good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting for today, tuesday, june 27th, 2023. madam clerk, would you please call the roll? thank you, mr. president. supervisor chan chan, president . supervisor dorsey dorsey. present supervisor and guardian and guardian present supervisor. mendelson mandel present supervisor. melgar melgar present supervisor. peskin present. peskin present supervisor. preston preston present supervisor. ronen. ronen present supervisor. safai safai present. stephanie stephanie present and supervisor walton walton and present. mr. president. all members are present. thank you, madam clerk. the san francisco board of supervisors acknowledges we are on the unseated ancestral homeland of the ramah shalon,

who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramah aloni have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramah community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples colleagues, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands. one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. madam clerk, do we have any communications? yes,

mr. president. just to say that this meeting is airing live on sfg of tvs channel 26 or you may view the live stream at sfg. vtv dawg to participate in person. come on down to city hall. second floor, room 250. in the board's legislative chamber to participate remotely. the telephone number and the meeting id is published on the agenda and streaming on your television or computer screen. if you need any assistance during this meeting, call (415)!a554-5184. e have a clerk standing by to assist you and always, if you'd like to send your comments to the members of the board, you may use our email address at bos at sfg. org. or you can send a stamped letter via us postal office addressed to the san francisco board of supervisors. the number one doctor carlton be good lit place room 244 san francisco, california 94102. we

will have language interpretation assistance in filipino, spanish and chinese at this meeting from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. mr. president, thank you. thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, can we have a motion emotion to approve the may 16th and may 23rd? regular board meeting minutes made by supervisor and seconded by supervisor walton on that motion made and seconded a roll call. please on the minutes supervisor south south by supervisor stephanie. stephanie i supervisor walton walton i supervisor chan chan i supervisor dorsey dorsey i supervisor and cardio and guardians i supervisor randleman mandel aleman i supervisor melgar melgar i supervisor peskin i peskin i supervisor preston preston i and supervisor ronen ronen i. there are 11 eyes

those minutes will be approved as presented after public comment. madam clerk, could you please read the consent agenda items one through 16 are on consent. these items are considered to be routine if a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately. seeing no names on the roster. so same house, same call. those ordinances are finally passed. congratulations, mr. bittner and ms. irving madam clerk. next item, please. can you read 17 and 18 together? yes. item 17 and 18 called together are the proposed interim budget and appropriation ordinance and the proposed interim annual salary ordinance for item 17. this appropriates the estimated receipts and expenditures for the departments and for item 18. this enumerates

positions in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance respectively, and for both items for the fiscal years ending june 30th, 2024, and june 30th, 2025. roll call on item 17 and 18 supervisor safai safai i supervisor stephanie stephanie i supervisor walton walton no. supervisor chan chan i supervisor dorsey dorsey i supervisor irwin cardio and cardio i supervisor randleman mandel i supervisor melgar melgar i supervisor peskin i pesky and i supervisor preston preston no and supervisor ronen roni and i. there are nine eyes and two nose with supervisors walton and preston voting no. those ordinances are final passed. madam clerk, could you please read items 19 and 20 together? items 19 and 20 comprise two resolutions that

approve airport leases at the san francisco international airport. item 19 approves the 2023 lease and use agreement with 29 airlines to conduct flight operations for a ten year term through june 30th, 2033 to affirm the sequa determination and to make the appropriate findings and for item 20, this approves the 2023 lease and use agreement with 11 airlines to also conduct flight operations for a ten year term through june 30th, 2033, and to affirm the secret determination and to make the appropriate findings. roll call on items 19 and 20. supervisor sapphire sapphire supervisor stephanie steph forney i supervisor walton walton i supervisor chan chan i supervisor dorsey dorsey i supervisor and cardio and cardio i supervisor randleman high mendelsohn i supervisor melgar melgar i supervisor peskin hi

peskin i supervisor preston preston i and supervisor ronen ronen i there are 11 eyes those resolution signs are adopted. madam clerk next item, please. item 21. this is a resolution that provides various bond related authorizations for the san francisco international airport. this item approves the issuance of approximately 6 billion in aggregate principal second series refunding revenue bonds to refinance bonds and subordinate bonds. it approves the issuance of approximately 60 million in aggregate principal and special facilities bonds to refund bonds issued to finance fuel storage and delivery facilities. it approves the issuance of approximate 262 million in aggregate, principal of special facilities bonds to refund bonds issued to finance the airport hotel to approve revolving lines of credit and term loans in the available principal amount. together with the aggregate outstanding

principal of subordinate bonds issued as commercial paper notes not to exceed 600 million to approve the purchase of bonds or subordinate bonds by the airport to approve the maximum interest rates. the maturity dates and number of issues of such capital plan bonds refunding bonds, subordinate bonds and special facilities bonds and to approve the 38 airport commission resolutions that led up to the issuance herein and to approve certain other related matters. same house, same call. the resolution is adopted. next item, please. item 22. this is a resolution to approve and authorize the execution, delivery and performance of lease number 16997 for building 49 located at 701 illinois street with crane cove park by the young men's christian association. the ymca of san francisco for an initial ten year term. options to extend for another 34 years and 11 months

with an initial annual base rent of approximately 93,000 and a fee waiver for a company license agreement and to make appropriate findings. same house, same call. the resolution is adopted. next item, item 23. this is a resolution to approve the terms and conditions of the first amendment to the secured carry back promissory note and the first amendment to the deed of trust. securing payment of the balboa reservoir purchase price. of 11.4 million. same house, same call. the resolution is adopted next item item 24. this is a resolution to approve an interim agency cooperation agreement between the jpa transbay joint powers authority and the city relating to phase two of the transbay program to provide for the city's consultation service and cooperation with the jpa to facilitate the planning, design and construction of the project with an anticipated revenue of

over 1 million over a ten year term. same house, same call. the resolution is adopted. next item, please. item 25 resolution to approve the fiscal year 23 through 24 interim budget of the office of community investment and infrastructure. same house, same call. the resolution is adopted. next item. item 26. this is a resolution to retroactively authorize the department of public health to accept and expend an approximate $1.2 million grant increase from the centers for disease control and prevention for a new total of approximately 2.2 million to participate in a program entitled national human immunodeficiency virus behavioral surveillance. for the current calendar year ending december 31st, 2023. same house, same call. the resolution is adopted. next item, please. item

27. this is an ordinance to amend the building and planning codes to create a temporary amnesty program for unpermitted onix to streamline the application process, to legalize awnings, to waive applicable fees, to confer legal nonconforming status for awnings, and signs that do not comply with the planning code and to affirm the determination and to make the appropriate findings. supervisor saphire, can you please add me as a co-sponsor? you are you shall be added as a co-sponsor happily. thank you for your co-sponsorship. any other comments? seeing none. same house. same. mr. president. mr. president. supervisor stephanie. i'm sorry. supervisor. stephanie. my apologies, please add me as well. you are already on. thank you. supervisor garcia . you can add me to and the record shall reflect the additions of supervisor sapphire and gaudio seeing no other names on the roster. same house, same

call. the ordinance is passed on first reading next item, please. item 28. excuse me. this is a resolution to urge the department of human resources to explore ways to adopt policies to match top recruitment bonuses offered by law enforcement agencies in northern california that compete for new and laterally hired police officers and sheriff deputies to urge the police commission and the sheriff's department oversight board to develop sworn staffing plans to achieve recommended full duty police and sheriff staffing levels and to urge continued improved efficiencies in the recruitment and hiring of prospective san francisco police department officers and sheriffs department deputies, supervisor staff. please add me as a co-sponsor. supervisor preston. thank you, president peskin and i have connected with the sponsor for supervisor dorsey. i think we had a good conversation. i think i understand where he's coming

from on this reso. i did share some of my concerns. i will not be supporting this today. i i just want to say that i have concerns about the resolution and so far is that it effectively puts the board on record supporting policy to automatically match hiring bonuses offered by other northern california jurisdictions for police and sheriff's deputies. and i have reservations about the suggestion that our city should set aside its own analysis about hiring conditions, pay benefits and other factors that contribute to whether someone wants to work here as a police officer or a deputy in this city to automatically match hiring bonuses by jurisdictions like redding and other cities that may or may not be comparable in many respects in terms of the decision making and the packages that are needed to attract folks . i also just want to note the board of supervisors recently

approved. a $166 million package with retention bonuses for police on top of a police contract just a year earlier that already implemented hiring bonuses. so i'm not convinced of the need for this further resolution, and we'll be voting no on this item today. thank you . i have some comments, but go ahead. supervisor dorsey. sure. thank you, president peskin. i just wanted to express my appreciation to supervisor peskin and our preston rather, and i realize reasonable minds can disagree on this. this was something that had been introduced before for the mou and i think it was even before i talked about the charter amendment that supervisor stephanie and i were talking about. this was really in reference to some of the news, the revelations that were coming out about other jurisdictions at a time when we are in the most competitive environment for law enforcement personnel that i've

seen in my career, that san francisco was being outcompeted by some jurisdictions. i think it's you know, this is i didn't want to be overly prescriptive with this. and i think that's partly why i think a resolution is appropriate for this. so i appreciate the co-sponsorship and, you know, but also the disagreements and reasonable that reasonable minds can disagree on this. yeah, i was only going to add that and i think it was evident in supervisor preston's statement, which is while there is at least on this supervisor's from this supervisor's perspective, a desire to fill vacant positions within the department, and there are many ways to go about that, including the mou that we just entered into in a budget supplemental that we authorized in the budget that we will be considering here next month. but . i guess simply put, this does

not bind this board relative to whatever is proposed by future administrator, police, commissioners, police department will evaluate that when we see. so. all right. with that, on item 28, a roll call, please. on item 28, supervisor of sapphire. sapphire i supervisor stephanie stephanie i supervisor walton walton. no supervisor chan chan , no supervisor dorsey dorsey i supervisor and gaudio and gaudio i supervisor mandolin. hi mandolin i supervisor melgar melgar i supervisor peskin pesca and i supervisor preston preston no. and supervisor ronan. ronan no. there are seven eyes and four nose with supervisors walton, chan, preston and ronan voting no. the resolution is adopted. madam clerk, could you

please read items 29 and 30 together? items 29 and 30 are two. resolution that approve liquor licenses. item 29 determines that the issuance of a type 90 on sale general music venue, liquor license to qualia enter entertainment inc to do business as arena sf located at 2565 mission street will serve the public convenience and item 30 determines that the person to person premise to premises transfer of a type 21 off sale general beer wine and distilled spirits, liquor license to epicurean trader doing business as the same name located at 2240 market street will serve the public convenience and to request that the california department of alcoholic beverage control impose conditions same house, same call. excuse me. roll call on item 30 and 31, 29 and 30. thank you, madam deputy.

on items 29 and 30. supervisor sapphire. sci fi. supervisor stephanie. stephanie, i supervisor walton walton i supervisor chan chan i supervisor dorsey dorsey i supervisor and gaudio and gaudio i supervisor randleman high mandel mandolin i supervisor melgar mill, ga. i supervisor peskin i peskin i supervisor preston preston i and supervisor ronen ronen i there are 11 eyes those resolution plans are adopted next item please. item 31. this is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to limit the application of non profit reporting requirements to organization, receiving more than 100,000 annually to require submission of tax and governance documents to confirm nonprofit status to centralize reporting by restoring the city administrator as the sole

collector of information and to require the city administrator to make reported information publicly available. supervisor staff. i thank you. president peskin. colleagues, this legislation addresses result of some really important reporting by our local media that found that nonprofit oversight could improve and certainly make for a better government efficiency. so this ordinance is a first step to clean up nonprofit oversight. i want to acknowledge supervisor stephanie, whose working on ensuring that nonprofits perform and performance measures in their agreement. but the simple problem that we're trying to solve here is that nonprofits are supposed to have a few key approvals before operating. however, there's no real central city agency charged with ensuring that they do so. so we've asked the city administrator to be that area. city law requires nonprofits to

report basic information to the city administrator, the name of their ceo, board of directors and annual budget, but it does not require them to demonstrate that they are legally authorized to do work in san francisco. so with this ordinance, because the most important aspects of it are the internal revenue service must recognize nonprofits as 501 three. they must be incorporated for charitable purposes, and they have to file tax returns if they have more than $50,000 a year in revenue. the state of california also requires registration with the registry of charitable trusts in the attorney general's office. this filing this ensures that california can act and contact the attorney general if they suspect wrongdoing and some instances, nonprofits must be audited, especially when they receive federal funds that flow through san francisco for health and human services programs. so this ordinance also closes a loophole where departments received reports and in many

times there's a certain conflict of interest. it's embedded in it where a department that might have a problematic contract or might have problematic folks that they work with, they might not necessarily be interested in shining light on that. so the interest is sunshine. we've asked, as we said, the comptroller, to be the one that would post this information and be the central depository of this online. so i want to thank our city comptroller, ben rosenfield, for his work. the city administrator for working with us to improve this legislation and with that, colleagues, i ask for your support here today. thank you. supervisor sapphire, seeing no other names on the roster, we will take this same house, same call. the ordinance is passed on first reading. next item, please. item 32 is an ordinance to amend the park code for the prozac membership roll call on item 32. supervisor south safai. i supervisor stephanie.

stephanie i supervisor walton walton i supervisor chan chan i supervisor dorsey dorsey i supervisor and cardio and cardio i supervisor randleman may i supervisor melgar melgar i supervisor peskin hi peskin i supervisor preston preston i and supervisor ronen. ronen. no, there are ten i's and one no with supervisor roni supervisor ronen voting no. the ordinance is passed on first reading. next item please. item 33 is a motion to appoint michael reid term ending april 30th, 2024. and michaela garfinkel. lisa irene fairgrounds. jane tobin and michael angelo torres terms ending april 30th, 2025 to the commission of animal control and welfare. roll call on item 33 supervisor safai south by supervisor stephanie. stephanie

i supervisor walton walton i supervisor chan chan i supervisor dorsey dorsey i supervisor and audio and guardian i supervisor mandel i supervisor melgar melgar i supervisor peskin i peskin i supervisor preston preston i and supervisor ronan ronen and i. there are 11 eyes the motion is approved. next item please. item 34. this is a motion to appoint william monroe palmer, the second to the sheriff's department oversight board term ending march one, 2027. seeing no names on the roster, same house, same call. the motion is approved. madam clerk, could you please read items 35 through 37 together items 35 through 37 are three motions that appoint members to the enhanced infrastructure finance district.

public financing authority. number one, these three members were nominated by the president of the board, aaron peskin. item 35 appoints kathryn domain term ending june 6th, 2025. item 36 appoints keith goldstein term ending june 6th, 2027, and item 37 is a motion to approve the appointment of supervisor aaron peskin as the alternate to seats one, two and three term, ending june 6th, or to the conclusion of his term as a member of the board of supervisors. seeing no names on the roster, more work seems house. same call the motions are approved. madam clerk. given that it is not yet 230 oh, all right. why don't we go to roll call for introduction , starting with supervisor safai? yes. supervisor safai first up to introduce new

business. we refer certainly supervisor stephanie. thank you, madam clerk. i'll go ahead and report on my outside boards and commissions. i would like to report on the work that we at the board of directors of the golden gate bridge, highway and transportation district have been doing recently. during the 20 2223 fiscal year, the bridge board continued to work on various projects affecting regions throughout the bay area. projects affecting our city include first passes and fairs. the board of directors approved a new five year transit fair program that will begin on july 1st, 2023. the new fair program will increase cash fares for most ferry trips, as well as regional bus trips by the north bay and san francisco by $0.25 each year, while maintain discounted fares for clipper users, seniors, youth and persons with disabilities under the fare program. marin local

bus fares and giants ferry fees will not see an increase in some fares such that such as the means based ferry fees are being reduced actually to better align with the district's equity goals . regarding infrastructure, the district is working with the metropolitan transportation commission and the other bay area transit operators on a coordinated study of the upcoming need for zero emission infrastructure for both bus and ferry operations. the district was fortunate to be awarded a $400 million grant to complete the final phase of the golden gate bridge seismic retrofit. and as part of the bipartisan infrastructure law. and we have speaker emerita, nancy pelosi to thank for that. also regarding services as we exit the pandemic, the world has changed in ways that affect travel in the golden gate corridor. while recreation and tourist travel has mostly returned to commute, travel has not commute. bridge traffic is averaging about 30% below normal. so only about 70%

of auto commute travel has returned, affecting the district's finances. the district will continue to bring bus and ferry service back incrementally. as we see the return of our customers traveling in the golden gate corridor. regarding the suicide safety net, the suicide deterrent system, also known as the safety net, is being constructed to keep people from jumping off the golden gate bridge. last year, 182 people came to the bridge to harm themselves. thankfully, 160 were stopped by district staff working in conjunction with partner agencies. but sadly, 22 people died jumping from the bridge. construction of the net continues with about 1.5 miles of netting up along the bridge. as the end of this fiscal year. regarding staffing in the wake of the pandemic, finding suitable candidates for staff positions has proven to be challenging to address this issue and align with the district's commitment to equity. a strategic collaboration was forged with the transit union local 1575. the college of

marin, santa rosa junior college and california transit works. the outcome of this partnership is the creation of a pioneering bus operator pre apprenticeship program and the district's existing bus operator apprenticeship program has been expanded to allow trainees and apprentices to earn college credits as they complete the district's training courses. so we're really excited about that. and the budget. the fiscal year 2324 proposed budget for the golden gate bridge board totals 314.3 million, comprising operating revenues, emergency one time american rescue plan funding government grants and district resources reserves. i mean, sorry, district reserves. the operating budget for fiscal year 2324 is 271.4 million, encompassing expenses related to operational activities within the district and the capital budget for fiscal year 23. 24 is 42.9 million inches total. capital expenses with regard to

the family violence council and i, they last met on may 17th, the department provided an update on the development and implementation of the family violence council data dashboard members of the committee discussed the importance of including data from domestic violence community organizations and not just 911 calls to get a better picture of the issue in the city. they also discussed the need to support and fund these community groups because many of our diverse populations do not feel comfortable calling 911, especially on a loved one. and this is especially true for multigenerational families living together where elder abuse may be occurring. family member to family member with regard to housing and survivors of violence, the department of homelessness and supportive housing presented on a community needs assessment for survivors of violence. and there were some disturbing key takeaways. 900 survivors were reported to have received placement in victim specific programs in 2019 2020, with. 532 in emergency shelters

and 368 in transitional or permanent housing programs. 2684 survivors were turned away from victim service provider emergency and transitional housing. during this period, demonstrating that for every survivor who received safe housing that year, at least another three did not victim service programs have a total of just 77 shelter beds for survivors and their children in the city, with approximately 80% of survivors who seek shelter being turned away. that is absolute lutely unacceptable. 2020. 20. 21, 5084 individuals out of 23,019 who engaged in services through the homelessness response system reported being survivors of violence. although the type of violence is unknown, ach has shared that there is a notable confusion among both providers and survivors about how our housing system works and survivors are not doing well in

the coordinated entry system, or they are avoiding it entirely. barriers to access our multiplied for bipoc lgbtq plus immigrant limited english proficiency survivors and people with disabilities. there's little indication that the survivor population is a focal point in our homeless response system and survivors of sexual assault are often left out of the conversation altogether. survivors often feel unsafe in access points and shelters. coordinated entry was also designed without victim's input and much more needs to be done to ensure adequate training and cross systems planning essential to effective response to survivors. this underscores how little our city invest in victims and survivors of domestic violence and how much more we need to do. i really appreciate the work that the family violence council has done on this. they have highlighted what i believe is a truly life threatening situation, relative to how we house and provide emergency shelter for victims of domestic violence. and it's something i will continue to

work on and the rest, i submit. thank you. thank you. supervisor stephanie. yeah. thank you, supervisor stephanie as well. and we have hit 230 so we can go to and we have quite a number of them our special order commendations today and supervisor stephanie, you are not off the hook because we are starting with you. thank you. president peskin, do i have steve odom in destiny pledge? can you come up? i see. you. i've been waiting to do this for a long time, so i had to miss that one meeting when my dad was sick. so i'm glad we can finally do this. but colleagues, today i'm very pleased to offer a special commendation to two of the most diverse public servants i've had the pleasure of knowing and working with steve dominici, adam and destiny pledge. steve adami, the former director of the san francisco adult

probation department's recent tree division and destiny pledge , the former reentry services manager have led numerous reentry and recovery initiatives over the past nine years, benefiting the people of san francisco for over two decades. steve was in and out of jail, in prison, and in his own words, his recovery and transformation started in a pair of handcuffs after being released from prison in december 2010, he earned a master's degree in public administration with a focus on public policy and criminal justice in 2014, he was hired by adult probation, was promoted to managerial position. in 2017 and in 2020 became the director of the reentry division. destini joined adult probation in 2014 while completing her bachelor's degree in criminal justice administration, determined to change systems. she went on to get her master's degree in public administration, and in 2021 became the reentry services

manager. during their time with reentry division. these two designed and implemented over 5050 reentry and recovery programs organized a recovery coalition and worked in tandem with the community to meet their needs. and if you don't know what recovery mean, it means recovery from substance abuse addiction. so and all of that, that that encompasses their their most notable accomplishments include the creation of positive directions trp academy go go positive directions. the city's first absence based therapeutic teaching community. the ability holiday center, a reentry stabilization center, and the project dual diagnosis therapeutic residents for justice involve adults with the history of behavioral health challenges through their work together, steve and destiny have demonstrated an incredible and life saving commitment to second chances. i am so grateful, really, for all that you two have done while your departure

from city government is a loss, it brings me great comfort knowing that san francisco will continue to be transformed by your new work leading the salvation army's recovery focused homeless initiative called the way out. your work has undoubtedly saved and change lives. i know for a fact it has. thank you for your service to our city. listening to the community and remaining steadfast to your belief that people can change and providing ways for them to do so. and finally, i just want to say to both of you and to steve, you're one of my one of my great friends, someone i call in times of crisis and need and you always there to listen. and when we first met, we thought we had nothing in common but to learn that we had so much in common. and and i just can't thank you enough for all you do for the recovery community, for people being seen by you, for people who the stigma of recovery and being addicted to a substance is so tough in this world and a

world obsessed with alcohol and a world that's, you know, we see the effects of fentanyl crisis and the addiction every day. you two are just shining lights in that. and i cannot thank you enough for what you do for those that suffer from the horrible disease of addiction. you are just two of my very favorite people. thank you. and it's all yours. but i think actually, just a minute. i see two people on the roster, so supervisor safai, thank you. i just want to say one of the things i say often, and i said this when i was campaigning and i say it while i've been supervisor, we don't pretend to have all the answers. and i can tell you as somebody that when i was first elected, i never would have thought i would be doing anything that had to do with recovery. so i just want to thank you, steve, and thank you, destiny, for educating me for putting forward wonderful ideas that we could grab on to and champion and transform people's lives. the trp has been amazing. all the work that you all both

have done for the city has been transformative and i can tell you you've left a tremendous legacy. now everyone is tripping over themselves to follow the lead that you all have provided. so thank you. supervisor stephanie for honoring them today. thank you for your dedication to recovery and thank you for being such a strong voice to challenging the status quo when it comes to addiction and recovery. listen, we can all talk about the spectrum of recovery, but to elevate abstinence base and to elevate recovery that's led by former addicts and helping them recover in a therapeutic environment and elevating the voices of african american black and brown latino community members that have been often ignored and neglected means a tremendous amount to me, and i know it means so much to the community. so thank you all for what you have done. it means a lot. thank you. supervisor sapphire, supervisor dorsey. thank you, president peskin. i know supervisor safai was somebody who was running for supervisor, never thinking he'd be working on recovery. and i

was somebody who was in recovery , never thinking i'd be running for supervisor, but when i was going through that process of deciding whether i wanted to ask first the mayor and then voters to consider me for this role, there were a handful of people i reached out to from the recovery community and i didn't know you at the time, but somebody said, suggested i meet you for coffee . and i just want to say you're an inspiration to me. and some of the decisions i've made in my career. if i ever regret this, i may blame you, but mostly i'm really inspired by the work you do. and thank you so much. thanks randleman. thank you, president peskin. thank you. and congratulations to both of you. and thank you, supervisor stephanie, for doing this honor. i in particular want to thank steve just for being so available with your time for helping me understand things that i did not understand. and i think also for lifting up voices

that would otherwise not be heard. we talk a lot about the importance of lifting up the voices of people with lived experience, and yet sometimes that rhetoric falls apart when people don't like with those folks with lived experience are actually saying and i think you've been unwilling to allow voices that do have lived experience and know how at least some folks can can, can make it through recovery and have that stick. and you would not let those folks be silenced and you would not be silenced. and i'm really grateful for that. so congratulations and thank you. thank you, supervisor. and i will add a few words of my own to thank steve and destiny for the time that you showed me and my staff a few weeks ago and apologize that i was not able to join you all for dinner last thursday night. but it was a crazy night. thank you for the work that you do. may we do a lot more of it in san francisco . for all of us facing the challenges that some of us have faced with that. steve and destiny, the floor is yours. i i

just want to say thank you so much. it feels like an incredible honor. but really, the honor is all of the community we are people in this room who have been part of this journey for nearly a decade with the adult probation department. and i'm really blessed to be able to continue the recovery and reentry effort with the salvations way out together. we need to solve the city's problems. and i am just looking forward to working, continuing our relationship and working to get things done here in the city and make it the best city that we know it can be. thank you. destiny is always so polite, so you don't need to do any chris daily moves. steve no, no, no. i want, i just want to say supervisor. stephanie thank you. and you know the work that we've accomplished over the past decade is only possible because of this body. your support, the smart support from the mayor's

office and we had an incredible leader in chief, fletcher that really allowed us to do what we needed to do to get things done. and the good news is, it's not over. the good news is we're taking what we've learned in city government and the opportunity that was presented to us, and we're going to expand our perspective and the initiative. destiny and i are leading is really it's a recovery focused homeless initiative designed to restore lives and delivered through a recovery system of care that starts with treatment on demand, includes residential treatment and therapeutic communities like long term recovery focused transitional housing, with onsite supportive services and independent living and aftercare for life. it's a fail safe system so people may ebb and flow at different stages depending on how they're doing. but the goal is, is our city is having some challenges and people need hope. and this initiative is here to provide hope and i know most of you. so you'll be hearing from you soon.

and we're excited on next steps and really rolling up our sleeves and getting the work done. but i just want to say, like the last decade, working with all of you, i remember it started when lauren bell and myself were working with shimon on the violence prevention program in 2015, in the bayview, when he was with kd and then supervisor stephanie was the first board member to use the word abstinence and then supervisor safai joined in and, and the rest was history. and we've, you know, accomplished a great deal because of this board. and i just want to say thank you.

for thank you supervisor stephanie, supervisor ronen, thank you so much. and i believe there are some police officers in the hallway. i wanted to make sure that they can come on in and i don't know if the wraparound project is here. i see all of our amazing fire department employees, medics here. i'm just going to give everyone a chance to come on in .

wonderful. thank you so, so much for being here. everyone colleagues and the general public. on the evening of june ninth of this year, a mass shooting occurred on 24th street in the mission, an individual shot a gun at a crowd of young people from a speeding vehicle and hit nine people, nine people i was spending the weekend in the mountains and i had no cell coverage. and on sunday night, when you hit that spot, when you're driving home and you get that self coverage and your phone just starts blinking and going off. and i had, you know, dozens and dozens of texts and phone calls and i looked down on my phone and the first thing i

saw was mass shooting in the mission. and my heart rate just sunk to that. i mean, you there's no bigger nightmare as a supervisor. my heart sunk and i said, please, please, please, please, please let there be no casualties. but when you saw the headline i'm getting, i'm getting chills myself. when you see the headline, there's a mass shooting in the in the mission. someone shot at a crowd full of people. you you think that that that would have to be a miracle that there were no casualties. and i kind of suck in my breath . and i told my husband there was a mass shooting in the in the mission while we were gone. and i started to read the articles. and it said that the police were on the scene. within two minutes, the fire department and paramedics were on the scene. within four minutes, young people at the spot who had been trained, many of our own fire department like myself, and stop the bleed already had been

providing that emergency paramedic service at the site and there was not one casual party from the incident and i just couldn't stop thanking you all in my in my heart, in my brain and in in my prayers. i just could not believe that in this day of the worst nightmare that a city could possibly have , a mass shooting that our first responders are so amazing that they saved every single person's life. and so i have asked the first responders and representatives from the wraparound project who did all of the aftercare, working with the victims to make sure they had everything that they needed to heal, to come here today and be recognized for the heroes and

heroines you all are. and so if we could all give this incredible group of people a huge round of applause, they absolutely deserve it. we truly cannot thank you enough for your bravery, for your your skills, for your strength, for your courage, for your willingness to run into chaotic situations, for dealing with the trauma that we all know you deal with after the fact. because the things that you see every day are traumatic and we know you have to live with that every day and find find the strength to get up and move on and move forward into that next tragedy.

i just really want you each and every one of you to know how much we appreciate you and how incredible this miracle was that you saved everybody's life. and in this mass shooting. and i want to say all of your names here today, because each and every one of you needs to be publicly recognized for this act . and i will start off with the san francisco fire department employees. jason mishler, ryan towner, alexandro calvillo. any relation? clark. bryan hilliard , david murray, liam casali, derek lee, timothy murphy. erica hu. andy sarnoff. matthew estrada. daniel rosenthal. robert rezendes. david quinonez.

ryan roberts. isabella das besson. daniel carrillo. daniel hernandez. lynn. ye kang. evan meehan. benjamin allen. deon printers. graham forshaw. david van estill. christopher hermosa and marshall. i hope i am saying that right. okay, good. anthony will, jean patrick rabbitt and gregor bovo and from the sfpd. and we know there's other officers and we're going to be getting their certificates who couldn't be here today. but we want to recognize the officers that were able to make it with us. nicholas nagy, josie russell , dennis buckner, tom hong, richard russell ellis, captain christopher schaefer and jordan culberson. thank you so much. and the last but certainly not least from the wraparound

project and i don't know if they're here, but i'm just going to say their names anyway. anyway michael takata, vanessa jackson, felicia cantu, rafael albert lozano. snow and gainer, seattle. thank you so much. and again, if you have a couple representatives who want to say a few words about that night and your achievement, we would love to hear from you. jeff nicholson . thank you very much. this is thank you for your applause. but this is about all the people behind me. and there's a reason why police and fire trained together on active shooter incidents, because we never know what's going to happen. but i am super proud of everyone. but i'll speak to the fire department. we were actually on scene within three minutes. so, you know, not too bad. but the reason we were able to get on

scene was because the police department was there and had things under control. and i want to say we also were able to transport nine people to the hospital within 20 minutes, which is nothing short of miraculous. and that's because of the work that my folks do. and the pride that they take and what they do and the care that they show for people. so just phenomenal job by all of them. and i want to call out two people in particular, andy danoff, who's not here, who's a rescue captain, and erica who who is here, who is where is she ? oh, she's all the way in the back hiding. she's a battalion chief at battalion six. and the two of them, along with robert mendez, really ran this, ran this play and did it. so well. so thank you so much. we don't do this for the accolades, but we sure do appreciate when we get when we get them. so thank you. thank you, chief beasley, who you can have captain captain harvey, i was wondering if you or either one and i just. thank

you. thank you. supervisor ronan . i just want to briefly also echo my thanks to you, supervisor, for recognizing these officers. they did some heroic work that night. they do it every night. and i think about the conversations we have in this chamber about staffing and budgets. well, this is what it comes down to, is having great officers in our community that do a great job. we're grateful to have been on the scene before the fire department, one of the first getting there fairly quickly and taking action. and if you wouldn't mind, i'd like to turn it over. i want to recognize the command staff that's here. deputy chief o'sullivan, commander ing. i want to thank captain schaefer, who is in charge of the city at night so we can sleep. he is in charge of the city and does a great job. and last to captain harvey. if you could just say a couple words to this board, but thank you. it's really an honor for all of us to be here. everybody does such a great job. thank you, chief. thank you, chief. good afternoon. board of supervisors. my name is tom harvey. i'm the captain of

mission police station. i also want to say i'm very proud of everyone standing behind me. they represent the san francisco police department well. and the mission district. and for that, we're proud they manage chaos at a very troublesome event. and they did it well and they did it with professional wisdom. i also would like to especially acknowledge two people in the room behind me. that's sergeant jose russell and sergeant flint. paul if you guys don't mind waving, saying hello, they were the ones out there managing the chaos on that night at 24th and treat. and for that, we thank them. and my last comments besides thanking the san francisco fire department for their help, as i want to acknowledge supervisor ronan and the entire board of supervisors for coordinating this event. it's very nice. it's very honorable. it's meaningful. so thank you very much. thank you, captain. thank you so much. do

you want to go outside and take a kick outside? thank well, chief, you were you are about to be honored, but i will. we'll skip over you and you're coming back. okay. i'll be back. i'll be back momentarily. i got you. all right. why don't we go to supervisor dorsey? thank you. fd and sfpd. profound appreciation from all of us. supervisor dorsey. thank you, president peskin, colleagues, as we wrap up the final days of pride month in san francisco. it is my honor to recognize a trailblazer for the lgbt plus community and a longtime mental health advocate, lori thomas. lori. lori who serves as the director of the csf alliance health project, recently announced her

retirement after 28 years of service to our community director thomas started her career at the alliance health project in 1995. as a mental health crisis consultant and has been an invaluable operational, clinical and community leader ever since. in 1999, lori became manager of the psychosocial support services manager of risk evaluation and counseling for health in 2005 and deputy director in 2007 and then director in 2008. for nearly three decades, she has been an integral part of bringing the organization's mission of supporting the mental health and wellness of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer and hiv affected communities in constructing healthy and meaningful lives. under her capable guidance, the alliance health project has expanded its capacity to care for more people in need of mental health, substance use disorder and hiv related care in san francisco.

as an openly gay man myself who has been living with hiv for 20 years, i know how crucial these services are and how important the compassion that you extend to the people you serve is to a community that is very often vulnerable. not only has lori exemplified compassion for the lgbtq+ community and for hiv affected communities as well over the years, she has also guided the alliance health project through structural and operational changes, including a name and mission change in 2012 and doubling its budget since becoming director in 2019, she was honored with the ucsf chancellor's award for the lgbtq. i leadership in 2019, solidifying her position as a consummate leader, a champion of accessible mental health care, and an unwavering advocate for creating a fair and equitable organization that touches hundreds, if not thousands, of san francisco every year. director thomas will leave with us a significant legacy as a

tenacious and engaged leader endure both on and off the job as she prepares to enter for retirement. i trust that lori will spend time with her partner, susan and her son harry. but we'll also continue to give back to the community that is very grateful for her service. lori, congratulations on your retirement and 28 years of service to the city and county of san francisco and its people. thanks. i thank you so much. supervisor dorsey. i live in d ten. our clinic is in d eight. every member of this board has supported the san francisco model of behavioral health care and care for people with hiv backfilling year after year. the funding that we don't get from the feds and as a as a resident of san francisco, i am so grateful to you all for the way that you continue to support the needs of our most vulnerable . i have been honored. it doesn't even begin to say i'm

here because of the work for the people that we serve, which are members of our community. and i'm really, really so grateful to support for this and for continuing to support the people who still need our help. so thank you so much. supervisor dorsey. thank you. okay chief nicholson, you got to go back to work. supervisor mandoline the floor is yours. all right. thank you, president peskin and chief nicholson. colleagues on this last tuesday

of pride 2023. i am delighted to be able to honor one of my very favorite lesbians, our san francisco. san francisco's 26th fire chief and our very first lgbtq chief, janine nicholson. to i would be doing this. i hope i would have had the good sense to do this anyway. but i should note that that supervisor ronan and our president have been urging us to acknowledge and honor department heads who are extraordinary for their great work. and it's a pleasure to be able to do that for chief nicholson, it's something of a truism in the queer community that if you have something tough and important that needs doing, ask a lesbian to get it done. colleagues, i offer janine nicholson as evidence to support the proposition. since taking office four years. four years

ago, she has helped lead implementation of the street crisis response teams and stood up a diversity equity and inclusion office that recruits new hires, promotes internally, and offers expanded training for those already on the roster. under her chief shipp, the department established city emt, a wraparound program and paid internship for san francisco at risk youth between the ages of 18 and 24. post program. dozens of transition age youth have gone on to earn their emt license and now serve the city and county. our chief has a big job, san francisco is one of the 20 top 20 busiest fire departments in the country, known as a city of wooden boxes on hills set in earthquake country, factoring in ambulance work, the department serves an estimated 1.5 million people. and yet somehow now the chief manages to find time each day to text each of us the terrible, awful things that are happening in all of our districts. this is

the person who lets me know about the stabbings, the shootings, the car crashes, the other weird and awful things that that we don't want to imagine. so thank you, chief nicholson grew up across from a firehouse in new york where her girlhood hobby was tracking fire trucks when they left the station and hit the siren. her father and grandfather were volunteer firefighters. janine moved to san francisco in 1990 and she joined the department in 1994. she rose through the ranks of firefighter paramedic, lieutenant, captain and battalion chief. in 2018, she was appointed deputy chief of administration and she became our chief. a year later, the chief is a firefighters firefighter steeped in a tight knit departmental culture where firefighters live, work and cook together. and she says it is bonding like in no other city department. this is extremely important because once we get out to a call, we always have to

have one another's backs, whether it be at a fire or a vehicle accident or a medical case. she is a fierce advocate for her department all year round, but especially at budget time. chair chan making sure the mayor and all of us are keenly aware of just what the department needs to keep us safe and address the various public safety challenges we throw at it . and she's a fierce advocate for the city, most recently speaking out about the challenges to emergency response her crews are reporting as automated vehicles are rolled out on san francisco's streets. and did i mention the lady is tough at 49? as a breast cancer survivor, she broke the agility test record for the best time by a female firefighter. she's a regular workout wonder who stays in shape and expects the rest of the department to follow suit. as an lgbtq leader in city government, she has a message for her community believe in yourself. and it's really important to have people in your

corner who not only believe in you, but can support and mentor you. i believe representation is incredibly important and that diversity is our strength. chief nicholson, you more than deserve the special commendation you've earned my and our deep gratitude and profound appreciation. you rock my lesbian fire chief. happy pride and there's a thank you. hold on, chief. hold on to if there are a number of supervisor who wish to concur and add to the pretty thorough words of supervisor mandoline myself amongst them, you make us proud not just during pride, but year round. and there is no job too big or too small that you do not undertake. i have been beyond impressed on. i mean, you've got prevention, you got suppression, you got the bureau of equipment administration, but your attention to detail,

whether it's encroachment permits to move our economic recovery forward, that you look at sensibly and fairly, or whether it's looking to the future. and as we experienced in the incident in the mission that supervisor ronan dishonored your staff and the police department staff for, you've had the courage to speak out about the autonomous vehicles and how those impact public safety and i know that is not easy, but you have not shirked from that response ability. i thank you profoundly for your courage in that regard and your work day in and day out, which i know is 20 hours a day, because as supervisor randleman said, you text us in the wee hours of the morning, two in the morning, and at ten at night. so i know you rarely sleep and we appreciate you for that. supervisor melgar thank you. president peskin at chief, you know, it's one of

these things we get these awful texts from you with every tragedy, every terrible thing that happens in our district, and still you manage to be like all our favorite and i think you are such an example of, yes, lesbian, but female leadership in and as competent as it gets. but you also do it with a smile in a wicked sense of humor. i think that the thing that i appreciate about you, the most that despite having taken this department through a pandemic, through so many changes, you still manage to have that smile on your face. and the sister greeting and you just are an example of competent leadership with elegance and joy. i so enjoy working with you. one thing that i want to point out that i so appreciated is how you have embraced the moment and let

your department in developing responses and alternatives to a police response through skirt, through all of the things that you have done in the emergency response to help us as a city move toward a vision of the future. and you've done that with such elegance, such competence and such great leadership. so we're so lucky to have you. chief and you are just the best. thank you. supervisor walton. thank you, president peskin and chief, i just found out in this chamber how special i am not. i thought all those texts and all those phone calls where we're just for the district ten supervisor. sorry but no, i really just wanted to add my. my voice to the course in terms of the fact that you are the first person to inform

us about the tragedies and some of the good things that happen in our communities as well. and so i want to thank you for being so attentive. you could easily have someone else do that, particularly in your role. you have a lot of firefighters available and a lot of a lot of the team available to take that extra step. but you do that personally. and i want to say how much we do appreciate that, because that also ignites opportunity for us to jump in and find out what we can do and a lot of these tragedies. so i just wanted you to know, appreciate you this as well deserved. thank you so much for your service. thank you. supervisor lee, supervisor and there are many things to love about our chief nicholson. but one thing that strikes me when i see you out and among the people, the residents of san francisco, you always introduce yourself and you say, i'm your fire chief, your your fire chief. you're the epitome of a public servant. that's just so important. and it's something

that that i want to model after after you. so thank you for modeling that for me. and we all talk about the mate. you're the queen of mayhem. all the mayhem that you tell us. but you know, and we have our discussions. there's a lot of serious things to talk about and things to fix in san francisco. but we always end every conversation talking about something joyful because why are we here doing this work, right? because we love this city and there's a lot of joy here, and we're going to build upon it and create more and said, thank you for being a partner in that supervisor. stephanie. thank you. president peskin yeah, i have to vouch for the fact that she is very tough. we did the first responders stair climb up 61 flights of salesforce tower in 2019 and we started together. let's just say we didn't finish together and, and i thought, i got this and we're running up and halfway through, i'm like, how is she still going at a pace

that i met you up there eventually. and but anyway, i'm just one of my favorite people, not just in city government, but in this world. you're not just someone i get to work with. you're my friend and someone that i'm so lucky that i get to talk to you. not about just city stuff, but about other things as well. and i just have to say, when i see you out at events, i. and if i'm having a hard time or anything, you're always there with this just beaming sense of positivity, which is hard to do here. and i just want to say i'm so grateful that you're not just our fire chief, but that you're there for people, you know, that are down and out on their luck and you're there for all of us through the text messages. and you're just an amazing human being. and i'm so lucky that you're my friend and that and that you're our fire chief. so thank you for everything. thank you. supervisor ronen. chief, i

have to say, like supervisor walton, it was. it's not just the text. like i thought i was your favorite in general, but apparently everyone loves you as much as i do. and you love everyone as much as you appear to love me. you know? i mean, i just. we just all love you so much. i would just echo everything. my colleagues would say. but i would also say that since i've been in city hall, which is a long time now, about 13 years, you are by far the fiercest advocate for the fire department that i've ever encountered. and it's, you know, the text are one thing that's that never happened for us before. you became chief. and it just gives us a different glimpse into what it is to be a staff member of the fire

department. just what you're dealing with every day on a daily basis. you take what each of us get and then you multiply it, you know, times 11, ten, and that it's the number of these really, really horrific and scary incidents that you're constantly responding to. and it has provided just a different understanding for me of what your department is, is facing. and then there was the fire ops training that that you convinced me to do and that made me feel like i am a complete, useless individual. i i could not do any of the exercises. they were so hard and so difficult. and so now i just the way i understand your work is just at a completely different level that i could never have understood it had i not gone through all of those exercises on my own. and then last but not least, which is my one of my favorite, favorite things about you is how

much you focus on mental health and how much you advocate to meet the mental health needs of your department employees, how much you care about them, how much you understand what addressing this trauma every day does to a person, and what your employees need to be healthy themselves. and of course, if they're not healthy, they can't be doing all the work that they're doing every day. you're extraordinary. you're extraordinary. you're like no one else in the city and i cannot thank you enough for your work. supervisor dorsey, thank you, president peskin and i'm going to be brief because i'm triple, triple dipping, i think on special common stations. but i just want to express my gratitude to you for being my sister in so many ways. and i will never forget, i think i had only been a supervisor for a few weeks when we were negotiating

with the pride board and some of the queer first responders on whether there was going to be an ability to march in pride. and we were the flag raising was happening in an hour and we were negotiating the final details in my office. and it meant the world to me that you were there with me, making sure that we got this done and we all got to march together. i will never forget that. and i just really appreciate your service and just that you're continuing to be my friend and my sister in the community and everything that you do. thank you so much. supervisor preston. thank you, president peskin. and i'll keep it short. everyone said everything. and i'm eager to hear the chief speak. i do want to thank supervisor mandelson for his words and for doing this commendation. what a great way. in our last board meeting at the end of our last board meeting in pride month, i think it's a tremendous that you are honoring the chief. and i mean, everyone has said it. chief, you are an incredible leader. you commit yourself tirelessly with

incredible integrity to this city. i worry about you sometimes because i wonder if you've ever gotten a night's sleep since you take this job. and i imagine not since all of us are hearing from you all the time. so i wish you not only all the best, i continue to appreciate you so much, but i also hope you get a night's sleep and maybe even a vacation one day. that's all. thank you. she actually has a staffer who does that. i'm just kidding. supervisor staff. i know. i'm kidding. i'm sitting. thank you. thank you. i you know, chief, i just want to add to the chorus the thing that has impressed me the most about the time that we have worked together is that a lot of times when people are called on, maybe some of the shortcomings of their department department heads, they get really defensive and they dig in and they try to make arguments

as to why something is not happening. and i just want to reflect back on the hearing that we had when we talked about diversity and hiring and we talked about the testing system and instead of shying away from that, you leaned in and you worked with the union, you worked with your department and you and you changed and you change that process and i think for women, for lgbtq plus for african american and latino people of color, like it's going to make a trauma tremendous difference in your department. and that's because of your leadership. so all the other things, everyone said, i associate myself with being informed to the level that you inform us. it helps me to be a better supervisor. and i really, really appreciate the work that you've done. so i've enjoyed working with you and we're so happy that supervisor gentleman chose you to be honored here today. it means a lot and it should be recognized. thank you . supervisor chan. thank you,

chief. i just want to say not only the elected leaders of san francisco is very grateful to have you and fortunate to have you. i would say our san francisco firefighters are also all very fortunate to have you as their chief. but most importantly, i would say on behalf of like all constituents, san francisco, san franciscans are very grateful and fortunate to have you. thank you so much for your service. we're so proud of you. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. supervisor mike we're brother. thank you. and i would like to say you know, thanks for the kudos for being a lesbian, but i was born this way so not much to do about that. but anyways, thank you for having this and thank you to all the supervisors for your acknowledgments. i

always say i won the lottery when i got my job in 1994, in the san francisco fire department. i was like, i can't believe i'm going to be a san francisco firefighter. are you kidding me? so you know, and as i've gone through the years, it's been 30 years i've been able to learn and grow and learn and grow. and a lot of that has been because of all of you. and my interaction with you in terms of understanding the larger problems in the city, even smaller problems in the city. you all have really helped me with that as well. but what i like to say is the san francisco fire department, we never do anything alone. i didn't get here alone. i'm not staying here alone. as you saw with a lot of my members that were here when they do their work like that, it makes my job so much easier. and so i'm just really grateful for this, for this honor and yeah, i don't want to take up too much time. so thank you. thank you, chief. chief, come. come through

that. come on in. yeah. yeah.

colleagues, you just heard from chief nicholson who said she won the lottery in 1994 and has served for almost 30 years. i think we all hit the lottery the next year in 1995, when susan goldstein became the city's archivist at san francisco's public library. and i just wanted to take a moment to thank you for those three decades wherein you have painstakingly archived our history in all sorts of ways. i don't know if you remember this, but a long time before i was a supervisor, i was actually collecting history and weird videos of north beach, and i wandered into

your office and brought you a treasure trove of north beach history that i thought needed to be preserved. and you were extremely welcoming and made me feel like i was doing something important. and it turns out that you have done that for countless individuals, neighbors, hoods, our lgbt history dating to the aids pandemic epidemic, which now people all over the world can access that information. and those archives, the summer of love, the diversity of san francisco. it is a remarkably important function. i think it says a lot about san francisco that we have a history center and a city archivist who has taken that very, very seriously, really gone above and beyond the call. the mayor is declaring the last day of this month, as susan

goldstein day in san francisco. and i thought it very important that the board of supervisors acknowledge you for three decades of loving, incredibly professional work. so on behalf of the board of supervisors, i just wanted to thank you and acknowledge you and celebrate everything that you have done for all of us. and for literally millions of people around the world who can now access this information. you know, a lot is being said about san francisco. our history is so remarkably colorful and attractive and you've made so much of that accessible. i personally want to thank you for that. and if you have words you want to share the floor. oh, i'm sorry. supervisor chan wants to jump in. go ahead . supervisor. thank you. i agree with president peskin. you know, you have done that for countless of individuals. and i, for one also was one of them. just wondering, you know, in the main

library you invited me in and allow me to ask so many questions. i think i have asked questions from just as a staffer, a park and asking all parks history to also my curiosity around just the archives of chinese language newspapers like the history of it and through the microfilm and looking at just so many information. and it was just wonderful to have someone not only knowledgeable about who we are as a city, but just knowing where to find those information and also know along the way what you have done that it's not just you didn't just hold on to those information and you also making sure that you start to making them readily available online and so that we actually could look at photos and history pre and through the public library online that we can start looking through the history as well. so for that, i know it's a whole

body of work that not just this san francisco, but generations of san franciscans to come will be so grateful to your work. so thank you. including such arcana as ancient versions of the board of supervisors, journals of proceedings. yes. michael lambert, good luck replacing her. susan, the floor is yours. thank you. despite what people might think, i don't have a whole indiana jones jumble of stuff hidden under the city. it's a little bit like that in brooks hall, but it's better than that. it's more organized, but really, it's not dead and dusty history. you know, the archive is a living, breathing, growing thing that's used by people all over the city and really all over the world working at an archives and a public library has been amazing. we don't have to limit who our researchers are. we help everybody. we help school kids. we help classes. we help people who just wander in and want to know about their house or their neighborhood history. it gives

you a certain kind of freedom. i've climbed through basements and attics and garages all over the city, all through mclaren lodge, all through the city yards in the waste treatment center to look at collections that have been held there and decide if we need to keep them permanently. right before the pandemic, i was at the coalition on homelessness, where my staff and i spent about six weeks cleaning out before they move to their new office. so that we would be sure we could document homelessness and what that meant . and you never know what you're going to find. it's my 28th year and i went out to the out to central shops and they had other minutes from 1906 to 1931 sitting there. it's like, what have you been doing with these all these years? so they finally came to me and now in my final month, the health services administration is turning over their records to the archives. these are amazing. this documents the lives of poor people in the city and how they

got money. and we have the old widows and pensions bureau, which was the forerunner to it. but we didn't have any of the hrsa records. i'm spending a little time on this because i know people don't know a lot about archives, and this is my plug. i really appreciate community members and neighborhood groups who have invited me to their meetings, asked my advice, and invited me to collaborate with them on the archives. i helped set up the archives at swedish american hall and got them to digitize these, which is now available in the swedish archives and online wherever you want to look. and i worked very hard in the filipino community and have a number of neighborhood associations donate their records to us. filipino american development foundation, cool arts dance theater and bindle stiff theater among many others of prominent individuals . in addition to the mayor's papers, we have other political papers like the charter review reform commission. who uses

those two guys were in all last week, grad students using charter review commission records. okay the human rights commission, the former redevelopment office. and i'm in the middle of trying to get a grant to digitize redevelopment records for western edition, yerba buena and bayview hunters point to those city departments who've turned over their historical materials. thank you to those who haven't. where are you? what have you been doing? what are you waiting for? we have the papers of city supervisor harvey milk and harry britt, and we have those of writers and activists like joel gomez and harry hay. and i just was at the frame line film festival. two of those films used our collections extensively, especially fairyland, the opening night film. alicia abbott writes about growing up with her gay father. and we have all of steve abbott's papers in the archives . this year we helped the treasurers office. we helped with redlining and restrictive covenants, which we hold in the archives, and we're also very

busy with our collections helping the reparations office. and they were actually in our department when i left to walk over here. they're doing a lot of research there for the report , so there's always something to do. we've turned the archives from a closed place that did not have a lot of representation to a very open, diverse place that is welcoming to many people. i got a grant to digitize two significant historical black newspapers. hunter's point beacon from the 1940s, and the spokesman from the 1960s. people use the archives for all kinds of reasons. it's vibrant, ongoing history does not stop. it's somewhat unrelenting. we have ledger books and deeds from the mexican period from the earliest periods of american history here. and we have the collection of the aids ward from san francisco general hospital. it's all there and it's all history. during the epidemic, i started the community time capsule and we took all kinds of uploads from people in the

community who wanted to tell us what they were doing every day. journal entries, photographs, all kinds of things. plus we got the official records of dpa and what was happening during covid . so we try to document things from many different perspectives. and one note of concern we're missing much digital history of the city. i keep sounding warnings about this, especially electronic communication and documents, including social media. and this really needs to be a focus for the person who comes after me. we are not doing a good job in this city with electronic record keeping. so i want to thank you for this honor. this has been a fantastic job. i'm so happy i want to thank my team of archivists and library ones who are gracious and welcoming to the public, and they get the work done. and i want to thank those that the librarian and in city government who recognize the importance of the archives. and lastly, i just want to give a shout out to colleague archivists at the national archives who are keeping track of federal papers and doing

something when presidents take them home, and also to libraries across the country who are fighting book bans and interrupted story hours. so thanks to all of you. susan don't don't go far away. bring a fire chief is very important and so is the city archivist. please step into the well. for you. are. not.

supervisor melgar. okay. last but not least, thank you, president peskin. today i have the great pleasure of recognizing and honoring a fierce, powerful organizer and policy advocate, jessica lehmann . jessica identifies as a queer , jewish, white, disabled woman and works to honor intersectionality in her work and amplify the voices of the most marginalized people in our society. after 11 years as the executive director with senior disability action and previously serving as a housing advocacy director, she's moving on to a new chapter in her life. as many

as you, as many of you know, sdr, senior disability action is an organization committed to mobilizing seniors and people with disabilities in san francisco and the bay area to fight for justice on health care, housing, transportation and other issues. they have been no strangers to us here at the board as they have led many successful initiatives to advance better policies for people with disability and seniors during jessica's time, she has led coalition efforts to inform muni for seniors in people with disabilities, establishing support at home. a new san francisco home care program for upper poor seniors and people with disabilities. funding for senior disability housing subsidies, legislation to install grab bars and sros and the creation of a new sro elevator repair program. sca

continues to play a pivotal role in ensuring that we protect people's rights to be decision makers in their own care and that elected officials center the needs of people with disabilities and seniors in our policymaking during the pandemic. she and the sga team fought fiercely to prioritize vaccinations for seniors and people with disabilities, develop hybrid models for meetings, and won the extended right for people to participate remotely in government meetings. jessica founded the disability action network, a grassroots group of people with disabilities, building a voice for the community. and as a person with a disability who employs a home attendant, she's also a founding member and leader of hand in hand. the domestic employers association to fight for the rights and working conditions of domestic workers. jessica is someone who builds up the community knowledge base and cultivates

leadership in others. she leads monthly organizers forum calls as part of the national disability leadership alliance to share ideas and experiences related to organizing in the disability community. we have grown to know, jessica, over the years as someone who is so deeply committed to the work and quite honestly, her presence is already missed, as during this time of year, because jessica is often at city hall daily during the budget deliberations to ensure that we do not forget the needs of the population that often has little access to the centers of power. her warm smile empowers live energy, leaves a lasting impact in all of us. she models how you can be fierce and fearless and still be kind. and jessica, thank you for all your organizing throughout the year to make a real impact on the lives of our residents and for growing this beautiful movement

for people with disabilities and seniors. you have built so many connections among different advocacy groups. this is what will sustain the legacy of your tenure. so i know you will continue to champion, to be a champion wherever it is that you go next. and with that, i'm going to hand it over to you to say a few words. thank you, jessica. and before we turn it over, not only will i concur in those words, but thank you for helping us get public comment right post covid. and with that , supervisor walton, i'm gonna be real quick, but ditto everything, supervisor melgar said. and just want to thank you for being such a fierce fighter. we've only had one disagreement and you were able to still win and not not only win remote public comment for folks with disabilities, but also for everyone. and so thank you so much. just for standing up for what you believe in and sticking to your guns. thank you. supervisor preston thank you,

president peskin. and i just want to echo the comments of my colleagues and it's really been a pleasure to work with you over the years. jessica on on so many different issues. and some of them have been touched on already. but every, you know, really, most notably, all of your housing, housing, advocacy , work at affordable housing for senior and disabled residents of the city, and rent subsidies and all the various programs we fought for together. also, your leadership at sdr around wi-fi access and for folks who you who need that, that access. and we've held hearing and work so closely with you and your team over the especially in the last year and i think that as

president peskin noted, your leadership around helping us really land the discussion on public access was really crucial and was a great example of your really exceptional ability to really advocate so strongly for the communities that you represent. but but in a way that also delivers tangible results in these chambers and in this building. so thank you so much for all your advocacy and leadership. professor ronen, i just want to echo everybody else. you are one of the fiercest advocates i have ever met and i think you've won pretty much every battle that you've taken on because of your relentless advocacy. really admire you very much, and i'm excited to see all the exciting new work that you take on. thank you for everything. jessica. lehmann my turn. thank you so

much. supervisor it's such an honor and your comments really mean a lot. i have to say. first, all of the accomplishments are clearly not just me, but it's been all the staff and members and our allies and all of you and your aides. and it has been so much fun working in these halls over the last 11 years. and yes, you have not seen the last of me. i don't know what's what's next unless i have to be with family for some some health issues. i will be here tomorrow for add back day and you know, so many so many fun memories. you know starting with add back night. right. i don't know if that always gets called a fun memory but but i just really appreciate all the times. where did visions are being made and a supervisor or an aide and there's someone who's right here, you know, will come to me in the hallway and say, hey, here's what we're talking about. do you think this works for senior and disability

communities? right. and then i'll check in with my folks and to be able to have that level of conversation and just your willingness to figure things out together, to say, okay, how do we make this city a better place for everyone? how do we think about people, as you said, who often don't get considered? you know, i've definitely interrupted some of your staff meetings for last minute lobbying and appreciate your you're willingness to let me do that. you know, we'll we'll text about hey, what's going on with this issue. are we going to have the votes on it? um, you know, working to establish support at home was before many of you were on the board, but still something i'm really proud of and i loved that it was supervisor eric ma at the time. and to be able to, to kind of think together from the city, from community to say, how do we create this program, how do we get it funded was definitely one of the things i'm really proud of. and fighting against conservatorship to make sure

that people's rights were were protected. and supervisor walton, of course, was key on that. and also working with our amazing clerk, angela calvillo, over the years to make sure that people have access in all of the ways and really thinking about hybrid participation and remote participation in to board of supervisors meetings. it's been such a pleasure to work with you as well. so and i, i really appreciate to that i, i feel like i've gotten to, to have so many deep conversations with many of you and your aides about aging and disability issues and to see your openness to learning more about our communities, to learning about ableism and ageism and all the ways they show up and how they intersect with racism and other forms of oppression and to see you change and to act on that has been really powerful and so i'm excited to see you continue to

do that. you know, we've got incredible staff and board and members at senior in disability action. so even if i'm not the one you reach out to, you can you can of course text me and say, hey, i have an urgent question. who do i reach out to you? but but definitely reach out to all of them. and lastly, because budget, of course, is top of mind just to really appreciate how you all have listened not only to disability and senior community, but seeing those connections and really working with the budget justice coalition and working with the community. so thank you for all that you've done and look forward to seeing what's next for everybody. and colleagues. we will now 42 minutes after the fact, go to our first 3 p.m. special order.

madam clerk, would you please read items 38 through 41 together items 38 through 41 comprised the public hearing of persons interested in the determined of exemption from environmental review under the california environmental quality act issue as a categorical exemption by the planning department on april 7th, 2023, for the proposed project at 1151 washington street to allow for the demolition of a single family dwelling and the construction of a four story, 40 foot tall building containing ten dwelling units. item 39 is to affirm the planning department's determination that the project is categorically exempt. item 40 is a conditional conditionally reverses that determination subject to the adoption of written findings and item 41 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings. thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, this house may matter has two separate

appellants and the clerk's suggested. and if there is no disagreement from members in the interest of time, we will consolidate. the two sequa appeal. please as follows. the appellants will share. for the ten minute opening appeal comments followed by speakers in support of the appellant not to exceed two minutes each, then we will go to the planning department for ten minutes. then the project sponsor for ten minutes and speakers on behalf of the project sponsor, i.e. speakers in opposition to the appeal in support of the project will have up to two minutes each and then in a rebuttal by the appellants who can split it as they wish not to exceed four minutes if there is no objection, we will start with

the first representative of the appellant, mr. scott. mr. president. pardon madam. mr. thank you, mr. president. would you like me to also read items 42 through 45? that would be the queue component. so no, i think we should give in that we have to dispense of the matter first. let us start with the matter and then proceed to the conditional use matter. and i see nodding affirmative heads from lisa gibson. the environmental review officer. so apparently i'm saying that correctly. oh all right. i am informed that there is only one appellant for the matter, but two appellants for the conditional use. at any rate, the floor is yours, mr. ambulance. use your ten minutes as you see fit. okay. the timer here says two. so if we could

thank you. thank you. thank you, president peskin, members of the board. my name is scott. i represent the owners of 1155 washington, one of the two appellants. i'll be splitting the appellants combined time with richard drury, the attorney for the owner of 1157 washington and with hannemann liu from the upper chinatown neighborhood association. my focus will be on the proposed projects severe shadow impacts on the adjacent betty ann ong recreation center . mr. drury will focus on other health and safety aspects of the proposed project. we also have available an architect and a fire safety expert who have analyzed and have significant concerns about the project. in case you have any questions on those technical areas, the project sponsor and their architect have designed a project that is so problematic it's hard to know where to begin. it takes up the entire lot, leaving no rear yard for the residents or for the neighbors to enjoy. it consists

of nine vertical housing units that have four stories of living space that is accessed only by a spiral staircase, making the units unavailable to people with mobility impairments or the elderly, or people with small children by taking up the entire lot, it shuts off light to most of the neighboring residences. and as i said, i want to focus on the shadow impacts. another unfortunate byproduct of the project's full lot. mr. image, i think you are speaking to the q matter, and this is a hearing only on the matter. i am sorry, mr. president. no, i'm speaking to the shadow impacts, which is a secret concern. okay. please proceed to the first two slides. i want to show you are the play areas at the betty and on recreation center. the center is one of the few places in the upper china lower nob hill chinatown neighborhood where people get to enjoy outdoor recreation. the project is

proposed on the lot immediately adjacent to the center is immediately adjacent to the center, rather than design the project to minimize its impact on the center, the project sponsors have done the opposite . they've designed a project that creates the most possible harm to the center and its outdoor play areas. the next two slides show how the project looms over the play areas and even worse, increases in height as it moves south. this means it concentrates its mass and height where the impact on the play areas is the greatest. concern the next as the next slide indicates, the consequence of massing in the rear. the project's design reduces the available sunlight on the play areas by up to 45% over existing conditions between the hours of three and 6 p.m, when the courts and the play areas are used most

intensely. when combined with existing conditions. this means that at that critical point of the day for outdoor recreation, the play yards are almost entirely engulfed in shadow. we asked the project sponsors to try to mitigate this by reducing the massing at the rear. our plea was met with death. it just fell on deaf ears. the project sponsors and unfortunately the planning department's response to our complaints about the shadow impact has been essentially because the project is not taller than 40ft. the height specified in prop k. the shadow impacts don't merit consideration. there are two big problems with that position. first, the project is not below the 40 foot height limit because the project has seven foot privacy walls on the roof decks of each of the nine units making a 47 foot high project. but even if the project were just 40ft tall, that doesn't mean the city can simply ignore the very real shadow impacts on these outdoor

recreation areas. it is the project's proximity to these play areas that make it and its impacts unusual. under sequa as the city's own sequa checklist, it recognizes shadow impacts on publicly accessible, open spaces are a sequa impact that must be studied. but it wasn't. it was the appellants that did two shadow studies committee on two different shadow studies to show the very significant impacts on the play areas. we ask that you grant the appeals and require an eir that will examine means of mitigating shadow impacts as well as the other impacts that mr. drury will address. thank you. thank you, richard drury, for upper chinatown neighborhood association and clayton timbrel as mr. embellish has explained, the project will have significant shadow impacts and therefore the categorical exemption is improper. regardless of unusual circumstances. i'm going to talk about the soil contamination, which is a very unusual circumstance. this site is heavily contaminated with very

unusual toxic chemicals. hexavalent chromium, which people probably know from the erin brockovich movie. it's a very toxic chemical. it only exists at 11 sites in the entire city of san francisco. that's out of 200,000 sites, five 1,000th of 1% of sites are contaminated with hexavalent chromium. it's on this site. we don't know why by. it's very strange. it's also contaminated with perchlorate. ethylene, which exists at only 24 sites in the city. now the city says this is not an unusual circumstance because there are many contaminated sites in the city. but most of those sites are contaminated with petroleum from leaky storage tanks, from fuel gas. these are very unusual toxic chemicals. and our experts have concluded that there's a risk because of the excavation required for this massive project that the soil could contaminate the adjacent playground. therefore, we think sequel review is necessary. there is a site mitigate plan

that's been proposed, but that mitigation plan was designed for half of the site for an earlier iteration of the project. there hasn't even been soil testing on the other half of the site. we don't know what's there. the site, the our experts have concluded that that plan is patently inadequate to mitigate the risks here. also, the fact that there is a soil mitigation plan required means that you can't do an exemption. there's a line of cases that say that if there's mitigation measures required for a project, you can't use a categorical exemption. at the very least, you need a mitigated negative declaration so that the public can analyze the adequacy of those mitigation measures. the city says the site mitigation plan is not mitigation. well, why is it called a mitigation plan? it's clearly mitigation. they're likening it to fixed standards. fixed standards are things like applying the building code, applying the earthquake safety code, where you've got the width of two by fours or the size of rebar

that's required here. it's a mitigation plan that's specific designed for this project. and it admits that it may be inadequate because it's going to require follow up testing and possible additional mitigation, which we don't know what it is that's a mitigation measure by a rose. is a rose by any other name. the next is fire safety. this project has a very unusual configuration with ten units on a five foot wide alley that extends 137ft to the last use unit. the fire code limits that single means of ingress to 125ft. the this is 137ft. so it violates the fire code, creates a fire risk. that's a risk to public health and safety. it's a significant impact under sequa. also, there's not adequate room for ladders to evacuate people from those four fourth storey units that are accessible only by spiral staircases in the

upper said, well, they'll place the ladders perpendicular to the building on ladders. well, that will that will effectively block almost the entire five foot means of egress. and there's another fire code provision that says if there's a single means of egress, it has to stay clear of obstruction. and this is clearly not that creates a very significant fire health and safety risk that we believe also should be analyzed under sequa. i want to cede my remaining minutes to heinemann liu of the upper chinatown neighborhood association, and i'd be happy to take questions later. thank you. thank you. next speaker hortman liu, the upper chinatown neighborhood association. and good afternoon, supervisors. we are here today to emphasize the utmost necessity of an important of an environmental impact report. as we got involved in this project, three, three alarm bells rang in our head. one is

that there are traces of chromium, chromium, six and pc, which is toxic. it causes cancer and it has the capacity to go airborne. two, we're concerned, deeply concerned about the shadow that it casts throughout, not just the immediate neighborhood, but beyond. and thirdly, there is a there's a greater possibility for fire, fire hazards. now, for us, we were thinking that the potential problems that that these alone are problems. but then when you add to it, where's the location? location is right next to the betty ong recreation center, just adjacent to it down the block, we have the gordon law elementary school. up the block is the is the cathedral school. and so we are deeply concerned about this because we don't know what we i mean, let me say another word. we are there are too many unknowns within this project. and without knowing we

can't control the variables we need a better understanding of the health and the safety issues that are present. we need to have a clarity on the direction that gives that protects everyone in particularly the most vulnerable. we find we are in a time. thank 30s left. oh, i have one. okay. we are. we are in favor of housing, but we must be confident about how best to safeguard the health and the well-being of our neighborhood. respectfully we request the board of supervisors to require an environment in park report. let's not forget this. let's. sorry let's move forward together with knowledge and foresight. thank you very much. thank you. now we will go to

speakers on behalf of the appellant. if you are here, line up to my left, your right. are there are any speakers here on behalf of the appellant seeing? okay, go ahead, sir. yeah yeah. my name is. i was just sitting in the back listening to this and i'm just wondering how if you if you grant this appeal, how is that going to affect the housing unit, which we're getting hammered on to build more housing? is that is that going to create stress there? and i'm wondering if it actually winds up being sequa that, if i'm not mistaken, sequa is a state law, right? if it's an actual state law that actually winds up causing us to not meet the state housing unit, what do we do about that? i don't know if i'm in favor or oppose the project, but i'm just confused about it. thank you. are there are any other speakers in the chamber on behalf of the

appellant? please come up, sir. good afternoon. my name is chu fong. i live at 1165 washington street house next to the project project property. i. i want to let you know, i'm told against this project on behalf or a chinatown community. the chinatown, as you know, is in chinatown area. is where things and there are not too many room for people who have recreation the people who live who live in chinatown, they are most low income, living on a welfare they

can't afford. no fancy apartment . most of them are living in a single room residence and in that building, if you have been in some of the building, the air quality is poor. they live in a few. few people live in a little room. they have to inhale the air that they exhale. so that caused so many people sick in chinatown in and then there's no sunlight in the building for those people to have sunlight or fresh air, they have to go out to street to look for a park. and in a better on pray ground is one of the few places that off the chinatown community for the purpose if that's part of

this project. 11611511 washington street should be a construct then it will block it will take a lot last sunlight. thank you, sir. are there any other speakers on behalf of the appellant in the chambers seeing none. are there any remote speakers? oh, go ahead, sir. hello. my name is remaining. i'm a neighbor of the building to be built. i'm also a soon to be parent, and i'm hoping the project doesn't impact the playground at any means. i'm hoping to use the playground with my future son and hoping there won't be any shadow impact . thank you. thank you, sir. are there any other speakers on behalf of the appellant in the chambers? seeing none. are there any remote speakers on behalf of

the appellant? mr. president, it looks like we have one caller in the queue. there are six who are listening. if you're one of the six and you'd like to make a provide public comment on behalf of the appellant, please press star three. now, otherwise. mr. billy q let's hear from our caller. welcome caller no. hi, can can you hear me? yes, we can. welcome okay, great. thank you. my name is mr. planets in chinatown community for chinatown community development center, and we are calling in support of the appeal for the exemption and i'm always thinking about how growing up, my mom always used to tell me that need to be careful about getting too much junk or too much shadow and darkness. and this project, like mr. jury so clearly outlined the put so much of the chinatown community into darkness at cdc, where we have

so many tenants who live in single occupancy hotels. and these are really tiny units where folks often have to leave in order to get the fresh air and the sunshine that they still need and deserve. and if they're if this 1151 washington was built, the way that it is now. so much of our residents would be cast into shadow. and as well as the play areas like betty and ong were, folks would come to congregate and have a good time at the project. hearing we heard people talk about how a little bit of shadow wouldn't be such a big deal, but that's completely disregarding how many low income seniors and families don't have the financial privilege of relocating and moving somewhere else where they actually can find sunlight and non shadowy places to live in. so we really from chinatown community development, very much in support of the appeal and wanting to speak for many of the tenants and residents who live in chinatown, who as a resident

earlier on the call said live on welfare are looking lost and really can't live anywhere else and really transform. so thank you for coming to speak. thank you for your comments. mr. shu. another caller, please. madam clerk. there are no more callers in. q thank you, mr. president. okay. public comment in support of the appellants is closed and we will go to the planning department not to exceed ten minutes. miss gibson. good afternoon, president peskin. members of the board. i am lisa gibson, environmental review officer. your environmental review officer and i'm with the planning department. i have a slide presentation, madam clerk, if we may go to that, please. the item before you is the appeal of the class 32 categorical exemption issued by the planning department for the 1151 washington street project pursuant to the california

environmental quality act or sequa on june 26th and 23rd of this year, the department issued response to the appeal letters submitted by the appellant prior to june 23rd. and we've reviewed all of the other materials submitted since then. we maintain our position that the appellant has not met the legal burden of proof to successfully challenge the categorical exemption. in my presentation, i will highlight some of our main arguments in response to the appeal. but first i do want to acknowledge the testimony that i heard today from speakers who are understandably concerned about the potential impact of the project, including hazardous materials and shadow. unfortunately, i think there have been some misstatements of fact that are stoking fear and confusion, so i hope my presentation can shed some light on how these issues are dealt with in the context of state laws and local laws. now for a quick overview of the project. the project site is located on nob hill on the block bounded by washington, taylor, clay and mason streets. it is in an rm three zoning district and a 65 a

height and bulk district. the parcel is currently occupied by an approximately 3000 square foot single family home constructed in 1940. the project is demolition of the single family home and construction of ten townhomes under the state density bonus law. the same applicants previously proposed an addition to the existing structure on the property, including an accessory dwelling unit that project was denied and the applicant submitted a new project application that's the subject of the categorical exemption that brings us here today. you've heard the appellants arguments and i won't repeat them at a high level. our responses are as follows. first, the project does meet the definition of a class 32 categorical exemption include having no significant air quality impacts. second, no exceptions to the issuance of the supply, including what's called the unusual circumstances exception. next, even if the project were to present unusual

circumstance, it would not have a significant effect on the environment, including in areas related to hazards. shadow fire safety and geology. and finally, compliance with the law is not mitigation under sequa. even if the word mitigation is used in a professional context, the sequa guidelines establish classes of projects that are by definition exempt from environmental review . one of these is class 32, which is for projects characterized as infill development meeting specified conditions. these conditions include that the project would not result in significant effects related to air quality and public services, among other topics. the guidelines also establish exceptions to the issuance of a categorical exemption. one of these exceptions where the is where the project presents an unusual circumstance that gives rise to a significant effect. the appellant makes several arguments asserting that the project does not qualify for a class 32 categorical exemption. i don't have time to touch on

all of them, but i do want to address a few, including importantly, hazardous materials . the project site is a residential property with soil contamination resulting from undocumented fill. basically sometime long ago, someone brought dirt onto the property that turns out to be contaminated. this property is not unique. in fact, much of the city is underlain by undocumented fill, including rubble from earthquakes, sunken ships and sand dredged by from the bay. furthermore, the contaminants present on the property are commonly found on sites within san francisco underlain by under fill and material that are located or that were dredged from historically commercial and industrial areas. the image on this slide depicts areas of known or suspected soil or groundwater contamination, otherwise known as the maher area. these areas shown in pink constitute almost a quarter of the city's geographical area and almost 14% of all parcels. so

this existing condition is not unusual, which means it doesn't count as an exception to the issuance of a categorical exemption. but for those who care about public health and who spoke earlier, that may not matter. what's important is what's going to be done to make sure that those contaminants don't pose a threat to public health and safety. well in san francisco, we are experienced with this type and level of contamination so that there won't be a significant effect on the routine nature of encountering subsurface contaminant led this body. the board of supervisors, to pass legislation establishing our very own unique and robust regulatory process that kicks in when a project is proposed on a site shown on this map under the maher program, overseen by the department of public health, projects are required to investigate and remediate soil and groundwater contaminants before receiving a building permit to ensure the safety of construction workers, future occupants and nearby people. health departments. staff are here today to answer questions

you may have regarding how the project works and why the soil sampling conducted for the previous project is sufficient, and also why the site mitigation plan developed for the current project is adequate to protect the public. we anticipate you may have questions on this matter, so i won't see much more other to say other than to say that you'll hear the term mitigation used a lot in reference to requirements of the program. let's be clear that that term used commonly in the field of hazardous materials remediation is not the same as mitigation in the context. the maher regulations do not constitute mitigation measures under sequa. they are already the law and by the way, before the board strengthened the maher ordinance to be what it is today, we used to have to prepare mitigated negative declarations for projects such as 1151 washington solely due to hazards. and guess what the mitigation measures used to be? the same requirements that we now have codified in the maher program. before i close, i will

highlight our responses to other environmental issues raised in the appeal regarding emergency access. the project would in fact meet state and local requirements for fire safety. we submitted a memo from the fire department to this effect regarding shadow. the proposed 40 foot tall building is not subject to planning code. section 295 40 foot building are common in san francisco and the shadows cast by buildings of these height are not significant, which is not to say that they are not undesirable. clearly it is not welcome to have shadow on parks. for some people, if this body wishes to amend our codes to consider shadows, cast by buildings 40ft and below, that would certainly clarify the board's policy position. but as it stands, chapter 31 of the administrative code only requires that initial studies include the section 205 analysis is thus. our methodology complies with city code regarding geology.

construction on steep slopes is common in san francisco, even if such construction were unusual, the department's permit review the building department's permit review process includes provisions for construction on hillsides and would ensure the project's structural integrity during construction and operations. finally, regarding air quality, the project would be subject to the dust control ordinance will use clean tier four engines on all diesel fueled construction equipment will not add new stationary sources of toxic air contaminants and is below the air district's screening levels . for these reasons, no significant impacts would occur in these topic areas, period, not just in result in relation to unusual circumstances in closing, the department has substantial evidence to support the determination that the project qualifies for a class 32 categorical exemption and the appellants arguments do not meet the legal burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise. thus, there is no basis for requiring

preparation of a mitigated negative negative declaration or environmental impact report. further, respectfully, i would like to note that as a policy matter, the cities recently adopted housing element calls for the city to practice sequa in an efficient manner to reduce constraints to housing production. also the city's sequa review practices are under review by the state department of housing and community development. it is our position that rejecting the categorical exemption and requiring a higher level of environmental review than what state and local laws require would be taking us in the opposite direction of where we need to be going. the same arguments raised by the appellant here could be made on countless other projects that we routinely find to be categorically exempt. this includes simple things like residential additions as well as new housing projects necessary for us to meet our housing goals. therefore we ask that you uphold the class 32 category exemption and deny the appeal. excuse me. i'm joined today by rachel shea and joey navarette

from the planning department as well as bill chen and veronica slaton green. from the planning from the department of public health, we welcome any questions the board may have that concludes my presentation. thank you. thank you, miss gibson. and of course, is it is our duty to fairly and impartially adjudicate the appeal pursuant to the law of the policies notwithstanding. and we will attempt to do that here today. and i believe we've relative to your present. and then i'll call on supervisor ellman that really relative to the application of a class 32 infill exemption, the contention here between the appellant and the department and we have not yet heard from the real party and interest really comes around and you've obviously focused on this, whether or not there are any unusual circumstances, because that would take you out of the class 32 and if there are

whether there is a fair argument that they are impactful and adverse. so i do have some questions in that regard. but why don't i start with supervisor? thank you, president peskin. i'm just curious about this. i mean, i'm interested in hexavalent chromium, but i'm quite curious about the shadow because the position of the department seems to be that because of this ordinance, because of the i guess it was a ballot measure protecting parks , that an open space that anything, any building less than 40ft can not be a significant impact. no no matter what the park, no matter how dense and populated the area, no matter whether the park, the open spaces itself, lower, that all of these things are sort of irrelevant to the department's determination of whether there

unusual circumstances. hold on. we'll turn you on. let's see. there we go again. lisa gibson through the president, supervisor, mandolin. the question you asked is regarding the standard that we use to assess the significance of shadow impacts pursuant to the california environmental quality act, the sequa guidelines establish a sample checklist that is to guide lead agencies in assessing what is a physical effect on the environment. shadow is not a topic that is in the appendix g guidelines. now this is a suggested checklist that the state has prepared and lead agencies are free to modify the checklist as they wish. certainly shadow cast by buildings is not a unique san francisco issue. it is one that

is the case all throughout the state and it's our to our knowledge it is not a topic that is included by lead agencies throughout the state to assess environment as a topic of environmental effect. now, in san francisco, the board of supervisors in the past adopted an ordinance that is chapter 31 of our administrative code, and it establishes guidelines for our local practice in san francisco. it indicates that for initial studies, for projects that are not exempt, that the city's environment evaluation must include the analysis of shadow impacts that is performed under section 295. that is all that is stated in there does not require anything more or less section 295 of the planning code, of course, regulates shadow, and it is for buildings that are greater than 40ft in

height than measure as measured by the planning code. so we have two things to go with as far as the official policy of this city. we have section 295 and we have chapter 31. and both of those point to the same standard and to us it's a bright line. it is the height of buildings over 40ft is required. shadow analysis and below that we don't see that it does. now, certainly if there were if it were the desire as a policy of the city, that our environmental review should consider impacts of shadows of buildings, lower than that, that is something that the board could establish through the code and we would obviously use that as a standard. but we don't have anything beyond that to use. and so of course, if we were to assess those impacts, then it becomes a question of what is the standard of

significance. so this project is one that clearly illustrates that buildings a 40ft in height, which is very common in san francisco for residential projects that can cast shadow and that can fall on a park space. so it does present a very challenging thing. i think policy question for the city when we care about shadows on parks, how do we protect those while while also getting housing? well, the official policy of the city is as is was adopted through prop k in section 295. although i would just say that you've just gone through a whole housing element process and are currently going through a rezoning process that is acknowledging that there are parts of the city that have borne a much greater share of the development. and i think probably top of that list has got to be chinatown, which is i think probably one of the densest places in the united states. so it might be that open spaces in a place of that

density, we would be in a slightly different position than open spaces in other places. but anyway, thank you, supervisor melgar. thank you, president peskin. so my questions were to the health department folks as to this issue of the section 32 exemption. who is it? i don't. is it you? okay, so no. okay the hexavalent chromium. okay. so you're going to answer these. it was technical questions for the mitigation of the health department. so as i understand your argument, president, may i please share with you that we have two members of the health department who are in the audience today, and i'd like to invite them to respond to this question, if i may. we have bill chen and veronica lindgren.

okay. thank you. yarrow gibson so my question is, is this so what? i heard yarrow. gibson say is that, you know, we before we strengthen them, our ordinance, we would do negative declarations because, as you know, we. you know them our ordinance strengthens the mitigations that we routinely do on these projects. so therefore , our we can rest assured that that's what it is. so i want to ask you for the hexavalent chromium and the pc. cs do we treat under the ordinance and also for the fugitive dust, do we treat all chemicals the same ? is it one of these things that

doesn't really matter whether it's, you know, chrome six or whether it's, you know, lead or something else? um, thanks for your question again, i'm bill chen. i'm with the department of public health. i'm a civil and environmental engineer, licensed with the state. and i do the technical review. i'm one of the engineers that does the technical review in the maher program. so thank you. if i understand your question correctly, you're asking whether or not these contaminants hexavalent chromium and pc are all treated the same in the maher ordinance. so what i'll say is that mitigation specifically of the mitigation that is required. yeah so that's a good question. i would say that the process for review is the same. we take a look at the site history. we take a look at the known conditions in this case. this would be the undocumented fill that we see on site and the data that corroborates that for or depending on the concentration

and type of contaminant we may require a mitigation that is broadly applicable to a broad range of contaminants. so, for example, if you have elevated concentrations of hexavalent chromium or you have elevated thallium, as we do at the site there, you can mitigate that through a basic use of a site cover. now this is actually inherent in the proposed building development because the townhouse proposal actually will cover the entire site. so when we talk about when we talk about hexavalent chromium, menthol, these are heavy metals. they the exposure, the root of concern here is direct exposure. so basically, you don't want people, whether it's kids, future residents, neighbors to contact that soil. right. and so

in as the project has been proposed, the direct exposure pathway is cut off. so the physical townhouse will provide a physical barrier. and so there will be no contact. there should be no contact as designed between people and the contaminant sites that are in place after the building is built, not during construction. correct. there are also mitigation measures that are described in the site mitigation plan that will be implemented during the construction phase. these include work practices is like requiring a health and safety plan, requiring use of ppe, dust suppression control measures, soil management protocols, all of these are designed to protect construction worker health and safety and also to control potential impacts from dust, as well as any kind of, you know, release of the contaminants that we see

at the soil. we don't the way that they're designed is to prevent them from migrating somewhere that we don't want. so a lot of those mitigation measures are very standard for this level of contamination that we see at this site. but see, this is what i was trying to get to because it seems to me that there's a mismatch here. and what we're thinking, if what the what i read into what's eligible for section 32 exemption is, if there's an unusual there's an unusual well characteristic of this site. and so we heard from the appellant that there was only 11 sites around the city where we have found this particular toxin, the chrome six. but you're saying that like we treat the mitigation as a ordered on the other end, the same. so it doesn't matter whether it's chrome six or something else that's not as toxic, it's your the mitigation measures all at the same. so the

i'll mention that i don't know where mr. drury got that statistic for the incidence of hexavalent chromium, but i will say that, you know, i'll reemphasize what ms. gibson had mentioned, that this condition is actually very common through san francisco. we do see concentrations of hexavalent chromium and other contaminants throughout properties at the site. and so when our department and our program receive receives these plans for review and whenever we encounter the concerns that are presented at this site, we evaluate their health risk evaluation. we determine how much environmental risk is here. and based on that risk, we will recommend or require certain mitigation. and in this case, it would be very standard to respond to this level of mitigation in the way that it's presented in the site

mitigation plan. okay so thank you so much for that explanation. so can i ask you now about the other issue, the fugitive dust. if there's i'm sorry, fugitive dust during, you know, excavation and construction. so the other for the other toxin there, the pieces are more volatile right? yes. and so in terms of the mitigation, we're saying that you your department has prescribed a practices that will make sure that the playground, which is 20ft below the excavation site, will not see migration of fugitive dust. can you talk us through what that is ? sure i'll let me help make a distinction first. so is more airborne? it is actually the exposure pathway is actually in

the gaseous phase. and so the concern that we have there is vapor intrusion in which case we have a vapor intrusion mitigation system that we see presented in the smp designed to prevent any exposures. that issue, the pge issue, is actually separate from dust. so dust has its own health risks associated with it. and it's also there's a separate health code that's health code article 22, be and. and there's also dust mitigation measures. sorry. dust is also regulated under the building code. so there's general dust control measures that are required. and also under the building code and site specific dust control measures required under article 22 be so and essentially the difference is there are the level of implementation of the same measures. the level of monitoring and the level of reporting and oversight that's provided by our agency. but yes,

essentially these are going to be required permits to apply water to any active areas, stabilize dust, stabilize, expose soil surfaces, manage, you know, bucket drop heights. these are all, again, standard work practices that are very common because because they apply to they apply in the they're required in the general, in the building code. so all projects that require building permit have to apply dust control measures. so those measures are standard and you wouldn't do anything unusual because there's a playground 20ft below right next door, or because you know, if there's a wind pattern that is specific to that block, that that wouldn't be something that you would take into consideration. is standard measures, right? and you know,

the plan itself will scale based on the activity. and, for example, one of the measures that could be implement ated is at a certain if winds pick up and appear to produce a dust concern, then there could be a stop work as a control measure. and additional mitigations applied. but those additional mitigations are all standard and they're all already written into this control plan and they all are again, standard for construction projects. okay. thank you. thank you. supervisor melgar. so as i referenced in the beginning, just relative to the conclusions that the class 32 exemption is based on, that there are no unusual circumstances. i just wanted to explore that as it relates to some of the appellant's content

options. first, in the area that supervisor management spoke to around shadows is wherein we have i'm not calling it unusual yet, but a unique circumstance where the building is 40ft as measured by the planning code pursuant to section 295, proposition k of 40 years or whatever ago. and as the appellant contends, has the windscreens that were visible in the images and are in the file that go above 40ft. but again as a rooftop obstruction. still the planning code measurement section at 195 or whatever it is, says that still to be treated as 40. and then we have the unique circumstance where the public park to the east is down slope by some 20ft. so you

actually have a building mass that is. approximately 60ft as measured from the park. and my question is, how many buildings are there that technically fit under that 40 foot measurement that are adjacent to parks in the city that are down slope so that in essence, you have a significantly taller than 40 foot building from the point of view of the park users? or do you have exam samples of other similarly situated more than 40ft as actually measured? and would that unique circumstance rise to an unusual circumstance? president peskin thank you for the question. lisa gibson we do not have the exact data that you're requesting in terms of, you know, list of projects that have similar circumstances. what

we did prepare for you today is a figure that shows areas of the city where the height districts are above 40ft and the locations of properties under the jurisdiction of the recreation and parks department. and my colleagues is pulling that up now. but as you can see, it is a rather common circumstance that there are parks in the proximity of areas of the city zoned for that height. and i can say just from my experience and working at the planning department since 2000 conducting environmental review, it is the case that there have been times where we've encountered the similar circumstance. it's a very steeply sloped city. the city of 48 hills. so the you topography differs since that could cause the shadows to be different than if they were on a property that

was flat, that is, in my experience, not unusual. i'll so let's see. there we go. this is a figure that is showing here that is showing the areas of the city where section 295. well let's say it's showing areas of the city. my goodness, i can't see the exact legend here, but i believe it's showing areas of the city that are zoned for over 40ft in height. and then the green outlined areas are properties under the jurisdiction of the recreation and park department, which is the properties that are protected under prop k. 21. and president peskin, if i may, i do have i just want to share with you that i have staff here who have expertise in

conducting the shadow analysis for our department. if you have any more specific questions. so it is my understanding and as spoken to in the briefings, that while there was some shadow analysis, that there was no shadow analysis required by the department, correct. that is correct. and so relative to the map that you just shared, i think reasonable minds could do disagree as to whether or not that is a common place occurrence in san francisco. and again, the data that i'm looking for is where you have the significant downslope difference, right? where the measurement under prop k is buildings over 40ft. that are adjacent to a downslope park kind of hard to tell at that high level view, but appreciate that. let me move may i ask to just clarify your question? if you're asking, does earlier you

was talking about the unusual circumstance exception to issuance of a categorical exemption. i want to note that we are not hanging our hats on the unusual circumstance. this exception, you know, as the reason why we're saying this project doesn't have have an exception related to shadow. we are finding that just in general because our methodology is consistent with section 295, that we are not identifying as significant effect. so it's we don't believe that it's unusual, but even were we to concede that it's not unusual, or rather, if we were to concede it were unusual, we're just saying there is no significant impact on shadow, but i would point out that there's not only evidence in the record that suggests it is unlike other 40 foot buildings, because it abuts a park that is got a significant

downslope difference, but that there are fair arguments in the record that the project may have a significant, significant adverse impact on the park. if you're asking this question in the context of sketches, of course, this hearing under sequa, there is no requirement that shadows be analyzed as an effect on the environment. we've actually been exploring this issue because as we are being asked to as part of our housing element implementation review, our shadow and wind impact analysis procedures. and again, as i noted, there is no topic of shadow that's included in the recommended guideline for initial studies of evaluations established in the guidelines. and there is no requirement or guidelines, official policy of this city that we should be looking at and considering shadows cast by buildings over

40ft as a physical effect on the environment. we're not denying the actual reality in the real world that these buildings do cast shadow are solid masses. topography affects it, and that is clearly a concern. i'm hearing. we are recognizing that concern in the prospect that we are sharing the position that we're sharing with you today is based on environmental law, which is the law that we are mandated to comply with. and we have chapter 31, which provides our local road map to how we implement sequa and in some cases it provides guidance that is unique to san francisco. uniquely, it does identify shadow as a topic to be addressed in the context of projects subject to environmental review, not exemptions, but nonetheless, it does say the analysis pursuant to section 295. so were we to require prior that analysis in a manner that is different than we

have done in my 23 years of experience at the city? this would be a departure and i think it would be one that would raise the question of what is a significant effect then if a building were to cash out on a resulting from as is resulting from buildings less than 40ft, should that be treated differently? what if it's a housing project that's trying to be built? how do we reconcile that with policy issues as an as the euro? i'm mandated to both help our city comply with sequa and also to help us to advance our our policy. to help us get our housing, the housing that we are committed to building and to remove barriers. so trying to balance that is why we have concluded that really it is not our. position to be expanding the policy of this board of

supervisors by saying that we're going to be looking at shadow and considering a significant less than 40ft. i mean, this is a interesting esoteric argument insofar as on the one hand, you acknowledge that there are real life, real impacts on the other hand, you say we analyze them in certain circumstances but not in others. but on the other hand, sequa, which is a tool to inform decision makers about impacts, shouldn't be used because it contradicts other policies in the state is breathing down our neck. but i will leave that all in the parking lot and move on to something that i think is very real and very important. and as one of my colleagues said , relative to the future of residential development in san francisco, it's equitable distribution where it has been densest. and there's been an acknowledgment that in and around chinatown down, it has

been very dense and to that end, i think you acknowledge that this configuration of having those ten units in a row with a very narrow five foot access way is atypical for newer development projects. so i'm interested in understanding how many projects have a similar configuration in the city with this many units on a narrow lot with access only provided via a very narrow five foot pathway and to help us determine whether indeed that is an unusual circumstance. uh, president peskin i'm not sure if the answer to that. i do know that there are there's historic cottage row homes that have this similar kind of configuration.

but as far as the general, whether this is commonplace or not, i'm not certain. again, we are not saying that that is a not an exception to the categorical exemption because it's unusual. we're just saying because the project would comply with the fire code and the fire assistant fire chief has provided an advanced review of this project and stated that indeed it would not present any fire safety hazards and yet there is evidence in the record , including a submission made recently by a licensed architect when robert baum, that raises concerns and it's worth pointing out that there's a lack of evidence in the case itself as to whether or not this is common and would appear, at least to this supervisor, that there is substantial evidence in the record. that is an unusual circumstance and that there

further is a fair argument that it may result in inadequate access to the fire department. first responders. that bears analysis is president peskin may i call your attention to an attachment to our more recent submittal that includes a memo from the fire department that responds directly to the points that were raised by the appellant and points out the inaccuracies in those arguments. so a fair argument is one that is not erroneous. in this case. we believe that we have substantial evidence showing that it is erroneous. okay. are there any additional questions for the department of city planning? if not, we will go to the representative of the real party in interest. oh, i'm sorry .

so. good afternoon, president peskin and supervisors. my name is ryan patterson of patterson and o'neill. attorneys for the project sponsors allison and todd davis. the owners are not developers and they previously sought approval to expand their existing single family home on this site, the planning commission denied their application because it did not maximize the allowable density on the site. if i can, please have the computer overhead. this site is located within a transit

rich well resourced neighborhood and was identified in the city's inventory of land suitable for residential development in the last two housing element cycles , the density bonus law project before you today is consistent with the goals of the housing element and the planning commission's explicit directive to maximize housing at this site. i do want to acknowledge the concerns of the neighbors with sincere respect. but two particular neighbors have. at 1155 washington street, llc and clayton timbral have joined forces to appeal the project. one appealing the qr and the other appealing the sequa determination. the appeals have taken a kitchen sink approach, raising all manner of issues and if i can have the next slide. the appellants apparently have no problem with the purported carbon emissions from construction vehicles or hazards from soil excavation, so long as

the project is modified to leave the back half of the lot vacant to protect their views of the downtown skyline. or when mr. timbral excavated a basement level at his own home a few years ago. this project qualifies for a density bonus under state law and pursuant to state laws. the project is entitled to waivers of any development standards that preclude construction of the project at the density. proposed courts have repeatedly confirmed that a waiver may not be denied based on the theory that another project with similar number of units might conceivably be designed without the requested waivers. yet that is precisely what the appellants propose. they argue you could squeeze the project into a smaller box by reducing some two bedroom units into studios and completely redesigning the project from scratch. but the law is clear. that is not how the density bonus works. a waiver would only can only be denied if it would cause a significant,

quantifiable, direct public health and safety impact based on objective, identified written standards supported by written health and safety. substantial evidence in the record. the appellant fails to provide evidence of any such impacts and therefore for this project, approval must be upheld. good afternoon, supervisors brian o'neill of patterson and o'neill . the appeal can be boiled down to three issues fire access, soil mitigation and shadow. the appellant claims these issues show the project does not qualify for a sequel infill exemption because the seek was unusual circumstances exception to the exemption apply regarding fire access. the marshal, the fire marshal has confirmed that the appellant's claims about code inconsistent are wrong. project architect mark macy has provided specific responses to the appellant's code. consistent inconsistency claims, which was

included as exhibit a in our appeal response on june 16th and mr. macy is available. if you have specific questions regarding the code consistency issues further, the claim is premature as the project will undergo a second round of fire department review during the building permit process to ensure compliance. the appellant's argument that the presence of stairs and a steep slope is unusual as an unusual circumstance suggest that they have never walked around san francisco. this claim of an unusual circumstances due to steep slopes was explicitly rejected by a court of appeal and protect telegraph hill v san francisco access to the site is not an unusual circumstance and the project does not raise any fire access concerns regard soil mitigation. the appellants repeatedly twist the facts to stoke fear. the project site is within the maher ordinance zone and subject to soil contaminated investigation. soil samples

showed levels of three substances at slightly above environmental screening levels or easels that are established by the regional water quality board. s cells provide extremely concerned screening levels intended to expedite identification and evaluation of common soil contaminants. slightly exceeding easels. does not demonstrate adverse health effects. for example, for hexavalent chromium, the level to be considered a hazardous site is 500mg/kg. the level here was 0.6mg/kg. the appellant's characterization of this property as a hazardous hazardous waste site is fear mongering and simply wrong. his quote about 11 sites. that's 11 hazardous sites, not 11 instances of hexavalent chromium being found. and as you heard from the department of public health, the quarter of the city

is subject to the maher ordinance and finding substances that exceed easels is not an unusual circumstance. the project complies with the maher ordinance regulations, which were specific enacted to ensure that public health and safety is protected. the maher ordinance was amended to cover more of the city precisely because the ordinance regulations are adequate to protect public health. the protection plan was was developed for the project at issue. unlike the what the appellant claims, and it was reviewed by the city's department of public health and determinant to be compliant with the ordinance requirements and adequate to protect public health. regarding the appellant's claims that compliance with the ordinance is impermissible, sequel mitigation . this claim was also been explicitly rejected by a court of appeal. the court in sf beautiful v san francisco, found that an agency may rely on generally applicable regulations to conclude an environmental

impact that will not be significant and that therefore does not require mitigation. compliance with generally applicable regulations does not constitute mitigation. finally, in regards to shadow, the appellant's first claim that the shadow would increase shadows by 3% in total, but now have only provided what the shadow impacts would be on two days a year. that's not how the city evaluates shadow impacts, but moreover, shadow impacts are not a health and safety impact and not a sequa issue. the city acknowledged in the housing element. update that analysis of shadow impacts is not required by sequa housing element policy. 8.5.6 committed the city to eliminate the topic from sequel review. a court of appeal confirmed in soma action network v san francisco stating that shadow limits are a policy consideration, not a secret

issue. this project is not above 40ft and not subject to the city's shadow policies at all. the board should follow through on its housing element commitment to eliminate unnecessary review of non sequitur epics, particularly on a site that has twice been identified in the city's housing element as suitable for residential development. otherwise the city runs the risk of hcd determining that the city is out of compliance with the housing element. and this would open the city up to the builder's remedy. loss of transportation funding lawsuits accelerated rezoning and a host of other serious penalties. the appellant's arguments must be rejected. the project is within a fully developed urban neighborhood that has been designated a well resourced neighborhood, and there are no unusual circumstance about construct a housing project in a residential, residentially zoned urban neighborhood. the

appellant secret claims have all been rejected by published court of appeal decisions involving san francisco, including protect telegraph hill v san francisco, as if beautiful san francisco and soma action network via francisco. we therefore request that the board deny the appeal and uphold the planning commission's approval of the project. thank you. thank you, mr. o'neill. seeing no questions from members, we will now go to speakers on behalf of the project sponsor not to exceed two minutes if there are any speakers in the chambers, please come forward. line up to your right, my left for speaker. please. good afternoon, supervisors. jamie, tolly. i am the san francisco organizing director

for action here in support of this project. and to ask you to deny the appellant, i think you just heard a great argument as to why we really do have to do a lot of work when it comes to our housing element. this has been previously identified as a site . there are lots of opportunities for us to flex about where and how we should do it. but i really do think that this is a good project and while it does have some adverse impacts that we can argue about . i do think that you could say that about just about anywhere in this city. and we're going to have to have some hard conversations about that. we really don't want hcd to bring the hammer down on us. we we've gone through this before. we're hearing about another one where oecd sent a letter in a little bit that continues to be a factor. and i'll just say that if we continue to abuse local control, we are going to lose local control. if we value that

so much here, we really need to uphold a certain standard when we're looking at when and how we use it. and we need to make this process easier and more predictable. you already heard about the fact that they had a previous project and that was denied and this is them coming back and trying again. if this doesn't work, what's the right way? we really need to figure out an objective standard to make it easier for folks like them. thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. hi, my name is kent mccarney. i'm a proud action member. it's an honor to speak in front of this board and on in this hallowed room. i totally get it. the neighbors love their city. they love their neighborhood. and if i had those fabulous views, i'd want to just protect them forever. the problem is, if we pour sap all over the city and preserve it just the way it is, which is

arguably perfect, we're all going to be living in tents, which we're kind of seeing now. we need homes. and the housing element doesn't have an asteroid next to it. that says housing for all and up zoning and all these different things that the housing element allows for, except for if it's going to change anything at all, because these you can find something bad about any project and there are ways we can mitigate it. these tiny townhome homes are going to bring more people into the neighborhood to enjoy that fabulous park and walked on those fabulous streets housing for all means, housing for all. even if there's a little bit of a shadow. and that really sucks. but we got to pretend we live in a city and sometimes there's a little bit of a shadow. thank you for your time. please don't accept the appeal. thank you. thank you. are there any other speakers on behalf of the real

party and interest who are present in the chambers? if not, let's go to remote public comment. madam clerk, do we have the first caller in the queue? we have about four who are ready to make their comment. there are nine who are listening. if you're one of the nine, please make sure if you haven't already, to press star three. let's welcome our first caller. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is mike chen. i'm a resident of district two in san francisco. i'm speaking in support, in support of the project sponsors and against the appeal. i think that we are going to hear in a little bit 3832, 18th street, which was another project that this board did put some roadblocks in front of, and the state did send a letter saying that that was an awful and i'm afraid that the state is watching. they did send san francisco a letter last week reminding the city that it must fulfill and follow through on its promises and the housing element that that this board did pass in january. and. for these

reasons that i'm afraid that if an appeal is sustained at this level, then the state is going to come down harder on san francisco than it then it may need to. so i urge you to reject this appeal. thank you. thank you for your comments. let's hear from our next caller. please hi, this is adam havelock. i live in six and i am speaking in support. i think let's just talk about a few practicalities. the appellants keep bringing up park, park, park. there is not what anyone in here would consider a park. what is next to this building is a basketball court and another building which is a recreation center. i can't speak for the members of the board, but when you're out there playing, running, running hoops back and forth, shadow is welcome. the past couple of years when we had a drought and heat shadow is welcome. when you're active, you

don't want to be in the sun. a little bit of shadow is not a bad thing. it is just an excuse . let's also talk about how in the appeal the appellant's lawyer, mr. drury, had quoted a state law saying that it it affected a specific adverse impact upon health, safety or the physical environment, referring to government. code 65915. the problem is that law does not say what mr. jury claims it does. in fact, it only refers to health. the physical environment was was deleted from from the state law so that that has no bearing. we should also talk about the fact that this is in nob hill, not in chinatown, which is a complete which is in nearby, but a completely distinct neighborhood. and, you know, the this is going to be ten townhomes that are much

cheaper than the neighboring buildings. the appellant. at 1155 purchased their home for more than $5 million a year ago. and while i feel for them losing their views, that is not a reason to block relatively affordable homes in the neighborhood. this board needs to respect the law, respect hcd and allow this infill development to happen. we can't be guaranteeing the views of every for your comments. all right, mr. shu, let's hear from our next caller. hi, my name is julio buendia. i live up the street and walk by the project site whenever i get my lattes at the coffee movement. i'll keep this short just because we've been here for a while, but just wanted to call in support of the project and asking the board to reject the appeal. if not, the heat will come and bring the hammer down on san francisco. thank you. thank you for your

comments. next caller, please. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jonathan brennaman and i'm a volunteer lead with northern neighbors neighborhood organization in the northern part of san francisco, including nob hill. i cannot even believe we are wasting our time with this kind of hearing. mainly discussing shadows when we are in a climate and the housing crisis and there's nothing more that we need than dense urban housing, family housing that these project provides. i urge you to reject the appeal and uphold the determination by the planning department so that we as soon as possible can get these ten amazing townhomes built. thank you. thank you for your comments. next caller, please. good afternoon, supervisors. alan berdahl

calling and i'm calling. to from district eight and i'd like to say that i do not support this. the appeal, please support this project sponsor and thank you very much. thank you for your comments. let's hear from our next caller. please good afternoon, supervisors. my name is robert freeman and i live in district five and i'm a member of the action. i support the project and frankly, i think the city of san francisco is playing a dangerous game by hearing this appeal and possibly even considering rejecting the categorical exemption here. there are supervisor in the chamber who have previously previously said back in november that they want to be collaborative with the state, that the state has set up san

francisco to fail with its new allocation of 80,000 homes by 2031. that san francisco is being punished by the state for building affordable housing. well if you really believe that san francisco is being set up to fail, this is your opportunity to prove the state of california wrong. this is your opportunity to do the right thing. if san francisco is really so incapable of building 82,000 units because of the state, surely this is a great opportunity to show the state no, no, you're wrong. we can do this. this is we're not going to step on a rake of our own construction that will prevent us from building ten. condemned ten homes towards san francisco's goal of 82,000. and

i think san francisco planning this presentation has been persuasive. i don't think as as a layman, that there is anything resembling a situation. so wild that we need a full environmental impact review for ten. i'm going to say one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, ten. homes thank you for your comments. all right, mr. shu, let's hear from our next caller, please. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is brian quan. i'm a richmond district resident and a member of action. i'm here calling in support of this project because i believe that if people are given the clear and transparent rules to follow, that they should be allowed to build as

they are following the proper codes. and i think it's important that we make sure that we keep this very clear and transparent process for future projects so that we can use housing as a means of supporting the recovery of san francisco. thank you. thank you for your comments. mr. chu another caller in the queue. hello my name is charles ayers and i'm a resident of san francisco and a member of the action calling in support of the project. our city desperately needs more housing and we need to prioritize housing affordability and being a city that is open to all who want to live and work here over concerns regarding shadows. as others have mentioned, we made promises in our housing element and the state is watching it seems to me that if our choice is between getting hcd angry and adding more housing units that we desperately need, it seems like pretty much a no brainer. thank you. thank you. let's hear

from our next caller, please. hello, this is jonathan randolph . please deny the appeal if you approve the appeal, then it will be a poster child for abuse. shadows are not a harm. every building casts a shadow. and if we dignify the view that shadows are an environmental harm, then the logical conclusion is that we should all live in suburbs instead of in a city. and the building code is not an environmental issue. it's an abuse of to relitigate every building code issue in a lawsuit . so just please deny the sequa appeal because it's nonsense. as for the conditional use, please approve the project because it's what our zoning and density bonus law allow that the right thing to do is to approve it. deterministically there's nothing wrong with townhouses. i personally would prefer an apartment building, but thanks to proposition k, this is the best way to maximize the density on the lot. the correct time to argue about what neighborhoods should have, what density is when you're passing a zoning ordinance, not when you're

approving individual project. please follow the law and approve the project. thank you for your comments. is there another caller in the queue? madam clerk, there are no more callers in the queue. thank you , mr. president. thank you. that will conclude speakers on behalf of the real party and intro. and now we will go to the appellant for a not to exceed four minute rebuttal that you may share as you see fit. thank you, president peskin. members of the board. first on the fire issue, we have available on the phone a fire safety expert, robert burt, who submitted a letter to you and explained the fire safety issues for this project. i respectfully disagree with ms. gibson's characterization of what the fire marshal said. i'll read to you what the fire marshal said

on june 22nd without a complete set of construction plans for review, it appears that measures could be taken to address the concerns of needing egress past other units that may be on fire. that is hardly a whole hearted endorsement of the fire safety for this project. on the issue, could we could i have the overhead, please? go ahead. just lay it down. okay what i. what i have on the overhead is off of the planning department's website. the initial study template is and you can't see it, but it says page 102, item ten, shadow. would the project create new shadow that substantially? and adversely affects the use and enjoyment of publicly accessible, open spaces ? that is the planning department's own checklist. so obviously there is an issue here about whether or not there's shadow that's affecting a publicly available open space. look, law often comports itself

with common sense. and let's use a little bit of common sense here and see how it works with the law. this board is not established, a policy that i've seen anywhere that says if a building is less than 40ft high, nobody needs to look at the shadow impact, no matter the circumstances in this case, where you have an impact, a significant impact, not a 3% impact, as mr. o'neill said, but a 45% impact, not on one day a year, but on multiple days a year. as robert baum can testify about, the architect that's here, along with adam noble, who did the shadow impact. if you've got that kind of shadow impact regularly on a publicly accessible, open space, that's a sequel impact. and why wouldn't you want to study that? why wouldn't you want to look at whether there's ways to mitigate that, to make the project better and have less of an impact on the residents of chinatown and upper nob hill who need to use this valuable open space? i see the rest of my time to mr.

drury. thank you. very quickly, on contamination staff continues to say it's not unusual. 25% of the sites in the city are contaminated. they're contaminated with petroleum from leaking underground storage tanks, not with hexavalent chromium or pci. we've submitted evidence from the former head of us epa's region nine superfund program, who analyzed the dsc and virus store database, concluded there's 11 sites with chrome hexavalent chromium contamination in the city of san francisco. mr. chen says, oh, no, they're all over. he didn't say how many sites there are. there's no evidence in the record all over. maybe the 11 sites are all over. but i know our experts said, wow, you don't see hexavalent chromium very much. and i've been doing this for 30 years. that's a very unusual contaminant. mr. chen says, don't worry, we'll have the workers wear ppe, personal protective equipment. i tell you, if my kids are playing one foot away in the playground and there's guys working next door with gas mask and moon suits,

i'm going to be concerned because my kids aren't wearing gas masks and moon suits. that is not adequate mitigation. this plan is not adequate mitigation. the ordinance is not a substitute for sequa there is case law on it. the parker shattuck neighbors versus berkeley held that a school exemption was not appropriate, despite the fact that berkeley had their own. maher very similar to maher ordinance. it was not an adequate substitute for sequa and it's not adequate here. what need look no further than 2800 san bruno where that site was contaminated went through maher and it was never cleaned up to know that maher is not an adequate substitute for sequa. i will also point out that the city is ignoring its own shadow guidance dated july 2nd and 14, which is attached as exhibit b to our letter, which says there are two ways to have significant shadow impacts. one is if under prop k, the buildings over 40ft and the second is if the building cast

shadow on a public space. thank you very much. thank you. all right. that will conclude the hearing. and the hearing is now closed, as in the matter is, before the board. let me just start by there's been much conflation about public policy as it relates to what i think is our shared goal to build more residential housing in the city and county of san francisco. and i think all of us support not only the adoption of the housing element, which was predicated on equity and the equitable distribution of new housing starts in san francisco with an emphasis on affordability. this board unanimously recently voted

for smoothing the way to more residential building downtown. and today the mayor and i are introduced two ordinances relative to an sticking projects that have been fully entitled that are in the pipeline. i want to thank supervisor safai, who helped me go through that process. a number of years ago. as we first created the technical advisory committee. and we will be we've just been rosenfield just finished that process. so this board has done and continues to do a lot in that space. we're one of the speakers spoke to the fact that this is just a park. it's actually more than a park. this is the only recreation community center that chinatown has. the letters that are in the file are not from. well to do neighbors.

they are from the largest tenants organization in the city , the community tenants association. we heard from the chinatown community development center because indeed, this is a precious, unique public resource that is used heavily by the chinese community that i've represented. and indeed, i believe that there is evidence of unusual circumstances in the record. if we drill down further into the notion that this relative to downsloping open space or in this case community center, open space, lots that are in the densest portions of chinatown, i don't think there would be any other this is a very unusual circumstance. i think it is also unusual, as was just described, as it relates to

the fire access. and frankly, in respectfully, i think that the department erred in not considering whether the appellants had raised a fair argument of an environmental impact in these two areas. and frankly, i think that they do have enough evidence in the record and one of the lives of the appellant just stated that as to the back and forth and cited the june 22nd letter from the fire department. so before we deliberate this as a board, i do want to say that should this board grant or uphold the appeal , the planning commission, conditional use approval, would be void. but that in upholding the appeal, the board of supervisors i just want to be clear, would not be taking any position at this point on the merits of the project and is not disapproving the project, but

remanding the determination to the department for further environmental review with that, it is in the hands of the board and if somebody wants to make a motion to table item 39 and approve items 40 and 41, that would be in order unless there are countervailing desires. supervisor chan. is there a second for that motion seconded by supervisor walton, supervisor melgar. thank you. president peskin i just wanted to address a couple of issues in speaking in favor of the motion. so we're just addressing some of the public comments about the need for housing and whether or not this is consistent with our housing element. i think that what we are voting on here is whether or not we agree with the planning staff determination of

exemption for sequa. that's what we're voting on and it's not whether we do for an exemption or a full review. there's also a negative declaration or mitigate a negative declaration, which is what i would prefer in this specific circumstance. so i will tell you the shadow impacts are not what has swayed me in this particular instance, although i completely respect that this is you know, a playground in a very dense area. but i do agree that there we, we that's why we press prop k this is a fairly unusual situation in in san francisco. and it's so it's not the views for the appellant would gives me pause is the toxic that are found on the site and the physical and the unusual

physical configuration of where the project site is 20ft above the playground in right next to the playground. and so i think there's a mismatch in how we're treating it in terms of the standardized set of treat ment and activities for both the construction and then after for the building and before we even consider whether or not to do a exemption or a negative declaration and mitigated negative declaration, we already assume that these standardized treatments are going to be good for any kind of toxin that does give me pause and i think these are little kids. these are little kids who are playing in the playground. and i am not comfortable saying, well, you know, if this is just exempt from sequa because it's an infill project and we want all

infill projects to go through quickly, steadily, i think this is unusual and i, i want us to take these, you know, things seriously. i think they're serious for our air quality, for our, you know, health, especially in areas where they're so densely populated, so i will be voting in favor of this motion. thank you. thank you. on the motion made and seconded, roll call, please. supervisor sapphire. sapphire. no. supervisor stephanie. stephanie? no supervisor walton. walton i. supervisor chan chan i supervisor dorsey. dorsey. no. supervisor and gaudio and gaudio. no supervisor randleman mandolin and i supervisor melgar melgar i supervisor peskin peskin i supervisor preston preston i and supervisor ronan

ronan i there are seven eyes and four nose with supervisor sapphire stephanie dorsey and in guardian voting no, the motions are are approved. madam clerk, i believe that items. 42 through 45 are no longer before us. yes mr. president. we will state in the minutes tabled by operation of law. okay. could you please read items 46 through 49 together? items 46 through 49 comprise the second special order for a public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a conditional use authorization for a proposed project at 3832 18th street to allow approval of an individually requested state density bonus project and to invoke waivers from the development standards for the rear yard dwelling unit exposure in the height limit that would

construct a new six story 60 foot tall residential building with 19 group housing units within the rm one zoning district and a 40 dash x height and bulk district. item 47 is the motion to approve the decision of the planning commission to approve this conditional use authorization item 48 is the motion to disapprove the department's decision and item 49 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings. thank you, madam clerk. if there is no objection , we will proceed in the same manner as we did in the previous item with ten minutes for the appellant, two minutes for speakers on behalf of the appellant. ten minutes for the planning department, ten minutes for the real party and interest , followed by two minutes per speaker in support of the real party and interest. also known as the project sponsor, followed by three minute rebuttal from the appellant. but before we do

that, supervisor sapphire, thank you, mr. president. when this project came previously, before i had to recuse myself. so if i could please be recused, i would appreciate it. supervisor would you state for the record the reason for your recruitment based on individual parties that are involved in the sponsorship ? as i said before, engineers and others, i had previous financial interest with them in the past. okay. so just out of the abundance of caution, colleagues, can we have a motion to recuse supervisor sapphire from these proceedings made by supervisor mandelson, seconded by supervisor dorsey? we will take that without objection. supervisor sapphire is excused and now we will go to the appellant for a not to exceed ten minute presentation. i hope. are you the appellant? please

proceed. you can use whichever microphone there are two that you choose. so anyone that can help me with this, yes, we'll have the clerk one moment. the sergeant at arms is on his way. is this a microphone? yeah. see this one? yes, it is so close. they are the two. they have copies provided they live and in a few days now on then they should be able to see it on your

presenting it. okay. okay. thank you. should. there you go. second. can as soon as you start your presentation. mr. president, we have a copy of the presentation. if that's proving to be too difficult and we have it ready. thank you, mr. carroll, can you hear me? yeah. okay. thank you. how how do i do this? i want. okay, i see. okay thank you. okay. thank you for your patience. this good afternoon. members of the board of supervisors. i appreciate this opportunity to speak to you

today. my name is amy silverstein. i live across the street from 3832 18th street in addition, i am a lawyer. my firm focuses on state and local tax. and you might wonder why i'm here today and telling you that i'm a lawyer. i just want to point out that it know lawyers are extremely expensive. it's very difficult. for ordinary residents to represent themselves in these proceedings . the law is incredibly complex. and i'm here to help navigate and identify and correct the project. sponsors, misstatements of the law. and i just want to point out that the you know, in the presentation or the submission by the project sponsors, they try to brush off the appellant's entire argument as harassment. and i think that it's really important to recognize that while we're here

to point out the misstatements and mistakes in the present in the presentation, i want to focus on a few very specific things that i think can inform the appeal and help resolve it today. okay. so as you know, the project sponsor seeks to demolish an exceedingly narrow. single family home to build a six story building with 19 units only 350ft!s, each using the state's density bonus law. and you've probably seen this. this is a rendering of the proposed building. as you can see it, it's extremely different and out of place as compared to the buildings that exist right now. the project sponsor. argues that

the approved five story building is in violation of the law under the density bonus law. however, while the board is considering violations of law, it must consider a much more fundamental flaw. the only way that the project sponsor can support building 19 units is if the units in the building are group housing. without that designation, at most, the building may have 6 to 7 units. and yet the five story building and the 19 units are not group housing. all parties agree that the group that group housing cannot have individual cooking facilities. the original language in the code clearly stated that group housing is without individual cooking facilities. the current language states without individual or limited cooking facilities or kitchens. the amendments did not change the fact that individual cooking facilities were never allowed in group housing. now

each of the 19 proposed units is would include a refrigerator, a sink, a two ring burner and a combination microwave and convection oven. by any common sense measure, a microwave oven and a two ring burner are cooking facilities due to these cooking facilities. the 19 units are not group housing and the five story and six story building with 19 units violates the law. the board clearly understands that group housing can't have individual cooking facilities and was right to question the zoning interpretation administrator's interpretation. there is no definition of cooking facilities in the planning code in the absence of a statutory definite principles of statutory construction require cooking facilities to be interpreted according to the a plan and common sense meaning the plain language of the planning code is binding and no interpretation or application of this language.

application contrary to that language is permitted, including the 2005 zoning administrator interpretation. now, the other reason the five story and six story building with its 19 units are not group housing. is that the project sponsor intends to sell each of the units individually as condos, focusing on a residence club and a commune. the project sponsor takes issue with our statement that none of the types of housing on the list in the original and amended definite of group housing is individually owned. the board's recent amendments confirm our interpretation in the amendments made clear that group housing cannot be owned individually and the board kept the list the same . it still includes residents club and commune. clearly the board understood that residents, clubs and communes do not have individual ownership under the

original language and the clarifying amendments group housing does not. in include individually owned units. now it is our position that the new law regarding group housing applies. but as i've explained, it doesn't matter now. the project sponsor is wrong that sb 330 means that the law in place when the preliminary application is filed is the only relevant law. the government code says a housing development project shall be subject to the ordinance in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. it does not say what happens if there is a new application as there is here. project isn't defined. no where does it say that a project can span multiple applications? the project sponsors assertion of what it means without any authority does not bind this board. now now here the current proceedings involve a new application. the first application was final after the

project sponsor did not file a writ in superior court by the 90 day deadline, it was fully adjudicated at that time. the project sponsors only recourse at that point was a request for rehearing, which is a new application, even though the project sponsor framed the february 2023 request to the planning commission as a request to hold a hearing pursuant to section 303 f the planning commission did not do that. the planning commission assigned a new application number and called the proceedings a rehearing request. now, as a reminder, even assuming this proceeding is strictly under 303 f, the board must look at all violations of law. now, the project sponsor points to three provisions allegedly requiring deemed compliance or deemed approval. they are all waived because the project sponsor did not file a writ challenging the original decision within 90 days and moreover, it can't be the case that the project is deemed

approved with rights, with no rights of appeal to this board or to the california courts, or plainly due process rights of the applicant and the public would be violated. and finally, by their terms, those provisions do not apply. by way of example , the provision and the government code addressing five hearings only applies, quote, if a proposed housing project development project complies with the applicable objective, general plan and zoning standards. in effect, at the time, an application is deemed complete. i've already explained to you why this application did not comply with those zoning provisions at that time, and that is because the 19 units are not group housing. so in conclusion, this board must look carefully at whether the units and the building are group housing under the plain language of the code, whether it's the original code or the amended code, they are not group housing . the project sponsor is trying

to deny the board its authority and deny the applicant and the neighbors their due process rights by asserting procedural barriers. however, however, they are waived and furthermore, there red herrings. they don't say what the project sponsor says they do or they simply don't apply respect fully. this board should grant the appeal and disapprove both the six story building and the five story building with its 19 units. thank you. thank you. are are there any questions for the appellant? see and you don't have anybody for the balance of your time, correct? that's right. okay are there speakers on behalf of the appellant? if so, if you'll come up and testify not to exceed two minutes per person for speaker, please. go ahead, sir. and if you want to line up to my left, your right, if there are other speakers, please go ahead. go

ahead, sir. hi, my name is gary peddler. i live on church street on the east side of the block where 3 to 330. 832 is located. amy silverstein is presented the case very clearly. i just wanted to highlight what for me are the important points that the units and the proposed new building have. kitchen facilities and they'll be sold individually. so i don't see how that is group housing. the 19 micro units will contain 350ft!s each, which is too small for families or couples. is that the kind of housing the city needs most? will it even be permanent residents living there, or will these units be used as short term corporate rentals for second homes or airbnbs if either version of this building is given a green light, it will mean the loss of an opportunity to build the type of housing we do need. it will maximize the profits for the developers and minimize the benefits for the

rest of us. thank you. thank you. next speaker. my name is luis fernandez. i am the resident and owner of 235 dalton street. the unit directly behind the proposed unit. and i've been there since 2008. thank the board of supervisors for the opportunity to register my opposition to this project and in support of the appeal. the described project purports that it's group housing. however, the project is not group housing as it does not follow the letter or spirit of the housing rules. it does not also offer significant below market rate housing for the neighborhood or for san francisco, and doesn't foster housing for families in a family neighborhood. i seen the community change and for the best. i think in in my neighborhood. and i'm very concerned about the use of

buildings for essentially tech commentaries at very high prices. this is the neighborhood that has a character that's very unusual. i used to work in. i live in potrero hill and the family both of all orientations, is something that really attracted me there. and i want to stay in the region or at least in the neighborhood for as long as i can. but it having buildings, especially one that has 19 units for very small areas that are extraordinarily expensive, is of concern to me. so i'd like to, in conclusion, respectfully urge that the board of supervisors vote to disallow the conditional use authorization for 23 for 3832 18th street. thank you very much

. thank you. next speaker, please. mr. president, i am a resident in a nearby sro unit. our sro is can you turn those into condos? is that is that legal in complete units? i mean, that's a question that comes to my mind. i also point out that my unit, my building is like that we have share we have a share kitchens but like about 10% of the footprint of the building is the share kitchens that people can use. i mean i either you know either they're full units, you know, or there's a shared kitchen or which is it next speaker this is with regard to the this appeal. go ahead. hello. my name is robin lewis. i live on dalton street, which is behind this project. can you please speak directly into that microphone as much as you can. thank you. is that better? so my partner says in reference to the

people who are planning to build this, that they are bad actors. time and again, this community has reminded them we are not against the development of new housing. we want development that fits with the neighborhood and the city. efforts to work together on plans have been rejected. time and again. these developers and others have portrayed our neighborhood is not in my backyard or as a group of homeowners only concerned about property values. and in fact, those of us owners and renters like me are both concerned about livability. for all of us in the long term, our concerns and ideas have been dismissed, sadden me. there is no concern about good neighborhood relations. i don't like to think this yet it seems the permitting system is allowing them to do what they like and bend rules to build these tiny shelters and make millions of dollars specifically , the concept of group housing has been twisted by including

the kitchens to allow for this project and the fever to create housing has inspired putting aside putting wise rules aside, my wish is that the community input becomes part of the project. we ask that the project be at 40ft, not at 60ft. i didn't think that was so demanding. let's build livable spaces and affordable housing because this is not affordable housing. thank you. thank you. next speaker. well, it seems like you guys have been reimagining build back better for years and you've stood the policy on its head. but i was just wondering if these contaminants are near ubiquitous in san francisco. were any found at the playground in one of these mitigated or i mean, are they just nonexistent in playgrounds? are there any other speakers in the chamber on

behalf of the appellant for 3832 18th street, seeing none, are there any remote public speakers on behalf of the appellant? mr. billy hsu i see we have ten who are listening. if you haven't already, press star three to get into the line to speak. otherwise we have one caller in the queue. let's hear from that caller now. welcome. caller two now. hello good afternoon. board of supervisors. my name is gregory and i've lived at 3838 18th street. the house directly next to the project site for over 20 years. my objections and concerns with this project have been consistent since i first heard about it, which is that this project is a fairly obvious and unquestionable abuse of the definition of group housing. the developers are proposing a project that meets neither the definition nor the spirit of group housing. if they were actually building a group housing akin to the public housing on my other side at 3858 10th street, i would be supportive of this project. but that's not what's happening here. what's happening is that the developers have sought out liberal upon exemptions to maximize profits over any

neighborhood impact or concerns. these units are intended not for group housing, but for individual sale of market rate condos, where quantity outweighs quality or our city's need for low income housing and housing. catering to families. given that the planning committee itself has revised the definition of group housing and this board has acknowledged it as well to further clarify and exempt projects like the one at 3032, 18th street. despite the fact that this project also didn't meet the previous definition of group housing. clearly what we're dealing with here is the city's desire to close a lucrative, yet damaging loophole . i ask that the board of supervisors follow through with ending this group housing abuse and revoke the approval of this project. thank you. thank you for your comments. let's hear from our next caller. please hello, supervisors. my name is lewis corder. i live across the street from 3832 18th street. i object to the approval of the coa for 3832 18th street. the project is nearly 50% over existing zoning. the neighbors asked for a modest one storey

reduction, which the planning commission approved, keeping the same 16 market rate condos and three below market rate condos. while the city is already above the state mandated market rate housing quota, the developer would not compromise, citing group housing exemption. i'm not convinced the city has the wherewithal to keep the owners of these units from remodeling and enlarging these units after the fact. to me, the density laws are a form of back door eminent domain for developers, not the public. also, the project would displace at least five people with bicycle and park and car parking. also, this project will not help the homeless. it makes me sick. the city is being blackmailed by the state with the builder's remedy. thank you for your public service. thank you. thank you for your comments. i can hear from the next speaker on behalf of the appellant or the

appellants representative. welcome. caller. hello, this is anastasia of annapolis, a resident of district eight in opposite to this project. it's not the kind of housing we need in our neighborhood. just look at the block. the block is all residential. it's not a six story building and it's going to be condos for sale. please give us a break. thank you. thank you for your comments. all right. let's hear from our next caller. please madam clerk. there are no more callers in the queue. thank you, mr. shoe. mr. president. okay, that concludes rude speakers on behalf of the appellant. and we will now go to the planning department for a not to exceed ten minute presentation.

hold on, elizabeth. let's figure out your give it a try. now all right. good evening, supervisors . i'm elizabeth gordon. john kerr, principal planner for supervisor, district eight. i will be presenting the for the planning department and i am accompanied today by kate, kate connor, manager of housing implementation. the decision before you is whether to uphold or overturn the planning commission's approval of modifications to a previously approved conditional use authorization for a state density bonus group housing project at 3832 18th street, the project proposes demolition of an existing two story single family residence and the construction of a 60 foot tall, six storey residential building containing 19 group housing units with a 390 square foot communal space. the project is

designed with a state density bonus waivers from density, height, rear yard and exposure and would provide three on site below market rate rooms. this project's conditional use authorization has been appealed for a second time on october 14th, 2021, the planning commission reviewed the original proposal of a six storey project and conditioned their approval on a reduction in the height of the building from 6 to 5 stories, relocating a unit to the ground floor and removing a community kitchen on november 21st, 2021, the property owners within close vicinity of the project appealed the commission's approval to the board of supervisors. this board upheld the planning commission's decision on march 15th, 2022. on december 22, 2022. the planning department received a notice of violation from the california department of housing and community development. hcd stating the city denied the project's height waiver by conditioning the project of five

stories and not allowing six stories. hcd also stated that once a project qualifies for a density bonus, state density bonus law does not authorize a local agency to deny a proposed waiver, including by way of a required redesign. even if the project could be redesigned to accommodate the same number of units without requested project amenities, the appellant raises four main issues in the written appeal of the modified project that the project design and implementation do not meet the necessary criteria, criteria or definition of group housing. per the planning code and therefore does not qualify for the state density bonus as approved by the planning commission. so second, that the project is incompatible with the neighborhood or community and may negatively affect the health, safety, convenience in general, welfare and welfare of the neighbors. and three that the project does not comply with the general plan specifically in relation to the preservation of family sized housing units and that it

undermines the existing housing and neighborhood character. and finally, fourth, that the project is not code compliant because it does not meet the group housing definition and therefore does not qualify for the state density bonus as approved by the planning commission in response to the first and fourth issues related to group housing, the project was conditionally approved as a 19 room group housing project by the planning commission in 2021 and then upheld by the board of supervisors on march 14th, 2022. the project provides these 19 bedrooms, each with a in unit bathroom, laundry and kitchenette consistent with relevant planning code requirements and the zoning administrator interpretation regarding limited kitchen facilities at the time of the application, the commission's approval on april 20th, 2023, modified the existing conditional use authorization application by reverting back to the original proposal to allow for the sixth floor of the proposed building. no changes were proposed to the approved

residential group housing use or density, and therefore the project is code complying. april 30th, 2022 changes to the group housing definition are not applicable to this project. since the project sponsor filed a preliminary application subject to sb 330 on july 28th, 2020, which locked in the group housing definition at that time . in response to the second issue size of the approved project, a six storey building is in keeping with other residential properties in the neighborhood at 60ft. the proposed height is within the allowable height range available through the state density bonus program in their review on april 20th, 2023, the commission found the project result. the project results in a building shape, size and height that is generally considered with the character and design elements of the neighborhood in the context of the state density bonus law, which requires the approval of additional density concessions, incentives and waivers for eligible projects. in response

to the third issue, when making general plan consistency findings, the planning commission found that on balance , the proposed project was consistent with the general plan and that the resulting project would alleviate the alleviate san francisco severe housing crisis and provide housing within a transit rich and well resourced neighborhood. additionally, 20% of the proposed group housing rooms or three units will be on site below. market rate units. for these reasons, the commission approved the project this concludes the department's presentation and staff is available for questions from the board. thank you. are there any questions from members? seeing none. why don't we go to the representative of the project sponsor? welcome back, mr. o'neill. thank you, president peskin and supervisors brian o'neill, patterson and o'neill representing the project sponsor, mj mission. dolores llc. in addition to the profit. yes, in my backyard and sonia

strauss three years ago. the project sponsors submitted an application to construct 19, a 19 unit six story group housing project at 3832, 18th street under the state density bonus law, the appellant, the appellant has submitted three appeals of the project thus far , and this is the 10th public hearing in connection with this project. despite the state law prohibiting the city from holding more than five hearings on any one project. at this process must stop, and this much needed housing project must be allowed to move forward. the project provides three bmr units that would be affordable to low income individuals, which qualifies the project for a 35% density bonus under state law. the planning commission initially eliminated the sixth floor of the state density bonus project as a condition of approval. this action was a violation of state law, and on april 20th, the planning commission corrected this mistake and restored the sixth floor. and that action must be

upheld. today the sixth floor was proposed as a density bonus waiver of the 40 foot height limit and under state law, a waiver may only be denied if the waiver would cause a significant , quantifiable, direct public health and safety impact based on objective, identified, written standards supported by written findings and based on substantial evidence in the record denial of the height waiver here was not supported by such findings, nor could it be because there are no public health and safety impacts caused by the project. and the appellant fails to identify any public health and safety impacts. in this latest appeal, the removal of the sixth floor effectively removed to housing units eliminated the group kitchen facilities, reduced bicycle storage, reduce the size of the remaining units and eliminated all private open space, both the courts and the department of housing and community development, or hcd, has recognized that the density bonus law does not require an

applicant to strip a project of all amenities in order to qualify for a waiver. as a result, atc on december 29th, 2022, hcd issued a notice of violation against the city for its conditioning of the project . hcd determined that the project qualified for a height, waiver and removal of the sixth floor was a violation of the state density bonus law. hcd directed the city to take immediate corrective action or face further enforcement action planning code section 303 f provides the planning commission with the authority to abate codes that are issued in violation of the law. and that's the procedure the commission used. the project sponsor did not submit a new cba application, as the appellant claims. rather, the commission utilized its authority to correct a clear violation of law vis a vis the existing application. the appellant argues that this project should be subject to the city's new group housing ordinance, which was enacted in 2022 based on the

erroneous claim that this is a new application, it is not the project sponsor submitted an sb 330 preliminary application in july of 2020, and under state law, the project can only be subject to the ordinances in place at the time. the preliminary application was submitted, the development application was determined to be complete by the city on august 9th, 2020, further locking in applicable code standards. sb 330 does provide a specific requirement when a project is no longer subject to the existing preliminary application, and that's when the project the project is modified by 20% or more, either in units or floor area. that hasn't happened here. this is the same exact project that the project sponsor submitted a preliminary application three years ago. so in short, the 2022 group housing ordinance does not apply. the appellant also argues that the

project does not comply with the group with the prior group housing ordinance, mostly that appellants seems to take issue with the 2005 wsa a interpretation a long standing interpretation of what constitutes a kitchen. the e actually reiterated what constitute constitutes a kitchen and a dwelling unit in 2021. and this is consistent with that definition of a kitchen. for the past three years, the city has repeatedly found that the project does comply with the prior group housing ordinance. both the commission and this board previously approved the project with these group housing units confirming that the project does comply with the prior group housing requirements. the only question here is whether the sixth floor would would cause a significant, quantifiable, direct public health and safety impact based on objective, identified written standards. the record shows it clearly does not, and therefore the project must be approved as

originally proposed, as required by the density bonus law and the housing accountability act. the project meets or exceeds all applicable planning code standards or qualifies for a waiver from such standards under the state density bonus law. we therefore request that the board deny this appeal and uphold the planning commission's action to restore the sixth floor of the project as originally proposed. so the project can finally move forward. thank you. thank you. we will now go to speakers on behalf of the project sponsor. if you are in the chambers, please come up and testify. not to exceed two minutes and then we'll go to remote speakers. hello again, supervisors. jane natalie with action. i'll be brief on this one. hcd is

already weighed in on this one. there's been a lot of back and forth. there's been a lot of delay, but this is one that we should move forward with. i'm hoping that you'll deny the conditional use here and uphold this and deny the appeal and make sure that this moves along . we've heard about it a lot. i was at planning for this one both times. so, you know, it's had its day. please take the necessary action to see these homes through. thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. kent mccarney, proud member of the action. it's an honor to speak in front of you and to be in this room. i feel the same way that this street is particularly important to me and to a lot of people. and you guys have a really tough job because you represent a lot of people who love this specific street a lot . and i just hope you allow more people to come and join us and

love this neighborhood for years to come. it is group housing. it isn't group housing. housing for all means, housing for all, single family homes, sros group, housing. please please say yes to this project. i'm not exactly sure how to say it. in the negative are the positive. thank you. thank you. seeing no other members of the public on behalf of the project sponsor in the chambers, let's go to remote callers. we have four callers in the queue and there are eight who are listening. if you are a part of the eight group, please make sure if you haven't already, to press star three to get into the queue. otherwise we're going to take this group to the end. mr. billy shu let's hear from our first caller, please. hello, my name is christopher rudy. i'm the land owner at 38, 24, 18th, and i am against the project. i'm

speaking on behalf of the appellant. i had bad cell coverage and didn't star three, didn't work before. so the speaker so anyway, can we pause the speaker's time? you're on the wrong side. i'm sorry. the time for speakers on behalf of the appellant is closed. these are speakers on behalf of the project sponsor. my apologies, but you missed your time to testify. all right, mr. shu, let's hear from our next caller, please. hi, this is adam pavlov , district six. i think this is a project from 2028 cd has weighed in. it's it meets the zoning. it meets requirements. there's no reason for it not to be here. the fact that we are here three and a half, three, three and a half years later is one of the reasons why we're in a housing crisis. the lays increased costs. i mean, we look at affordable housing. 730 it's

been delayed so long, it's going to cost 1.2 million a unit just to make affordable build affordable housing to those who are complaining that the city isn't allowing two and three bedroom family housing. this this board just voted to you'll say it wasn't the block, but yes , you're blocking or delaying for extra cost is effective blocking ten townhomes that would have been perfect for families. but we have more than just families that live in san francisco. we have single people. we have couples. we have got small families. we've got big families. every type of housing is needed. there is absolutely no reason not to block this unless and unless the board really wants hcd to come down, smack down the this the city's certification and say builders remedy go to town. you know if you guys want that you know that would be crazy. we'll be getting skyscrapers along ocean beach but hey you know

it's up to you. you can the board can flip the bird to state law. it can say, we don't care what hcd says. we can it can say we want to preserve values for homeowners or it can say, get serious about the housing crisis and actually allow housing of all sizes and prices to be built . please let people live in san francisco. thank you. thank you for your comments. all right, mr. shu, let's hear from the next speaker in support of the project sponsor. welcome caller . good afternoon. or rather, good evening, supervisors. my name is robert freeman. i live in district five. i is really sad that this project is going to 10th hearing and that this

project which is i just want to say off the bat, the state of california says that san francisco has to approve this project. i mean, the city has received a notice of violation. i think this has been stated four times. in fact, the notice of violation funding up has included four times in the meeting packet for this item. i it would be so ridiculous for san francisco go to deny the project at this point. i mean of course anything can happen in san francisco. but i do want to emphasize that again san francisco is currently the subject of a policy and practice review underway by the state of california. i mean, if you want to, you know, give them a reason to come down hard on san