Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. Welcome to the 04/07/2026 regular meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll.

Thank you, Mr. President. Supervisor Chan? Chan present. Supervisor Chen? Chen not present. Supervisor Dorsey? Dorsey present. Supervisor Fielder? Fielder not present. Supervisor Mahmoud? Mahmoud present. Supervisor Mandelman present, supervisor Melgar, Melgar present, supervisor Sauter, Sauter present, supervisor Cheryl, Cheryl present, supervisor Walton, Walton present. Supervisor Wong? Wong present. Mr. President, you have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramitush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramitush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, or 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 Ramatush Ohlone community, and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples.

Colleagues, will you join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance? On behalf of the board, I want to acknowledge the staff at SF Gov TV. Today, that is particularly Sue's Enos. They record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. Madam Clerk, do you have any communications?

Thank you, Mr. President. The Office of the Clerk of the Board is in receipt of a memo dated 04/07/2026, from Supervisor Fielder requesting to be excused from the meetings of the Board of Supervisors and the Government Audit and Oversight Committee as well as the LAFCO meetings between April 7 and June 30 and for today's purposes a motion will need to be made in order for her to excuse her from today's meeting as well as for future meetings of the board and the GAO. Additionally, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors welcomes you all to be present in the Legislative Chamber. Here we are in Room 250 on the 2nd Floor Of City Hall and when you're not able to be here we ask that you watch the proceedings that are airing live on SFGOV TV's channel 26 or catch the live stream at www.sfgovtv.org.

If you have public comment that you'd like to submit in writing, just send it to the through the U. S. Postal Service to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the number one Doctor. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, room two forty four, San Francisco, California ninety four thousand one hundred two. And, if you'd like to send it via email, you can send it to email address at BOSSFgov dot org. If you need to make a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disability Act or to request language assistance, please contact the clerk's office at least two business days in advance by calling (415) 554-5184. Thank you members. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, could I have a motion to excuse Supervisor Fielder from today's meeting made by Supervisor Mahmoud, seconded by Walton. And I think we can take that without objection. Without objection, Supervisor Fielder is excused. Madam Clerk, let's go to approval of our meeting minutes.

Yes, approval of the 02/24/2026, and 03/03/2026, board meeting minutes.

Can I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented? Moved by Chen, seconded by Cheryl. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll.

On the minutes as presented, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar, aye. Supervisor Soder, aye. Supervisor Cheryl, Cheryl I Supervisor Walton Walton I Supervisor Wong Wong I Supervisor Chan Chan I Supervisor Chen Chen I Supervisor Dorsey Dorsey, I. And Supervisor Mahmoud, I. There are 10 ayes.

Without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. And I would like to acknowledge that we are joined here in the chamber by a former member of the Board of Supervisors, Bevan Dufty. Welcome, Supervisor Dufty. Alright, Madam Clerk, let's go to our consent agenda. Please call items one through nine together.

Items one through nine, these items are on consent and considered to be routine. If a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately.

Please call the roll, Madam Clerk.

On items one through nine supervisor mandelman

aye

mandelman aye supervisor melgar melgar aye supervisor sotter aye supervisor cheryl cheryl aye supervisor walton walton aye supervisor wang Wong I, Supervisor Chan, Chan I, Supervisor Chen, Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey, Dorsey I, and Supervisor Machmud. Machmud I, there are 10 ayes.

Without objection these ordinances are passed on first reading and the resolutions are adopted. Madam clerk let's go to unfinished business. Please call item 10.

Item 10 this is an ordinance that amends the health business and tax regulations, the public works code, regarding compact mobile food operation definition and fees.

Colleagues, I think we can take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed. Madam Clerk, please call item number 11.

Item 11, this is an ordinance to de appropriate approximately 34,360,000.00 from permanent premium and comp time salaries and to appropriate approximately that same set amount to overtime salaries in the police department to support the department's projected increases in overtime as required per administrative code section 3.17 in fiscal years 2025 through 2026.

And let's take this item same house same call without objection the ordinance is finally passed. Madam clerk please call item number 12.

Item 12 this is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require the department of public works to perform evaluations and report periodically on mechanical street sweeping operations to include submittal of written performance reports to the board of supervisors and the mayor and to amend the health code to revise and clarify outdated terms concerning refuse receptacle requirements and to affirm the CEQA determination.

And again, same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed. Madam Clerk, please call item number 13.

Item 13. This is an ordinance to approve the police surveillance technology policy for electronic location tracking devices and to make the requisite findings.

Please call the roll.

On item 13, Supervisor Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, I. Supervisor Melgar, Supervisor Soder, sotter I supervisor cheryl cheryl I supervisor walton walton no supervisor wong wong I supervisor chan chan I supervisor chen Chan aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey aye. And Supervisor Mahmoud. Mahmoud aye. There are nine ayes and one no. With Supervisor Walton voting no.

The ordinance is finally passed. Madam clerk let's go to new business please call item number 14

item 14 this is a resolution to approve the third modification to a contract with hallmark aviation services l p for airport information and guest assistance services to extend the term for one year for a total term of 07/01/2024 through 06/30/2027, and to increase the contract amount by 10,400,000.0 for a new contract amount of 30,400,000.0.

Please call the roll.

On item 14, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, I. Supervisor Milgar, I. Supervisor Sauter, I. Supervisor Cheryl. Aye. Cheryl, I. Supervisor Walton. Walton I, Supervisor Wong, Wong I, Supervisor Chan, Chan I, Supervisor Chen, Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey I, and Supervisor I. There are 10 ayes.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call items fifteen and sixteen together.

Items fifteen and sixteen are two resolutions that approve agreements, agreement amendments for the department of public health item 15 approves the second amendment to the agreement between the city and county and the san francisco aids foundation to operate a health access point and provide capacity building services a four year term extension now through 01/01/2023 through 06/30/2030, and to increase the amount by 11,900,000.0 for a new total of 21,800,000.0. And item 16 this approves the second amendment to the agreement with the rafiki coalition for health and wellness to provide health access point services a three year term extension now January 21 01/01/2023 through 06/30/2030 and to increase the amount by approximately 10,600,000.0 for a new total amount of 20,000,000.

I think we can take these items same house same call without objection the resolutions are adopted. Madam clerk please call item 17.

Item 17 this is a resolution to authorize the office of the assessor recorder to execute the second amendment to a contract with sapient corporation for the implementation and maintenance of the property assessment system replacement project to increase the contract amount by 6,700,000.0 for a new total amount of 33,900,000.0 and to extend the contract duration from nine years and two months to thirteen years and eight months for a total term through 06/30/2032.

Chair Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman, colleagues. This item came out of the budget with a recommendation, even though the project itself, by its implementation, has almost a five years delay, The reason being that we end up voted in support of this and moving out to for your vote today is because the contractor has yielded around about $15,000,000 worth of staffing spending and to reimburse to the city what we really ask for during the committee though is for us to understand the specific details of that $15,000,000 of staffing worth whether that we can independently verify that dollar amount that resulted in the type of staffing we have yet to receive that information I think that they just need a little bit more time The assessor recorder has agreed for us to continue this for a week. It will not impact their contract amendment. So, I would like to move to continue to for us to vote on this to next week, so we can have all the information on the record before we cast our vote.

Thank you, Chair Chan, for your motion and your work on this, seconded by Walton. Colleagues, I think we can take that without objection.

Mr. President, that would be continued to April 14.

Great. And we can take that without objection. The motion is approved. Madam Clerk, please call 18. Item 18.

Item 18 is a resolution to approve the second amendment to the agreement between city and county and the department of public health with Instituto Familiar de la Raza Inc. To operate a health access point service to extend the term by three years from 06/30/2027, for a new term of 01/01/2023, through 06/30/2030, and to increase the amount by approximately $9,200,000 for a new total of $17,000,000

And, let's take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 19.

Item 19, this is a resolution to retroactively approve a contract between the city and county and the San Francisco Marin Food Bank for the provision of the CalFresh Stopgap Emergency Gift Card Initiative for a two month term 10/30/2025 through 12/31/2025 in a not to exceed amount of 9,100,000.0 and to retroactively approve the first amendment adding repayment instructions as well as revised repayment and reporting effective 01/30/2026.

And we'll take this item same house same call without objection the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call items twenty and twenty one together.

Items twenty and twenty one are two resolutions that pertain to the Wisteria Lane affordable housing project. Item 20, this is a resolution to approve and authorize the department of property and the mayor's office of housing and community development to enter into a ground lease for real property owned by the city and located at 105 Wisteria Lane known as the Balboa Reservoir Building a with Balboa Gateway Lp for a 75 year term for the lease and one twenty four year option to extend with an annual base rent of 15,000 in order to construct a 100% affordable 158 unit multi family rental housing development affordable to very low and low income households plus one manager's unit to approve and authorize as an amended and restated loan agreement for 29,300,000.0 for a minimum loan term of fifty seven years to finance the development and construction of the project and to adopt the appropriate findings.

And again, same house, same call, without objection. The resolution is adopted. Resolution's

Mr. President, and I will We'll just 21. Yes. My apologies, members. Item 21, this resolution is to approve for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended and authorized the execution and delivery of a multi family housing revenue note in an aggregate principal amount of $112,000,000 to finance the construction of the 105 Wisteria Lane.

And now we can take these two resolutions together, same house, same call, without objection, the resolutions are adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 22.

Item 22, this is an ordinance that approves the airport surveillance technology policy governing the use of the transportation network company, Virtual Queue Technology.

Same house same call without objection the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk please call item 23.

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

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item number 24.

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

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 25.

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

Same house, same call, without objection. The resolution is adopted. And, Madam Clerk, please call item number 26.

Item 26. This is a motion to approve the mayoral reappointment of Anna Van Dagna to the redevelopment successor agency oversight board for a term ending 01/24/2030.

We'll take this. Same house, same call, without objection. The motion is approved. Madam Clerk, please call items twenty seven and twenty eight together.

Items twenty seven and twenty eight are two motions that approve the mayor's nomination for the appointment to the treasure island development authority board of directors item 27 approves eric dasmalke term ending 02/26/2030 and item 28 approves Timothy Kojomenta, term ending 04/28/2030.

Same house, same call, without objection. The motions are approved. Madam Clerk, please call items twenty nine and thirty together.

Items twenty nine and thirty are two motions that approve the mayor's nomination for the reappointments to the municipal transportation agencies board of directors. Item 29 approves dominica henerson and item 30 approves stephanie cohina for a term ending 03/01/2030.

Same house same call without objection the motions are approved. And then madam clerk I think we have committee reports. Yes. Please call item number 35.

Item 35 was considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on Monday April 6 it was recommended as a committee report item 35 is an ordinance that amends the environment code to update the city's climate action goals and planning process and to update city departments roles and responsibilities pertaining to the city's climate action goals and to affirm the cecra determination.

Same house same call without objection the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk please call item number 36.

Item 36 was considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on Monday 04/06/2026 and was recommended as amended with a new title to approve the appointment item 36 it now reads the word rejecting was struck and currently reads motion to approve the president of the board of supervisors Rafael Mandelman's nomination for the appointment of Lily Wong to the board of appeals for a term ending 07/01/2028.

Same house, same call, without objection. The motion is approved. And, Madam Clerk, let's go to roll call for introductions.

First up to introduce new business, Mr. President, is you.

Thank you. I have an item of legislation and two in memoriams. First, I'm introducing legislation to clarify and define what constitutes electrical work under the San Francisco building code, and to specify that this work must be performed by properly certified contractors in accordance with the California Labor Code. This clarity is especially important as San Francisco continues to advance policies around building electrification and modernization. As we transition more buildings and systems to electric power, the volume and complexity of electrical installations will increase and having a clear enforceable definition of electrical work will be helpful.

This legislation aligns our definition of electrical work with the realities of modern construction, supports our electrification goals, and provides clarity for contractors and property owners. I want to thank our Deputy City Attorney, Rob Kaplan, for his work on the legislation. I want to thank John Dougherty from IBEW Local six for his input. I to thank staff from the Department of the Environment and the Department of Building Inspection for their feedback. And I want to thank my Chief of Staff, Sophie Marie, for all her work on the ordinance.

Secondly, colleagues, I'm asking that we adjourn today's meeting in memory of Andrea Shorter, who died far too soon on 03/19/2026. She was a true force and a friend. She was born on 10/14/1965 in Indianapolis, Indiana, and moved to California as a teenager, graduating from Paris Union High School before earning her degree in sociology from Whittier College. She began her career in Riverside County working on a successful state assembly campaign. Thereafter, she moved to San Francisco in 1991.

Over the next decades, Andrea would carve a role for herself as one of the most influential political strategists and public policy voices in the city. Her areas of advocacy included criminal justice reform, voting rights, domestic violence prevention, and marriage equality. In leadership roles with organizations such as Equality California, Out and Equal Workplace Advocates, the Names Project, AIDS Memorial Quilt, and the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. She helped drive systemic reforms, while always centering those most impacted. Andrea served on a number of city and nonprofit commissions and boards, including City College's Board of Trustees, and twenty years on the Commission on the Status of Women, where she served multiple terms as president.

In 2009, she was honored as Grand Marshal of the San Francisco Pride Parade. She was a trusted adviser and strategist to many of our most successful San Francisco political leaders, including Vice President Kamala Harris, Mayors Willie Brown and London Breed, Governor Gavin Newsom, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, and Congresswoman Latifah Simon. A co founder of the Bayard Rustin LGBT Coalition, Andrea was deeply committed to building bridges between the LGBTQ and black communities, believing that progress depends on coalition building and shared purpose across identities. Beyond her professional accomplishments, Andrea brought joy, creativity, and warmth to those around her. She loved music and played guitar each evening, often writing songs to share with family.

She had strong opinions about pop culture, as well as politics, which she shared freely over meals with friends. She's survived by her partner, Lubav Smith, her mother, Karen, brothers, Lawrence and Aaron, her nephews, Khalil and Lucas, and a wide circle of family, friends, and colleagues, some of whom are here today, and all of whom will miss her very, very much. Rest in peace and power, Andrea Shorter. May your memory be a blessing. Secondly, I'm also asking that we adjourn today's meeting in memory of Brixton, a golden retriever and therapy dog who served the people of San Francisco for more than twelve years.

Brixton was adopted by Linda Gordon, who I think is here also, at six months old, and began his career as a therapy dog just two months later. He was a founding member of the San Francisco International Airport's WAG Brigade from its launch in 2013, greeting travelers and easing preflight anxiety. Over the years, Brixton spread smiles across San Francisco. He worked in schools from kindergarten through college at San Francisco State University, UC San Francisco, Lowell, and George Washington High Schools, among many others. He fostered a love of reading in young San Franciscans through the public library's Puppy Dog Tales program.

He brought comfort to medical staff at Zuckerberg General and to ill children and their families at Family House. Brixton was a proud ally of San Francisco's LGBTQ plus community and could often be found in his signature sunglasses and colorful outfits at events including Pride, Outside Lands, Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, and the Giants opening days. Brixton died peacefully on Crissy Fields surrounded by those he loved. Linda Gordon described what she learned from her years with Brixton, how to not take life so seriously, and how love can be shared so easily. We want to extend our deepest condolences to Linda and Brixton's many fans. His legacy will live on through the countless San Franciscans whose lives he improved. Rest in peace, Brixton. May your memory be a blessing. The rest I submit.

Thank you, Mr. President. Supervisor Milgar.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I am introducing legislation to close a loophole that has long been in our city's health code regarding smoking in outdoor spaces of bars and restaurants. According to The US Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization, secondhand smoke has no level of safe exposure. The World Health Organization recommends that individuals should be exposed to no more than 15 micrograms per cubic meter of fine particulate matter, averaged over twenty four hours. Shift workers, waiters, service personnel, even in outdoor spaces, are still exposed to the daily accumulation of secondhand smoke.

In 2022, air quality measurements taken by UCSF researchers in San Francisco's bar patios determined that six of the nine patios visited had peak readings in the EPA unhealthy air range. One patio was found to be in the hazardous range where people were smoking cigars. San Francisco has long been a leader in public health by passing strong protections for smoke free places and fighting against the vaping and tobacco industries that preys heavily on young people and communities of color. Over time, our code has become outdated, and even the state has passed stronger regulations. This legislation will align us with at least 400 cities and counties nationwide, including San Jose, Oakland, and more than 50 Bay Area cities that have ordinances prohibiting smoking in bar and restaurant patios.

I want to thank my co sponsors, Supervisor Sauter, the Department of Public Health's Environmental Health Team for their collaboration, the city attorney's office, the San Francisco Marin Medical Society, LGBTQs minus tobacco, and other passionate advocates for their tireless efforts to close these loopholes. I'm also introducing a resolution along with supervisors Chen, Walton, and Sauter in support of Senate Bill ten ninety one, which was authored by California Senator Ana Caballero. This bill would establish a state community anti displacement and preservation program, which seeks to tackle the housing affordability and housing shortage crisis in California. This continues to be one of the most urgent and pressing issues, especially here in our city and in the Bay Area. The Bay Area and California are some of the most expensive places to live in the entire world.

Renting, staying at long term residences, and the possibility of owning a home are out of reach for so many people. However, this issue is disproportionately affecting low income and moderate income residents who are at risk of displacement more than ever. Last year, tenants in San Francisco experienced more than 3,740 evictions over a year long period, the highest number over the last ten years. The Community Anti Displacement and Preservation Program creates a state fund that would finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing unsubsidized rental housing. The acquired housing would then be converted into long term deed restricted and affordable housing units with displacement protection for current residents.

This would create affordable housing from housing units already available, limit costs and barriers that accompany construction, and ensure that long term tenants don't get kicked out of their homes. Additionally, this bill would require the California Housing and Homelessness Agency to grant prescribed funds to the program manager to support the execution of this program. The funds would also allow project managers to issue grants and loans to eligible borrowers, including nonprofit organizations, mission driven housing providers, and local jurisdictions. California is in need of affordable housing, and we are hopeful that the Community Anti Displacement and Preservation Program will allow people to live, work, and thrive regardless of income. I hope to count on your support for this resolution and that the state will pass this bill.

The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Belgar. Mr. President.

Madam Clerk, let's go to our 02:30 special order.

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

And, first up, District 4, Supervisor Wong.

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

It's like Molly Burke has many friends.

Okay. You can come closer. Okay. Colleagues, I'm honored to recognize Molly Murphy Burke for more than thirty five years of service to her communities and to millions of riders who rely on BART every day. Molly has been a constant and trusted partner to this board and to neighborhoods across San Francisco.

For many of us, she has been the person we call when something needs to get done or when our communities need to be heard. She has consistently shown up with clarity, responsiveness, and a deep understanding of both the system and the people it serves. Throughout her career, Molly has helped lead outreach for major system expansions and guided Bart's engagement through different administrations and moments of change. She has played a role in some of the system's most significant milestones. But what truly defines her work is how she has done it.

Molly approaches public service with a strong sense of responsibility to the community. She understands that behind every project, every station, and every decision are real people. Whether supporting residents through construction impacts, working with small businesses, or ensuring clear communication, she has built trust through consistency and follow through. She also brings something invaluable to her role. As a longtime daily writer, she understands the system from the perspective of the people who depend on it.

That perspective has shaped her work strengthened her ability to connect policy with lived experience. Here in the sunset and across the West Side, we have seen firsthand the impact of her partnership. She knows our communities, she listens carefully, and she works to make sure we stay informed and connected. Beyond her professional role, Molly and her husband Mark have contributed meaningfully to community life, helping bring people together and support spaces that include strengthening neighborhood connections, especially during challenging times. Molly, thank you for your leadership, your partnership, and your lasting contributions to San Francisco and beyond. On behalf of the board, congratulations on your well earned retirement. We wish you continued joy, good health, and many new adventures ahead.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong, yeah. Thank you so much. But before Molly, just before you speak, I just want to thank Supervisor Wong for doing this in memoriam. We love you. You have been still alive. Did I say in memoriam? Commendation. Nope. Still there.

I'm not going away.

This special commendation. Bart has been through a rough number of years. You have been such a great face and voice for Bart, particularly, I think, in the tough times. And so I'm if Supervisor Wong was not going do this, I was going to do it, I'm glad that he did. So thank you so much.

Thank you. Oh, this is just an amazing moment for me. I've been in these chambers hundreds of times and listened to you. And, know, really before I begin, I just really want to thank the board, but mostly all of your aides who have been tremendous. They have gotten me through my job.

They are amazing people over decades. I mean so many that I've known. So with that, I'll make my comments and thank you both so much. Good afternoon to Honorable Mary Lourie, who may not be in the room, but wherever you are, I know you're out there, President Mandelman, my friend, and distinguished members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I would like to begin with a special thank you to District Four Supervisor Alan Wong for inviting me here today and for this wonderful honor.

And thank you to Tiff Lee for your coordination and your kindness Tif you're amazing and and you make this office happen. I am deeply honored to be recognized today for my thirty five years of service with the BART district and four decades in Bay Area transportation. Attending with me today is my fan club. Attending are members of my own family along with members of my BART family. My sisters, Carrie and Peggy, are here. They where are they? And my brother, unfortunately, is not here today. He is serving the city. He is working hard for San Francisco. So we'll miss you, Mike.

Also with me is my brother-in-law, Frank Hagan, married to Carrie, and my cousin, Paul McCann, who represents all of my cousins throughout San Francisco, and there are hundreds. I also want to introduce someone who you already know. He is my favorite BART director, Director Bevan Dufty, former director, and my manager at BART, who is Bradley Dunn. He's a great manager and I do miss him, and along with Mark Nogales, my colleague who took over my work when I left in February. And last but not least, I love her with all my heart.

She is my coworker and friend, Anna Duckworth. So with that, I would like to go on and most especially thank my husband. My husband there he is. He and our two daughters who live in Chicago and can't be here today. Their names are Maggie and Maureen Burke.

They have been a constant support throughout my career. And I want to recognize my mom as well, who is here today. Thank you, Mama. You were my strength and my wisdom over all these years as a working mom and you always reminded me that I was setting a good example for our daughters. It has been a tremendous privilege to represent Bart in both San Francisco and San Mateo Counties throughout my career but working in San Francisco has always held a special place in my heart because this is where my story began.

I proudly come from the Sunset District Of San Francisco from a large Irish American family with deep roots throughout the city. Standing in this chamber today is especially meaningful to me. My great grandfather, Daniel Cornelius Murphy, if you haven't heard it before, served as the sheriff of San Francisco for many years. I have felt his presence in these halls over time. It has made me incredibly proud of my family heritage and legacy in this city.

My father Michael Andrew Murphy who passed away in 2023 would have been proud to see me standing here today so I thank you supervisor Wong and also my uncle Dan who carries the name Daniel Cornelius Murphy still today is live lives in Noe Valley and is the patriarch of the Murphy family he is 90 my career in transportation began in 1986 when I took a job in San Jose working in the early days for the South South Bay Light Rail system followed by a stint at Caltrans on the 6 Eightytwenty 4 Interchange. Those experiences ultimately led me to BART where I spent thirty five incredible years. I am proud of the work I have accomplished in communities across the Bay Area, but nothing means more to me than the work accomplished in San Francisco, from downtown stations where I led outreach on both BART canopy and escalator projects at our four downtown stations, to my work in the Mission District at 16th And 24th Street stations, to the East Side Walkway, the walkway leading from Ocean Avenue to the BART Station allowing students to get to and from class and recently the housing development at Balboa Park as well, The ongoing neighborhood outreach in Glen Park and Daly City and the list goes on.

My work is not about communication, it was about listening because when you listen, you learn. And when you learn, you can better serve. I am proud of the work accomplished, the many communities that BART has touched, and even those communities where we do not directly serve, we still impact. BART was not just a job for me, it was a true passion, a passion that began on 05/01/1990, and will come to a close now. Over these years, it has truly been a pleasure to inform and educate the public on Bart's expansions, modernizations, technological changes, and our challenging pandemic.

It was an honor to support six bard general managers work under eight San Francisco mayoral administrations. I will never forget the bard anniversaries from our twentieth to our fiftieth even though I look 28. I'll always be proud of the early Mission Plaza renovations with Bevan. I helped implement those and always remember the Mission Street Great project where I walked block to to block block keeping businesses informed. My mind will recall the thousands of traction power upgrade meetings to discuss what was happening underneath Market Street and the project across 50 BART stations where we replaced new fare gates completed in record time and prioritizing the rider experience.

And my feet will not soon forget the hundreds of fairs and festivals that I worked across the Bay Area, sharing the BART story, thanking loyal riders, and encouraging new ones to please come on board. I'm almost there. BART has been my second home and it will remain in my heart forever. This is where I get a little teary so hold up. I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to serve the people of San Francisco and to have worked alongside so many of you to improve transit, resolve issues, and support major moments in this city and across the Bay Area.

As I move to retirement, I look forward to traveling with my husband, spending more time with my family, and staying active in our Irish community through music, culture, and service. I leave Bart proud to have lasted longer than the fleet of a, b, and c cars. I lasted longer than the blue carpet you might remember. I lasted longer than the fabric seats and the vinyl seats, and I lasted longer than the paper ticket. Woo hoo.

So thank you, Supervisor Wong. Thank you, President Mandelman. You both are in my hearts. And thank you, members of the Board of Supervisors and my friend up there, Angela Calvillo. I've known you for years. Thank you all so much for this opportunity to serve the people of San Francisco and the relationships that each of you and your staff have meant to me. Thank you. Love you all. Bye.

All right, next up, District seven Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you President Lucero, if you could come up please. Colleagues, today I am thrilled to recognize and honor La Casa de las Madres on their fiftieth anniversary, which is truly an amazing milestone. Yeah, Lucer, whoever, if you have money on your board wants to come up with you or your staff, thank you. This is truly an amazing milestone that we're celebrating here today. La Casa de las Madres began in 1974 when a group of passionate women were determined to create a place of safety for survivors of domestic violence.

These women tirelessly researched how institutions handled domestic violence, interviewed law enforcement officials, and collected all the information they could on the then current data and support available to survivors of domestic violence. They found that there was an insufficient and wholly inadequate amount of resources for survivors and their kids. This encouraged these passionate women to develop funding proposals, to testify at local hearings on marital violence, to raise awareness on the issue. In 1976, La Casa de las Madres was officially founded as an established organization. They began providing four core services, which included a 20 crisis hotline, emergency shelter for women and children, community support groups, and prevention education efforts.

Over the last fifty years, La Casa de las Madres has served over 14,000 domestic violence survivors. They have grown tremendously in not only their reach across the community and capacity to serve, but the critical services they provide people. La Casa de las Madres has also played an active role in reforming the legal system across San Francisco and really across the country to ensure that there is trauma informed training for law enforcement. And La Casa folks also work to remove barriers to support for survivors facing financial insecurity, immigration status, and other barriers to success. La Casa de las Madres is not only an essential support and resource for community in providing shelter and hope to survivors, they also are actively building a future where domestic violence is abolished, where survivors are believed, where they are supported, and healthy relationships are the norm.

We are so grateful Telecasa de las Madres' impact in San Francisco, their influence across the country, and continued dedication to advocating for survivors of domestic violence. Today, we are joined by founders, staff, volunteers, supporters, and survivors. I'm so honored to commend La Casa de las Madres today at the Board of Supervisors meeting. Later on in our agenda, we will officially proclaim today, 04/07/2026, as La Casa de las Madres Day in the city and county of San Francisco. And now I'll turn it over to Lucero to share a few words.

Thank you so much. Thank you, supervisor Melgar. Thank you, board of supervisors, this recognition. My name is Lucero Arias, and I have the honor of serving as the executive director of de las Madres. Standing with me today are our leadership, as well as our founder and board member, Sonia Melara.

This year marks actually today, April 7, marks fifty years of La Casa de las Madres. Fifty years ago, a group of women in San Francisco came together with a simple but urgent belief that no one should have to choose between staying in violence or having nowhere to go. From that belief, La Casa de las Madres was born. Since then, thousands of survivors and their children have come to La Casa in some of the most difficult moments of their lives seeking safety, support, and a chance to begin again. And what they find is not just shelter.

They find someone who answers the phone, someone who believes in them, someone who walks alongside them as they rebuild their lives. This recognition is not just about La Casa. It reflects the city's longstanding commitment to survivors and the partnership that make this work possible every day. Earlier today, we gathered on the steps of City Hall to mark this milestone, not just to celebrate but to reaffirm our shared commitment to survivors and the work ahead Because even as we celebrate, we know that the work is far from over. Too many survivors still face barriers to safety, whether in housing, economic stability, or access to care.

And it is our shared responsibility to ensure that our systems are responsive, coordinated, and and centered on dignity and healing. So today, we accept this commendation not only with gratitude, but with renewed commitment to prevention, to equity, and to ensuring that every survivor in our city has access to safety and support. Thank you for this honor and for standing with La Casa Las Madres and the communities that we serve.

Madam clerk let's go back to roll call.

Next up supervisor Sauter to introduce new business.

Thank you madam clerk and thank you president. Colleagues today I have one resolution it's a resolution in support of HR 2410 which is the revitalizing downtowns and main streets act. This bipartisan bill authored by U. S. Representatives Mike Casey and Jimmy Gomez would provide a federal tax credit to facilitate the conversion of office and other commercial buildings into housing.

It's no secret that we've been focused on this work here in San Francisco be it the 2024 passage of prop c or our recent establishment of the downtown revitalization financing district. But we welcome all support from our federal partners and this new federal tax incentive, modeled after the historic historical preservation tax credit, would help offset prohibitive costs so these projects can contribute to easing the housing shortage here in San Francisco and the rest of The United States. Last month, in Washington, D. C, alongside Supervisor Melgar, we had the chance to speak with Representative Gomes' team about this bill and to give feedback to improve its impact for San Franciscans. So I want to support or I want to thank Supervisor Melgar for her cosponsorship of this resolution as well.

I appreciate Representative Gomez's steadfast work in housing. In 2023, he launched the Congressional Renters' Caucus, the first time such a body had existed to give voice to renters across the country at the highest levels of government. It is my hope that we can support this bill to show that San Francisco needs as many tools as possible to create new housing and we embrace ideas from all partners to do so. The rest I submit.

Thank you supervisor sotter supervisor cherrill submit thank you supervisor walton.

Thank you madam clerk. Colleagues today I' introducing a resolution affirming San Francisco' commitment to the safety dignity and belonging of pacific islander communities and condemning the hate violence and targeted threats they have faced. Pacific islanders have always been a part of this city their history here is rooted in resilience cultural contribution labor and community building And yet, their community has been subjected to a pattern of targeted threats and false narratives designed to diminish their presence and undermine the legitimacy of their institutions here in San Francisco. This is unacceptable. No community should have to fight for their right to exist in their own city.

This afternoon the pacific islander community as well as several members from community marched to the steps of City Hall and hosted a rally at Civic Center Plaza to say loud and clear that they will not be erased. This resolution is the board's answer to that call and we stand with San Francisco's pacific islander community. I want to thank my co sponsors supervisors chen, chan, dorsey, and mong. I'm also introducing a resolution along with my co sponsor supervisor Melgar as well as supervisors Chen, Chan, Dorsey and Wong a resolution declaring April 11 through April 17 as black maternal health week here in San Francisco. This year marks the tenth anniversary of the black mamas matter alliance and this week matters more than ever.

The data we are presented with is not improving fast enough. Black birthing mothers making up just four percent of births in San Francisco but account for fifty percent of pregnancy related deaths. Rates of very premature births among black babies, those born at 32 or earlier, increased by seventy one percent between 2016 and 2024, rising from two point one percent to three point six percent of births. That is a continued crisis. While outcomes for black birthing parents and their babies have been declining, an investigation found that San Francisco has under spent its budget to address maternal inequities by at least $8,000,000 since 2021, returning the highest portion of its prenatal equity initiative funds back to the state.

We cannot talk about commitment while leaving money on the table that was supposed to be dedicated to reducing black pregnancy related deaths. Nationally, while maternal mortality rates have declined for white, Hispanic, and Asian women, black women's rates have held steady or worsened, with black women dying at more than three times the rate of white women. The Center for Disease Control confirmed that the maternal mortality rate decreased for every racial group except black women in San Francisco. We are, in fact, one of the worst examples. These disparities are rooted in systemic racism, they are also rooted in disinvestment, federal restructuring under the current administration has halted community based maternal health grants eliminating the White House blueprint for addressing the maternal health crisis and laid off most staff in the c d c's division of reproductive health.

That means the pressure on cities like ours to step up is even greater. The good news is that solutions exist right here and we just need to invest in them so that they have adequate resources to address this problem. Our resolution affirms San Francisco's commitment to the health safety and joy of black birthing mothers every person in this city deserves a joyful healthy pregnancy. And colleagues my last order of business today is an in memoriam for Anderson j b Williams. J b was a native son born in Hunters Point in 1958.

Passed away Sunday night, he graduated from mission high school, served his country in the army, came home, started a family, and built a life rooted in this city. For forty years j b was a barber and if you know anything about a great barber, you know it is never just about the haircut. For three decades after opening the shop on Leland Avenue, j b gave free haircuts to students who earned a three point o GPA, who showed progress on their report cards, who walked across a graduation stage, who showed up to prom. He believed in young people before they believed in themselves. JB used to say that being a barber meant helping turn boys into men, teaching hygiene, self respect, pride, and dignity.

He understood that it takes a village to raise a child and he was honored to be a part of that village. We were the ones who were honored. Recently, my legislative aide chief of staff percy birch and I had the pleasure of honoring him at the veterans hospital. We had always planned to honor him here in the chamber, but we got news that his time would be short so we wanted to make sure that we took the time to do that with community. And so we brought the honor and community to him.

He was looking forward to celebrating thirty years of business with the block party on Leland Avenue, and we're still gonna make sure that that happens. This is the least we can do for a man who gave so much of himself to so many in San Francisco. Raising and mentoring our young people and being a barber slash psychologist to so many. Rest in power JB, San Francisco will not forget you. The rest I submit.

Thank you, supervisor Walton. Supervisor Wong.

Submit.

Thank you. Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I'm introducing a in memoriam for John Alberling. John Alberling passed away last week at 79 after decades of advocacy as one of the most passionate and influential affordable housing and community champions in San Francisco. You know that he was a force of nature in the city when even his foes didn't wait to announce his passing online. Many know John Alberling as the president of Tenants and Owners Development Corporation, also known as TACO.

He joined the group in 1978 when he has started construction on one of its first senior housing buildings. Today, TACO owns about 1,000 units of low income housing in the Southern market, where John dedicated his legacy, ensuring that there is a place for low income families, seniors, and artists to thrive as they continue to face gentrification and real estate speculation. After joining TACO, Alberling worked on the nineteen eighties prop m, proposition m campaign that fought excessive office development. It shaped San Francisco's skyline today, slowed down the loss of our low income housing stock, and aimed to protect the city's character against uncontrolled redevelopment. John saw value and the essential role of art spaces, light industrial facilities, and cultural preservation infrastructure and got proposition x to pass, which protected those spaces requiring developers to find new space and pay for relocation, especially within the central SOMA plan.

John is an elder, early adopter of development agreement that puts community, tenants, and small business owners in the driver's seat. If it were not for John, Yorba Buena Gardens as, that we see today would be a privatized asset, and the Eastern Neighborhood Plan wouldn't have had that community benefits requirements for developers like parks, health clinics, libraries, and pedestrian safety plans. I want to take a moment to share what mayor Art Adnos wrote about John from their time working together to complete Moscone Center. This is from mayor Art Adnos. John Alberling will be remembered as a fierce, brilliant champion for the poor in San Francisco and in the Southern market in particular.

He was one of the first advocates I met when I came to San Francisco in 1966 for a job as a social worker at San Francisco Public Housing. He blew me away with his one of a kind blend of organizing strategy, financial acumen, and of course, bad language reserved for powerful people. In 1988, the Moscone Convention Center was periodically referred to as the longest stalled urban renewal project in America. John Alberling was an important part of a citywide group of advocates led by leaders like Susie Bearman, Sue Hester, Calvin Walsh, Doug Inman, and others who accepted my invitation to finally complete the new convention center we needed to complete for our city. Young, up and coming, ideal idealistic, and aggressive, John always insisted that every part of the community, the elderly, children, families be considered in all Southern market planning, and he and the committee were right.

Hence, in addition to the customary convention facilities, Moscone Center is the only convention center in America that includes a wonderful merry-go-round for children, a superb indoor ice skating facility for San Francisco youth and adults. As John continued to grow into a top tier, low income, and affordable housing developer, he invented new strategies to support TACO aims and objectives. John convinced us the Strix Street redevelopment project reflected the power of community vision for our city and the South Market in particular. And he was right. The project has reversed the historical displacement of redevelopment and proved to be one of the best in our city with attractive, affordable housing, community centers, parks, and a school.

John was never afraid to speak the truth to power. And this is what I say as a supervisor and who has worked with him as a legislative aide and also then again as supervisor. I say that John was never afraid to speak the truth to power, and the critics that call him a power broker, kingmaker, or obstructionist reminds me the same way that people could criticize Rosepac. Same. John Albert Lang, everything that he did was to empower the community.

He believed in a city that is supported by everyday working class people. He did not live in a life of luxury and chose to reinvest every penny into community, find ways to uplift tenants' voices, and to compete with and refute multimillion dollar special interest political messaging. And so for that, I say, John Albertling, rest in power. The rest I submit.

Thank you. Supervisor Chan. Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. I also want to express my deep condolences for the passing of John Albertling. I didn't know John personally, but I do know that his contribution to community development, affordable housing, and anti displacement work in San Francisco, it's considerable. Many projects in San Francisco has been transformed for the better because of his advocacy. San Francisco takes pride in the legacy of our community development movements.

And this week, we lost a community warrior. Next, I want to introduce two hearings. Colleague, last month, I held a hearing on the conditions for women in custody of San Francisco jails. The community testimony was incredibly powerful, but also very hard to stomach. Countless formerly incarcerated women recounted their lifted experiences in the jails.

They detailed their memories of trauma and abuse. Many women in particular said that they were released from the jails at hours of the evening, sometimes as late as 2AM without clothing, connections to a safe place to sleep, or access to a wraparound services needed to keep them stabilized in their transitions. For many, this means being released back to an abuser. We also heard stories of women being released from hospitals and other facilities without connection to safe to a safe shelter. This is unacceptable.

San Franciscans deserve public safety and system that adhesive to minimum standards of humane care. I'm calling for a hearing on the systems and case management that our city provides to unhoused or housing insecure women. I'm grateful that mayor has signed on to the women's agenda, but we need to do more when we know that women are more likely to experience abuse, especially when unhoused. Women carry their own complex needs around safety, mental, behavioral, and physical health, and more. And women experiences an array of trauma at different levels of acidity.

And it's our responsibility to analyze if the systems that we put in place are flexible and robust enough to provide the dignity, services, and safety required. We need to understand the shelter system and the policies that are set in place by the departments that release a transition woman from city holds. We also need to understand the shelter system as a whole, where there are challenges, where we are succeeding to connect women to safe spaces, and where we need to expand. Next, I'm also introducing a hearing on family affordability. We are facing a massive structural deficit and difficult decision needed to be made.

At the same time, families have been sounding the alarm about how unsustainable their family budgeting decisions have become. For me, our values are best represented by the budget commitments we make and services that we provide to the working family vulnerable population that makes San Francisco run and endure incredible hardship to survive in our city. This hearing will adjust two things. First, we will analyze the impact of proposed budget cuts from the mayor's office of housing and community development on vulnerable community, including low income individuals and immigrant communities. Second, it will consider the role that community based organization have played in maintaining housing stability, workforce participation, and access to essential services.

I recognize these proposed cuts aren't set in stone, but what currently are on the table were essentially long lasting organization who provide essential work to fight against the the displacement of community of color and working family. CBOs are core to our social safety net. The case management and connection to services has protected countless families and communities from being pushed into homelessness or forced out of our city. And each budget year, we ask CBOs to do more work for less money. Now we are cutting their budgets at a time when working families rely on them most.

And this will force multiple CBO closures at a time when we are facing unreliable state and federal support. This discussion will be difficult, but it is necessary. And the rest, I will submit. Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen. Supervisor Mahmoud.

Colleagues, today I'm introducing legislation to prohibit the sale and delivery of uncertified lithium ion batteries and powered mobility devices in the city and county of San Francisco. This measure is intended to prevent dangerous and fast moving fires before they start, particularly in dense residential buildings where a single battery failure can threaten dozens of residents. We have seen firsthand the consequences of these incidents. The recent fire at 50 Golden Gate displaced more than 130 residents and required a large emergency response. Fires like this spread quickly, produce intense heat, and are extremely difficult to distinguish.

But these incidents are not isolated. Lithium ion battery fires are increasing across the city where there were over 120 building fires in the last five years caused by lithium ion batteries. Batteries. And with a significant concentration in District 5 and the Tenderloin where residents often live in multi unit housing with limited fire separation. According to the fire department, many of these fires originate from uncertified replacement batteries used in e bikes, scooters and other powered mobility devices, often purchased online and stored or charged inside small living spaces.

This ordinance takes a preventative approach. It prohibits the sale, offer or delivery of powered mobility devices and replacement lithium ion batteries that are not certified to recognize UL safety standards. Our code should keep up with the state of technology. Anyone in San Francisco shouldn't have to be worried about purchasing unsafe batteries or being displaced by a fire due to a neighbor charging one of these. They should trust that they are purchasing safe and certified batteries.

It also gives the San Francisco Fire Department clear authority to enforce this law and includes the ability to issue citations and penalties for violations ensuring accountability. It also gives that authority to the city attorney's office to go after bad actors that may be violating this law as well. By ensuring only certified batteries are sold in San Francisco, we can significantly reduce the risk of catastrophic fires and protect tenants, first responders, and surrounding buildings. I want to thank our drafting of city attorneys, Hugo Hopera and Sarah Fabian, for their thoughtful collaboration. I want to thank our partners at the San Francisco Fire Department for their leadership and expertise, including Chief Dean Crispin, Fire Marshal Law, Assistant Fire Marshal Gower, and Adrian Sims.

Their insight into how these fires start, how they spread, and how they impact residents and firefighters was critical in shaping a policy that is both practical and enforceable. I also want to thank my Chief of Staff, Sam Logan, for her diligence on this issue and for helping shape this legislation. This proposal will help prevent displacement, protect residents, and address a growing fire safety risk before another building is impacted. I want to thank supervisor Cheryl for his early co sponsorship, and respectfully submit this ordinance and ask for your support. The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmoud. Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, am today submitting a hearing request to address ongoing police staffing challenges in the Southern Police District. Simply stated, Southern is not staffed at levels that reflect its workload or its complexity. When scrutinizing police call volume, response times, population density, and the concentration of commercial and nightlife activities, as many of my constituents routinely do, it has become evident that Southern is stretched far too thin, far too often. Even as SFPD's citywide recommended staffing levels saw significant increases this last year, Southern is failing to keep pace with other districts that face similar, and in many cases, lesser demands.

According to the 2025 SFPD staffing analysis, southern patrol officers respond to 390 calls per officer, the second highest workload in the city, and its sector patrol is currently staffed at only 78% of its recommended level, while other district meet or even exceed their recommended number. This imbalance has real consequences. It means longer response times, fewer opportunities for proactive policing, increased stain strain on the officers who are assigned there. No public safety imperative, whether it's police policing drug markets, responding to violent crime, or enforcing traffic laws, is well served by an understaffed station. It also makes more difficult to build the kind of consistent community based presence that residents and businesses in District 6 expect and deserve.

Many of my constituents are voicing serious concerns too that the existing challenges will be exacerbated later this year when Southern Police District expands to take on even more territory that includes Market Street. During the police redistricting process, I was clear that the community and department have expectations that increased call volumes will come with commensurate increases in additional officers. District 6 stakeholders deserve transparency about SFPD's plan to not only increase staffing to meet the new workload, but also to address systemic understaffing that has plagued this district before its boundaries were expanded to include the Market Street corridor. Every neighborhood deserves a level of police service that matches its need, and I yield to no one in the work that I have done, much of it unsuccessful, to increase police staffing citywide. But right now, I don't believe Southern is getting the level of service commensurate with its needs.

I'm committed to working with the department and others to develop a strategy that closes that gap in a meaningful and lasting way. My constituents deserve nothing less. Second, I also want to express my gratitude to President Mandelman for his beautiful in memoriam for Andre Ashorter. There are so many LGBTQ plus siblings I recall fondly throughout the years, but especially during the nine year legal battle for marriage equality. That was a roller coaster ride that began in 2004 with Mayor Gavin Newsom's issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples.

It included many wins and losses, including winning marriage equality rights themselves, only to lose it just months later with Proposition eight, and then years later to finally strike down Prop eight and set the stage for marriage equality nationwide. These are battles that were particularly emotionally fraught for those of us whose own rights were at stake in these cases. And through it all, I will never forget that we supported and sustained one another, And I'll never forget Andrea Shorter. My condolences to her and her family and loved ones and friends. And I would ask to be included among those memorializing her.

And third and finally, would also like to express my gratitude to Supervisor Chan for her lovely memorial for John Elberling. Although others knew him better than I did, I would be remiss as the District six supervisor not to acknowledge the outsized role John Elberling played in shaping neighborhoods I represent, and far more importantly, residents and families I represent. Countless hundreds of whom likely would not be my constituents today, but for the passionate advocacy that was John L. Burnling's life work. As a district six supervisor, I have come to appreciate Todco for being well managed and forging cooperative relationships with with its neighbors.

I've also come to know many Todd Co residents as friends, neighbors and fellow parishioners at Saint Patrick's Church. I think our former colleague Aaron Peskin said it best when he called John the conscience of Yerba Buena. And on the occasions I had to talk with him, I too valued his commitment to social justice and to ensuring that his residents were always well served and his unmatched institutional memory about San Francisco, its politics, not just Yerba Buena by the way, but also Treasure Island. So my condolences to John Elderling's family members and loved ones and I would ask to be included among those memorializing him as well. And the rest I submit.

Noted. Thank you. Thank you Supervisor Dorsey. Mr. President, saying no names on the roster, that concludes the introduction of new business.

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

No, thank you.

He was an idea factory, relentless in his effort to find sources for affordable housing and to push the city to produce housing for all of our residents. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's go to our 3PM special order.

The 3PM special order, items 31 through 34 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the de facto denial of a conditional use authorization for the proposed project at 524 Through 526 Vallejo Street And Four-4a San Antonio Place to legalize the merger of three dwelling units on 2nd And 3rd Floors into one dwelling unit and to reinstate one dwelling unit on the Ground Floor within an existing four unit residential building located within RM-one zoning district Telegraph Hill North Beach Residential sud special Use district the priority equity geographics sud and 40 x height and bulk district item 32 that is the motion to approve the planning commission's decision to de facto deny the conditional use authorization. Item 33 is the motion to disapprove the commission's decision that would be to make the appropriate findings which are the subject matter of item 34, which is the motion to direct the preparation of findings in support of the board's decision concerning the CU authorization.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. As you described, we have before us a hearing on the appeal that de facto denial of the conditional use authorization for the proposed project at 524 To 526 Vallejo Street and 4 Dash 4 A, 4 To 4 A San Antonio Place. After the hearing, this board will vote on whether to approve or disapprove the Planning Commission's de facto denial of the conditional use authorization for the proposed project. Since the appellant is also the project sponsor, we will hear from the appellant at the beginning of the hearing. And unless there are objections, we're going to proceed as follows.

We're going to give up to ten minutes to the appellant for their presentation. Then we're going to hear public comments up to two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. Then we will give the planning department up to ten minutes for their presentation. Then we will hear public comment in opposition to the appeal. Again, up to two minutes per speaker.

Then finally, we'll go back to the appellant for up to three minutes of rebuttal, unless there are objections. Supervisor Sauter is in the queue, but I don't think he's objecting to that matter of proceeding. So since there are no objections, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. And Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, President Mandelman. You know, this property sits atop Telegraph Hill in my district. And it is a complex one, as I think we'll find out. So before we begin the proceedings, I wanted to briefly share some background and lay out some facts. I first want to emphasize why this is before us.

It is because the Planning Commission wrestled immensely with this project. It was a tie vote, three to three, which means it is de facto denied, and why it is before us today. Four different commissioners in that meeting used the exact same word, tragic, to describe the situation. To the family before us today, they said the situation was, quote, not fair, and that they are the victim twice removed, and that they are not at fault here. One commissioner said that the case had them particularly sick.

One commissioner even suggested this case had her reconsidering her service on the Planning Commission itself. She said, quote, I cannot continue to sit here and reflect on other people's destiny, disappointment, and destruction of dreams when we need to put the brakes on earlier. I am exhausted, I am hurt, I am disappointed. And that same commissioner said that, quote, this issue should not be considered by us, and pointed fingers elsewhere. Commissioners expressed that we should be spending our time going against the developer, the real bad actor here, two owners ago who got everyone into this mess.

One said it best, quote, our hands are tied. So here's what all of that means. It means that the Planning Commission was desperately looking for someone else to make the right decision here, and that is now the opportunity that we have as a board. It is our job as supervisors to not only consider the code, but also consider our constituents and how they are impacted by the code when the code does not work the way we hope and expect it will. Some brief facts to keep in mind as we prepare to hear from the appellants in planning today.

We're not here today because of any active evictions, not because of any danger, not because of any building violation from these owners. We are here today solely because a few years ago, an anonymous neighbor made a complaint about actions that happened under the direction of someone who owned this home in 2010. That someone is not here, they're off the hook, and yet we're all here to try and clean up the mess. Some basic facts about this building and property. The structure was built in 1909 as a two unit home.

We're going hear about four units today, but it's important to note that four units do not exist today, and it's unclear if four code compliant units have ever truly existed here. And as for the family, there have never been four units, three units, or two units under this family's ownership. The merger from two owners ago included two unauthorized dwelling units, or UDUs. It's unclear if four code compliant units have ever actually physically existed in this building over its one hundred and nineteen year standing. The two UUs referenced in the 2010 listing were referenced in a 2010 listing, saying that toilets for those units were located outside the unit in a backyard shed, they shared a kitchen, and that there were no written leases.

The merger in question happened under a previous owner in the early twenty ten's. That previous owner is a serial evictor, and has flouted the rules for decades. He is the true bad actor here, and I wish we would put our resources towards holding him responsible. The family before us has no connection to that development, to that developer or the merger. The property was sold to someone else before the family for a five year period, and then it was sold to this family. So to summarize, what's before us today is a family of four asking for approval to add a new unit of housing. They are not asking to convert a home. That action was taken two owners ago. They are not asking to get off without taking any responsibility. Anything we weigh today comes with immense work and a price tag in the million dollar plus range.

They're asking to return their home to what it was for the vast majority of its entire history, a two unit home. And I think I'll leave it there for now, and let the proceedings begin. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter. Let's hear from the appellants for up to ten minutes.

Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Caitlin Holloway, and that's my husband, Ben Ramirez. We are the homeowners at 524 Vallejo Street. Before we begin, we wanna thank the members of this board and your staff for who have taken the time to meet with us to better understand the details of this case. We also want to acknowledge the planning department. We appreciate the effort they have put into this process. I wanna start by saying something that I fear isn't obvious. We are not here in opposition of the city to housing policy or to the goals that many of you are working towards. Ben and I share in these goals. We have supported them as members of this community for many years, and we come here today as partners in this conversation, not as adversaries.

We are here because the situation could not be fully resolved through a standard process. A three to three tie vote at the Planning Commission led to a de facto denial demonstrating the complexity of this case. A large part of the contention here is because this case has been reduced to a decision on merging units. That framing is incomplete, And for those that have read the facts, to a very conflicted position. Do I vote blindly for a city mandate that I support, or do I vote with a fact a set of facts of individual case that may not lead to the conclusion I want?

I believe a more nuanced framing of that decision today will allow us to better assess the appropriate path forward. This is not a case about removing housing. This is a case about a four unit designation that was never lawfully granted, was never physically built, and cannot be feasibly constructed under the current code. This is also a case about accountability, whether the city will continue to enforce that designation at the expense of a family or find a proportional path forward. Over the past few years, we have worked with the city through this process transparently in good faith and through the proper channels.

When framed strictly as a policy issue, it puts everyone in this room on the defense. But framed as a conversation about accountability, we're able to have an appropriate dialogue about remedy. And so through these years, what we've ultimately uncovered is this, the four unit permit at the center of this case should never have been issued as in the units it authorized were physically never constructed. What we are asking for is a resolution that reflects the reality of what exists, acknowledges how we got here, and does not re result in the permanent displacement of our With that as context, here's what the record actually shows. Built in nineteen o seven, this building functioned as a two unit property for nearly eighty years.

In the mid nineteen eighties, two unauthorized units were added at the rear of the home. In 2010, developer Peter Iskander purchased the property. In 2012, DBI's own record management division reviewed it and issued a written determination, legally two unit building. That same year, a zoning review noted no change to unit count. Oddly, eight weeks later, with no new application, no public hearing to expand the unit count, DBI issued a permit for a four unit building at the request of the developer.

This four unit approval sits at the very center of this entire case. The architectural and structural evidence, along with the city's own permit records, overwhelmingly shows that the four unit layout in those approved plans were never actually constructed. Despite the paper designation of four units, the building was completed with one kitchen and a contiguous layout, and has functioned as a single family home from that point forward. Despite this fact, DBI issued in 2016 the certificate of final completion, accepting the building in its as built condition, not in its approved on paper condition, in its as built condition. And that condition did not reflect a four unit apartment building.

A gaping hole connecting two units with an open floating stairs, a shower built in place of an elevator shaft, a stairwell built in reverse configuration, and yet no violations and no deviation for plan were noted. At this point, the home was then listed for sale by the developer across several MLS real estate listing pages as a single family home. The misaligned structural components clearly photographed and documented. And then almost a full year after the public listings were published, a DBI inspector conducted five final inspections on the property top to bottom. Same condition, same contiguous layout.

This was one month before the property was sold to the next owners for a nearly $4,000,000 profit to the developer. The next owners lived in the home for four years as a single family residence. We purchased the home in '21, inheriting exactly the same layout after nearly a decade from the developer's remodel. Shortly after moving in, we were told we had to reinstate four units. The city's current endorsement position that a four unit building exists was unlawfully removed is directly contradicted by the city's own records at every stage of this property's history.

It is also built on a foundation that was never legally established. The 2013 permit that created the four unit designation was issued without a public hearing conditional use authorization or neighborhood notification that San Francisco planning code requires for changes to a building unit count. The designation the city enforcing today was never subjected to the public process the city now demands for us to resolve. Given those facts, here is the problem. When this issue surfaced, we did exactly as the planning department suggested.

We hired experienced architects and engineers to reinstate the four units. However, after years of good faith effort, we learned that it cannot be done in compliance within the policies at play. The painting the planning department's own staff report confirms that our lot is undersized for four dwelling units. Under planning code section two zero nine point two, the maximum allowable density for this lot in the R M 1 District is 2.4 units. Not four, two point four.

A four unit designation that the city is now enforcing exceeds what the planning code allows for this property. It is, by the department's own finding, legal nonconforming. And this is the code today. And more notably, this was the code in 2013 when the developers permitted was issued, which means the four unit permit at the center of this entire case was not just improperly processed. It was fundamentally prohibited by the zoning code in effect at the time it was granted.

A four unit approval on this lot should have never been issued. It could not have survived public review process that was skipped because the density math would have rejected it outright. The entire enforce enforcement action, the violation, the CUA requirement, the hearing we are in right now all rests on a permit that was unlawful from the day it was created. In other words, if we applied to build four units on this property today, we would be denied. And in 2013, we would have been denied then too.

And yet, under section three seventeen, we are being told that we cannot reduce the unit count. But you cannot lose something that was never built and was never lawfully permitted to be built. Forcing 1.6 additional units into a building that cannot support them does not produce housing. It produces substandard unsafe living conditions that would not meet the city's own quality standards, and we believe that is ultimately why planning directed us to pursue the CUA. These units that is kind of promised to build have never existed. No one has ever lived in them. No one is being displaced by their removal from a spreadsheet. The only people potentially at risk of being displaced here are us, the family being told to construct them. When we asked whether we could expand the building envelope to make four units viable and code compliant, that flexibility was not available. We did not create this contradiction.

It was created when a four unit permit was issued on a lot that could never lawfully support four units, not under today's code and not under the code in effect when the permit was granted. We are not here because we disagree with the policy. We are here because the policy applied to the reality of this property produces an inherent gridlock, and we are asking this board to simply help us find a way through. I've talked a lot about accountability today, and I want to openly own our portion of it. We purchased this home knowing it carried a multiunit designation on paper that did not match the reality of what we are moving into.

That was our decision. We made it with poor advice, limited understanding, conflicting city records, and the kind of optimism that many first time homebuyers in San Francisco are, to some degree, guilty of. We understand now the implications of that choice. We own that fully, and we are ready to accept our fair share of the consequence of that decision. And yet, we are the only party in this entire chain that has been asked to own anything at all.

The developer who bought out tenants obtained four unit approval that violated the zoning code at the time was issued, and then built something entirely different, made $4,000,000 in profit, and then walked away. He has faced no consequence from any city agency for what was built or rather what was not built and at at this address or any of his other properties. DBI, the agency that conducted 21 field inspections and issued a CFC for a building that did not match the approved plans, has given no explanation, faced no consequence in connection with this property. The prior owners lived in the home for four years as a single family residence, and they sold it at a profit and moved on. Everyone upstream either profited or faced no consequences.

The full weight of the situation has landed on the only people who have come forward, engaged in the process, and tried to make it right. We want the record to be clear about what a vote against us produces today because it does not produce what the framing suggests. A vote against us does not produce real housing because it cannot sustainably have four compliant units on the property, and it does not hold bad actors accountable. The developer is not here before you. DBI is not here before you.

The only people before you are the ones who have followed the rules. A vote against us produces an outcome that everyone in opposition refuses to acknowledge, the permanent displacement of our family at a significant and devastating financial loss. Our two boys, aged eight and 11, leave the number neighborhood they've grown up in. They leave Garfield Elementary, a public school that has seen enrollment drop nearly 10% for the last two years in a district that is already losing children and families at an alarming rate due to the lack of family sized homes in our neighborhood. That is what this vote decides.

Not a housing policy in the abstract, not unit counts in a spreadsheet. It decides whether a family that has been a part of this community for twenty three years has supported its schools and its neighbors and its small businesses gets to stay. We are not being asked to be excused from responsibility. We've taken more responsibility for the situation than anyone else involved. We are asking that responsibility be shared proportionally amongst everyone who contributed to it rather than be placed entirely on the people furthest removed from its creation.

And in the absence of that, we are humbly asking for partnership in finding a solution that works for the city and for our family. We are asking this board to legalize the condition that has dominantly existed as property for over a century, remedy a designation that was unlawfully granted in 2013, and return it to two units. If this board believes a different better a better path that serves the city's goals, we're open to that conversation. We're here to collaborate, and we hope this board will give us the opportunity to do that. We want to work with you on a solution that works for all of us. Thank you.

I don't see any questions from colleagues. So we will open up public comments specifically for those who would like to speak in support of the appeal. Madam Clerk, you want to call for the first speaker?

I want to welcome you. If you're here in the chamber and you'd like to support the appellant, please come on up to the podium. This is your opportunity to speak. In a moment further on down the hearing, there'll be an opportunity for those who are in support of the project. Welcome. We're setting the timer for two minutes. Welcome.

Good afternoon. My name is Molly Jones. I am a San Francisco resident as well as a business owner, and I've lived here for over half of my life. Before San Francisco, I actually grew up in Stockton with Caitlin and Ben, who I have known for over forty years. Once we all kind of finished school, we set our sights on San Francisco.

It was our dream to all live here. We did so right after multiple jobs between all of us as this city is expensive, but in our twenties we worked hard to be able to live the dream of being in San Francisco. Caitlin and Ben picked North Beach from the very beginning. They loved the neighborhood. They have supported the retailers there throughout their twenty plus years of living here.

They attend community events there. You know San Francisco, a lot of the areas here is full of generational wealth, but with Caitlin and Ben, this has been thirty plus years of savings and planning to be able to own their very first home in their neighborhood of North Beach that they absolutely love. I understand while you guys are reviewing all of this, you're really looking at policies, but I wanted to kind of give you an idea of what I'm looking at as well too. I'm looking at two little boys who get to go to their neighborhood school, who get to live by their best friends, a home that is able to, you know, open their doors and hold neighborhood gatherings and truly always have their door open. But if this fails, all of that is going to be gone.

They're gonna have to move out during construction, and they're not gonna be able to live in a quarter of this house when they move back in. They have two parents that work from home, children, and they also have elderly parents who are in need of assistance. This isn't necessarily something that's unfair. It's really inhumane.

Thank you for your comments. Let's hear from the next speaker who is in support of the appeal. Welcome.

Good afternoon. My name is Yan Tsai. I'm a fifth generation San Franciscan, a father of four, and a neighbor and friend to the Hallway Ramirez family in North Beach. I'm here to comment in favor of the conditional use authorization. I've known Caitlin and Ben for ten years.

We started our families together. We grew our careers together. And over that ten years, as we've seen countless families flee San Francisco, I've seen Caitlin and Ben go the other way, putting down those roots and not just that, actually making them really flourish. They have become linchpins to our community, making countless investments to vitalizing the neighborhood, becoming community leaders, and most importantly, raising two amazing children who I should mention, as the appellant mentioned, have been in SFUSD every step of the way, raising them to become the next generation of civic minded engaged San Franciscans. And it's in their family and families like mine that the future of San Francisco relies.

But we know that it's not easy to raise a family in San Francisco. We have no illusions about that. But when there are challenges that are put forth by the city in the form of antiquated regulations and codes and an inability to modernize in view of these situations that makes it ever more difficult to keep those roots here. The opponents have done everything in their power to rectify a situation where they were not originally a party too. And I would say that the family that we see sitting here are the sort of families that we cannot afford to lose.

If they are to lose and if families like theirs have to lose because of situations like these will be a self inflicted injury that the city cannot afford. I urge you to support the conditional use authorization.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any other members of the public who please come on up in support of the appeal?

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jennifer and I'm a small business owner here in San Francisco and my husband and I became first time homeowners six years ago. I've lived in this city for twelve years and I've chosen to stay and invest here because I believe in San Francisco. And that's why I'm here today. Because what's happening to this family isn't just complicated, it's wrong.

A developer got approval to build one thing, built something completely different, and walked away with a multimillion dollar profit. DBA signed off on it, and now both are under investigation. And somehow, the only people paying the price are these homeowners who bought this property in good faith and have spent the last four years trying to fix a problem that they did not create. That is not accountability. That's punishing the wrong people.

I follow the rules. I pay my taxes. I run a business in this city. And I'm standing here asking if this is how San Francisco treats people who do everything right, then who is this system actually working for? Because this family had options. They could have fought you. They could have dragged this out in court. They could have walked away, and they didn't. They chose to work with the city. They chose to try to fix it the right way.

And right now, it feels like they're being punished for that. Their proposal is reasonable. It adds a rent controlled unit. It avoids displacement. It actually moves the situation towards a real solution. Denying this appeal doesn't fix anything. It just forces this family out of their home and lets the people who actually caused this walk away untouched. So I'll leave you with this. If doing the right thing leads to

this Thank you for your comments. Thank you. If you have something you'd like to submit for the record, we're happy to take that for the file. Are there any other speakers who'd like to address the board on behalf of the appellant? All right. Mr. President.

All right. Public comment in support of the appeal is now closed. And now we're going to hear from representatives of the planning department for up to ten minutes.

Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Xinyu Liang, principal planners for Supervisor District 3, speaking on behalf of the planning department. I'm accompanied today by Kelly Wong, coenforcement managers Veronica Flores, acting legislative affairs manager and Matt Graney, deputy director in inspection services from DBI. On 12/04/2025, the planning commission conducted considered a conditional use authorization request for this property. The project proposed to legalize the merger of three dwelling units on the 2nd And 3rd Floors into one unit and to reinstate one dwelling units on the Ground Floor within what's legally an existing four unit building.

The project also included a small horizontal addition at the penthouse level to accommodate an elevator. During the hearing, a motion was made to deny the project. The vote resulted in a three three tie, meaning the commission failed to act. Under the planning code, failure to act constitutes a de facto denial. Moving on to the appeal, the appellant presented several claims.

Their core argument is that the building has long functioned as a single family home, and there is insufficient evidence that the building was ever for legally legally built units. The planning department disagrees with that assertion. The department determined that there is substantial consistent evidence across multiple city agencies and documents showing that the subject property is legally a four unit building. Key evidence includes approved and issued building permit plans showing four units a thirty day neighborhood notification was completed between 09/09/2011 to 10/08/2011 Multiple inspectors from dbi and fire department, not just one, conducted site visits throughout the renovation period. Two official 3R reports issued in 2017 and 2020 before each sale of the property and listing four family dwelling as the legal unit.

An enclosed stairwell and second means of egress in the building, which typically found only in multifamily building. Assessor recorded data which identifies and assess the property as a four unit residential building. Lastly, two formal long term tenants' written statements confirming the building operated as a four unit rent controlled property for over thirty years including into the early twenty ten s. While we acknowledge the building appears to have functioned as a single family home in more recent years the legal status not its current occupancy governs our evaluations of mergers. Thus, authorizing the proposed project would legalize an unauthorized merger result in a net loss of two rent control units that conflict with the housing element and long standing city policy discouraging the removal of existing housing set a precedent encouraging similar after the fact request therefore the planning department recommends the board uphold the commission' de facto denial and deny the appeal this concludes the department' presentation and staff is available for questions thank you.

Thank you. Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you so much, President. I have questions for you. Okay. Thank you. So during the appellant's presentation, there was a couple things that were put out that were not consistent with what I read in the voluminous materials that received on this appeal.

The first one was that two of the units were unpermitted. And I'm wondering if you could tell us if you have documentation that could maybe lead us to think that two of the units were unpermitted? Because when I read the 3R reports and all of the other documentation, it seemed to me like they were both permitted in terms of the planning code and the building permits?

Sure. I'm happy to answer that question. So the two UDUs were initially found through an enforcement case back in 2010. And subsequently, there is a building permit application submitted to legalize those two UDUs. And through that building permit applications, those two units become legal dwelling units. And thus far, there is we believe there's four total dwelling units on this property.

And so when was that legalization? When did that take place?

The building permit application was initially submitted in 2011, and it was finalized. The certificate of completion was issued on 05/09/2016.

Okay. Thank you. The other piece of information that the appellant made in their presentation was that today, it would be impossible to build four code compliant units. And so in the documentation that I reviewed with this appeal, it seems like right now there is a single family home on this property of 3,780 square feet divided by four, that's nine forty five square feet per unit, which is pretty generous. That's more than twice as much as is legally required.

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

So in your packet, in the last two pages, Actually, there is plans that was submitted in I believe that's 2023 by the appellants to show us how property can potentially be converted back to four units. Unfortunately, because those plans subject to SB twelve fourteen, they are protected plans, I won't be able to share it over the projectors, but it does show the possibilities that how those units can be converted back to four units. And the planning department did approve the plans at that time. The plan's just never been issued.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. And one last question. You know, this may be to Ms. Flores. As you may remember, I was on the Planning Commission for many, many years. And I remember seeing cases very similar to this one over and over and over again, which is why this is a policy issue and not an individual issue. I'm wondering if you could tell us, just ballpark, how many of these cases do we see?

Veronica Flores, Planning Department staff. I don't have a perfect number for you, but we do see a handful of these. And they are always, as you know, very tough hearings and very involved discussions. I can confer with colleagues to see if we have a better estimate. But we see a handful to a dozen. Every year.

And is that just because that's when they're complaint driven? These are our work, as

you know, is complaint driven. So as in the case here, we learned about this particular property through a site visit from an enforcement case. Okay. Thank you.

Supervisor Walton. Thank you, President Metterman. I heard someone say during public comments something about an investigation. And I'm wondering, what is being investigated? I wasn't quite clear on that. Somebody in public comment said something about an investigation that may be happening.

I'm Matt Green with the Department of Building Inspection. I do know we've written a notice of violation, and we are doing an internal investigation as to how what may have happened at the CFC. And we're also discussing whether this is egregious enough to add the developer to our expanded compliance control list.

And when does that decision get made?

I'm working right now with our compliance officer.

But it's after this hearing, like I'm not gonna

have information

about that

investigation, and I have to make a decision right here.

Correct, yes. But this would be on the developer back in 2016 sign off.

Supervisor Slaughter.

Thank you, President. I want to ask a little bit more from DBI, if I may. This may be my first question might be for DBI or planning. But I do see conflict here between the information you shared with the assessor noting four units. But then in particular, this fourth unit of 4 San Antonio Place not existing in a master address registry, not in any permit records, not in any property tax rolls, no voter registration files related to the property, not related to any census or postal database. Can you help square that up?

I'm sorry, what are you looking at, Supervisor Sutter?

I think my question is this fourth unit. For me, there's pretty good evidence that there were I mean, there's evidence that there were two units here that were authorized, and then there's two additional units which were in the back, which were unauthorized for a number of years in a storage shed. It's my understanding that that storage shed has since been demolished. So this current property that still stands today has never had four units. I think that's a fact.

This fourth unit feels like its existence and habitation is rests on pretty thin ice. And I'm trying to understand, because it says four units in the assessor role, but the four San Antonio place doesn't exist in any of these other databases that we look at that I mentioned. I'm just wondering if you have more to square up that discrepancy. And that can go to DBI or to planning.

Well, I would disagree that there's never four units there. We have the fire department inspected the property in February 2016 for the sprinkler system. They confirmed there was four units. A separate fire inspector was back out there in April 2016, confirmed the four units. And then our building inspector was there in May 2016, confirmed four units.

As to the address, the permit in question here was the building was originally a legal two unit building, and that the permit in question from 2011 was to legalize the existing the two illegal the existing two the two existing illegal units for a total of four units. The address that I think you're talking about, our three R report where it says 4 San Antonio Place and 5426 Vallejo Street has two addresses on it. Is that what you're discussing? That's right, yes. Yeah.

I, you know, I'm not sure about that, about the San Antonio. I did try to find, dig that address up myself. I couldn't find it.

And I think that's completely fair, because it's, it appears to be a mystery to me as well. I want ask please, yes.

Could also speak so Kelly Wong, code enforcement manager at the Planning Department. So in the 2011 permit set, you will see the number 4 And 4A, which I believe is referencing the ones the 4A San Antonio Place. In the drawings, you will see that the Unit 4 and Unit 4A are outlined in addition to 524 And 526 Vallejo Street. Thank you.

And that's the 2011, is that right?

That's correct. 2011686. Thank you.

Thank you. And then the I think another critical piece here is the 2016 action, which is DBI signing a certificate of final completion in 2016. But it's my understanding that within forty five days of that certificate being signed, the home is listed for sale as a single family home. And we know that you can't do that sort of work within a month, converting a four unit home into a single family home in a month. And I'm just left with a lot of questions about that timeline.

I'm just looking for any guidance or thoughts of how such a series of events could happen. Because it strikes me as that is at the heart of this is, did that work actually happen? And the validity of that certificate of completion in 2016. And that's a thought and a question.

I share your concern as well. That does seem like quite a quick turnaround. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is a quick turnaround. Will say there was three separate inspectors there within a two month period. Two fire inspectors and one building inspector who confirmed that there was a four unit building at the time.

So, Kelly Wong. I just want to also add to the record that during our site visits and our code enforcement investigations, we often do find we receive complaints for a merger because of real estate listings. And sometimes the listings are not accurate. So we have investigated merger complaints and actually confirmed that the mergers did not occur. Thank you.

Thank you. And then one last question. Can you give a sense to, with this particular developer, the scope of any investigation at the moment, or what might be considered? How many other properties they appear to have worked on? Any violations? Anything to help illustrate that?

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

Thank you. Supervisor Chan.

I just wanted clarification to help

me

understand the photo that in your presentation indicated there are four separate electrical meters, and that's from your visit in 2022. Why is that important? Like, what does that photo actually indicate, and what does that mean? Could you elaborate?

I believe there's four separate electrical meters, one for each unit, and then you see a fifth meter there for the house meter, which would be the common lights and such.

Sorry, say that one more time. It was not clear.

I'm sorry. So you see there's four units in the vertical line there. Those are four units each one for each specific unit. And then off to the right, there's another meter there. That would be called the house meter for common lights and stuff like that.

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

Because it seemed to indicate that there's four separate units.

I see. And this was, and that sorry. And then, I'm trying to I'm kind of confused about the timeline, and that it was indicated in your visit for 2022, and that what you're saying is that this work that it shows that there are four is this after the new owner occupied this space, or is it I'm trying to I'm kind of I'm sorry. I'm trying to understand better what why this is critical to include as four separate electrical meters. And because I'm trying to understand, there seems to be a debate here that whether the currently, the owner knows or knowingly or not knowingly that there were four units.

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

Correct.

Thank you. So, what you're saying here is that you're showing to us as an evidence that both, be it the developer or inclusive of the person the owners that are occupying this I'm sorry. I'm just paraphrasing because I want to make sure I clearly understand what I am asking. But what I am seeing here is, according to the Planning Department and the Building Inspection Department, after your inspection and visit or after Planning Department visit here, is that there's a clear evidence that the current occupant knows that there were four separate residential units, because based on the separate electrical meters.

This is Kelly Wong, Planning Department, and my answer is yes. From the 2013 sprinkler permit, and then another one in 2015 for the sprinkler monitoring system, which was inspected by the fire department, they would have actually, on their permits, they show that there are four units. Thank you.

And that there were if there any records? Because if you require for separate electrical meters, it does indicate then you would have previous utility bills indicating for individual households occupying that space, correct? I'm just kind of curious if there was ever even such evidence.

None were submitted to the planning department. Thank you.

Ah, I see. So and that means it doesn't necessarily it has to be a residential unit. It could, as indicated by Supervisor Souter, simply a storage unit. Would it be then required to have an electrical meter?

No. A common storage unit would be on one of the unit's meters. It wouldn't get a separate meter.

Like,

just If the storage sorry, let me back up. If the storage unit was attached to one of the units, it would be on that unit's meter. But if it was sort of a common use storage room, it would be on that common house meter.

Thank you.

Supervisor Scherle.

Thank you, President Mandelman. I'm still a little confused about the 2016 sign off and the timing with the four, with basically DBI being in there around the time when it was being marketed as single family home, I don't really understand. It seems like there were inspections after 2016 and 2017 as well, where it basically suggests are we saying that the listings maybe were just a lie? I'm just confused as to why DBI would have been in there multiple times signing off on permits if the permits were for four units and the House was not.

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

Well, I'm

talking about the 2016, right? You said in 2016, the four units were legalized,

right? That was under the 2011 permit. The work was completed in May 2016.

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

No. They no. I said they inspected the building

Okay. In Well, '20 that's that's what I'm asking, right? Like, it seems to me that in 2016 and then I think there were other permits that were inspected in 2017. And I just I'm confused as to why this wasn't caught back then, that seemingly that's when the shift from four units to one single family home happened. And I just don't understand how we missed that or if that's not something we would have looked for. I just kind of don't get how this got past 2017, I guess.

So there was a complaint about work beyond the permit, the building inspector who inspected that. It was referred from the planning department, and based on the emails from the planning department, we thought that the complaint was about roof deck the inspector the railing on the roof deck specifically. And then the inspector did verify from the street that it matched the approved plans for the roof railing.

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

Oh, the 2017 the fire permits? So unfortunately, the fire department's computer system is a little slack. It takes a little longer for the permits to be actually completed. I have the inspection history when they actually went out there. They did the inspection on twoeighteentwenty sixteen, fire sprinkler finaled, pending water flow. And then on fourfivesixteen, water and tamper switches tested. And then the fire sprinkler flow and supervisor system was finaled.

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

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

So then

why are we going after this bad actor here? Like, if we have a dozen of these every year, how many people get dinged for being total jerks?

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

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

But if it's pretty clear that a previous owner did a previous owner did unpermitted work and then profited on it, is that a civil legal matter for committing fraud on the disclosures? It's not a criminal matter for defrauding the city? Because It

should be civil matters if it's, like, false disclosures of documentation. And I also

Please speak directly into the microphone. Yeah. Thank you.

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

I'm not comfortable with us not going after these clear bad actors here from fifteen years ago. But thank you. Supervisor

Sauter.

Thank you. I want to return to the question of the 2016 permit that was signed off on by DBI. Can you share the inspector who worked on that permit? Are they under investigation for any other permits that they signed off on or other work that they did?

No. Not at the time. Not at this time, no.

Have they been under investigation in the past?

Yes. Can you

tell me more about that?

I'm not sure that I can. It's an internal So,

it's my understanding that we the individual who signed off on this permit in 2016 has been under investigation. And so, this continues to make this 2016 sign off, which is the crux of so much of this, really, really difficult for us to consider. We may have malintent from the developer. We may have malintent from someone who signed off on permits here. But a lot of this before us hinges on this 2016 certification, which I'm not comfortable understanding what actually happened.

There's a lot that is unclear here. I know there's more to proceed here. I just want to quickly run down one more line of questioning, if I may. I want to ask a little bit more about, if we were to reject this, I think the understanding is that this then puts the family back on a path here to require that they do four units at this site. Can we learn a little bit more about what that would entail? Would those four units be rent controlled? Would they be occupied by someone else? What would be required if we were to reject this and go down the path of four units?

They will need to the building will need to be converted back to four units. We cannot definitely say those units are rent controlled. But based on the records we have, we can those units are likely rent controlled.

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

No, we do not control who would live there. The planning codes regulate per property, not individuals, the tenants or the owners who live there.

And I think there's a question of if these can just physically be constructed, or if they can be approved. And I think maybe that's changed through time. But I mean, at this point, would you be able to approve four units on this site? Or would that necessitate an additional structure, right? There's this unit in the back that has kind of been a quasi storage unit where these UDUs may have existed. Would it be an auxiliary construction required? Do we know yet?

There is a building permit application currently submitted. It's under a 2023 record. And planning department has already approved to revert the building back to four units.

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

All right. I think that is it from colleagues. So, we will invite members of the public who wish to speak in opposition to the appeal to line up. They have already done that. Each will have up to two minutes. Madam Clerk, do you want can you please call the first speaker?

Welcome. Come on up to the first first speaker. Welcome. We're setting the timer for two minutes. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Steven Torres from the San Francisco Tenants Union. The San Francisco tenants union stands with this coalition of organizations to emphasize our strong opposition to the c u a at 524526 Vallejo Street and for for a San Antonio place. We urge the board to deny the appellant's proposal to allow the continued use of the property as a 3,713 square foot luxury home. There's a lot of intricately woven mischaracterizations being presented by the appellants but let' be clear that these are attempts to obfuscate what is fact.

This was an illegal demolition of rent controlled housing and now the owners of this property want to be told they can keep it as a luxury single family home and maybe an ancillary closet or two to tick the box. This portends a dangerous precedent in legitimizing illegal demolitions of this kind as already happening across the city. This body should perhaps be looking for ways to strengthen the ability to enforce against these instead of spending any time debating what is before you. I will remind you that this body that many of you vehemently vowed that there would not be rampant demolitions in the context of the family zoning plan and have pledged your commitment to protecting desperately needed rent controlled housing. This is an opportunity to put your reputation where your mouth is and make it clear that no illegal demolitions conversions or whatever you want to call it will stand.

Many have cited flexibility as a word of the day when it comes to housing but who is the flexibility for the working class and most vulnerable of San Francisco or the wealthy and best connected. Will you join your colleague in uplifting demolitions or look for ways to make San Francisco housing whole affordable and accessible thank you.

Thank you Steven Tarras for your comments Welcome.

Fred Sherbenzimmer from Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco. I would hope that tenants matter, too. Thousands of tenants in the city live in units that are or were illegal, and lots of landlords do unpermitted work. And I would have to say lots of realtors lie. The landlord who pushed out the last set of buildings last set of tenants living in this building, Eskenard, was a serial evictor.

He, like many others, knew he could make a lot of money. We have seen before, whether it's TICs or short term rentals, if we reward landlords and investors and realtors, if you tell them they can make millions, you encourage the Ellis Act. You encourage the harassment of tenants. If I buy a stolen car, even unknowingly, I still have to give it back. We run a clinic that over 5,000 people come to.

5,000 tenants come in desperate states. Year after year, we hear stories of people harassed and evicted. We watch those we love pushed out by landlords or realtors who encourage these evictions. Don't tenants matter? Don't we pay taxes? We would like to have the choice to stay too. And if you reward people and let them make money, yes, maybe they knew what they were buying, and maybe they should sue the people who bought it. But these tenants mattered too.

Thank you, Sherburne, for your comments. Welcome, Magic.

Thank you.

Yes. In our current economic system, the more money you have, the less you feel obligated to follow the laws of the land. These laws and regulations are social contracts that we, the people, have enacted to protect the places, people, and lifestyle we value. All studies and experts agree that the housing that is needed is for our teachers, medical workers, artists, service workers, and so many more who make this great city what it is. And yet market rate housing keeps being proposed.

This couple already knows that they are violating community agreements and the Planning Commission made that clear. I'm assuming they're appealing because they can afford to pay a lawyer who knows how to attempt to circumvent the law to make this case. The building inspector, Matt Green, has made it clear that there's more inspecting and things that need to be completed, from my understanding. Unless some politicians interfere hoping to garner some goodwill that looks like power and money down the road, there really is no case here. Uphold and respect our Planning Commission.

Supervisors, do your job. Uphold the law and have them do the work needed to return this to a four unit building to reestablish the kind of housing that we need in San Francisco. Thank you.

Thank you, Magic, for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. Theresa Flandrick, North Beach Tenants Committee. I echo what Magic just said. Thank you so much. Again, it is unfortunate that Joe Padilla will not be here.

He is the former tenant at 4 B the official the official post office address was 4 B San Antonio Place he was one of the two tenants in the rear and there have been two letters already three letters submitted But a man behind me will be reading Joe Padilla's letter because he had to leave the city last night because his mom has had a stroke, so down in Central California. So he will not be here today, unfortunately. He did try to come for the last two scheduled hearings, but since they were continued, I was able to catch him before he ran out the door. So so you will hear from this next person who will recite for Joe. Again, these this was a site of four

for

four households. Now it is for one household. This is a policy issue. This is this is the history of these kind of illegal mergers being done. The owners may not have known not have done that.

However, the current owners did know. Contrary to what they stated in the planning commission hearing December 4, we didn't know. Then you hear later, well, actually, they did know. There was clearly a declaration of it being a four unit or a multifamily building. So it's really hard to hear this misrepresentation, but we want to be sure you understand there were four units there and we are so afraid of if this passes it sets a horrible precedent we know that there are five building owners right now hoping that this that you will pass this that you will that you will not deny the appeal but you must you must not be complicit in allowing the removal the permanent rent controlled housing that we have.

You cannot allow that. So thank you very much.

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

Good afternoon supervisors my name is lance carnes and I' here to read the statement by joseph adia who was called out of town because of a medical emergency he writes I lived at 4A San Antonio Place starting in 1990 when I became aware that the building wouldn' would be placed on the market I made the decision to transition my current address in Noe Valley in 2009. I can attest that there were four individual rental units at 524 Vallejo Street two full flats in the front and 4a And 4b San Antonio Place which were two fully functioning and livable studio apartments attached to the back of the building. I lived in one of the two identical studios each of which was comprised of two rooms a living area bedroom and a separate full size kitchen dining area and a bathroom each studio was larger than the 100 square feet referenced in the applance brief. The studios included full functioning metered utilities so were intended as dwelling units. When I moved out my unit was in a habitable condition.

After I left it was my understanding that the studio was never reoccupied and I was used as a as a and it was used as a storage by the developer. In addition, there was a small laundry room on the roof as well as a two car garage and basement storage. I hope that my account provides you with some first hand perspective and encourages strong stronger scrutiny of future housing proposals. Thank you for your time and consideration. Joseph G Padilla.

Thank you Lance Arnes for your comments.

Welcome.

Thank you my name is Jerry Dratler. The property owners appeal is based on two false claims. The property owners claim that Units 4 And 4A San Antonio Place are phantom units that were never constructed as a false claim that is refuted by a letter from John Grant, which is in the board package. Mister Grant lived in Unit 4 A, a rent controlled unit, for seventeen years. The property owner's second initial claim that they were unaware they purchased a four unit building with a single family floor plan is also false.

The property owners recently acknowledged they knew the house was a multi unit building. The planning department and the planning commission denied the property owner's CUA application for valid reasons. The criteria for the board to overturn the planning commission decision has not been met. There were no errors in interpreting the planning code, and the abuse of discretion by the planning commission did not occur. It would be wrong for the board of supervisors to legalize the unpermitted unit conversions in a housing crisis.

If this were to happen, the public would view the board's action to be amnesty on unpermitted unit mergers, and there would be hundreds of property owners asking for the same relief. In summary, two wrongs don't make right. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

Hi. I'm a lifelong North Beach resident. My parents met in North Beach, and all of my siblings grew up there. In the last six years, everybody's been pretty much priced out of North Beach. 13 evictions between my sisters, my parents, and myself, between Veritas, developers, predatory landlords, real estate developers.

Just since 2013, there's been a number of illegal evictions. I mean, the number of service people that are pushed out of North Beach on a daily basis, over 200 people I wanted to invite today to this event have been pushed out. They're career service workers that work in the neighborhood. While feel bad for the buyer, and I get that this like really sucks for you, but it sets an example that other people are going to continue to take advantage of. And right now, we continuously have bulldozers circling Washington Square Park.

We have the Verde Building, which we're battling every day to be able to preserve. It's embarrassing that our representative isn't fighting for us, and North Beach doesn't run without housing for service workers and make it, right now, muddying the water and making this, like, intentional rather than supporting the constituents that feel so strongly that rent controlled units need to be saved. And taking any units at all off the market sets a very dangerous precedent. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon. Georgia Shutish. The issues with this appeal are very clear. 524526 Vallejo Street and 4 A 44 San Antonio Place, is a legal four unit building. The board must deny this appeal, here's why.

First, the planning department's recommendation to deny the CUA at the 12/04/2025 hearing clearly states that this project proposed by the appellants would not comply with the housing element. Second, the planning department clearly responds to the five issues in their memo to the board dated 01/28/2026 on pages four through six. The five responses are, evidence in the record that this building is a four unit building, including the written testimony from former tenants. The denial at the commission hearing for the CUA was based on the objectives and policies of the housing element. The three r report unequivocally states that the building is four units and should have been in the disclosures at the time of sale to the appellants.

The appellants purchased a legal four unit building that had been illegally merged, even if it appeared to be a single family home. The proposal put forth by the appellants would only replace one of the three legal units that were removed. So that's what's before you. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Let's have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman and members of the Board of Supervisors, Chantal Laberinto with the Race and Equity in All Planning Coalition. We are strongly opposed to the CUA appeal and urge this board to deny the proposal to approve illegal conversion. We share the deep concerns that the SF Anti Displacement Coalition has submitted in their letter and also want to strongly emphasize that approving this appeal undermines the city's own policies and violates the housing element and its stated goals. As the staff report lays out in great detail, the Planning Department's opposition to the appeal is based on the objectives and policies of the housing element, given anything short of restoring the three lost units would result in a net loss of dwelling units, and could set a negative precedent where developers may merge dwelling units without authorization, knowing that a merger is likely to be approved and legalized after the fact through the CUA process. I also want to emphasize housing element implementation program two, specifically the implementing action section 2.4, preserving rental unit availability.

Approving the CUA would clearly be a direct violation of the set of actions. As this Board of Supervisors discussed at great length just in the past year, especially in deliberation over the family zoning plan and the tenant protections ordinance, we should be doing as much as possible to preserve our existing housing stock and protect homes and tenants and actively challenge efforts such as this request that undermine these critical policies. We urge you all to deny the appellant's proposal that both violates and undercuts our own critical housing policies, as well as prevent setting a dangerous precedent that threatens to diminish our housing stock and put tenants in increased risk. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors. Peter Stevens, Build Affordable Faster California. I think one thing we can all agree on is that Iskander is a jerk. Couldn't put it better myself. But the question before us today is very, very simple.

Will you, the board, create a precedence of performative negligence in our city's land use doctrine? That's what's happening here today. Is the assertion that someone who was blind, deaf, and dumb to the obvious issues and disclosures but magically signed on all the proper dotted lines is a valid defense against our city codes? If so, then what are the use of city codes? I know that each of you understands what is at stake and you have it in you to do the right thing. Thank you all and have a good evening.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker please.

Afternoon, supervisors. I am Meg Heisler. I am here on behalf of the San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition to voice our strong opposition to the appeal before you today. Not to beat a dead horse, but public records provide unequivocal evidence that the lawful and permitted use of this building was and is as a four unit apartment building. We know tenants lived in these units and that four rent controlled units were illegally demolished.

This is not conjecture, this is what happened. So what you're weighing is whether or not to grant an exception to the laws on the books and approve the loss of rent controlled housing while no doubt there are developers sizing up tenant occupied buildings in each of your districts and fantasizing about what they can get away with. This is a policy decision. The stakes in this case extend well beyond one family. If the Board overrides the findings of planning staff and the Planning Commission, it would be creating a significant new loophole to our existing laws that protect rent controlled units, the tenants who live in them now, and those who will need them that housing in the future.

As the City's real estate market for single family homes heats up, there is simply no way for tenants to compete against an industry of developers and realtors that profit off of their displacement, cannibalize rental units, and repurpose them as single family homes to be sold for millions. In this case there are no compromises that will not serve to undermine existing protections of rent controlled housing and embolden speculators. This board must send an emphatic message that you will not support the demolition of rent controlled units. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

Afternoon speakers. I'm supervisors. I'm Mitch Lohmerberg, director of the Affordable Housing Alliance, and we work with the San Francisco Anti Displacement Coalition, and I do want to note that this is a policy question, but I also want to just talk about what happened here. There were flashing yellow wait, no, flashing red lights. This was clearly, legally, a four unit rate controlled building.

For starters, it has four separate street addresses. Then we're learning today it apparently had four separate electrical meters. The three r report which is your disclosure when you buy property that you need to look at disclosed that it was a four unit building. The property tax records and the property tax bill say that it's four units. And then even today, you know, would be a little bit better if they were a little more contrite, but even today we're kind of hearing that maybe there were never really any tenants there, but tenants from all four units have been identified by the North Beach tenants committee and three of them have been contacted and now we're sort of trying to erase if they ever existed.

Please vote to uphold the planning commission's rejection of merging four rent controlled units into a mega mansion. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker please.

I thank you board my name is Rommelin schmaltz and I've been in North Beach about twenty years as a renter. This case is emotional because it involves us tenants losing more precious and infinite and finite rent controlled housing and a very wealthy family who doesn't want to lose what they have. But to speak plainly, this couple knowingly bought stolen goods. Goods stolen from the renters of the city, the majority of San Franciscans, and your and your constituents. We're the renters.

This couple is crying and acting like they're being evicted from North Beach. They're not. Although, I mean, how the bulk of them they remain is another matter. They can buy a different house in the neighborhood and their kids can still attend the same schools. They just can't keep their stolen goods.

We need leaders who do right by renters and by the law. I'm not asking you to punish this family for knowingly buying an illegal mansion. This family will be fine. I'm reminding you that we have tenants who are on the record as having lived there and were squeezed out by whatever what our supervisor called the real bad actors. But we tenants of North Beach strongly agree that knowingly buying illegal goods makes you a bad actor.

I've rented in North Beach for twenty years and I've seen the shady work all too much. Saying like suddenly four meters becomes two meters and I mean I've seen a lot. There's yet another example. One block up Vallejo from where we are, from where they are. My friends and family in North Beach, thousands of renters are watching today, and dozens of them have already expressed utter disbelief that their representative on this board is siding with a couple over all of us, even when they are in the wrong. We, you, cannot send a message that this is okay. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon. One of these statement statements is true when this plan came through either someone in the planning department was asleep or they were paid off with the hope that this project would slide under the radar either way the planning department officials who allowed this egregious malfeasance to go through do not deserve their place in office. The fact that this project is even being considered is inexcusable. The other truth is that our supervisor is a festering sore actively wounding North Beach and the wounds he is inflicting will have a legacy of destruction for the entire city. Our supervisor doesn't care about North Beach he doesn't care about housing he only cares about real estate biting at the coattails of wiener and lining his pockets in the pockets of his developer buddies.

If the development for these wealthy, unscrupulous, unconscious, affordable, home destroying arrogance is approved and allowed to proceed for any reason, even the most ridiculous lie of oversight, oh, whoops, we didn't know we could do that, You are setting a very dangerous precedent. And it would give our supervisor exactly what he wants, to tear down all restrictions for development in SF because that's his goal. That's the endgame for this developer, his developer friends, and that's what Weiner's greedy pockets also want him to do. And just to remind you, we all know what side you will sit on in the next election. And if you approve this project, you will be a large cause of the ruin of our beloved San Francisco, and shame will be your middle names.

Thank you for your comments. Next speaker please.

Okay my name is Ken Pujioka I'm here on behalf of Chinatown Kennedy Development Center and I want to address or emphasize the point that the planning staff raised that approving this CU is going to create a a a very a damaging precedent. And we're our organization councils tenants all the time threatened with buyouts, threatened development. We have one right now where we know the owners are planning to merge the units, and the owners are going Ellis it and they' going to they' going to try to jam it through. And and and approving this is going to give a signal that you can go forward in doing such behavior and then get away and sell the property off and let someone else pay a price for sure and I want to get to the owner situation too I I feel for them but but we have to we we the concept we we the the consequence isn't just this family as someone else said before but it is the there are 600 buyouts last year threatened buyouts more than half of them went through and most of the tenants have no bargaining position because they get evicted they get aliased and they go nowhere or they leave this as in this case two of the households left the city and so that' the first thing I also want to say that I' really troubled by the accusation based on no evidence that there was some kind of malfeasance on the part of staff in this case, whether it's d b I or planning staff.

I mean, we have fire department, others folks all witnessing three. Let's blame the developer. Yes. But we also need to uphold the rule that if you buy a four unit building that says it's a legal performing unit, you that that's where it should stay, and we have to keep rent control housing available for people because those are the folks who are losing out who are not being spoken about in the narrative of the owners.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any other speakers who would like to address the board during in opposition to the appeal? Alright, Mr. President.

Alright, public comment in opposition to the appeal is now closed. And lastly, we'll have the appellant come up to present a rebuttal argument of up to three minutes.

First, thank you to the planning department for your presentation. We know that this has been an arduous process. It's been four years, and we're really, really grateful for your partnership, and we're sorry that this has landed on all of our plates. But collectively, we know you've spent a lot of time, so thank you. And thank you again to the supervisors for considering the facts of this case.

No matter the outcome, we are very grateful for your time. I want to clarify a few points for the record before I hand it over to Steven Sutra, our architect. The first is the RM1 designation allows for 2.4 units based on a nineteen twenty foot square foot lot. This is based on the planning department's own staff report not our interpretation of the report so please note that the 2017 inspection included by dbi included five final sign offs interior and exterior The notion that this inspector only viewed the roof is troubling because the elevator does not go up to the roof. The inspector would have to come through the home and would have directly faced been directly faced with the most egregious violation.

As for the 2022 DBI inspection, that inspection never occurred. That is incredibly troubling for us as the homeowners as we were living at the property at the time. The first and only time DBI has stepped foot into our home after our purchase was just a few weeks ago. On precedent, we very much understand that concern. We also understand the concerns of everyone who spoke housing is absolutely a crisis in this community the position however only works if the situation is repeatable This is not a playbook or a repeatable fact pattern, as demonstrated by all of the errors forced along the way.

This is a sophisticated developer who understands how to game and operate within the system, including installing meters and other things that give the illusion of four complete units. I'd like for our architect, Steven Sutro, to please give a bit more color, but in the meantime, thank you again for your time.

You have a minute and ten seconds left.

Okay, thank you. Hello, my name is Steven Sutro. I am an architect here in San Francisco and I was born and raised here. I was hired by Caitlin and Ben when they were notified of the planning violation. I just want to point out that the listing photos that were part of the packet match exactly what is there today. No changes have occurred between the time those realtor photos were generated and today. The developer got four units approved and then only built one. There are many physical elements in the building that are significantly different than his approved plans. The main staircase is designed to serve multiple units as an exit corridor. It has to have fire rated walls around it.

Instead, it's built as a floating staircase and that floating staircase is in realtor photos that were generated at the time one month after inspection. That's just impossible. It's just simply impossible. I just want to point out that it physically could not have been transformed in that quick of a time frame. So there's just a big discrepancy here from what was approved by the developer and what what was purchased by the owner just before Caitlin and Ben. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Supervisor Scherrill.

Thank you. I think the thing that I am most kind of confused and concerned about is this 2016 sign off that legalized the change from two units to four units. And between the photographs of the apartment with a floating staircase, which I cannot imagine a DBI inspector would have signed off on as a standard means of egress. Nor can I imagine that it would take one month or forty five days to demolish a central egress with fire rated doors and install a floating staircase? I don't know what contractor can get that done on time, but probably not one.

And then also the fact that this inspector was also under investigation at DBI. How am I supposed to square all those circles? For me? I don't know. I guess yeah, sure.

Well, I think it's unfair to say that the inspector was under investigation. He was in an investigation for a completely unrelated matter.

So he was, though?

I'm sorry?

He was, though. Not for this, he was. Yes. All right.

Yeah. Like I said, we've written an OSA violation. We're going to be reaching out to Iskander. And Justin Yonker was another developer involved to see what exactly happened here. It does sound incredulous this happened in forty five days. I agree. I'm trying to look back ten years and put the record

It sounds incredulous that the permit legalizing the four unit mix was issued properly. And that's, I think, the crux of where I'm struggling. Your eyes make it seem as if maybe my analysis

is off. I don't

know if I'm misunderstanding.

Should I not Well, you're saying it's incredulous that the permit was issued. That's one stage that the permit was issued. Then we're also talking about the end, five years later, when the job was signed off. It was not signed. The accusations are that it was not built according to the approved plans.

I'm just about it seems to me like the permit for a four unit legalization was signed off in 2016, right? Correct. And so maybe I'm misunderstanding here. Is it such that the work did not does that mean that the work for a four unit building had to be completed then, or it could be started then and completed later? GREGORY That was the end of it. That was when the work was

supposed to be completed. The permit was initially

Right. And filed so if for the work was completed then, and then forty five days later, we've got a floating staircase that is magically that's where I'm saying that's the crux of where I cannot I am incredulous that that 2016 legalization was signed off on correctly. That's what I'm struggling with.

We have people in the queue, but I do have a question. I mean, so there's, assuming that DBI inspectors are doing their job, and that the fire inspectors are doing their job, They're looking in 2016, and multiple times, they're saying there's four units there. MLS, I mean, when this thing is listed, real estate industry says this is a single family home. A few months, a couple a month and a half later. Is that kind of what we think has happened here?

We don't

I guess my point is, like, you all, city staff have nothing to do with what a private transaction, what people are saying is there. We know there's essentially a single family home there now in 2026. We think, if we trust multiple inspectors from different city departments going out in 2016, there were four units. But there's not necessarily I mean, maybe someone did an insane amount of unauthorized work in a month and a half to get this thing closer to being a single family home, and the prior owner bought something that maybe wasn't, didn't feel exactly like four units, or maybe didn't feel exactly like one unit either. And then there's more unauthorized work that happens sort of while that prior property owner owns it.

I mean, you can come up with narratives about what has happened here that don't require, you know, some huge mistake by city staff in 2016, right? My there's some nodding going on over there. All right. Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you, President. I just wanted to make a few points. It is we've received a lot of information. And nevertheless, this is pretty straightforward to me. I think that this is not the only area of the code where somebody who purchases a property is then responsible for the compliance.

When you purchase the property, you usually although in a hot real estate market, you skip that step. There is an inspection. And you purchase the electrical, the plumbing, the sewer, everything that, you know, is touched by our building and planning codes. That then becomes your legal responsibility, which is why, under California law, it is required before a broker signs off on the transfer of the deed that there be a 3R report pulled, which there was in this case. So regardless of whether the listing said that or the other, that three R report that says four units was included in the sale of this property, and the broker who oversaw and stamped this transaction had to vouch that the legal requirements for a transfer of title under California law were met.

And that included the 3R report that said it is a four unit property. So I just want to point out a couple other things. Last year, this board passed legislation that I authored dealing

with

UTUs, with the legalization of UTUs. We clarified, because under our rent controlled laws, UTUs are rent controlled. And we treat them as units, regardless of whether they're unpermitted or permitted. It is clear to me that these units were permitted. But even if they weren't because there's been this overwriting conjecture even if they weren't, we have legislation that deals with how we treat these things.

And we treat them as units. We are required to deal with them a certain way. Two years ago, we actually before this current board, but we also passed legislation that I also authored dealing with unpermitted units and a path forward for folks who did not know that they were unpermitted when they purchased them, and allowed a path for incorporating those units into the principal home. So there is a path for doing that, but that was not that's not what is in front of us today. What is in front of us today is overturning the planning commission's determination.

And that has a standard, which I think that the current appellant has not met as far as I'm concerned, because I don't see any evidence. I've heard questions. I've heard, some conjecture about city staff acting one way or another. There's no question in my mind that there was a bad actor here, a developer who merged four units illegally and turned it into a single family home. And I can understand that a family wants a single family home in North Beach.

I will also point out that we have an obligation under the state law now to deliver 84,000 units of housing over the next eight years. And this policy decision will have an effect on that. And it's not one that I want to participate in. I will also note that we have zoning for a reason. So twothree of our housing stock in San Francisco actually is single family homes.

It is not North Beach. And I understand why somebody would want to have a single family home in North Beach, which is a very dense area. That's not how we have made these decisions. And we just famously went through a very arduous process to revisit those issues. But it was done deliberately and with lots of study and interaction with the public.

I am not ready to change the policy of the city and county of San Francisco when it comes to code compliance on these issues on illegal mergers of units, notwithstanding the hardship for this family. I understand where they're coming from. And I do wish that people had better training when they are purchasing their largest assets. I did spend a bunch of my career doing that homeownership training. And you have to read everything before you sign it.

It is a legal responsibility that you're taking when that happens. Nevertheless, this is still a very valuable property. I think that we should keep to the policy that we've always had. And I will be voting to uphold this decision.

Thank you, Supervisor Melgar. We will continue our deliberations. But the clerk has pointed out to me that there's a little I probably should say at this point that the public hearing has been held and is now filed. Supervisor Walton.

Thank you so much, President Mandelman. This is probably what I always think is the worst part of our job, to have to settle these disputes. I think when you talk about reading the fine print, probably one of the things I didn't know we actually were going to have to do serving on the board of supervisors. But, fact of the matter is that we are put in this predicament to make these decisions, and so I have to look at the facts that are presented, have to look at what's in front of me from all sides and I think a few things that I'm struggling with here is I don't know what else to do when the city assessor defines as four units, when the planning department defines as four units, when the San Francisco fire department defines as four units, and then when I see that we would lose not just a net loss of two units but very, very dear and important for what I see is also a net loss of two rent control units. That's a hard pill to swallow to not have to go with the decision of what the department puts in front of us.

And then, I think that I definitely sympathize with anyone who is put in a position to make a purchase of this size and have to not be able to move forward on some of the things that they want to do. But most certainly, when I hear from the property owner that the one thing they did know is that this was listed as a multi unit home at the

time of

purchase that's another thing that aligns with everything that planning is presented before us along with all the bodies that make decisions about how we designate something as to be and in this case to be four units. But I do share issues with Supervisor Sherrill in terms of going after violators and bad actors. That's why I asked the question about what investigation is going on and what is happening in that case. But, like Supervisor Melgar, I can't see why I would not support what planning is put before us, particularly because of the fact of the matter of we're allowing these folks to make these assessments for so many different reasons. And not just the planning department, the city assessor, the fire department.

For me, there's no way with what's presented in front of me I can go against that decision.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton. Supervisor Sauter, is this your wrap up? Because I do have questions and Okay. Should I Okay. I do have, I guess, a couple questions for the appellants, if they could come back up.

And I don't ask this to be mean. I mean, I have a lot of sympathy for your predicament, and I feel bad for you. So I want to start by that. I think people are saying unkind things about you or not doing their cause any great service. But, and not to assume too much sophistication from you as buyers, but you, what did you think when you were buying this property, which is described by addresses, four different addresses in your title report would have shown that, 3R report would have shown that, and presumably your realtor had some kind of conversation with you about this.

And maybe it's hard to take yourself back to 2021 when you were making this decision, but what did you think was going on here?

I think it's a fair question, and I appreciate the respectful opening. I think the reality of this case is that we did know, which is why I owned it openly. I also have the pleasure of now being on the record with the Chronicles calling myself a numb nut, which is unfortunate for me. I own it because I think accountability matters. And we are first time homebuyers.

As someone pointed out, we're not from generational wealth. That does not exclude us, though, from participating in lawful behavior and abiding by rules, which is why we've proposed a solution that we think is feasible and proportional, which is not to maintain a single family home. Nowhere, not once, have we ever asked for that. What went through our minds when we found this home was a home that we thought was too good to be true. Turns out that's right.

Didn't to say we didn't know, I believe, is doing a disservice to your question. And that is it was pointed out to us. We did get the 3R report. And what it said at the bottom was, the zoning or something may have changed. Please call the planning department or look into city records, which is what our real estate agent did. And when those records were pulled, they were very conflicting. And so the reason I used the words we knew it was a multiunit property, not we knew it was a four unit property, is because it wasn't clear based on city records themselves. And so we did know. That's what I'm taking accountability for.

And you thought somebody else has lived in this

Absolutely. There's

not been a problem for them.

And to be fair, those two former owners were both, at the time, general counsel at Twitter and Google. And I am not that sophisticated to your I am a numb nut.

Right. Okay. So then, if we could talk a little bit about kind of the proposal that you've put forward as sort of the path to legalization. And again, I'm not asking this to be mean, but what is the square footage of your home that you're living in now?

I should have brought my notes up with me, but it is north of 3,000 square feet, and the lot size is south of 2,000 square feet.

And the proposal is for a new approximately four forty square foot studio dwelling. And do you know what the square footage of the prior units was?

I roughly know that they were one was from the proposal sorry, excuse me, the proposal from Peter Iskander, the plans on That's

the 2016, what was I'm assuming those are like 1,000 square footy kind of units?

One was The architect sub

wants to jump in.

One was sub 400. I believe it was three fifty ish. One was the four forty, which is why we were proposing to reinstate that unit as the path of least resistance for our family. I don't recall the sizes of the other, but I think that they were approximately sized, a duplex style, I believe. And so when we were going to plan and part of our new knowledge now is how the system and the process works.

At no point after filing this the CUA on request of the planning department was there an opportunity for us to amend the plan, which is why I tried to share today that we're very open to a reasonable proportional solution. Our biggest goal here is to remain in our home. And we are more than happy to reinstate a unit. We're comfortable with understanding what size, like exploring what size that unit is. We're exploring we're open to exploring more than than one additional unit.

But the circumstances are that a four unit reinstatement, even the the units that were unauthorized previously, those two, which to be on the record, I'm not denying the existence of the humans that lived in that building. And we've talked with some of them, one of which is very who is still our neighbor, and she's incredibly supportive of us and understands the situation. But those units were incredibly undersized according to today's standards for what is acceptable within a home, which is why I continue to report to point to the three ms density for the lot size, which, again, is under three units at this point. So we're comfortable exploring anything. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. I will relieve you. You can sit back down. So, you know, and I do I think these homeowners are sympathetic.

I think it was not a great decision to purchase a property that, you know, and I think it is important, pretty important for the city to stick by the precedent that it is not a good idea, buyers in San Francisco, to be purchasing properties that purport to be fewer units than what is represented in the documentation for those properties. If we are going to give our rent controlled unit protection legislation that has been adopted over, you know, various periods, but including the work that was done, you know, around family zoning, like that's going to lose a lot of its effectiveness if it becomes clear that the city is willing to legalize if you wait ten years. That's just well, it's going to be a big starter for the loss of, for the, I guess, accelerated loss of rent controlled units. And the fact that, you know, developers and realtors, not all of them, but that some of them look for opportunities to make money, and that one way to make money is to sort of do things that are not plainly allowed or quite disallowed by the law, but, you know, count on the city not catching it, and the magic of capitalism to ensure that everybody except the people who've been evicted prosper from these transactions.

Like, there's incredible power in that sort of economic incentive to do things that are not legal. And so that puts the Planning Commission, and the Planning Department, and the Board of Appeals, and us, and staff all in this unpleasant position of having to do unkind things to individual property owners because we're trying to hold back, to the extent we can, a flood of more evictions than we've seen and more displacement than we've seen. And as, you know, as I think sympathetic as this family is, I think if we lined up, you know, all the families and households, not just in North Beach, but in my district certainly, and other districts that have seen North their homes lost through illegal mergers and various means that either skirt the law or violate the law, those would be pretty compelling stories as well. So I also I don't know what the right solution here in balancing of the equities. I don't think this proposal comes close to what we need to do to preserve the idea that you can't just get rid of rent controlled units and then solve it a few years down the road with addition of a small unit that may or may not get rented out any time soon.

I think there has to be something more. So for me, I'm another vote for approving the denial.

With that, Supervisor Sauter. Thank you, President Manelman. I did have a few more questions for the appellant and probably the architect, if they want to come back up. So the conditional use that is before us is asking for permission to add one new unit of housing, takes it to two authorized units of housing, which is the most it's the same amount of authorized units of housing this site has had. But the rejection, again, kind of sends us down this path, presumably, where you're required to take it to four units of housing.

Can you tell us, you know, both maybe from the appellant financial family perspective and the physical architectural perspective, is that possible? Could you do four units of housing here?

It is possible. And we illustrated plans that show four units. And they match fairly closely the original developers' approved plans. And so each is about or three of them are about 400 square feet, four forty, we could look up the numbers, they're studios. And then, it would be a fourth that is a bit larger.

It's quite different than the building is physically because of the two means of egress required for a building with three units or more. So we'd have to do fire rated corridor and staircases. And the one staircase in the rear does not meet code from a height perspective, and the steps are uneven and so forth. So that one would need to be rebuilt. The one at the front is completely open to the upper three stories.

And, so that would have to be completely reconstructed. So, it's a major overhaul of the building physically. It would require life safety systems to be upgraded. The wiring is not succinct, does not go to individual units as laid out by the developer. So it's a whole overhaul of the building, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, staircases, walls and things like this, as well as four kitchens. How much that costs is somewhere in the range of maybe $800 per square foot or something like this. It's probably $2,000,000 or something like this, maybe more. There's another path of three units that probably less invasive and might yield something where a family of their size could stay, I don't know. Does that answer your question or do you have?

Yeah, thank you. Maybe for the appellant, what does going down a path of four units mean for you? And then how would that compare to not two, which is what you're asking for, but maybe a compromise at three?

Thank you, Steven. Four units means a forced displacement of our family. Again, pointing to the RM1 density, the units that would be produced with a four unit layout would not be sufficient to house our family. I recognize that the financial burden of this is not a well received argument, and so I won't make that. It is meaningful to my family.

But the most important and most meaningful impact to our family is if we return to the four unit configuration, either that were approved by these twenty thirteen plans or some other additional configuration that we have worked very hard to try to make, simply will not house a family of four. My husband and I both work from home. We have two young, growing children, and we have very imminently an elderly disabled parent that will be moving in with us. And so none of the units produced in a four unit plan would be able to allow our family to stay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I want to organize my thoughts and then maybe make a motion for folks to consider. And I do want to address some of the concerns around setting a precedent. We don't want legal mergers like this to be forgiven or incentivized, and we don't want to set a precedent. But I would argue the time to set a precedent against this is fifteen years ago when there was a known bad actor in the neighborhood who was the owner. As we've discussed today, I do have concerns about the inspection history of this property that allowed the illegal merger to slip through the city's hands for the past ten plus years until it was brought to the attention by an anonymous complaint from a neighbor.

And I have concerns about the validity of a situation where, within forty five days in 2016, we went from a DBI signing of a certificate of final completion for a supposed four unit remodel to the house being listed for sale as a single family home. And I don't believe it's physically possible to convert a four unit building in the matter of forty five days. Either the developer found a loophole in the permitting process that desperately needs to be closed, or the inspections were not conducted in the manner they were supposed to be. I also understand there were follow-up permits issued by DBI while the home was listed as a single family home in 2017, and I have questions about that. And I would rather see us focus our efforts on fixing those gaps in the city's processes.

I think it's also important that I am not suggesting, and I don't believe anyone's suggesting that the appellant bear no responsibility. And what we're considering today is permission for them to be required to add new housing. This is something that has consumed years of their time, tremendous financial costs. And regardless if you think this is entirely fair or it is too burdensome, no one can look at the situation and think that we are letting folks off without intense scrutiny and costs or that we are incentivizing or setting a precedent here. We can't stop illegal mergers that have already happened, but we can prevent them from happening in the future.

And I believe that this board is doing that through the Tenants Protection Ordinance, DBI corruption reforms, through permanent SF changes, will connect photos and videos to inspection records, which we don't have at the moment. And I'm also in conversations with DBI, city attorney and rent board, to look into more options to hold developers accountable who do mergers like this. The irony is that by hoping for hypothetical future tenants, we are likely displacing the family living there right now, a family of four. And I believe that a denial will result in this property being stuck in limbo for years to come. Someday, maybe, four studio apartments might be built.

Four people might live there. And by the way, we've learned today there's no requirement for those four units to be rented out, there's no requirement around who lives in those four units. I think, as discussed today, it is very fair that the appellant should have been more careful. They should have done more due diligence. I believe they need to take responsibility, but do I believe that a lack of expertise in real estate should subject a family to being permanently displaced from their home and financially drained because we think they can afford it?

I don't. I do think the family and the appellants before us are taking responsibility. Again, they're asking for permission to add more housing. They could have come to us with a C application to keep their home as is, to not add additional units, but they chose this path instead. And I think their city should bear some responsibility as well for not reviewing the merger a decade ago, not taking this bad actor seriously enough.

So, I am interested in an outcome here that keeps this family in their home, adds additional housing, and lets us move past this, and direct our resources towards improving the building inspection process and the compliance process for bad developers. So what I'm proposing is rejecting today's appeal, that's the appeal that would add one new housing unit, and to instead urge the recommendation of two additional new units. This is important because this would bring the property to three authorized units. Three authorized units is a result of one net new authorized unit of housing here. And I think this means that the family can stay in their current home as well.

So that is my proposal, and squaring that up, that means that I would like to move item 32, approving the Planning Commission decision, de facto denying the conditional use authorization. I'd like to move, also move item 34, to direct the clerk of the board to prepare findings in support of this decision. I would like those findings to include a statement that a three unit project may be desirable at this site, if feasible and properly designed, and urge the Planning Department and Commission to thoroughly review a future application for such a project if one is submitted. Finally, I'd like to move to Table Item Number 33. Thank you.

Supervisor Sauter has made a motion. Is there a second? It has been seconded by Supervisor Cheryl, Supervisor Chan.

My apologies. I just want a clarification of the motion, please. Is the motion to move forward with approving item number 32, tabling 33, and also move forward and approving 34?

The motion would approve the denial. That is 32, I believe. It would table item 33, and it would direct the preparation of findings wherein the board would express openness to a three unit solution rather than a four unit. Am I stating that correctly, Supervisor Sauter? That appears to be the motion.

And in that event, if I understand it correctly, because the conditional use authorization and please, department, correct me if I'm wrong is that the conditional use authorization at the moment is a de facto denial of the CU. And therefore, by moving forward and approving the motion to approve the decisions of the planning department, which is a de facto denial, you are basically denying the appellant.

Okay. Yes, that is correct.

Well, go ahead. Yes.

Yes. Thank you,

Fresno Speak up, staff.

Veronica Flores, Applying Department staff. Supervisor Chan, that is correct. If this body does not approve the CU, then we still have the violation on hand. And then the appellant has the two paths to move forward, either legalize as is this is the application that's in front of you right now Two, they can abate the violation by legalizing the four units. We do have a permit on file for such proposal, but those are the two primary paths.

But as Supervisor Soder mentioned, perhaps there's another path on hand of adding having a total of three units on the property instead of the four legal units here. So if you do not grant the CU today, the appellant still needs to abate the violation in their the path that they choose.

And to add that if they were want to add for a total of three units, they still have to go back to planning commission for approval of the merger of two units.

So, if I understand correctly, shall we support supervisor sowder's motion today? What it leaves to for the occupants of this space and for the appellant is then to go back to the drawing board with three sounds like three different options. A CU to to apply another CU, and that within that CU has three different options. One is to apply for a CU that it remains as one single family home units, as it currently is, or a CU for potentially three units, which is then they convert the existing single family home into two units, plus a four fifty square footage of a ADU, or that the third CU, it will be then for them to convert back to the four units.

They wouldn't need a CU if to convert back to four units. That would just to abate the complaints. But if they want to convert it to three units, then they will need to go back to planning commissions.

Okay, understood. Well, in that case, then thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

I mean, the wrinkle of Supervisor Sauter's proposal is just this board I mean, whether I don't think there are the votes on the board to disapprove the Planning Commission's action. So the question for this board is, do we simply affirm the Planning Commission's action, in which case the the appellant, needs to go back either needs to abate the violation by recreating four units or start exploring other options with the planning department and the planning commission. The slight variation in Supervisor Sauder's motion is to have us saying that perhaps three units would be enough to abate the violation. Not telling anybody what to do, because we can't, I don't think, but suggesting that, for example, if a appeal of a CU for a three unit were to come back to this board, this board might be inclined to support the three unit solution or answer. Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you. That is what I wanted to clarify on a procedural issue, because it is one motion to deny the conditional use authorization and then to direct the staff to amend the findings. And I'm not sure. I mean, regardless of whether these other findings are supportable, because we are, in fact, contradicting, I think, the general plan. But procedurally, if we did not agree with that second part of the motion, would we then have to make a new motion?

Or can those two items be voted on separately?

Typically, Supervisor Melgar, through the president, this item is voted on as a package. However, a supervisor could

Ask to have the elements separate.

Sever the question and vote on the matter separately.

GREGORY Alternatively

GREGORY

I would ask the deputy city attorney if a separate vote outcome on either motion becomes problematic for the whole?

I've never seen this before, so.

Deputy City Attorney Brad Ressi. Expect both of these motions require six votes to be approved. If they were separated and the motion to approve the findings were did not obtain six votes, then I think someone else would need to make another motion that's different. But there needs to be findings in this case. Normally, when the Planning Commission's decision is approved, it's not overturned by the board. We don't need findings, but in this situation, because there are no findings from the Planning Commission, because of de facto approval or de facto denial, the board needs to make findings so that if this matter were litigated, there's a decision with actual findings.

But it is possible for this board I mean, we could have a five-five, right?

That's correct. Today, you could have a five-five vote. And I would also add that the findings document, when it comes back the finding document has to come back to the board for approval. And at that point, the board could amend it to remove language that it doesn't like at that time.

Mr. President just to throw another wrench in this item 33 it requires an eight vote threshold. Thirty two and thirty four are six vote threshold.

Right.

So there's lots of ways this could move forward. Someone could vote to someone could make a motion to could ask to divide the question and have us voting separately on these three different things and figure out where we land on that. There's the possibility of, if Supervisor Sauder's motion does not pass, someone else could make another motion to deny the for example, to deny the appeal without the change, without the specific direction around findings, other than to prepare findings, which also might not have a majority. So, Supervisor Walton. So, just real quick, typically,

33 would accompany 34, right? We wouldn't typically approve and then have Yeah, normally you wouldn't We wouldn't typically support planning and then have Yeah. Then, my last question, supporting his current Supervisor Sauter's current motion could possibly allow for the removal of at least one unit. I want to make sure we're clear on that. It actually would have to. If

I mean, not directing it. The Supervisor Sauter's motion doesn't direct anybody to do anything, but does say that this Board is kind of open to the possibility of a We

would be maybe saying we're open today.

Yeah. That is what would be happening. Supervisor Chan.

Yeah, I'm here. I

want to, again, once clarify is that by approving item 32, tabling 33, which the 33 requires the eight vote to table, and what Supervisor Souter and I need clarification on this is then on item 34, which is the preparation of finding, is now inclusive of language directing or urging the planning department to identify or pre like authorizing the potential approval of a conditional use authorization for a three units. That is which I am in disagreement with. And so, I just want to be on the record and to be clear about where I am. Today, I am prepared to vote in support of item 32, which affirm the de facto denial by the Planning Commission. I am also ready to vote tabling item 33, which then will be tabling in the rejection of the de facto denial.

I will not be in supportive of item 34 with the amendments proposed by Supervisor Sauter. However, I am prepared to vote in support of Item 34 as it currently stands. Because it's just simply like preparation I of actually that haven't indicates specifically how we want to I relate it to the CU. But maybe I'm incorrect, and this is why I'm trying to find clarification about item 34.

I am also confused because my little script here says that the approval of the de facto denial of the CU is a tells you how to approve. It tells you how to decide. I mean, nothing I do up here is done without heavy scripting. So, you know, I need that. But the, the, the formula for approval of the de facto denial of the CU here, as provided in my script, is to approve item number 32 and table items thirty three and thirty four. What I'm hearing in real time, and the city attorney gets to do this to me because, you know, that's fine, but that the city attorney would be recommending the preparation of findings in any event.

Deputy City Attorney Brad Dressy, yes, that's correct. I did not review your script,

so You have did I not. I have nothing to That's do with not I would not expect you to. It would not be a good use of our city attorney's time.

Yes. Because there are no findings from below Yeah. If the board is going to uphold the denial, it should adopt findings. Yeah. I would say if there is a tie vote on Supervisor Sauder's motion that

Yeah, it is feels like we might be moving in that direction.

Eric I would recommend I think findings are necessary here. So the board needs to reach an agreement on some form of direction to the clerk to provide findings. That Why is that? Because there needs to be a basis for this decision in case it's ever challenged in the future, so that there's a record to rely on.

The record of the planning staff's presentations to the planning commission would not be that?

I mean, that could be part of the record in the end, but it would be better, I think, advisable for the body to have its own facts and laws supporting its decision.

But if this body can't reach a decision because we're deadlocked

This is my recommendation.

So, you have So, to we don't have

to All take

right. Thank you. Supervisor Melgar.

Just procedurally, since given what the advice has been by our deputy city attorney, could we possibly sever the question and vote on the motion as has been posed by Supervisor Sauter for thirty four first, because it needs a six vote threshold. And if that is not necessarily, then we move on to your script, has thirty two and thirty four being voted on together and tabling 33.

If that is the will of the board through the president to take the vote in that order, it could be done.

That could be a solution. Happy to do it that way unless somebody really hates it. Supervisor Walton.