.

I live at 150 Lombard Telegraph Landing.

Uh I'm on the board of directors there.

Um I wrote a speech, but I don't have time to give it, so I just want to talk about risk.

I've lived in that building for 40 years.

One time we had to call the fire department.

It was a false alarm.

So I really the risk is low that I'm gonna be burned up in the building, and I certainly appreciate all the safety work toward the with the fireman give us, but the risk is low.

I'm 87 years old, and I do think that I speak for uh several other generationally handy challenged individuals whose risk now is being moved from their living spaces for untold periods of time to install such systems.

That's a br that's a bigger risk than than a fire in my building.

Um we just had to fire horn mandate, which cost us so much money.

I had to go out and recurrence.

Oh, this time is concluded.

Thank you for sharing the comments.

You cannot risk we'll hear from the next speaker now.

Thank you.

Uh hi, I'm Mary Gassard at 66 Cleary Court.

Um, I'd like to just address some of the arguments that we've heard in favor of this mandate.

Um, first, that we are overstating the cost.

Um we are not reacting hysterically.

I have been president of our board for about 12 years, have overseen several large projects.

I know what these things cost.

This is going to have a severe impact on people's finances and with possibly devastating consequences for some of our owners.

Uh secondly, there's this life safety argument.

Um, high-rise fires provide for a lot of dramatic film footage, and it's easy to jump on the bandwagon.

But the fact is these steel and concrete buildings are the safest in the city.

If you're serious about life safety, spend the limited resources that the fire department has, and spend it on the wood frame buildings.

Require them to upgrade their electricity, require them to have sprinklers.

Oh, I mean, there that's where the risk is, not in our buildings.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um I respectfully ask that you repeal repeal this uh this uh mandate.

In 2016, the city's fire safety community commission issued a report on the feasibility of mandating retroactive fire sprinkler installations in existing residential buildings.

It concluded that it was not feasible, but it identified other measures to improve safety, which many, if not all affected buildings have complied.

When the city passed this mandate in 2022, they did so without any proper outreach to owners and tenants.

None of the people in leadership roles in the city were involved in the passing of this mandate.

No other city or state has similar retroactive sprinkler requirements.

In fact, many cities and states have reversed this requirement after trying to implement it because it is not feasible.

This Board of Supervisors should reconsider the advice of the city's own fire safety commission and the examples of other jurisdictions like LA and San Diego to repeal this mandate.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Owen Erickson.

I'm at uh Fontana West.

I have uh one request for the Board of Supervisors, and that is if they would for uh the citizens of San Francisco investigate how this mandate in 19 uh 2022 was even passed without proper uh protocol.

And are there other mandates out there that haven't had proper protocol?

We don't know.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

The next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Patrick Carney.

I'm an architect of forty-five years.

Everybody wants safety.

Bringing an old building up to coat is not always possible.

We live in a 25-story building, which is entirely of thick concrete shear walls, no steel columns, no wood, only thick concrete.

Our structural engineers don't want our shear walls weakened and turned into Swiss cheese.

Doing sprinkler cores in a concrete box will will weaken the building seismically.

Sprinkler estimates vary up to 42 million dollars, which is 300,000 per unit.

Some owners may have to walk away from their units, yet this measure in 2022 had less public input than the typical backyard deck remodel.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Seven next speaker, please.

Good evening.

My name is Taran Jin.

I work for the city and county for the past 20 years and recently retired.

I represent San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco Fire Department, police coordination, and business tax.

I always looked at the interest of the city, but the fair equity of the public was equally important.

I beg to differ on this initiative.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name's Jordan, resident of San Francisco.

I have here a stack of letters from residents who could not be here asking for changes to the SF Sprinkler retrofit mandate.

We are just asking for some changes so that you do not displace residents in the city due to sprinkler retrofit mandate.

Again, fire safety is important, but it should not be displacing the very people it's supposed to protect.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

If you'd like to leave those for the file, you can just put them right on the rail and I'll pick them up in a moment.

Just leave them right there, it's fine.

Next speaker, please.

I'm really sorry.

The folks in the back who are taking video, if you could turn off your flash, it's just really blinding up here.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Roland Wing.

Uh we have a unit at Men Remember.

I'm gonna pause your mic.

Could you pull them?

Could you pull the mic right up to your face?

There we go.

Starting time over.

Can you start me?

Start my minute again, please.

Yes.

Good afternoon.

My name is Roland Wing, 946 Stockton Street, the Manor and Tower.

Um the buildings made out of concrete, uh metal reinforced uh um studs.

Um, I'm kind of a statistic statistics guy.

Let's ask the fire department how many fires that they have responded with concrete buildings compared to fires that respond with wood frame buildings.

How many buildings are burnt down, wood frame versus concrete?

Um our HOA has gone up from 300 to over a thousand dollars per month since we've owned the unit so let's repeal this mandate for all or require it for all including your residences in San Francisco thank you thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker please I cannot afford uh to purchase in San Francisco I'm here today to support those who can and senior citizens or just members of our community who needed you to have their back when this legislation was introduced and now the time it takes for my day um is my legs are swelling in the financial assistance program that was supposed to actually be there to missing so the the the buzzer um and threatening the members of your constituency um but to submit them suspend the meeting is just is irresponsible and it doesn't it doesn't speak to the nature of your responsibility and that position that you that you you asked for and you and you serve in so serve it with some dignity and please extend the same dignity to the people who are here I don't care if it's a thousand people outside we're gonna hear them and you will too.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker please.

Supervisors thank you for listening I know it's been a long session my name is Belle my husband and I got married right here in City Hall as newlyweds we bought a put all of our savings to our house to start a family water has been our absolute worst enemy as uh in our short term in our short time as uh first time homeowners we've had three major leaks the last one was last week and it's been tens of thousands of dollars so I worry about how much not only the the retrofit will cost us but also the repairs from any sprinkler activation I also worry about our ability to stay in the city and start a family so please consider this for all constituents of all ages please repeal the mandate thank you so much.

Thank you for sharing your comments next speaker please hi board of supervisors that was my wife right there.

We yeah we bought our condo six years ago with the hopes and dreams of starting our family in this beautiful city of San Francisco since then our home value has decreased by a few hundred thousand based on other you know comps on the market we don't want to leave this city we want to start a family here to be honest we've put our family planning on hold because of the financial uh instability and uncertainty that this situation has caused us so please repeal this please help us start our family and please let us stay in our homes.

Thank you for sharing your comments next speaker please good evening my name's Jeannie Huah I'm one from 1001 Pine Terrace we have about 144 units and I can possibly positively say no none of us want taxation without representation and I feel like this is what this is right now.

And out of respect for this former firefighter I would like to surrender my time to him and anybody else too who like to find your I'm sorry to say you have 30 seconds remaining but thank you if this I just want to say one timer for this guy but he should get into the line to provide public comment I didn't know so did you already speak in public comments earlier?

I did okay your time has has concluded there's no surrendering time to somebody else but we will hear from the next speaker please hi I just have a personal plea as a member of the first generation who's officially worse off than the one that came before it me and my husband we got married right here again two two years ago we also have put family planning on hold we are desperately trying to live in San Francisco.

We chose San Francisco over Washington DC on purpose.

We desperately want to be your constituents and live here.

I am begging you, as my elected officials, please do not run us out of town over this.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing our comments to the next speaker, please.

Hi, my name's Jim White from uh Fontana Buildings.

Um stats we haven't heard too many about 357 thousand responses by the fire department nationally.

Twenty hundred twenty-eight hundred deaths, civilian deaths in a year.

That's for the national levels.

California is about 7200 deaths per year.

Fatalities, building types, 84% of those deaths are coming from single-family homes or duplexes.

Fifteen percent are coming from apartments.

The other one percent are buildings, four stories and up.

One percent.

That's representing for California, maybe one death per year.

Is this making sense?

The insanity's got to stop, repeal this.

If you want something to go after, go after single family homes.

That's where your safest bed is.

That's where your enjoyment's gonna be on fatality reduction.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Barbara.

I live at um the Comstock 1333 Jones, and I'm looking at the um page 93 of the fire code um amendments and line 19.

It says determination of undue hardship, but not um not limited to consideration of the building owner's financial hardship.

Does that mean the entire building, or should that say the apartment or unit owner?

And if it is, how would you determine one unit gets a waiver and someone else in the same building doesn't?

How would that work?

Um that's all I have to say.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please.

Hello.

Um, my late husband and I have lived uh lived and bought uh a condo at 66 Cleary Court in 1988.

San Francisco is my home, and it is also the home of my soul.

I don't wish to leave this home.

Um, dear San Francisco Board of Supervisors, no words can adequately express the nightmare scenario and the literal nightmares that this albeit well-intentioned initiative has created for ordinary people here whose lives will be hopelessly uh turned upside down and permanently harmed by it.

As a result of its adoption, people will be forced to sell their condominiums, leave the city, or in case of retirees, uh, use their retirement savings up until they have uh no resources left.

From everything that we've heard uh uh through this investigating this project, it was not sufficiently researched, nor were viable other options adequately considered before adopting it, as it was done by other cities around the country.

Furthermore, the real life consequences of the lives of people that it was designed to protect.

Speaker's time is concluded into account.

Let's hear from the next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Tim Hurley.

I'm the board president of 1001 Pine Street, and I'm super excited.

Um, we heard a little while ago from our industry representative that this was only gonna cost $60,000 per unit.

I mean, I had thought maybe it would be something like 300,000.

And when Supervisor Southern was giving his presentation, and he mentioned the 300k, right?

Well, our fire marshmallow our and our fire chief, they shared a little look and a little smirk and a shake of the head, and I thought, well, maybe they have something they don't they're not sharing with us, or maybe they're just giving us lip service about their concerns.

But actually, they knew that it was going to be super cheap.

I mean, 60,000, that's that's almost nothing.

That's that's great.

I mean, everybody out here, as you've heard, they can do that.

I mean, it's only 60,000.

So, you know, keep up the good work.

Uh, don't mind what we're being charged, because like they say, safety has no price.

Well, it does.

I mean, we balance safety and costs all the time.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you all.

So, the next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Maureen Hayes, and I live in Fontana West with my husband for the last 15 years.

We were both born and raised in San Francisco, as our parents and some of our grandparents.

And all I can say is after listening to all the comments, and I'm totally troubled by all the heart, the fear that it has put in the tenants in our whole whole building that you were elected officials and you are public servants, and public servants shouldn't have so much power over all these people's lives.

The only thing good about this whole thing, which I hope you repeal the whole thing and start in the beginning, is I've gotten to meet so many strong, brilliant seniors and younger people in all of San Francisco that I'm thankful that I've gotten to meet them and they will fight this for sure.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please.

Hi, I'm Beth Stein.

I live over at the Fontana, and um my comment is a solution-based comment.

Should people be displaced because this is not repealed?

Maybe you could uh take off the ordinance that says we are not allowed to sleep in our cars at night, provided we don't bring a lot of garbage into the city.

But let's think um with some thought about where we're gonna go.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

Just before we hear from the next speaker, I want to note that the line is getting quite short.

If we have anyone else here in the chamber from whom we have not already heard public comment and you want to give public comment on this item, you can line up to speak behind them.

Otherwise, we're gonna take this line to the end.

Let's hear from the next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Steve Simon.

I've been a resident of San Francisco since 1959 and currently reside at the Hamilton.

Uh, I think we owe these residents and San Franciscans facts and answers in regards to uh the feasibility of this uh program, the affordability of this program, compatibility with their units, and at that point, then maybe we can make some accommodations, but there's no facts.

I have no answers.

I don't know how much this is gonna cost me.

So how am I to make a judgment on this process without facts and if it even is feasible uh within our buildings?

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please.

I believe I left 30 seconds.

May I have 30 seconds back?

I walked away trying to be compliant.

You gave public comment earlier, and you had a minute to give your public comments.

And I heard the ding, and in an anxious state of trying to be compliant.

I trust you.

Come up and give your public comment for 30 seconds.

Let's go.

Thank you so much.

Um, I just wanted to raise that if the 12,000 dollar estimate is real, putting aside the question of housing, that's still a hundred dollars a month for 10 years of savings.

And for a lot of the residents in my building, that's untenable already.

Sixty thousand, five hundred dollars a month for ten years for people on fixed incomes.

Meanwhile, as until this gets resolved, I can't move anywhere.

I can't start a family, and I'm resigned to doing that in a studio.

Um, I hope that you'll think about.

Thank you so much for sharing your comments committee that was way outside of usual bounds.

Thank you.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Hello, everyone.

Good e good afternoon.

My name is Helen Tan.

I'm a real estate broker and a loan broker, and also I'm CIEAA board of director.

I say real estate feud, so I think these mandatory aids should be supposed now to be pushed forward, okay?

Because first of all, we can know many seniors, they are don't have income and also leaving the only house.

I can tell because many like a reverse mortgage come to me because they don't have money, even they cannot pay the property tax.

So, for these standpoint, I think we shouldn't do this kind of fire uh spring crew uh mandatory.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for sharing your comments to the committee.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

And I'll note that there's just one more speaker behind that speaker.

If you want to join and you haven't already given public comment, please line up to speak.

Otherwise, we will hear from this speaker and then that speaker, and we'll be done.

That's a lot of pressure.

Uh my name is Ann Miller, and I'm also with the Fontanas.

To give you a little courage, supervisors, to listen to the repeals, for over 10 years.

Every supervisor said no to freestanding legislative retrofit attempts.

Using the BLA you've heard of and other studies, they determined it was too costly and too disruptive.

But in 2022, with no updated studies, as you've heard, no concern for the homeowners.

The fire code was used to accomplish what legislative attempts failed to do.

The result, one man's work around, is causing long-term serious consequences for homeowners.

I'm also concerned that we thought we were getting two five-year extensions.

One, the first and the second of the requirements in this code.

Extending only one for five years doesn't really help us that much.

Water claims are the number one thing that raise rates and our problems in buildings like this, not fire.

Here's the thing: I've been at a lot of public hearings, and this one has been totally remarkable to me.

You got 143 buildings, 10,000 residents.

You can't find one resident in favor of this.

You need to listen to these people.

A lot of them, most of them, all of them are very well educated, experienced people are telling you no, we don't want this.

The answer is you need to repeal this, not kick the can down the road.

I know that may be politically expedient, but I and all these people don't want to be here in the next five years at the next hearing complaining about what's going on and all the nonsense.

And this is about a bunch of nonsense.

Unlike everybody else, I will admit I could afford these sprinklers.

Two reasons I'm not doing it.

There's no cost benefit.

Speaker's time is concluded.

Thank you so much for proving your comments to the committee.

Do we have anyone else who has public comment for agenda item number 30?

Okay.

Madam Chair Pierce, there's no more.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Clerk.

With that public comment is now closed.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Um, thank you, Chair Milgar.

Um, thank you to everybody who came here to speak.

Thank you for taking time out of your lives.

I know you all have a lot going on.

Thank you for being here today.

Um, colleagues, lastly, there's one non-substantive amendment to the fire code unrelated to this issue, actually, that's been circulated with each of your office and the committee clerk, specifically this amendments on page 63, line four, adding back language that was uh mistakenly deleted in the update to the code.

I've confirmed that this amendment is non-substantive with the city attorney's office, so that this does not require a continuance in committee.

Um, as long as there are no questions from colleagues, um, I move to amend this item as circulated and move to send the amended uh fire code to the full board with recommendation.

Okay.

Uh Supervisor Sauder.

Well, thank you, Chair.

Um, just very quickly, because I know it's been a long afternoon.

Uh, I want to echo Supervisor Cheryl's appreciation for everyone who joined today.

Uh, I know there's many that um were here and didn't uh speak.

There's also many that were in the overflow room, who uh um, number that I spoke with earlier who um we didn't even see in this room.

So you made your voices uh heard.

And you know, one thing that I heard loud and clear is that what we're considering today with these changes to the fire code is not enough, and this delay is not enough, and I agree with that.

Um, and there's more that needs to be done here, and um, you know, very shortly after this, um, we'll be working to introduce a technical advisory council, and there's more that needs to be done beyond that.

So, um, again, I want to thank you for your engagement.

Um, I know that um this is going to continue to cause a lot of anxiety, and uh, in our offices, um, and I I think I speak for Supervisor Cheryl, uh, will continue to work with you on this because um how we've gotten here, um, I think is a um is a misuse of trust between residents and government.

And um, for my part, I'll do um everything I can to begin to correct that.

Thank you.

Okay.

So perhaps before we vote, Mr.

Clerk, you can clarify the procedure.

Uh Supervisor Mahmud has left us.

I believe Super President Mandelman has appointed Supervisor Cheryl in his stead.

That's correct.

We have a presidential action memo from the President appointing Supervisor Cheryl temporarily in place of Supervisor Mahmood, who uh is noted absent as of three thirty this afternoon.

Okay, I should have explained that before you made the motion, but now we are.

I there's a motion on the floor.

Okay.

On the motion offered by temporary member Cheryl that the ordinance be amended and then recommended as amended, Vice Chair Chen.

Chen I.

Member Cheryl.

Chair Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I.

Madam Chair, there are three ayes on those two motions.

Okay, thank you all.

And thank you to all the uh members of the public who came to uh weigh in.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, do we have any other uh items on our agenda?

There is no further business on the agenda.

Okay, we're adjourned.

Thank you.