[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6599589,"mediaKeyId","3006189-d33bc6f9aa06b99b934f89c37ea7068b","parentId",3006189,"title","Supervisors hold broad hearing on DOJ reforms, crisis intervention training and proposed Tasers for SFPD","audioSeconds",3882,"startMs",3334000,"endMs",7216000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3006189-d33bc6f9aa06b99b934f89c37ea7068b&start=3334&end=7216","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3006189-d33bc6f9aa06b99b934f89c37ea7068b/thumbnail_3334000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6599589/San-Francisco-County/California/Supervisors-hold-broad-hearing-on-DOJ-reforms-crisis-intervention-training-and-proposed-Tasers-for-SFPD","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6599589-e075cd0772ceee781cceeed97e3b6245/orig.mp4?Expires=1771222445&Signature=OYOOyMS8DLVdvO1aM954MZ0pU73kaS5-p0HtM6eo6XnJDnJe0H7hcs1aawtDXdal1CmM9CWeeXO5gw6Em9r29WSQ~8~eWvX4~MJd7X1Cqlu1j~kjO0hn4yPA8FxwT-uOcj3eGml5Mf55nzFkJO5AqCaC-C2rX1YJu~0cMZ7iG1g5HVrmo6xw6N2ScgzVmLi8YUszM~r3xe-PNmOxJ3P~dNi4HuSKixnn-bghbMUPRaug1zZ3TYz5ja2ZLl4t-lsN44iuLUtpoiV-sb-RKLcdSrwPh1c2ZdBO~L~OYS0d6Q-UPnG4lKa0rxbdX2HBa9IxhRBMCZPcx0CIbVk8qUSPHA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Sanfrancisco Government tv","date","2025-04-16T04:23:00Z","article","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors held a committee‑of‑the‑whole hearing on the Department of Justice collaborative reform initiative and San Francisco Police Department progress on the DOJ’s recommendations, with an extended public discussion of crisis intervention team (CIT) training and the police commission’s pending consideration of electronic control weapons (commonly known as Tasers).

Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer convened the session and said the Justice Department’s decision to scale back federal monitoring makes local transparency and continued implementation — not retreat — essential. “We are committed to every one of the 272 recommendations,” Chief Bill Scott told the board. He said he would continue implementation work even though the Justice Department concluded its formal oversight phase.

Status and implementation

Chief Scott reported that the department had submitted 81 recommendation packages for DOJ review; that number reflects packages the department considers complete for DOJ evaluation though he emphasized that submitted “completions” sometimes require ongoing training and follow‑up. Scott said workstreams include policy changes, data collection and technological upgrades, training and the establishment of an ongoing reporting process to provide independent public progress reports.

Training and CIT

Supervisors and community advocates pressed the department about the scale and speed of CIT training. Scott said 931 officers had received a short-form CIT/field‑tactics module (the transcript later corrected the short course to 20 hours) and 737 officers had completed a 40‑hour CIT curriculum; he described a staged rollout that prioritized patrol officers in high‑need neighborhoods such as the Tenderloin. Supervisors asked about the dispatch protocols that trigger CIT responses and whether clinicians from the Department of Public Health are responding alongside officers. Chief Scott said clinicians are participating on some calls and that the department is still formalizing protocols and staffing the clinical positions that will co‑respond with officers.

Independent data analysis and outside researchers

Supervisors underscored the need for independent academic analysis to interpret use‑of‑force data, pointing to disparities in traffic stops, searches and use of force. Scott said an MOU with an academic partner is under review and awaiting finalization; he said some items are with the city attorney’s office for legal review. Several speakers from civil‑rights and community organizations told the board outside academic evaluation was essential to determining whether disparities reflect bias or other factors.

Public debate over Tasers (electronic control devices)

The hearing devoted substantial public comment to the police commission’s pending October vote on authorizing electronic control weapons for SFPD use. The board heard many neighborhood residents, civil‑rights groups and professional organizations urge the city to pause on ECW adoption until the department completes reforms, expands CIT coverage and installs the data and training oversight systems the DOJ recommended. Speakers described national evidence of ECW injuries and deaths, cited litigation costs in other jurisdictions and warned of subjective application of manufacturer warnings (for example, people who are pregnant, elderly or on certain medications).

Organizational advocates

- Coalition on Homelessness: said people living outdoors have disproportionate policing contact and are over‑represented in fatal officer‑involved incidents.
- San Franciscans for Police Accountability and the Bar Association of San Francisco: urged delaying ECW deployment and prioritized oversight, independent academic review, and technology investments for evidence collection and analysis.

Outcome and next steps

No board vote was required; the hearing concluded and the matter was filed. Chief Scott and supervisors committed to continued implementation of DOJ recommendations, to finalizing the academic MOU and to creating a local oversight and reporting mechanism to replace the DOJ’s review functions. Supervisors asked for an updated timeline, detailed cost estimates and a clearer plan for how many officers will need further training and when the department will reach full coverage.

Who spoke (selected)

- Chief Bill Scott — Chief of Police, San Francisco Police Department
- Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer — Board member who led remarks on the item
- Supervisor Catherine S. Cohen — Sponsor of the hearing (questioning lead)
- Jennifer — Coalition on Homelessness (public comment)
- Jackie Barshack — San Franciscans for Police Accountability (public comment)
- Julie Tron — Bar Association of San Francisco (public comment)

Clarifying details

- Reported DOJ recommendations: 272 total (finding from DOJ report); Chief Scott indicated 81 recommendation packages had been submitted by SFPD for DOJ review.
- Training counts cited by the chief during the hearing: 931 officers on a short-form CIT/field tactics module; 737 officers on a longer 40‑hour CIT curriculum (department counts in transcript).

Authorities

- U.S. Department of Justice collaborative reform initiative (CRI) — final report and recommendations to SFPD (2016)
- SFPD Department General Orders and use‑of‑force policies (internal departmental authorities)
- Police Commission (local oversight body)

Provenance

- topicintro: transcript block reading item 28: “Item 28 is a hearing … the blue ribbon panel on transparency, accountability, and fairness in law enforcement.” (transcript time ~5534.97)
- topicfinish: transcript block concluding the item: “This hearing has been held and is now filed.” (transcript time ~11016.835)

Community relevance

- Geographies: Citywide (San Francisco), with operational focus on neighborhoods such as the Tenderloin and Mission where CIT rollouts were prioritized.
- Impact groups: People experiencing homelessness, people in mental‑health crisis, communities of color, SFPD personnel and neighborhood residents.

Meeting context

- Engagement level: High — the hearing lasted multiple hours, included extended public comment from community organizations and legal groups, and detailed exchanges between supervisors and the chief.
- Implementation risk: Medium–high — the department’s reforms require sustained funding, training, technology upgrades and independent evaluation; the DOJ’s decision to conclude formal oversight places more responsibility locally for independent review.

Searchable tags

[\"SFPD\",\"DOJ reform\",\"CIT training\",\"taser debate\",\"use of force\",\"police oversight\"]","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Sanfrancisco Government tv - 150640920009/26/17 - Apr 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Supervisors convened a committee‑of‑the‑whole hearing for an update on the Department of Justice collaborative reform work with San Francisco Police Department, and to examine progress on crisis intervention training and data collection. Chief Bill Scott told supervisors the department remains committed to the DOJ recommendations even though the federal oversight phase is concluding.","taxTitle","San Francisco County, California","taxId",2862,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6599584,"1 Oak Settlement: developer cedes parcels; board accepts EIR after negotiated community benefits and interim parking controls",4047,3789000,7836000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3006189-d33bc6f9aa06b99b934f89c37ea7068b&start=3789&end=7836","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3006189-d33bc6f9aa06b99b934f89c37ea7068b/thumbnail_3789000.jpg","/articles/6599584/San-Francisco-County/California/1-Oak-Settlement-developer-cedes-parcels-board-accepts-EIR-after-negotiated-community-benefits-and-interim-parking-controls","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6599584-0e5e0b21ce62ced5dcb0e413c375ad41/orig.mp4?Expires=1771222445&Signature=FA727xC5wpVVKvpzD6C8VUKIzZ3sI-6gMWyLQD3xWSsV64Ft6CWCk~PDwFy7ktOA4HF-kdLHdV6cQCwevT7FhAAftVriLhg2xcKgj1ikjEEJouPdZpcRmIl2kRdcYKfcXx0Ta566XQEpfrNjPwJ~t1D1~lSCiYg5hs6AvmJ9LgBfVEXk3tKRKF5nRkDqUy3ry35KX~BFAXdnRdHp~x76FAzLZZ9TM1FXr~Hl1XCi5cT3p4m6b3M8-7ztJst2Zk8gr8FnOpoWnaWALKasQ24NlvVBaoyZgxYgvKOCuxDFbmGDc6z9Sz7Ts~CgXQDRL8bYp5f1EDsR80J9vUOn9G9Axg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved the Planning Commission’s certification of the final environmental impact report (FEIR) for the 1 Oak Street project after the parties negotiated a settlement that withdrew an outstanding appeal and produced additional community benefits.

President London Breed described the negotiated agreement as a “win‑win” that preserves a major private development while unlocking opportunities to create affordable housing on nearby city‑controlled parcels. The developer agreed to cede development rights for two adjacent parcels (identified at the hearing as parcels R and S) to enable a coordinated financing and housing plan in partnership with the Mayor’s Office of Housing and community stakeholders.

Affordable housing and neighborhood commitments

Under the settlement, the city and the developer will pursue financing to produce an estimated 100 on‑site and off‑site affordable units across the affected parcels. Among the commitments described at the hearing:

- A roughly 100% transitional‑age‑youth affordable building is proposed for one of the parcels; that building could include a childcare center at ground level.
- Other parcels will include family workforce housing with two‑ and three‑bedroom below‑market units and affordable retail or community space intended for local small businesses or nonprofits.
- The Mayor’s Office of Housing will explore tax‑credit and other financing options to make the off‑site units feasible.
- Where applicable, neighborhood preference for affordable units will be applied so that a percentage of new units are prioritized for local residents (the board cited a 40% neighborhood preference framework for certain projects in the discussion).

Planning and policy changes

Board President Breed said the planning department committed to several studies and procedural adjustments for future EIRs:

- A study of transit‑network company (TNC) — Uber/Lyft — and e‑commerce delivery impacts on street congestion and curb use, and a plan for integrating such impacts into future environmental reviews.
- A revised approach to measuring vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for local projects, with a view to making VMT methodology more robust and San Francisco‑specific rather than relying on broader regional thresholds.
- A plan to create a more rigorous matrix to study wind impacts on cyclists for future EIRs.

Vote and procedural history

Appellant Jason Henderson told the board the settlement addressed key community concerns about cumulative impacts in the Market‑Octavia hub and praised the interim parking controls. Supervisor Peskin and Supervisor Kim, who co‑sponsored interim controls, were thanked for their roles.

Supervisor Peskin moved to affirm the Commission’s certification of the FEIR (Item 21) and to table the other motions (Items 22 and 23) tied to the appeal. The board approved the motion unanimously by roll call (11–0).

What’s next

President Breed said the planning department will return with specific language and timelines for the studies it committed to — including the TNC review, VMT refinements and wind‑impact matrix — and that the Mayor’s Office of Housing will work with the developer and city finance staff on the off‑site affordable housing financing plan. The board also moved interim legislation removing the conditional use option for additional parking in the Market‑Octavia hub for new developments; projects already in the pipeline were grandfathered.

Who spoke (selected)

- London Breed — President, Board of Supervisors
- Jason Henderson — Appellant and neighborhood representative (appeal withdrawn)
- Lou Vasquez / BUILD Inc. — developer representative (acknowledged in remarks)
- Supervisor Aaron Peskin — Board member who moved the item
- Supervisor Jane Kim — Board member who cosponsored interim parking controls

Clarifying details

- Vote: Item 21 (affirm FEIR) approved unanimously, 11–0.
- Affordable housing estimate: planning and housing office committed to pursue financing for approximately 100 on‑ and off‑site units (exact final count and AMI tiers to be established in subsequent financing and entitlements).
- Interim parking controls: proposed ordinance to remove conditional use option for additional parking in Market‑Octavia, with projects already in pipeline grandfathered; planning department to return with language and committee schedule.

Authorities

- California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) — FEIR certification framework (applied by the Planning Commission)
- City planning and land‑use regulations (Market‑Octavia Plan referenced in testimony)

Provenance

- topicintro: transcript block introducing items 20–23 (hearing on the 1 Oak FEIR) (transcript time ~11089.024)
- topicfinish: transcript block recording the roll call and adoption (motion approved unanimously; transcript time ~13117.9)

Community relevance

- Geographies: Market‑Octavia hub, Van Ness/Market corridor and adjacent parcels R and S (Hayes Valley / Western Addition area)
- Impact groups: future residents, families seeking affordable housing, local small businesses, cyclists (wind study cited), transit riders and neighborhood stakeholders

Meeting context

- Engagement level: Multiple weeks of negotiation and a public appeal that was withdrawn; high public interest; informational and policy commitments made in the chamber
- Implementation risk: Medium; commitments require financing, planning approvals and inter‑departmental coordination (Mayor’s Office of Housing, Planning Department, City Attorney)

Searchable tags

[\"1 Oak\",\"Market Octavia\",\"off-site affordable housing\",\"VMT\",\"TNC impacts\",\"interim parking controls\"]","After an extended negotiation between neighborhood appellants and the developer, the Board of Supervisors affirmed the Planning Commission’s certification of the 1 Oak Street FEIR and recorded a negotiated package that reallocates development rights to enable off‑site affordable housing.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6599579,"Board amends planning code to clarify inclusionary housing fees and unit‑mix rules",5405,89000,5494000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3006189-d33bc6f9aa06b99b934f89c37ea7068b&start=89&end=5494","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3006189-d33bc6f9aa06b99b934f89c37ea7068b/thumbnail_89000.jpg","/articles/6599579/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-amends-planning-code-to-clarify-inclusionary-housing-fees-and-unitmix-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6599579-398628e52390ee5930e35b07a7b5b0f5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771222445&Signature=leghXyn74e4v2zMqTgSj6IWjXkpo19q1ooNzDl5fPEmjJ6x2M1XYViiF7GoGpfpFqWl3GfGnFz6jtBWiwQpf1~bL01KZibQIHZO9PMntbYcQe9ibDLryeSkIdWBrucPOQCjk7q9ZTKnR6vkvbdC9cUL3Vqc4xAnAf5WngWplY6mMaH2EZhuJoZVG8-maLI5DZzR9TtqHjsm6xZcwTclQWBW0sfwjYCD2BEcew1jAlAG1BzE-hiK9irPDE32mqW9ks5Hjvy6Zn0zaTbsjJwA52RbvQMiPyIJ3fftG05VYSmXrkOOMjD5GgJ-gOzhZfv7DjrwUUCciJVW2Vvr4Y5F6jg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday amended a proposed planning‑code ordinance that would revise the city’s inclusionary affordable housing fee schedule and require minimum dwelling‑unit mixes in most residential districts. The amendments were taken on first reading and passed unanimously.

Supervisor Ahsha Safaie introduced the item and handed the floor to Supervisor Jane Kim, who described two technical “cleanup” amendments. The first clarifies that higher levels of on‑site and off‑site affordable housing requirements in several planning areas (Eastern Neighborhoods Mission Planning Area, North of Market Residential SUD Subareas 1 & 2, and South of Market Neighborhood Community Commercial Transit District) would apply only to developments of 25 dwelling units or more. The second amendment struck prescriptive language that would have fixed AMI levels for rarely used 100% off‑site standalone affordable projects; the change was intended to give the city more flexibility for those unusual projects.

Supervisor Kim said the changes were meant to reduce inconsistency and to provide flexibility for off‑site, stand‑alone affordable housing projects. The amendments were moved by Supervisor Kim, seconded by Supervisor Safaie, and adopted without objection. On roll call the ordinance as amended passed first reading unanimously (11–0).

What this means: The ordinance proceeds to further readings and committee consideration, now as amended to limit the new heightened on‑site/off‑site requirements to projects of 25 units or more in the specifically named planning areas and to remove rigid AMI prescriptions for a rarely used development pathway.

Who spoke

- Supervisor Ahsha Safaie — introduced the item
- Supervisor Jane Kim — sponsor of technical amendments

Authorities

- Planning Code (proposed amendments) — revisions to inclusionary requirements and minimum unit mix

Clarifying details

- The amendments restrict heightened inclusionary requirements in named subareas to developments of 25 units or more.
- The amendment removed a prescriptive range of AMI tiers for the 100% off‑site, standalone affordable option to provide additional flexibility for such projects.

Provenance

- topicintro: reading of Item 1 and description of ordinance (transcript ~89.96–107.21)
- topicfinish: roll call adopting the ordinance as amended on first reading (transcript ~5463.645–5494.535)

Meeting context

- Engagement level: Item received multiple supervisor comments and passed first reading unanimously.

Searchable tags

[\"inclusionary housing\",\"planning code\",\"affordable housing\",\"inclusionary fee\"]","The Board unanimously approved on first reading amendments to a planning‑code ordinance that revises the city’s inclusionary affordable housing fee and unit‑mix requirements, clarifying applicability and removing prescriptive AMI tiers for uncommon off‑site projects.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6599593,"Board upholds Public Works revocation of 250 Post Street flower-vending permit",1887,3499000,5386000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3006189-d33bc6f9aa06b99b934f89c37ea7068b&start=3499&end=5386","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3006189-d33bc6f9aa06b99b934f89c37ea7068b/thumbnail_3499000.jpg","/articles/6599593/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-upholds-Public-Works-revocation-of-250-Post-Street-flower-vending-permit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6599593-32031e7a99e4b5e5eb4da1e2c3bd06a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771222445&Signature=oU4TcsSLCvmy0er8TZDe2U~Ys7Z4JC45fAiU~~0FMYWDqAwi8-t40lKy8kump9A7TLtCoSs8KZxavbNYYg78bv~YBv~NLWBsyimWG21n7l8fOyOwKyCoaAhs-M69m2HF7Z6K4pjdJhHOWCbp2Y7cPhiLcDpKp~RvpVL8H74FDm-B97b5k6xSeuIIofqKN4Op5hn~PaLrO-gOnrtm08hhhXxPtkdlUWt~gcenddn6BdOwa-FV-QAvHpt3u5z8Nkh72B7OdicVrRanowVFJGltvhQYVDrsqIh0jNGP4XW~jQeDuUw-M4d22Du5g3taBm85tcprh7Rfh33VemF9CS-luQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday upheld the Department of Public Works’ decision to revoke the flower vending permit for a stand at 250 Post Street, a sidewalk kiosk that has been associated with Union Square area flower sellers for decades.

The board voted 10–1 to approve the director of public works’ order to revoke the permit after hearing testimony from the department, the permit holder’s representative and neighborhood stakeholders. Supervisor Aaron Peskin moved to approve the revocation; Supervisor Sheehy cast the lone no vote.

The central factual dispute at the hearing was whether the kiosk had been “abandoned” under the Public Works Code’s requirements for flower stands. Public Works told the board it had photographic evidence showing the stand had been non-operational and in disrepair for more than a year. “A notice to repair … was issued on 09/01/2016,” Michael Lennon, speaking for Public Works, said. He cited violations of Director’s Order No. 175,880 and the operational minimums in section 2(g) of the street flower market rules, which require a permit holder to maintain “a minimum of 35 operating hours per week and 46 weeks per calendar year.”

The stand’s representative disputed the characterization of abandonment and described a long history of conflict with a neighboring property manager, including interrupted access to utilities and alleged interference with operations. He told the board the stand and family business trace back to the 1950s and asked the supervisors for “fair consideration of the facts.” “We have never abandoned this flower stand,” he said.

Union Square property owners and the Union Square Business Improvement District said the kiosk had become an eyesore and a source of litter and graffiti during long periods of closure. “In general, as the BID, our position with regard to flower stands is if they’re open and operational and teeming with flowers, they are a wonderful and incredible amenity,” Karen Flood, executive director of the BID, said. “Right now, sadly, it’s just blight.”

After supervisors weighed the photographic record and testimony, Peskin said he was “with a heavy heart” but concluded the code’s “use it or lose it” rule applied. He moved to approve Item 25, which affirms the director’s revocation order; the motion passed with Peskin, Ronan, Safaie, Tang, Yi, Breed, Cohen, Farrell, Feuer and Kim voting yes and Supervisor Sheehy voting no.

What this means: the permit holder must remove the street structure from the public right of way unless further legal action is taken. The department said its recommendation also included removal of the structure after revocation. The board did not modify the director’s order on conditions for reinstatement.

Background and context: San Francisco’s flower-stand rules are codified in the public works code (the street flower market provisions) and establish size, product and operating-hour restrictions for sidewalk flower vending locations. Public Works said those rules are also enforced through director’s orders and notice-to-repair processes. In recent years the number of long-standing, permitted flower stands around Union Square has declined, and remaining stands have increasingly faced pressure from changing retail patterns and disputes with building managers.

The board’s action leaves the revocation in place. The permit holder and other parties may pursue administrative or judicial remedies independent of the board’s action.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: Approve item 25, upholding Public Works’ order to revoke the permit at 250 Post Street.
- Mover: Supervisor Aaron Peskin.
- Second: Supervisor Norman Yee (record shows second present as part of roll call sequence).
- Outcome: Approved, 10–1 (Sheehy no).
- Key legal references: Director’s Order No. 175,880 (cited by Public Works); Public Works order 186054 (issued after hearing); Public Works Code (street flower market provisions), section 2(g) (operating-hour minimum); City charter referenced in testimony.

Who spoke (selected)

- Appellant (Harold, flower stand operator) — appellant and on-site operator (self-identified; represented the family business)
- Michael Lennon — Public Works representative
- Karen Flood — Executive Director, Union Square Business Improvement District (public comment in opposition to the appeal)
- Ted Plan — local real estate broker (public comment)
- Richard Lee — Cushman & Wakefield representative (public comment)
- Supervisor Aaron Peskin — Board member who moved the motion

Clarifying details

- Notice to repair No.: 171074841 (issued 09/01/2016), cited by Public Works in testimony.
- Operational standard cited: minimum 35 operating hours per week and 46 weeks per calendar year (Public Works director’s order language).
- Photographic evidence: Public Works described a set of still-frame photographs spanning roughly February 2016 through mid‑2017 showing repeated non-operation; the exact photo log was submitted to the department record.

Authorities

- Public Works Code — street flower market provisions (operational and maintenance standards)
- Director’s Order No. 175,880 — cited by Public Works in the revocation recommendation
- Public Works Order No. 186054 — the order issued following the hearing

Proper names

- Union Square Business Improvement District (organization)

Provenance

- topicintro: transcript block beginning “Items 24 through 27 comprise the hearing … 250 Post Street.” (transcript time ~3499.83)
- topicfinish: transcript block near the vote: “The motion is approved. Alright, madam clerk, can we go back to item number 1, please?” (transcript time ~5286.57)

Community relevance

- Geographies: Union Square/250 Post Street and surrounding retail corridor
- Impact groups: sidewalk vendors, small businesses, tourists/retail customers

Meeting context

- Engagement level: Full public hearing format with presentations by appellant and Public Works, several public commenters for and against; roughly two hours of hearing time for this item
- Implementation risk: Immediate — removal of the structure if no further administrative remedy pursued

Searchable tags

[\"flower vending\",\"Union Square\",\"Department of Public Works\",\"street vendors\",\"permit revocation\"]","After a two-hour hearing, the Board of Supervisors approved the Department of Public Works' recommendation to revoke the long-standing flower vending permit for 250 Post Street, finding the stand failed to meet required operating and maintenance rules. The vote was 10–1.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Supervisors hold broad hearing on DOJ reforms, crisis intervention training and proposed Tasers for SFPD

1 Oak Settlement: developer cedes parcels; board accepts EIR after negotiated community benefits and interim parking controls

Board amends planning code to clarify inclusionary housing fees and unit‑mix rules

Board upholds Public Works revocation of 250 Post Street flower-vending permit