Supervisors debate $1.18 million plan to make Board chamber accessible; vote splits on timing

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on March 4 debated a long‑planned project to add permanent disability access to the Board chamber at City Hall and to lower the president’s podium, while also considering related audiovisual upgrades and estimated relocation costs.

The discussion centered on a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed alterations and on a detailed cost breakdown presented by City staff. Supporters called the project a civil‑rights and accessibility priority; others raised concerns about the project’s $1.175 million price tag and whether the same accessibility goals could be met less expensively or on a compressed schedule.

Why it matters: The work would alter the historic Board chamber to provide permanent access to the president’s podium, change circulation and sight lines, and—because of the scope of work—would likely require the room to be closed for months while construction is performed. Supervisors pressed staff for specifics on costs, hazardous‑materials abatement and construction contingencies, and asked whether alternatives had been fully explored.

City staff and preservation consultants presented a line‑by‑line budget during the hearing. Stanley So of the City Architect’s office walked supervisors through two pages of estimates and explained the principal cost categories: a professional construction estimate for hard construction costs of about $310,000 and a total projected construction figure of roughly $455,000; a separately budgeted construction contingency (about $68,000) and additional design, plan‑review and contract management costs that together bring the total project estimate to $523,250 for construction‑phase items. Staff also identified a $200,000 placeholder for an audiovisual (AV) system upgrade tied to the chamber work; staff described that AV figure as an estimate only.

The mayor’s Office on Disability, represented by Susan Mizner, described the process that produced the proposed design and said accessibility and preservation advocates had worked together for several years to develop the plan. Mizner said the design under consideration was chosen because it preserves key historic fabric while providing permanent access and maintains the chamber’s lines of sight.

Skeptics on the board, led by Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, pushed staff and the City Architect to explain why the apparent four‑to‑four‑and‑a‑half month work window was required and whether accelerated schedules could be imposed in the construction contract. City staff said the historic nature of the room, the need for preservation‑grade submittals and long lead times for custom materials (for example, an estimated 10–12 week lead time for a one‑of‑a‑kind carpet) made an extended construction window possible, and that some schedule savings might be achieved if the board pursued an accelerated contract schedule.

Several supervisors emphasized competing priorities for limited city funds—including threatened service cuts elsewhere that would affect people with disabilities—while others described the project as a one‑time capital investment that would remove an accessibility barrier at a symbolic seat of local government.

Motions and votes: After debate, Supervisor McGoldrick moved to continue consideration of the certificate of appropriateness for two weeks to allow more study; Supervisor Maxwell seconded. That motion failed (5 ayes, 6 nos). A separate motion to approve the companion item (the related planning determination on the market/area planning step) and table the certificate of appropriateness was then made and passed (6 ayes, 5 nos). Because the project requires additional development approvals and consultation with the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, supervisors noted further design refinements are expected before any demolition or construction permits are issued.

What was not decided: The board did not adopt a construction schedule, did not finalize which AV scope would go forward with the accessibility work, and did not authorize any demolition or a construction contract on the record. Supervisors instructed staff and the project sponsor to continue consultation with preservation staff and the Landmarks Board and emphasized that required mitigation and monitoring steps (including hazardous‑materials surveys and oversight) must be implemented and enforced before any demolition occurs.

Quotes: “This is not about 1 supervisor,” said Susan Mizner of the Mayor’s Office on Disability, describing the project as one that provides access and symbolic inclusion for the broader disability community. Supervisor Jake McGoldrick said he was concerned about “sticker shock” and asked that staff show the public why the $1.175 million figure is composed as it is. President Peskin and other supporters said the chamber’s historic function and the board’s civic role weigh in favor of moving forward with an accessible, preservation‑sensitive approach.

Outlook: The design will continue to be reviewed by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and by planning staff under the certificate‑of‑appropriateness process. Supervisors signaled willingness to revisit timing and to consider contracting approaches that could accelerate work if feasible, but they left unresolved the decision of when construction would occur and whether the AV upgrade would be included in the same contract.

Votes at a glance (on chamber item sequence): - Motion to continue consideration of the certificate of appropriateness for two weeks (motion by Supervisor McGoldrick; second by Supervisor Maxwell): failed, 5 ayes, 6 nos. - Motion to approve the related planning action and table the certificate of appropriateness (maker: Supervisor ?; second: Supervisor Daley): approved, 6 ayes, 5 nos.

(Board action items and detailed votes appear in the official minutes and clerk’s roll calls.)