Supervisors affirm PG&E environmental report and change city settlement rules

The Board of Supervisors voted 11-0 on Tuesday to affirm the environmental impact report for the city's proposed purchase of PG&E power assets, turning back two appeals that asked the board to overturn the Planning Commission's certification of the document. With the findings set aside, the certification stands.

PG&E and a labor coalition filed the appeals. The appellants argued that the report analyzed the project at a programmatic level instead of examining effects at specific sites, and that it did not recirculate new information about noise impacts. City staff and the project sponsor told the board the report met state environmental law and was adequate for the project.

The board reached the appeals at a 3 p.m. special order, where three related motions were read into the record: one affirming the Planning Commission's certification, one conditionally reversing that certification subject to written findings, and one directing preparation of those findings. After the hearing, the board voted to affirm the certification and to table the findings, which left the motion to reverse the report with no effect.

Earlier in the afternoon the board amended and then passed on first reading an ordinance changing how the city settles claims and lawsuits. As amended, the ordinance raises the amount the city attorney may pay to settle a case without returning to the board for approval, and raises the amount the human resources director may pay to settle a grievance. It requires an annual report on settlements made under the new delegated authority and updates the city's claims provisions.

One supervisor supported the ordinance but said the change costs the board committee review of smaller settlements, and with it a view of patterns that only show up across many cases, such as sexual harassment claims and sidewalk injury claims. A representative of the city attorney's office said the annual report would give the board visibility into those settlements. The amended ordinance passed on first reading without objection.

Two Planning Code changes also passed their first reading without discussion. One exempts projects that convert commercial buildings into housing from parking, car share, loading and other development controls. The other allows more and larger signs in mixed use districts. Both ordinances carry environmental findings.

The board also passed on first reading an ordinance for the Transbay Under Ramp Park Project. It affirms environmental findings, vacates parts of Oscar Alley, changes sidewalk widths, and accepts a public sidewalk easement and traffic signals. The Land Use and Transportation Committee had recommended the ordinance.

An ordinance that exempts members of the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board from term limits passed its first reading without discussion. So did an ordinance setting prevailing wages for street cleaning services, which supervisors signed on to as co-sponsors before the vote.

A resolution on e-bike and e-scooter safety was sent to committee rather than adopted. The resolution would have urged police, transportation, parks and other city agencies to enforce existing laws against reckless riding, illegal sidewalk riding and excessive speeds, and to work with shared mobility operators on rider education, safety and data. It also addressed devices that have been modified or misrepresented. A supervisor moved to refer the item, so the board took no position on whether to adopt it.

During roll call for introductions, one supervisor introduced a resolution calling for a progress report on the Housing Element's equity policies, and another called for a hearing on the city's readiness for a severe storm season and the flooding that could follow. Neither was voted on.

Public comment drew speakers on artificial intelligence, several of whom asked the board to ban or restrict it, and on utility ownership and reliability. Others described debt tied to taxi medallions and competition from autonomous vehicles, asked the board to allow microenterprise home kitchen operations, and objected to street vending legislation, a proposed street project, housing conditions and the timing of the public comment period.

The board adjourned in memory of a person recognized on behalf of a supervisor.