Good afternoon and welcome to the December 2nd, 2025 regular meeting of the San Francisco

Board of Supervisors.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Yes.

Supervisor Chan.

Chan.

Present.

Supervisor Chen.

Chen.

Present.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Present.

Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder present, Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood present, Supervisor Mandelman.

Present.

Mandelman present, Supervisor Melgar.

Present.

Melgar present, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter present, Supervisor Sherrill.

Sherrill present, Supervisor Walton.

Walton present, Supervisor Wong.

Wong present.

Mr. President, all members are present.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, and welcome, Supervisor Wong.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland

of the Ramatush 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 Ramatush

Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of

this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory.

As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland.

We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the

Ramatush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

Colleagues, will you join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for

which we stand, one nation, and the God indivisible, for liberty and justice for all.

On behalf of the Board, I want to acknowledge the staff at SFGovTV and today particularly

Kalina Mendoza.

They record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online.

Madam Clerk, do you have any communications?

Yes, Mr. President.

First, the Board received a communication from the Honorable Mayor Daniel Lurie dated December

1st, 2025, announcing his appointment of Alan Wong to fill the vacancy in District 4.

Supervisor Wong has taken the oath of office, is covered under the bonding credentials,

and is now a member of the Board of Supervisors.

Welcome, Supervisor Wong.

The Board of Supervisors welcomes your attendance here in person at the Board's Legislative

Chamber, Room 250, 2nd floor of City Hall.

When you can't be here, the proceedings are airing live on SFGovTV's Channel 26 or live

streaming at www.sfgovtv.org. Submit public comment in writing either by sending an email to

bos at sfgov.org or via U.S. Postal Service to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors,

number one, Dr. Carlton B. Goodlip Place, City Hall, room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102,

to make a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disabilities

Act or to request language assistance, please contact the Clerk's Office at least two business

days in advance by calling 415-554-5184.

That concludes my communication.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Let's go to approval of our meeting minutes.

The approval of the October 28, 2025 regular board meeting minutes and the October 20,

special meeting minutes at the Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting, which constituted

a quorum of the Board of Supervisors.

Can I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented?

Moved by Chen, seconded by Walton.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

On the minutes, Supervisor Filder.

Filder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Sherrill.

Aye.

Sherrill, aye.

Supervisor Walton?

Aye.

Walton?

Aye.

Supervisor Wong?

Aye.

Wong?

Aye.

Supervisor Chan?

Aye.

Chan?

Aye.

Supervisor Chen?

Aye.

Chen?

Aye.

Supervisor Dorsey?

Aye.

Dorsey?

Aye.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented.

Madam Clerk, let's go to our consent agenda, items 1 through 18.

Items 1 through 18 are on consent.

These items are considered routine.

If a member objects, any item may be removed and considered separately.

Please call the roll.

On items 1 through 18, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Wong.

Aye.

Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor Chen.

Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. There are 11 eyes.

Without objection, these ordinances are passed on first reading and finally passed, and the resolutions are adopted.

Madam Clerk, let's go to our regular agenda, new business. Please call item number 19.

Item number 19 is an ordinance to appropriate approximately $4.5 million of state cost reimbursement revenue to the Department of Elections to support costs associated with the statewide November 2025 special election.

This ordinance requires a two-thirds approval vote of all members of the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Charter Section 9.113C.

I think we can take this item same house, same call.

Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call item 20.

Item number 20 is a resolution to approve amendment number one to the agreement between the city,

the Department of Public Health, and Catholic Charities to provide HIV health services,

rental subsidies services, to extend the term by five years from June 30, 2026,

for a total term of July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2031,

and to increase the amount by approximately $7.3 million for a total amount of approximately $13.4 million.

Again, we can do this one.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 21.

Item number 21 is a resolution to approve the revised terms and conditions

and authorize the general manager of the SFPUC and or city's director of property

to execute a purchase and sale agreement and easement deeds with Sinole Glen Unified School

District for the acquisition of an approximately 4,000 square foot easement for an underground

water pipeline and associated appurtenances and approximately 35,000 square foot temporary

construction easement across a portion of Alameda County known as 11601 Main Street for $35,000 plus

an administrative fee of $5,000 and up to $10,000 in closing costs for a total amount of $50,000.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 22.

Item number 22 is a resolution to retroactively authorize the fire department to accept and expend

approximately $637,000 grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency

through the California Office of Emergency Services for the Fire Department's new training facility

for the performance period of August 1st, 2024 through April 20th, 2027, and waiving indirect costs.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 23.

Item number 23 is an ordinance to authorize settlement of the lawsuit filed by Tommy O. Johnson

by and through his attorney, in fact, Reverend Doris White and John Doe,

by and through his conservator, Thomas O'Connor,

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against the city

for approximately $5.8 million.

The lawsuit involves claims of elder-dependent adult abuse,

invasion of privacy, negligence, and violation of patients' rights

brought by over 700 former and current residents of Laguna Honda Hospital.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call item 24.

Item number 24 is a resolution to authorize a six-month waiver of the city's behested payments ordinance

for the mayor, members of the mayor's office, and the executive director of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development

to solicit donations from nonprofits, private organizations, grant makers, foundations, and other persons and entities

for the purpose of supporting the continued economic revitalization of San Francisco.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thanks, President Mandelman.

Colleagues, to be clear, this is an extension of a six-month waiver.

At the time when this item was heard in the GAO committee, OEWD and the mayor's office

were unable to provide adequate information about who was solicited under this waiver

and a statement as to why they might be interested parties.

In contrast, HSH was able to deliver these answers about their behested payments waiver

quite easily in committee.

Despite the fact that some of this information was readily available via the mayor's publicly accessible Form 803 filings, Conway Family Foundation, Ligor Susan, Ripple Labs, Shorenstein Realty, LLC are just a handful of those that were solicited.

In an effort of good faith, I sent these questions to the mayor's office an entire week in advance.

I asked the mayor's office to send someone to committee who can speak to these questions.

Instead, they sent someone from OEWD who, with all due respect and to no fault of her own, had no answers.

The mayor's office sent a memo to us today that contains zero answers to my questions of how the behested parties might be interested parties.

And yet, here we are, about to approve this waiver without any answers to my questions.

As chair of the Government Audit and Oversight Committee, I'm committed to ensuring that city officials adhere to our behested payment ordinance to prevent any potential indications of impropriety.

These waivers state that the waiver serves to further the public interest and do not create an appearance of impropriety.

We have a duty on the board and a responsibility to the residents of San Francisco to ensure that we actually stand behind that statement.

Given the lack of information provided by the mayor's office, I continue to have real concerns about the city being able to conduct meaningful oversight on potential conflicts of interest for this specific waiver.

For that reason, I will be voting against this item.

Thank you.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Well, over the past year, we've made major strides towards revitalizing downtown.

Downtown is the heart of the tax revenue that we generate in this city.

It is absolutely critical, not only for the success of businesses and workers here, but also for the funds that help get more police officers for every neighborhood, more firefighters for every neighborhood, more street cleaning for every neighborhood.

We need to be using every tool at our disposal to help this economic revitalization and recovery.

And so I'm excited to co-sponsor this item to keep expanding the number of options we have available,

the levers we have to pull on to drive the economic revitalization.

San Francisco is going to come back.

We are coming back, but it's going to take all of us working together.

It's going to take every tool in our toolbox.

and I'm very excited to push this forward and to have the mayor introducing this.

You know, when we look at tourism, hotel rooms from conventions are up more than 60%,

but they're still down from pre-pandemic levels.

Air tourism up 7.5% from last year, but still down from pre-pandemic levels.

This is going to take a lot of work.

I think this is one tool.

This is not everything, but I'm excited to be a co-sponsor on this,

and I hope I can have your support on this measure today.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

And I want to thank our GAO Chair Filder for her work and her questioning on this.

I think absolutely it's not just for this BEHES waiver, but all BEHES payment waivers

should really come under scrutiny.

And it's not just for the mayor, but all city departments.

We have learned our lessons from previous years that if we don't ring in that pay-to-play

culture is problematic for good government.

And so I just want to express my thanks to Chair Filder for her work and questioning.

I also, being in the space, I have approved the BEHAS payment waiver, particularly from

Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.

I know it's our next agenda item and it's not called at this moment,

but I want to do speak on waiver across in general that, you know,

I do look forward to seeing more information,

both the solicited parties as well as the dollar amount and really what the

results and then come to it and the reasoning being why we need to continue to

renew these behest payment waiver.

I will be in support of this one as well as the next one.

For only the reason being is that I think that the memo that while we receive, I would consider late,

but still transparent information allow us to understand who are the potential interested parties.

But I am not in commitment that I will continue to support next round of the behest payment waivers.

and the reason being is I think at some point we need to go back our ethics

Commission to understand the best part is when it comes to behest payment

waiver and I would also like to get a bit more understanding from both the

ethics Commission as well as potentially our controller or whoever that we can

actually get or maybe our budget and legislative analyst to start evaluating

best practice for city governments to identify resources, revenues, and how that impact of good

government. I think those things I would like to learn more about and understand and having

guidance and data tell us how much money that we actually bring in, who is it that we're getting

it from, and what kind of relationship both not just the mayor but also all across because we're

granting these behest payment waivers beyond the mayor and the administration and city attorney,

district attorney, assessor, recorder. We have granted a whole list of electeds across the city

for them to actually engage in this practice. So while today I am supportive, I want definitely

answers and I again want to thank Chairman a chair filter for your work and

I look forward to seeing more dose dialogue happening at our government

audit oversights committee thank you Supervisor Sauter thank you President

Manelman I will be in support of this today as I was at our GAO committee I

don't think this needs to be a choice between downtown in our neighborhoods and

I think they depend on one another and in fact we have countless waivers that

speak to the work we're doing in different communities and in different neighborhoods.

And I certainly hear Supervisor Fielder's frustration with some of the questions that

were not answered, and I think that those particular questions and that oversight should

be put into future behested waivers.

If we're looking for that oversight, let's put that in the legislation itself so that

we have that as a blanket statement of what we're looking for in terms of the oversight.

for this today I'll be supporting this I think it contributes to the work that

we're doing for all of San Francisco particularly for downtown all right

madam clerk please call the roll on item 24 supervisor Fielder Fielder no

supervisor Mahmood Mahmood aye supervisor Mandelman aye Mandelman aye

supervisor Melgar Melgar no supervisor solder solder

aye supervisor Cheryl Cheryl aye supervisor Walton Walton no supervisor

Wong Wong I supervisor Chan Chan I supervisor Chen Chen I supervisor Dorsey

Dorsey aye there are eight eyes and three nose with supervisors Fielder

Melgar and Walton voting no the resolution is adopted madam clerk please

call item 25. Item number 25 is a resolution to authorize the Department of Homelessness and

Supportive Housing's Executive Director, Chief Deputies, Deputy Directors, and Program Directors

to solicit donations from various private entities and organizations to support the expansion of

temporary shelter and other homeless services to support people experiencing homelessness,

notwithstanding the behested payment ordinance. Supervisor Walton. Thank you, President Mandelman.

and colleagues, as we all know, the mayor has a horrible track record with his king-making

policies to oversaturate District 10 and other districts with all issues around homelessness.

So there is no way I would support him soliciting resources to continue to steamroll my district.

So I definitely will not be supporting this king-making decision.

Supervisor Fielder.

Chair Fielder.

Thanks, President Manelman.

In contrast to the previous waiver that we just approved, HSH was able to very easily

answer my questions about the parties solicited under this waiver and how they might be potentially

interested and I had no concerns about them.

So I will be supporting.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

On item 25, Supervisor Fielder.

Aye.

Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I supervisor Melgar Melgar I supervisor solder solder I supervisor Cheryl

Cheryl I supervisor Walton

Walton no supervisor Wong Wong I supervisor Chan

Chan I supervisor Chen Chen I supervisor Dorsey Dorsey

I there are ten eyes and one no with supervisor Walton voting no the resolution is adopted

Madam Clerk, please call item 26.

Item number 26 is a resolution to approve an agreement with the Nonprofit Owners Association for the Administration and Management of the Property-Based Business Improvement District, known as the Dogpatch and Northwest Potrero Hill Green Benefit District, for a period commencing January 1st, 2026 through December 31st, 2040.

Please call the roll.

On item 26, supervisor Philder.

Philder, aye.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelmann.

Aye.

Mandelmann, aye.

Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye.

Supervisor Sautder.

Sautder, aye.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, aye.

Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

Supervisor Wang.

Aye.

Wang, aye.

Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

Supervisor Chen.

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 27.

Item number 27 is an ordinance to amend the police code to increase the fine for misdemeanor convictions for sideshow offenses from a maximum of $500 to a maximum of $1,000.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

And I am going to support this item.

I think we have to do everything we can to keep our community safe.

and these sideshows are very dangerous.

But I just want to caution the fact that I'm seeing a lot of policies

that are providing attacks on people of color

and providing attacks on the most vulnerable.

This is most something, definitely something,

that would disproportionately affect people of color.

But safety, of course, comes first.

But we have to be careful about the policies that we put in place and think about the unintended consequences.

So I have to make sure that I state that on record.

I think, though, we can take this item same house, same call.

Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call item 28.

Item number 28 is an ordinance to amend the Public Works Code to authorize the enforcement of vending permit requirements

through warnings, infractions, misdemeanors, and fines.

up to $1,000 for vending certain types of merchandise that are common targets of retail theft on city property without a permit

and amending the port code to conform with those amendments.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thanks, President Manelman.

I'd like to express my appreciation for the work undertaken on this legislation in collaboration with the Mission Street Vendors Association.

The association has been advocating for this measure since its inception.

Street vendors are a vital component of the mission's small business community and vibrancy,

and so I'm casting my vote today in support of them.

I think we can take this item, same house, same call.

Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call item 29.

Item number 29 is a resolution to urge the San Francisco Police Department to develop

and implement a comprehensive enforcement and intervention plan to address drug use

or suspected drug activity, especially within 250 feet of parks, playgrounds, schools, and youth centers.

Supervisor Fielder.

I just wanted to thank Supervisor Cheryl and Mahmoud for taking the amendments to this resolution

and for incorporating a response focused on law enforcement as well as a whole-of-government approach

that includes Department of Emergency Management, Department of Public Health,

to refer and connect individuals to services like detox, crisis stabilization, and treatment.

And for that reason, I'll be voting yes today.

And I think we can take that item, same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call item 30.

Item number 30 is a resolution to determine that the issuance of a type 69 special on-sale beer and wine theater liquor license

to the Roxy Theater to do business as Roxy Theater, located at 3117 16th Street,

will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city

and request that the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

impose conditions on the issuance of the license.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call items 31 through 33 together.

item 31 is a motion to appoint Jeffrey Jonathan Morris and Nicholas Goldman to

the assessment appeals board number one terms ending September 4th 2028 item

number 32 is a motion to reappoint John Lee Mervyn Conlon and Susan Elizabeth

Miller to the assessment appeals board number two terms ending September 4th

2028 and item 20 33 is a motion to appoint Franco Sorelli James Reynolds

and Christine Nelson to the Assessment Appeals Board number 3.

Terms ending September 4, 2028.

We can take these items, same house, same call.

Without objection, the motions are approved.

Now, Madam Clerk, I am concerned that if we go to committee reports at 227,

we will significantly delay our 230 special orders.

Any reason we can't go to roll call right now and then come back?

Anybody have any?

That's an okay thing to do? Great. Let's go to roll call.

First up on roll call today is Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, today I am thrilled to introduce a resolution affirming San Francisco's commitment to advancing equitable building decarbonization efforts that center environmental justice.

This resolution further urges the implementation of the San Francisco Climate Action Plan to ensure that San Francisco remains a clean city that protects its most at-risk marginalized communities from the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

I hope that in passing this resolution, we are expressing a commitment to supporting city and community partnerships with environmental justice organizations to scale equitable building decarbonization projects in neighborhoods throughout San Francisco, and in particular, calling out defined zones on the environmental justice community map, who are the most vulnerable to the impacts of fossil fuel emissions.

The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Filder.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you.

Supervisor Mandelwin.

I have an in memoriam today, colleagues.

I ask that we adjourn our meeting in memory of Wathana Sop,

who passed away in Stockton, California on November 5th.

Wathana was born in Batambang, Cambodia on January 25th, 1970,

the youngest of eight siblings.

Following the rise of the Khmer Rouge

and the beginning of the Cambodian genocide,

she and her family fled to a refugee camp in Thailand.

They later migrated to the Philippines

before finding refuge in San Francisco.

Wathana attended elementary school here

before her family found a permanent home in Stockton.

Education was a priority for her family.

Her father often told his children and later grandchildren

that education is the one thing in this world

that cannot be taken from you.

Wathana took this saying to heart

and pursued a career as an educator.

She earned her associate's degree in education

before becoming a teacher's assistant

at Manilo Silva Elementary School.

For the next two decades,

she provided one-on-one support to students with special needs. In her free time, she read books

on how to care for students with disabilities and even learned Spanish. She spent extra time

studying her students' science and history materials to better help them master their

studies. Outside of work, she loved to travel. She'd recently visited several states, including

Alaska and New York, before taking her family across the border to Canada. She loved to hike

and took any opportunity to walk whenever and wherever she could. She loved to cook. No family

party was complete without one of her signature Cambodian desserts served in Pyrex bakeware.

Whether she brought fried bananas, coconut pandan pudding, or whatever experimental dish

that she might make for the first time using whatever was available at the Cambodian market,

she made sure that everyone around her was well fed.

Wathana suffered a major heart attack and was hospitalized the week before she died.

She was so optimistic about her recovery that she asked her daughter to help her plan a

trip to Switzerland for the coming year.

Sadly, she suffered another heart attack a week later, and this one was fatal.

She's survived by her husband, Cao, daughter, Mailea, son, Ching Leung,

her sisters and dozens of nieces and nephews, including Calvin Ho, from my office.

Rest in peace and power.

Wathana Sop, may your memory be a blessing, and the rest I submit.

And we should probably go to our 2.30 special order.

Our 2.30 p.m. special order is the recognition of commendations.

And we will begin with District 11 Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Board President.

Dr. Zhang, may I ask you to go to the podium?

Yay.

Colleague, it's my great honor to commend Dr. Zhang Zhang for over three decades of services and leadership at Chinese Hospital.

Dr. Zhang first joined Chinese Hospital in 1991 as a UCSF international student.

In 2017, she was appointed chief executive officer during a critical period and time of transition for the hospital.

Under her leadership, she has built a hospital centered around community-based care.

During the pandemic, she formed a multilingual, community-centric public health response that helped San Francisco's Chinatown maintain one of the lowest infection and mortality rate, despite being one of the most densely populated areas in the nation.

This operational success was widely praised by public health authorities and national media.

Dr. Zhang's impact is immeasurable.

Her awards is calculated.

Are too many to list here?

She is a member of the Committee of 100.

And in 2023, she was also featured on Forby's 50 over 50 innovation list.

Just to name a few, that list is so long.

She leaves behind a strong foundation built on compassion, excellence, and culturally integrity.

Patient care has centered around language access and culturally competent services,

rebuilding public trust in health care.

Dr. Zhang, your decades of commitment, care, leadership, incredible work,

and invaluable knowledge will no doubt be missed by your colleagues and our community.

And I wish you all the best in your next journey.

And I know before you speak, we have a list of my colleagues who also want to say a few words.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Slaughter.

Dr. Zhang, it's so good to have you in these chambers.

And you deserve all this recognition and much more.

The work that you've done for San Francisco and for Chinatown is immeasurable.

And, as my colleague shared, you know, in particular, you stepped up big during the

pandemic and you kept that community and this entire city safe.

Thank you for that.

I know that Chinese hospital means so much to so many.

People speak of pride when they speak of working there or being born there.

And it's something extremely rare.

And it doesn't happen by accident.

It takes fostering year after year to build a legacy that you have built

and that you are building with your team and your staff and your board.

Please don't go far.

San Francisco needs you.

And I just want to appreciate all of your work and thank you for all of your contributions.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

And I just want to lend my congratulations as well.

Your work to ensure that the Chinese Hospital remains a culturally appropriate place for healing

and also a top-notch medical facility at the same time.

It's just something that I admire and it proves that you can lead with class and integrity

and with purpose for an entire community and do it in a manner that also benefits the entire

city.

So thank you so much for your work.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Doctor, I just want to say congratulations and I am grateful for the opportunity to have

done work not just as a member of the Board of Supervisors, but going back, it's hard to

believe it's almost 20 years, when I was working in the city attorney's office, when there

was a medical group that was using its market position in a way that then city attorney

Dennis Herrera felt was unlawful, went shoulder to shoulder with Chinese Hospital, and I was

really proud to be a part of the team on that case.

And it was an honor to work with that institution then, and it's just great to see you honored today.

Thank you.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

Dr. Zhang, I think you brought some really great guests of honor here,

including I want to acknowledge our mayor, Mr. Willie Brown, that is in the chamber.

My assumption is because of you, that we all gather here to honor you and thank you for your accomplishments for our community.

And I'm just so grateful.

You've been working in our community long before you became a leader at Chinese Hospital.

Because of your leadership, I really firmly believe that Chinatown was at its lowest of infection rates during COVID.

We have masks.

We were able to introduce vaccination in the most immediate sense for all those, especially those living in SRO.

Thanks to you and your leadership at the Chinese hospital, you save lives.

And that we are grateful.

I do firmly believe that it's not just now that the best has yet to come for you and for us because of you.

So thank you so much, Dr. Zhang, for all the work that you have done.

and look forward to more of what you will accomplish.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Wong.

Congratulations, Dr. Zhang.

I have an interesting story of how I first met Dr. Zhang.

So I was the union rep for SEIU employees at Chinese Hospital for four years.

So I would be on the other side pushing grievances, fighting for workers,

and working on negotiating different workers' rights issues.

And so Dr. Zhang always tells me whenever I'm up to you,

hey, the new union rep is so mean.

You were always the nicest one.

He really was.

And since then, I've known you in a different capacity in the community.

And just recognizing that Chinese hospital is, I think, one of the prides of our community.

My dad uses CCHP, and it's something that as a kid I went to the Noriega Clinic for CCHP for my medical support.

So Chinese Hospital is really one of the prides of the Chinese community,

and I'm just so glad that we're able to honor you.

I think that you've also been very visible in the community, especially Chinese community, and you've really put Chinese hospital out there so that you're out and visible and people see the work of Chinese hospital.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And we have indeed been joined by Mayor Brown, who I believe may have some things to say about Dr. Zhang.

Mayor Brown.

Mayor Brown.

Thank you.

Mr. President and the board members of our legislative body here

in San Francisco,

thank you very much for giving me an opportunity

to say something about this extraordinary person

whom you are being asked to honor.

In America,

independent hospitals were at one time

the cornerstone of the people's delivery system.

Over the years, those hospitals have fared one way or another,

and sometimes to the detriment of the people they previously served.

The Chinese hospital has been dramatically different.

Many of us who have held a public office or hold in public office and are associated one fashion or another have always had nothing except the highest integrity respect for the Chinese hospital.

And for more than 30 years, this woman has been the symbol of that respect in that effort.

And your acknowledging her contributions speaks volumes for the concept of independent hospitals.

You may or may not know, but over many months during the course of her 31 years, she has been called upon by hospitals being challenged similar to the Chinese hospital in San Francisco.

and she has been as responsive as possibly to be

and there have been acknowledgments of that

from hospital organizations and individuals all over the country.

I happen to go to the Chinese hospital to get help whenever I need it,

especially during the pandemic.

And there clearly was a stationary foundation for the health delivery system here in San Francisco in that time period,

such that our own hospital systems, particularly the University of California's medical center,

developed and executed a great respect and the utilization of the Chinese hospital,

all under this woman's leadership.

Her leaving is a great loss to us in San Francisco.

After all these years,

she has, at every corner of the health delivery system,

been a cornerstone,

doing what she needed to do

to make the health delivery system in our city,

but particularly through the Chinese hospitals' efforts, a contributor.

And so I really urge you in every way to approve of this resolution

and to do so with the greatest degree of respect

for a cornerstone of our health delivery system.

And I'm really sorry we're losing her, because now I can't call if I'm in Los Angeles and say,

is there anybody there that when I get off the airplane coming into San Francisco, I can stop by?

I don't feel well.

I can't do that if she leaves.

and so I really am personally horrified

that I'm going to call and get turned down for assistance

and I suspect that there are a ton of people.

There's nothing I love more, frankly,

than being at some event in San Francisco

and the question is asked,

how many of you know about the Chinese hospital

and then the question is how many of you were born at the Chinese hospital?

Being from Texas, I was not born at the Chinese hospital, obviously,

but I occasionally will lie and raise my hand

because I want everybody to know how much I think of what this lady has done

since 1991 or thereabouts to make the Chinese hospital

what it is now and what it will be in the future.

And I want to personally congratulate her.

And I'm sorry I'm not the mayor because I'd like to be doing it in my capacity as the mayor.

But I'm doing it in my capacity as a friend of the Chinese hospital

and admirer of this woman who has so led the Chinese hospital.

and I do so on behalf of a collection of other elected officials, in particular other mayors who have had the great pleasure and the great honor of interacting with her and her leadership as she advocated for the quest for the resources that will make that hospital continuously successful.

And so please, unanimously pass this resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I would note we have also been joined by our Director of the Department of Public Health,

Daniel Tsai.

Hello, Director Tsai.

Thank you for coming by.

And with that, would you like to say a few words?

You are welcome to say a few words.

I just want to say congratulations to Dr. Zing.

And Chinese Hospital, is it 176?

126.

I always add 50 because I'm very optimistic.

126 years of being here serving the community.

Many people that we work with were born in Chinese Hospital.

and what it means to the community is hard to put words into.

So thank you, Mayor Brown, for noting that.

And we have deep pride at the department for being able to work with Jen and the entire team at Chinese Hospital

and for everything they've done in our delivery system and how core Chinese Hospital is.

So we are here to continue standing with Chinese Hospital in partnership.

And I want to congratulate Dr. Zhang, and I know she won't go far.

as Michael and others take the helm.

So congratulations and thank you to the board

for recognizing her.

I'm sorry I don't have my jacket on.

But thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Tsai.

Dr. Jang, almost anything that could be said about you

has been said about you.

But I want to echo my colleagues' appreciation for you

and congratulate you.

and thank you to Supervisor Chen for offering this commendation.

And with that, the floor is yours.

And when you're done, we're going to invite you into the well

to get a photograph with all of us.

Thank you.

President Mendelman, Supervisors, Mayor Brown,

thank you so much for coming and Dan.

And he's actually in a meeting.

He just got out of the meeting for this.

I'm really touched.

And community leaders, colleagues, family, and friends, thank you for this extraordinary honor.

Standing here today, I feel deeply humbled because this recognition is not about one person.

It is about a community, a hospital, and a city that have shaped the work of my entire life.

I first stepped into Chinese Hospital as an international student from UCSF during my clinical rotation.

Mayor Brown is right. That's 1991.

So if you count the two years as a student, it's actually 34 years instead of 32.

I remember seeing women with no insurance who could not afford a mammogram at that time.

Many were frightened.

Many waited too long and too late.

Many did not know how to navigate a healthcare system that did not speak their language.

So that experience changed me.

I began teaching breast self-exam classes.

So yeah, I started, I have done many other things before I became the CEO.

and writing grants so low-income women could get their free screenings.

I didn't stop writing grants until I brought the, I don't know, some of you probably remember,

the Breast Cancer Early Detection Program, which is a state program,

and later known as Every Woman Counts, and we still have the program at the clinics,

to ensure that every woman, regardless of income, immigration status, or language,

had access to life-saving care.

That was the first lesson I learned from Chinatown.

When you see a need, you step forward.

When you see fear, you bring hope.

Over the decades, I have served alongside generations of dedicated nurses,

the physicians, the board members, many of our partners, and then our staff.

We lived through moments that tested every part of us.

Financial instability, political turbulence, and a COVID pandemic that threatened our community.

Yet through it all, Chinese hospitals remember what it has been for 126 years, a place of safety, dignity, and unconditional care.

We stood firm, we took care of a community, and we never closed our doors.

When I was appointed CEO in 2017, the hospital was at a critical turning point.

Many believed that the last independent community hospital in the entire San Francisco Bay Area

could not survive due to the breakup between the health plan and the medical group.

But they underestimated something important.

the strength of this community and the resilience of this hospital.

Today, Chinese Hospital has been recognized by Newsweek three years in a row

as one of the best in-state hospitals,

known for quality, safety, and culturally responsive care.

But we cannot stay still.

Healthcare is changing, and Chinese hospitals must continue to adapt, to innovate, and to evolve

so that it can keep serving the most vulnerable among us.

This honor today reminds us that our work is not done.

Our mission continues.

The story of Chinese hospitals is inseparable from the story of San Francisco itself.

A city built by immigrants, a city that welcomes the vulnerable, a city that believes in community health is a shared responsibility.

As the city, I guess Mayor Brown said, by Supervisor Chan, declares December 2nd as Dr.

Jan Zhang Day, I want to say clearly, no individual succeeds alone.

I share this honor with our board of trustees and our physicians, our nurses, our staff,

and whose dedication is unmatched.

Our community partners and elected officials, you know that all of you, I have probably

have gone to you, all of you, right, for help.

And our community who place their trust in us every day.

Most importantly, I share it with every immigrant who wonders if they belong, and every young woman who dreams of leading but fears she might not be sin.

I hope this recognition tells them, yes, you belong.

Yes, your work matters.

And yes, leadership can look like you, every single one of you.

As I prepare for the next chapter of my life, I carry forward the belief that leadership is not about holding the position.

It is about lighting the path for others.

I look forward to continuing to serve this city in new ways, supporting the next generation leaders who will carry this mission forward.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you for this honor, for your partnership, for believing in Chinese Hospital, a small hospital with a bad mission.

Still standing, still serving, and still essential after 126 years.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

District 6, Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Colleagues, it is my profound honor to recognize Mark Mazza today.

Mark, did you approach the lectern?

Mark is a universally respected force within San Francisco's Department of Emergency Management

and someone whose engagement is frequently sought after, usually to solve neighborhood

problems others might find intractable. But from my perspective as a policymaker, I've come to

recognize to the extent to which he is sought after for his highly well-informed perspective

his heart, and his willingness to offer his unvarnished viewpoint on what we as a city

should be doing to better solve and serve our most vulnerable. As neighborhood street team

manager, Mark does not simply coordinate logistics. He walks the neighborhood, sometimes 50 miles a

week, meeting people where they are, earning a level of trust few others can, often seeing me

on my bike share rides around the district and in neighboring areas. Mark's role is emblematic of

DEM's mission to anchor emergency management, not just to buildings and plans, but in lived

experience and in human relationships. His dedication is rooted in what I consider to be

a uniquely San Franciscan civic value that balances pragmatism with compassion. He understands that

change on the street doesn't come overnight, but it does come person by person and often one step

at a time. After the Tenderloin Lincoln Center closed, his team reorganized the neighborhood

into four zones and committed to working each area seven days a week, not to displace people,

but to offer repeated outreach, wellness checks, and sheltered connections in the face of an

unsheltered population of thousands. His steady presence makes a difference in work that is often

grueling and underappreciated, but he knows there is progress through persistence. What makes Mark

truly remarkable is how he bears his responsibilities with humility. He's not someone

who seeks headlines, but whether it's in interviews, in public presentations, in private conversations,

or even in depositions and civil litigation, he doesn't shy away from the hard truths.

He recognizes the scale of the challenge and acknowledges the truth all of us need to hear,

and I quote, there is so much need out here and not enough of us to help.

Mark is the kind of dedicated public servant we need many more of,

Someone who believes that meaningful change isn't about ticking boxes, but building bridges over time.

Today, as we honor Mark, we celebrate more than his role or his title.

We celebrate his spirit of service, rooted in pragmatism and genuine compassion.

Someone who doesn't just coordinate emergency operations, but sustains healing work in the toughest parts of our city.

San Francisco is better and more resilient because of Mark Maz's tireless commitment,

his empathy under pressure, his courage to show up day after day for those who need it

most.

Congratulations, Mark.

We are blessed to have you as our fellow public servant, and we thank you for your service

and your professionalism.

And I have a couple of colleagues who want to say a few words.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Well, first, Supervisor Dorsey, thank you so much for recognizing someone that I consider to be a hero of San Francisco.

Mark, you've been a great friend to me.

Since I started working with the city three years ago, you've been one of the most generous people to me on a personal level.

But really where I see your value is on the street.

You are compassionate.

You are aggressive.

You are thoughtful.

You are realistic.

And you never, never stop.

You are exactly the kind of person that this city and every person needs fighting for every one of us.

I am so grateful to call you a friend, to call you a colleague, to have been able to work alongside you,

and hopefully to be in a position to support you because you support all of us so, so much.

Now, I also know that you're not alone.

I see a ton of your colleagues here.

Could everyone who considers Mark a colleague please stand up and be recognized if you will.

I'm lucky enough to have sat in a lot of meetings and a lot of Zooms with all of you.

And I think you all feel the same way about Mark that I do.

So to all of you and to Mark, I just want to thank you all for fighting so hard for our city.

Congratulations, Mark.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Congratulations, Mark.

I just wanted to thank you in this last year of getting to know you,

walking the streets of the Tenderloin with the hot teams.

I will see you when I'm not expecting to and when I am expecting to.

and I think it just speaks to the deep-rooted commitment you have to this neighborhood

and of doing the work and doing the work is is hard work in this neighborhood and your job

and I think one of the things I really appreciate about you is your personal touch

on one of the most difficult crises in San Francisco and it's that from my understanding

you have firsthand knowledge of some of the things that matter most in the streets which is

people's names, their backgrounds, their histories. You develop a personal relationship with the

people who are on the ground to help them get to a better life. And I think that level of empathy

and care and resilience is what we need from city officials. And you exemplify that.

You are the best fit for one of the most difficult jobs. It's almost like the job was created for you.

but we are very fortunate to have you leading on this effort every day

and we're very thankful for your service so thank you.

Yeah.

Supervisor Sautter.

Thank you President Manelman.

Just quickly add to the praise for you Mark.

You are the person that so many of us call when we need help

and when we see people that need help

And I know that's a heavy burden, and it's a lot that you take on.

And I want to recognize that.

You know, a few months into my term, you and I hadn't met in person yet,

but you were kind of that one person that I kept hearing the name of.

And I was like, who is this Mark guy?

Because everyone speaks so highly of you, and everyone's always saying, you know,

Mark can take care of this, or Mark can help with this, or we've got to talk to him about this.

So it's been good to get to know you more.

I know we'll keep getting to know each other.

And I want to, in particular, appreciate your work and leadership on, I think, a model that we're all really rooting for and a model that we're all invested in the success of with the neighborhood street teams.

We know that there's a lot of promise there, and we need to keep improving it because it is, you know, the model and the team and the framework that is going to get people into care and get people into services.

So thank you for all your leadership, and thank you for all your work.

You have a lot of friends in a lot of offices.

The District 8 office is very fond of Mark Mazza.

Some number of years ago, I heard it said that San Francisco is the city that meets people where they are and leaves them there.

And I think that that has begun to change over the last several years, and a lot of it is your work.

Of course, the work of your colleagues, hey Sam Dodge, Santee, and all of you who do this work.

It's really hard, but I've seen dramatic transformation in the neighborhoods that I represent.

I know the stories of people who had been on the streets for a very, very long time

and who are now not on the streets.

I see the care that you have for individuals and also the care you have for communities.

and we are not close to where we need to be,

but we have made lots and lots of progress

and a lot of that is about you, Mark.

So thank you.

And if I have spoken, that means you get to speak.

This is not my normal work environment.

We apologize.

Those of you who know me,

normally you can't have me stop talking,

but I'll be brief today.

First, I truly am humbled just to be here

and hear all of these great things.

And with all of the new street teams

and the coordination we're doing at DEM,

I'm very proud of it.

Even at the meeting last night,

I feel like we're hearing city leaders

talking about how they've never seen the work coordinated.

And I agree so well.

Working as a social worker closely with law enforcement

and making it work is very different and it's very necessary. I think that it's been made clear

that we are no longer at DEM just working to end homelessness. We are working to end homelessness,

crime, and addiction. And I thank you for giving us the tools that we need to do more because

it does feel at times like we've gone as far as we can with the tools that we have.

and I just, you know, I'm a social worker.

I think about the people we're helping,

but I also want to talk a little bit about the staff.

I'm very lucky to work with staff from all walks of life

and everyone's tired and there's a common thread.

People cleaning the street, Department of Public Works,

They work very hard to show up the next day like they were never there.

Outreach workers celebrate getting people into shelter and housing to see them back where they were the day before.

Our fire department paramedics take people to the emergency room to see them where they were when they picked them up.

Our ambassadors and practitioners are literally bringing people back to life.

reversing overdoses to find them where they were yesterday.

Our street-based medical providers are sending people to the hospital,

sometimes voluntarily and sometimes against their will,

to find them where they were yesterday.

Our police officers arresting people for crime to find them back where they were.

So, in short, you stole my thunder a little bit,

but they've heard it way too many times.

But the motto for our street teams often is that we're going to

be compassionate and meet people where they are at, but we can no longer leave them where they are.

So that's it for me.

Thank you.

Smile.

All right, Madam Clerk, let's go to our 3 p.m. special order.

Please call item number 34.

Item number 34 is a hearing at the Board of Supervisors sitting as a committee of the

whole to hear and receive updates on the progress and implementation status of the United States

Department of Justice recommendations regarding reforms within the police department.

Good afternoon.

Hello.

Can I speak?

Everybody?

Oh, actually, I guess I do have some words.

Supervisor Walton, do you have some words?

Perhaps?

Yeah.

Colleagues, we're now sitting as a committee of the whole to receive another update on these findings and recommendations,

and I believe Supervisor Walton has some remarks.

Thank you so much, President Mendelman, and I want to thank the department for being here this afternoon.

Just to give a brief history, SFPD requested the U.S. Department of Justice to come in and assess its practices,

and in 2016 they provided a report with several findings and 272 recommendations for the department.

The U.S. Department of Justice ended its partnership with SFPD in 2017,

and the California Department of Justice agreed to work with SFPD in 2018,

along with consulting firm Zeranson Hughes, to address the reforms.

The 272 Department of Justice recommendations for SFPD have led to some changes and improvements for the department,

but there is still more work to do to gain the trust and improve relationships between communities of color and law enforcement.

Today's Committee of the Whole is an update on where the department is in regard to those 272 recommendations and next steps.

I know we will hear from Asia Stevens, Policy Development Division Manager,

and I believe Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration.

Then, of course, we will hear from colleagues with any statements or questions and go on to public comment.

You have the floor.

Thank you so much.

My name is Aja Steeves.

I am the manager of the Policy Development Division with San Francisco Police Department.

We can just get right into the slides and keep it very brief.

Supervisor Walton basically did my first slide for me, so that's lovely.

the overview why we're here. Again, we did request, this was a voluntary effort, this was not a consent

decree, to get into the assessment of law enforcement practices here in San Francisco.

Of the 272 recommendations issued in 2016, we have reached 263 in substantial compliance,

so we do have nine pending. If we can get the presentation up for everyone to see.

Thank you.

We were here in May, so May 6th, we did provide a comprehensive overview with phase timelines,

reform highlights, and a review of the CalDOJ final report and next steps.

So we can go to the next slide.

Of the remaining nine, all of, actually eight of them directly link to the implementation

of a data dashboard.

One indirectly links to that dashboard.

So as you can see, again, there's performance evaluation process, data-driven dashboard,

supervisory accountability, that relies on data indicators, evaluation metrics, that

also relies on data trends, promotional policy, that indirectly relies with the data dashboard,

training supervisors, again, targeted training to interpret the dashboard.

So all of these nine really do rely on a system that we do not have in place right now.

Next slide, please.

So I know the last presentation we came in May, we did hear quite a few concerns from

supervisors about data, about data integrity, about our systems speaking to each other,

how we can make reliable decisions based on data.

And so we want to talk about the things that we are doing and are planning to do moving

forward to make sure that we can meet those last nine compliance measures and also judge

help us as an agency moving forward to make these data-driven and data-informed

decisions for policy, supervising, training, and going forward. So big thing

that we did is we restructured and centralized our SFPD data teams. This

happened in July or August. We all of our data teams, we had several that were

actually segregated and had different reporting structures. Now they all report

under the Director of Crime Strategies.

This is key.

This builds infrastructure so that all of our data teams know

what the other is doing.

There is one central management team over those data teams

so that they can all sit under the same umbrella.

That ties actually to drafting and issuing a new department

general order regarding data management.

This also was at the request of the police commission,

but also just an internal need.

This will establish and codify standards used to manage data through its life cycle.

And so this ensures that the data is secure, that it's accurate, and it's reliable, and it's usable.

Again, so this can be used to make policy decisions, make supervisorial decisions, to make training decisions.

So that is in the works.

That will start in, actually, it started this year, but it will probably finish in 2027.

Our cycle to update department general orders is quite long.

It takes about 225 to 445 business days to update a DGO.

That's before it goes to meet and confer.

And also with PROPI, there is a community engagement 90-day cycle that may kick in.

So creating a DGO is lengthy, but it is an undertaking that is necessary.

We've also restructured the CRI sustainability so that it is under the policy development division.

We believe with all of the sustainability efforts, it all ties to policy.

So to have an eye on what's being updated, when it's being updated, how an update of a policy could impact something that we've already agreed to do,

we feel that having it under this umbrella will actually continue the sustainability efforts.

We're also updating DGOs related to performance improvement and early intervention systems to align with the CRI compliance measures.

Again, that'll be a 2027 project, but that, again, aligns with these nine that are remaining.

A big one is recruiting and hiring a CIO with industry-wide expertise.

So we need this.

It ensures our staffing resource infrastructure we have needed for data management, data integrity,

and data systems.

And also, seeking a new data dashboard vendor.

I know in the past we've come and we've spoken to this body and said that we have been working

with a vendor.

We did contract with one, and we're finding that our needs actually just exceed their capabilities.

We have evaluated it, and we're really seeking a vendor that can give us the things that we need moving forward.

Next slide, please.

So in closing, we will continue to acknowledge the foundation of reform work.

It really is the foundation of everything, accountability, safety with respect.

These are things that are ingrained into all of our policies and into our training.

networks. Sustainability does depend on a fully staffed department. We do not have

that now. It's always lovely to work on projects. If you are fully staffed, we are

not. So we are working on that. That is part of one of the CRA buckets is

recruitment. So that is taking a forefront on our activities. But our

primary focus is on public safety and the needs of San Francisco. So overall

goal is to apply lessons learned from reform to innovate, update policies, and

recruit and retain talent to better address crime.

The issues that were really big in 2016,

still the core of what we want to do

and how we want to police, but we're facing new issues

that we will use all of the lessons

that we've learned from the CRI process to move forward

and address issues that are big in 2026, 2027, and 2028,

moving forward.

So that's the brief update that I have.

Again, I am here with DC Jones, so we can answer questions that you may have.

All right.

Thank you.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President Menteman.

Thank you for the presentation, and I do have a few questions.

One of the major issues that we've seen here in the city and we continue to see is the disproportionality of police stops

and bias around vehicle police stops.

particularly in reference to race.

Has that data improved?

Supervisor, can you clarify?

You said particularly as it relates to...

Bias when it comes to who police are stopping on the streets of San Francisco.

I think you said rates.

Race.

Race.

Okay.

I heard something different, and it was not a good word.

Yes.

So we have done a lot of work in this arena right now.

The system that we are speaking about, that we are moving away from that data vendor, we are moving to a different vendor.

I think that the additional information that we are capturing right now enables us to have a far better analysis of what our stops are actually telling us.

So state legislation requires that we collect certain fields.

It's all based on perception, what the officer's perception was as it relates to race and a host of other things.

and the department has elected to bring additional factors in

and collect more information than is necessary

so we can complete these analyses.

We've been doing a lot of work.

Everybody, I think, is probably familiar with our QADR report that we publish

that gives the rates as it relates to these traffic stops,

but we've been exploring a lot with this vendor that we currently have

as it relates to what the demographics are like in the district

instead of just overall in the city.

But what those demographics are like,

who you're likely to encounter at those times.

So really diving in a little bit more.

But there shouldn't be a concern that we're moving away

from this original data vendor.

We will not do so until we have a new system in place

that collects the information that we need it to.

So we continue, again, to do more than is necessary to try to understand as best as possible what's happening.

But has the data improved?

I think that it depends on what you would consider improvement.

Are there less?

Are there less what?

The disproportionality gap?

I would have to go back and check what the most recent report states.

but I think that it's really hard to determine whether or not that's less even just based on the data that we have that comes out in the QADR report.

So I know, and again, and thank you DC Jones for being here, but I know that's been a major issue,

the disproportionality of less than 5% of the population of San Francisco receiving most of the vehicle police stops in San Francisco.

I think that's a trend that we definitely are working hard to get away from.

I do want to apologize.

I didn't ask for that specific data, and I know there's been turnover in the department,

but that's usually the type of data we get when we have this conversation and this hearing.

So I know when we come back we can talk more about that.

And how are we doing on the evaluation of officers?

Because I know that was something that was important and key as well in the recommendation.

So in terms of evaluation, you want me to cover?

In terms of evaluation of officers, so we're trying to completely revamp what our performance

appraisal system looks like and really try to understand not just how people are doing

but what those specific stats, I think that you are speaking to, what they mean and what

they mean about our officers.

I think that that's been a work in progress for a while. You just spoke to the fact that we have an

entirely new leadership team, and we are trying to put in place a system that's not only going to

tell us the things that I just spoke about, but that's going to be sustainable, because sustainability

has been a huge issue for us, and making sure that people are completing these, that are looking at

this information. Our early intervention system also is in the process. It was housed in this

and continues to be at this moment housed in this other data system that we are moving away from

because we believe that we can capture the data again better and make it more meaningful so we

can understand what's happening here, but all a work in progress. So that is one of the remaining

nine that's on the list. So again, it's not completed, but just to follow up on everything

she's saying, that is one of the remaining nine things that we need to establish, and that does

go hand in hand with updating internal policies, so the department general orders, along with the

dashboard and the training, the supervisors on how to evaluate as well. And have there been any

updates in the hiring practices to ensure that we're hiring officers with integrity? Obviously,

I know the work and the focus to provide adequate training and academy is something that has been

prioritized but what about even bringing in lateral officers to the department and making

sure that we're not bringing in officers who have history of misconduct of mistreatment

so we have far more lateral officers that apply to come over to our department than we actually

end up hiring for the reasons that you just spoke about. So lateral officers really gives us a

glimpse into how somebody actually does the job because these are not people that we're trying to

figure out how they might be a police officer. Laterals have been police officers before, so

their body of work and all of their issues and triumphs is obviously of major interest to the

department. We are incredibly selective about the ones we take. We are trying to work with lateral

officers in the sense of, I don't want to say headhunting, but I'm going to, headhunting ones

that are not necessarily looking to leave their agencies because, quite frankly, those are the

ones that we're interested in. Those are good police officers who the thought hasn't crossed

their mind to go anywhere else, and many of them have very well-established, excellent careers.

That's what we're after. A lot of times when people are looking, and this is not a blanket

statement, but looking to leave an agency, we really have to look beyond the surface of this

to understand the why for that, which leads us to a far greater number of lateral applicants than

actual hires. Another department has reported to addressing a good number of

the recommendations in fact most of them in as reported nine remaining and I know

one of the things you said around success was not having enough officers

to be able to achieve success in those remaining nine areas if I'm

interpreting correctly. You're speaking about that bullet point on the last

slide. Well you listed some of the reasons and one says sustainability

depends on fully staffed department. I think sustainability about the entirety

of the 272 recommendations. The nine itself really does depend on a CIO, the

data teams working together, a DGO about data integrity and data governance. So

they do rely on additional items and factors but not necessarily sworn

members. I think sustainability for all of the recommendations do depend on

ensuring that not only with patrol but also civilian staff where we can

capitalize on their unique skill sets to get things done. And I'm just interested

how the department can report this achieved success with the team that you

have in place but wouldn't be able to sustain it with the same team. We're not

reporting achieved success as it relates to sustainability at this moment. We are

setting up a new system now that we have established, and this happened in August,

the determination that CRI would fall under policy. So really we're at the

stage kind of four or five when it comes to project phases of monitoring and then

project closure. So once we determine how to move forward we really want to

measure all of every single recommendation that has been implemented. This isn't just with the

nine. We're going to have to get a system in place to review all of the recommendations that have

been implemented and then measure whether they are successful. Some of them are qualitative,

some of them are quantitative. So some can be measured quite easily, some will be measured in

a flexible way. But now that we have, we know where it's going to live. Now we know how to

move forward with it. And what's the obstacle in hiring the CIO? That is really staffing,

is ensuring that we have the staff to determine that they can look at all of the items and work

with the department wide issues. Right. But what's the obstacle? Why don't you have one?

So we are working to hire a new one. So that announcement will be out. We had a previous CIO

we are going in a different direction and I would expect in the next couple of

weeks that job listing will be posted we're doing the hopefully a nationwide

recruitment as it relates to this because it's a critical critical

position for the police department not just as it relates to CRI but just

efficiency in general and how we can do more with less at the moment thank you

I don't have any more questions president middleman all right

Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

Appreciate it.

I had a question about, you know, a few years ago,

San Francisco Standard did an analysis of stops

and found that there was one, I mean,

there was one known instance of an officer,

and the case was investigated by the Department of Police

Accountability, basically underreporting

basically inflating the numbers of people stopped.

More than 1,000 people identified as white by this officer.

And the standard also found that several other officers

had, in the majority of their stops,

identified one individual, a few individuals,

with multiple racial categories.

And this all serves to obscure the stops of predominantly Latino and black people being stopped.

And so I just wonder what has been done since then to correct for this practice of fudging numbers, whether that's discipline or something else, because the data that we have is only as good as what's being input into the system.

Yeah, we wholeheartedly agree.

Obviously, those officers, that did not go undealt with by the department, and I will leave it there.

But I think now there's like auditing looking for if any of those patterns persist in any other, you know, with any other officer right now in their work product.

So it's not that the department is turning a blind eye to that.

Additionally, to make sure that officers jogging their memories, that they do their stops, because I think that sometimes that can be forgotten about.

We're actually in the process of adding a checkbox on our incident reports that says, you know, the stop was done as just another extra layer.

So there's been many things that have been put in place to try to prevent that from happening again.

and also it's pretty widely known throughout the department that this incident occurred

and that there were consequences and that has hopefully will be for the future a deterrent

in addition to the things I just mentioned.

And have we seen a decrease in obviously inflated numbers?

Any? Yes.

I would say that we haven't seen a similar situation as the one that you've just described.

So, and then any other ones would, again, be in, we're talking the disciplinary arena at that point.

Okay, thank you so much.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thanks.

Could I ask just to what extent could technology automate traffic enforcement?

I know that we have had red light cameras, I think, for 20 years.

we've implemented I think 33 or we've implemented

speed enforcement cameras at I believe 33 locations

that's only because the legislature is letting us do that much but who knows what they will

allow us to do in the future and I'm just I'm not even certain if there's things

that we're allowed to use or not allowed to use but given the staffing

challenges that we have to what extent could we just automate

all this? I think that well you know I love to talk traffic

supervisor, so brace yourselves now. But I mean, other states are looking in just beyond doing

red light camera violations and speed. They're using it for things like no left turns. Again,

that's not mainstream. There are other violations, of course, too, but I'm just, I could go on for

days and I won't. But I think to the greatest extent possible that we can leverage technology

to pick up those additional violations. It just expands the workforce. I mean, currently,

the traffic company has, I would say now maybe 18, because they've got a few extra motorcycle

officers who are really, have always, again, shouldered, you know, the bulk of the burden

for traffic enforcement in the city. But for a city of this size with the amount of people that

not only live here, but that come in on a daily basis to work, sorely inadequate for the enforcement

that we need done. So I think that we should really look into anything and everything that

could be done here. Again, drones have been used in certain instances as it relates to this, but

many further discussions have to come. But I think there's absolutely the potential for technology to

assist. We're just perhaps not even behind, but the states that are doing those additional

violations are really on the cutting edge of this. And most states, I think, are in a similar

situation as California. Great. Okay, and I just I appreciate that you know that I

know that the data challenges this was something during my two years in the

department was incredibly frustrating to me so I'm glad that is something that's

being done. I will say I do want to appreciate the work of the department

and honestly the work of the Board of Supervisors and its oversight role on

police reform. This goes back for those who may not know that to President

Obama's task force on 21st century policing at a really critical juncture

in 2017 when Donald Trump pulled the plug on police reform for 16 cities. San

Francisco was the only one that kept going. But one of the things that really

impressed me when I was working with Bill Scott on some of this is that reform is

never done and when we get to 272 we got to keep this going and we probably have

to keep these hearings that that's reform is something that it needs to be

part of the culture, that we're always looking at improving.

So thanks for your work and thank you for your leadership on this, Supervisor Walton.

Supervisor Walton, any final thoughts before public comment?

President Mal, we can go to public comment and then I'll say something after.

All right, great.

Let's open public comment on our 3 p.m. hearing on law enforcement, on findings and recommendations

regarding law enforcement practices.

This is not general public comment.

This is public comment on this hearing.

Don't worry.

Okay, so absolute incompetence.

Artificial intelligence to which to make them give you the data it wants.

Obviously, since it's in control by who.

okay so you are talking about

sustainability

of

institutionalized

child trafficking that's it

so

yes all the rest

is absolute nonsense

it means that you are part of the game

a big problem because meanwhile

kids are being trafficked

the evidence of institutionalized

side trafficking is the absolute silence from the government and all the media system.

That's it.

So trust me, if you address this, you get absolute respect from everyone, black community

among others, because they are fed up with this silence.

You're going to get absolute respect.

Trust me, much less pity crimes and all this crap.

do what you can i'm here for you up to a certain point please

next speaker is it would anybody else like to speak on item 34 the committee of the whole

Good afternoon. My name is Richard S.D. Peterson, board president and new board member Wong.

Congratulations for your appointment.

And I will be pushing to find out what your position on parcel taxes is.

But that's not really what I'm going to talk about today.

Today, I'm wondering why we opened this meeting claiming that we're on Ohlone land,

and we have not only this building, which is beautiful,

but we have the downtown, the San Francisco Center Mall,

which has one of the most beautiful domes in the city.

and I've always wondered why that property can't be sold to the Ohlone tribe who probably could

come up with the money sooner or later and then run a casino there. I've suggested a nightclub

kind of a Las Vegas style nightclub but what about going through the work if Donald Trump can get

things done in a hundred days, we should be able to push it through. I briefly looked at the laws

on operating a casino, and if you really had the will to do it, you could do it. Anyway,

thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you for your comments.

Are there any additional speakers? Seeing none, Mr. President. All right,

public comment is now closed. Supervisor Walton. Thank you, President Menemann,

and thank you colleagues for sitting in this committee of the whole.

I also want to thank D.C. Jones and Manager Stevens for your presentation.

I want to make sure that, one, we do thank the department for achieving

and completing most of the recommendations,

but I know as a city we still have a long way to go

until everyone obviously in the city feels comfortable being able to move around.

there's a lot of work still to be done with bias in police stops bias and

arrests for certain offenses or perceived defenses and I want to thank the

department for working obviously with community on these things but these are

goals that we still have to reach and so we will continue to provide our role as

oversight body in terms of making sure that these continue to be addressed and

And again, appreciate everyone for hosting this committee of the whole today and would like to continue this item to our Tuesday, May 12th meeting.

All right.

Supervisor Walton has made a motion to continue this hearing to Tuesday, May 12th.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Fielder.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

On the motion to continue item 34 to May 12th, 2026.

Is that correct?

May 12th.

Yeah.

812. supervisor Philder Philder aye supervisor Mahmood Mahmood aye supervisor

Mandelmann aye Mandelmann aye supervisor Melgar Melgar aye supervisor

Sautder aye supervisor Cheryl Cheryl aye supervisor Walton aye

Holton aye supervisor Wang aye Wang aye supervisor Chen

Chen aye supervisor Chen Chen aye supervisor Dorsey

Dorsey aye there 11 eyes the motion passes and this hearing is continued to

May 12th madam clerk now let's go to committee reports please call item 35

items 35 through 38 were considered no no I think we're doing to 35 alone and

then 36 through 38 I make the statement first items 35 through 38 were

considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular

meeting on Monday, December 1st, 2025, and recommended to the full board today.

Item 35, it is an ordinance to amend the planning code to expand the boundaries of the central

neighborhood's large residence SUD and to apply its controls to all lots within the SUD

to delete the Corona Heights large residence SUD and merge it into the central neighborhood's

large residence SUD, amending the zoning map to reflect the deletion and boundary expansion

and make the appropriate findings.

Apologies, Madam Clerk. I jumped the gun. Please call the roll on item 35.

On item 35, Supervisor Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye.

Supervisor Mahput. Mahput, aye. Supervisor Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter. Aye. Sauter, aye.

Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton, aye.

Supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong. Aye. Supervisor Chan. Aye.

Chan. Aye. Supervisor Chen. Chen. Aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey. Aye.

There are 11 eyes. Without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, now let's call, please call items 36 through 38 together.

Item number 36, it is an ordinance to amend the general plan to revise the urban design element,

Commerce and Industry Element, Transportation Element, Balboa Park Station Area Plan, Glen Park Community Plan, Market and Octavia Area Plan, Northeastern Waterfront Plan, Venice Avenue Area Plan, Western Soma Area Plan, the Western Shoreline Area Plan, Downtown Area Plan, and Land Use Index to implement the Family Housing Zoning Program by adjusting guidelines regarding building heights, density, design, and other matters.

amending the city's local coastal program and making the appropriate findings.

Item 37 is an ordinance to amend the zoning map to implement the family zoning plan

by amending the zoning use district maps to reclassify certain properties,

amending the height and bulk map to reclassify properties,

change the height limits on certain lots,

and designating various parcels to be included in the SFMTA SUD,

amending the local coastal program to reclassify certain properties

and designate one parcel as part of the SFMTA SUD and making appropriate findings.

Item 38 is an ordinance amending the planning code to create the Housing Choice San Francisco program,

modify height and bulk limits, require only buildings taller than 85 feet in certain districts

to reduce ground-level wind currents, create the Residential Transit-Oriented Commercial District,

implement the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Transit-Oriented Communities Policy,

revise off-street parking and curb cut obligations citywide, create the SFMTA-SUD,

permit businesses displaced by new construction to relocate within a conditional use authorization,

and reduce usable open space and bicycle parking requirements for senior housing,

amending the business and tax regulations code regarding the Board of Appeals review of permits,

amending the local coastal program to implement the Housing Choice San Francisco program,

and making the appropriate findings.

Chair Melgar.

Thank you, President Mandelman, and thank you, colleagues.

This has been a very long and engaged process

with four appearances before the Land Use and Transportation Committee.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Land Use and Transportation Committee

for all of their hard work,

and to the staff at the Planning Department

prior to this coming to the Land Use and Transportation Committee

of course we had hundreds of meetings

with community stakeholders and neighborhood stakeholders

before we even approved the housing element

and through our last mayoral administration

and now this one. I have always been supportive

of bringing more housing options to my district

and while I wish there could be more that we could do as a city, I think that this rezoning package has improved significantly

from where it was introduced by our former mayor and our current mayor.

In 1978, we down-zoned the west side and some of the north side of San Francisco

and concentrated all development to the east side neighborhoods, to the Mission, the Bayview, SOMA.

Demolition protections came decades later in 2008.

in response in due to tenant rights advocacy.

The west and north of the city built very little housing

and the accompanying infrastructure to support that housing,

market rate housing and affordable housing, rental housing.

But also freezing the residential patterns of 1978 and even earlier

under the messaging of fighting against Manhattanization of San Francisco

led to a more segregated city by income, by race.

Every social determinant of health, infant mortality rates, public school test scores,

all these things are better on the west side and the north side of our city than on the east side of town.

Some colleagues have talked about this pitting the west side, this rezoning map pitting the west side against the east side of San Francisco.

I would say we did that in 1978.

In this rezoning, we are building a more equitable and accessible tomorrow.

This plan is not perfect. It has been made better because of the efforts of the legislative branch working with the administration.

Rezoning itself will not solve our housing crisis or our affordability crisis,

but it is an absolutely necessary step towards meeting our compliance with the state

and meeting our obligations for our economic development and our tomorrows

so that we can move ahead with other important strategies to jumpstart more affordable housing,

to fund it, to incentivize the projects that we want to see,

and to ensure that tenants and small businesses are provided the strongest protections against any bad actors.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Colleagues, I'm a strong believer in this map and this legislation.

In my view, the family zoning plan is the linchpin of housing affordability strategy that San Francisco needs to survive into the 21st century.

It's a thoughtful approach that will create more housing, enable more small businesses to thrive, and enable more San Franciscans to stay San Franciscans generation after generation.

It will help facilitate new opportunities in neighborhoods citywide while meaningfully protecting rent control and demolition protections in priority equity areas.

This package balances our obligations with reasonable long overdue changes so

we don't have to see friends and family members priced out of our city. I want to

thank all of my colleagues who have offered amendments in this lengthy

process to a plan to address many of our shared priorities. The incorporated

amendments strengthened this legislative package and we're leading with our San

Francisco values I think by protecting rent control, opening up new pathways to

affordability and encouraging housing near transit. I especially want to thank Chair Melgar

for her heroic work through the Land Use Committee. I am aware that I probably represent

the most YIMBY safe, you know, housing friendly, density friendly district in San Francisco with

neighborhoods that have produced a lot of housing and quite candidly are excited to see more.

So I know that's not the case with many of the neighborhoods represented by my colleagues.

There's a lot of competing interests, a lot of competing supervisor districts, a lot of competing neighborhoods.

I'm just really impressed, Chair Melgar, at the work that you have done to bring this all together and hopefully land this plane in time.

So great job to all of my colleagues.

Thank you to planning.

But I did want to just say especially to Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

Colleagues, I do share the sentiments that it's been a long time coming and there are

many steps to today and through this journey and definitely want to thank Chair Malgar

for her effort and leadership during this process.

And also want to thank Land Use Committee for their work and time spent, as well as our

Planning Commission and planning staff.

In partnership with community advocates and stakeholders across the city, we've been

working in good faith to improve the proposed upzoning plan to ensure that we mitigate risk

of speculative real estate investment and displacements to tenants and small businesses.

Many of our community advocates, stakeholders, myself included, all have been supportive

of building more housing that San Franciscans can afford, and we push for policies to build

housing without displacement, prioritizing our efforts in identifying vacant and surplus

lands and advocating for bond dollars, tax credits, and state and federal grants so that

we can build more housing.

San Franciscans need housing both existing and new. We know that our existing housing stock,

especially rent control housing, is our most valuable and affordable housing stock.

This is why, colleagues, I think even today, as of today, I really hope to still making this one

more effort to ensure we protect tenants and draw a line on one of San Francisco's most important

values our rent control housing units at the land use committee thanks to

chairman our and the committee and that you all have solidified rent control

units as an important affordable housing stock and ensure buildings with three or

more rent control units are protected for that we're really grateful because

your amendments have shielded about 80,000 rent control units from demolition.

We do know, though, we're still leaving approximately 20,000 rent control units behind,

putting 20,000 households at risk of displacements and demolition.

And it is true that most of them are located on the west side, especially in the Richmond.

30% of those 20,000 rent control units are located in the Richmond, the district that I represent.

San Francisco is a leader in tenants protection, and we have to stand firm to protect our existing affordable housing stock.

So, colleagues, for that one more try, today I am making a motion to amend item 38, file number 25070.

and that with the goal is to protect all rent control units and the amendment is

going to be very simple and straightforward is on page 13 line 10

again it's for the item 38 file number 25070 colleagues also there are actually

electronic file in your inbox through email as well and sent to Calvin Yen on

our team at 2.02 p.m. today and then should you so the amendment should we

decide to approve it it will read as such that the criteria under the local

density program will then read is not located on a site containing residential units where the

project will require the demolition of residential uses that are subject to the rent increase

limitations set forth in chapter 37 of the administrative code. Colleagues with this

amendment we will effectively protect all tenants currently living in rent control units throughout

the city, many of whom we know to be working people who can afford to live in our city because

they live in rent control units. They are teachers, nurses, first responders, bartenders, and janitors,

and many more are immigrants, truly are the working people that make San Francisco the great

city that it is today. And I know this to be true because that was my mother, a single mother,

an immigrant long-time worker in Chinatown. She was able to work and live in Chinatown boarding

North Beach area because of the rent control units where she reside for three decades where I grew up

until she passed in 2021. And I am who I am today as a member of the board raising my family in

Richmond because of the stable rent control housing I have growing up with. So colleagues I hope to

have your support in this amendment. I do want to also be transparent and be

clear with this amendment should it pass with your support and

amendment I am still not able to support this proposal which is rare for me

because typically when I contribute and to say that let's let's make amendments

to a plan or to a legislation, I tend to hope that I could also vote yes to that plan or a legislation.

But I still cannot do so today.

For one, I know that while we've been having a lot of these ongoing conversations,

I do understand that while Chair Malgar and the planning department as well as the mayor

have really been open dialogue and having these conversations about what can we accept as amendments.

But I do understand that there is also a state department that is being involved

and making determination whether these amendments in a San Francisco plan is acceptable to the state standard or not.

I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed where we're at.

I'm disappointed that we're doing this because we believe that if we don't then there will be a builder's remedy, a greater threat to how we determine our fate and our future and how we plan and build our city.

I am disappointed that we are not choosing a path to figure out a way to either negotiate or, frankly, even fight some of these mandates that are unfunded and without a lot of data or confirmed and independently verified data.

So with that, thank you.

Supervisor Chan has made a motion.

It has been seconded by Supervisor Walton, Supervisor Sautter.

Thank you, President Manelman.

I want to begin by appreciating everyone for their hard work on this,

particularly the members of the Land Use Committee, Chair Melgar, Chair Melgar, Chair Melgar,

and Supervisors Mahmoud and Chen.

I want to give a big thanks to my legislative aide, Michelle Andrews, for her extensive work on this,

and also to the dedicated staff at Planning.

Thanks as well to the many, many community members and groups who spent significant time

working to give feedback and shape and improve this plan.

This has indeed been a years-long process.

Much of the work actually started before many of us were in this chamber.

Deep work has been undertaken to consider countless amendments.

Given this, I want to say up front at this point that I will not be considering any amendments

introduced today so late in the process. In fact, I believe any attempts to make amendments at this

point are more political rather than serious in nature. Today, I will be casting my vote in support

of the family zoning plan. I'm doing so because when I ran for office, I vowed to work every day

for a San Francisco that is more affordable and more welcoming, and this plan achieves both of

those goals. I love San Francisco, and I know we're all in this room because we do too. I believe that

to love San Francisco is to want so deeply to share it, to let others have a chance to live here,

whether that means coming here pursuing dreams or seeking sanctuary, or to stay here and grow old

here, to give your children or grandchildren a chance to also grow up in this great city.

I'm raising my family in a rent control department in North Beach. My neighbors, my district are

majority renters. I reject the notion that we have to choose between building more homes and

protecting renters. We can do both and that is exactly what this plan does by packaging the

strongest possible tenant and demolition protections with a plan to allow new homes

in neighborhoods that have typically excluded apartments and multifamily homes.

This very body had a similar question before them in 1978.

But for that board of supervisors, the question was whether to downzone rather than to upzone.

The 1978 downzoning resulted in making apartment buildings illegal in large swaths of San Francisco

and decreasing the capacity of new homes by nearly 200,000 units.

Not coincidentally, the areas covered by the 1978 downzoning largely match the areas we are considering under today's family zoning plan.

The findings from the 1978 downzoning plan predicted exactly what ended up happening.

They warned of displacement of certain types of households, that prices and rents may bid upwards,

and households, both current and prospective, would be forced to seek housing outside of San

Francisco, adversely affecting air quality if automobile usage increases. All of those warnings

came true. That 1978 board made its decision and we've been living with its consequences ever since.

This housing crisis isn't a natural phenomenon, it's a policy choice, one that has been exacerbated

year after year, eviction after eviction, blocked housing project after blocked housing project.

And now nearly 50 years after the city's 1978 down zoning, I think it's about time we made a

different choice. Some have made this plan out to be all about futuristic towers or big changes to

our neighborhoods. That's not what this is. In many ways, it simply legalizes what we used to allow

in our city. In fact, one study showed that 54% of the homes in San Francisco would be illegal to

build today. It's a few hundred thousand of our neighbors. My own apartment in North Beach would

be illegal to build today because it is too dense. Yes, we literally have a law in the books today

that says the three families that live in my building are too many, and only two should be

allowed to live there instead by today's standards. The density decontrol changes in this plan would

change that and would simply allow three families to live within the same 40-foot height limit once

again. As we take this vote, I think about one of the few housing developments built in District 3

in recent years. Broadway Cove, an affordable housing site, steps away from the Embarcadero.

In 2021, a lottery was held for 93 available units there.

8,431 people applied.

It's been almost five years since those 8,338 people who applied were rejected.

What message do we send them if we turn down this chance now to build more homes for them?

A vote against the family zoning plan is a vote for the status quo.

And it is a privilege to be okay with the status quo.

Landlords and billionaires make their money off the status quo,

while families, renters, and working class communities lose out.

And I'm not okay with the status quo today.

Our own city economist has shown us data that indicates the family zoning plan

will reduce the cost of living for our residents.

The average home in San Francisco costs $1.3 million, and the average rent for a two-bedroom is nearly $5,000 per month.

What message are we sending our residents, our constituents, if we turn down this plan and literally vote against lowering their cost of living?

This plan isn't perfect. Few plans are.

But let's be very clear about what a vote against this plan means.

It would bring the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in housing funds.

It would block thousands of future affordable homes.

And it would set us down a path to a flurry of builders' remedy projects.

Think high-rise towers in any part of the city with no local involvement in these decisions.

And that's not an exaggeration.

That is the reality of what you risk by voting against the family zoning plan.

To me, this comes down to a choice.

Do we make the same mistake that this board made in 1978 by voting against allowing more homes?

Do we choose to pull up the ladder behind us because we already have our slice of San Francisco?

I know what my choice is, and that is why I will be voting for this plan today.

Supervisor Sherrill.

Colleagues, first and foremost, I want to thank the many stakeholders who put in significant

work to shape the family zoning plan in front of us today, starting with the planning department

team led by Director Tanner, Josh Swisky, Lisa Chen, who've worked for years on this plan.

I also want to thank you, Chair Melgar. Over the several, several hearings, you've demonstrated

your legislative expertise and immense patience while undergoing the extensive amendment process

I'm grateful for your leadership on the board and also on the Land Use and Transportation Committee.

Supervisor Sauter, thank you for your partnership on a successful amendment that will ensure City Hall is doing all we can to incentivize more family-sized homes.

And Supervisor Chen, thank you for your work on the Tenant Protections Ordinance, which will further strengthen San Francisco's legacy of being a leader on rent control and tenants' rights.

I'm very proud to be able to co-sponsor your legislation.

Most importantly, though, I especially want to thank the District 2 community for showing up to the town halls, to the neighborhood meetings, to the community roundtables, to the office hours, to add your voices to the future of housing in San Francisco.

Through these community conversations, I have learned and been able to respond to community feedback, helping successfully bring forward thoughtful amendments in collaboration with all of you.

I'm proud that my amendments helped shape this plan to be as meticulous in D2 as possible,

going block by block and parcel by parcel, while ensuring that we are not failing our legal

obligation and jeopardizing critical funds, as well as the very real potential state takeover

of our planning and zoning laws. This plan is about the future. It's about creating a future

that is more affordable, more accessible for everyone who wants to live, grow, and thrive here.

This is about families that are starting here, families that are growing here, families that are staying here across generations.

Right now, San Francisco has the lowest number of children per capita of any major city in the United States.

We're the fastest aging city in the United States.

And we all know that the number one issue for families is housing affordability.

These are not a recipe for success.

We need a different path forward.

We need a future that welcomes families, that welcomes civil servants, teachers, cops, firefighters, our elders.

We need a future that prioritizes opportunity.

By widening flexibility for more housing, we're building that future and inviting San Franciscans to invest their lives in this city

and raise the next generation here while all generations stay here.

And while we build that future, we must also plan for ways to enhance San Francisco's unique charm that attracts people from around the world.

That's why I'm excited to be pursuing an overhaul of the city's design standards with a path towards neighborhood design standards.

I will be supporting this family zoning plan today as it will empower us to build more homes and make progress towards a more accessible, affordable, and attractive future.

And I will be supporting this because I also am not okay with the status quo.

But we need to be upfront about the fact that zoning is not the only part of the status quo that must change.

Zoning is not a panacea for housing in this city.

If we just stop with zoning, we will fail to address housing affordability.

Much, much more will be needed to address construction costs, neighborhood vitality, the way that we fund affordable housing.

We must be honest about the fact that the way that we fund affordable housing is not generating enough money.

And while the time for amendments on this plan has passed, I promise to continue to be at the table for these future discussions,

engage all stakeholders, and put forth thoughtful ideas that build on the progress of this plan.

So, colleagues, I want to thank you all.

To the department representatives, thank you, and to the community members especially, thank you,

for the work that has been done to get to this point,

and I look forward to continuing to work on housing affordability in the months and years ahead.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, colleagues, and thank you, President.

I want to again express my thanks to Supervisor and Chair Melgar for leading this process for the last several months

and also to the Planning Department for many years on this process as well.

Before getting into my remarks as a member of the land use committee that has been in the hearings for the last several months,

I had a couple questions actually to get a better understanding of the implications of Supervisor Chan's amendments.

Would someone from the planning department be available to answer some questions?

So as I understand it, this is an amendment that is going to change this language to all residential households, rent-controlled, as I understand it.

So one of the continuous points that we heard across the hearings was guidance from HCD,

that if you remove something from the zoning plan from a capacity perspective,

you have to provide a commensurate increase,

otherwise it risks being out of compliance with the housing element.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Supervisors, Lisa Chen with the planning department.

So HCD did issue a letter on September, I believe, 9th, right before the adoption hearing at the planning commission that said that they had reviewed the ordinance as it was introduced in June.

And essentially, they found it to be compliant, but that essentially we were very close to just above what we need to meet our requirements.

And so that if we do make future changes that either reduce capacity or add constraints to development, so that could be new fees, anything that creates greater uncertainty or greater timelines for projects, we would need to make commensurate changes in the opposite direction.

We're receiving this amendment at literally the 11th hour.

Has any commensurate change been proposed to make up for the capacity loss?

We have not received any requests to make other changes to increase capacity.

And what are the implications, again, of constraints and reducing capacity that we've received guidance from the HCD?

What implications do we have if we don't pass this housing element and put us out of compliance with that directive that they gave?

If we do not pass the family zoning plan or if we pass a plan that is not sufficient to meet our requirement,

which is for 36,200 units of capacity, then our housing element could become decertified.

and this would happen after the deadline, which is the end of January of next year.

If our housing element is decertified, it means that builder's remedy would go into effect,

meaning that projects could come in and propose any height and density

as long as it's meeting essentially safety standards.

It also means that we would be ineligible for certain funding streams,

different grants and resources at the state level, including funding for affordable housing,

as well as infrastructure. And we have tallied kind of the past receipts from some of those

funding sources, and it's averaged about $100 million a year. And then finally, we would be

susceptible to other potential legal challenges. We could be sued or be fined and receive other

penalties. So again, to clarify, you're basically saying if we introduce amendments to reduce

capacity and don't provide commensurate increasing capacity, we could be losing over $100 million

a year in affordable housing funding.

That's correct.

Another claim that was made was that this plan puts 20,000 households at risk of demolition

and displacement.

Is there anything in the family zoning plan that makes demolitions administratively easier?

That is not accurate.

So our tenant protections don't exist in the rezoning itself.

We already have strong tenant protections under Section 317 of our planning code.

As you are all aware, we also have a pending proposal, the Tenant Protections Ordinance,

which is led by Supervisor Chen and co-sponsored by many of you,

which is going to strengthen those protections even further.

And we do have evidence that those protections have been a successful deterrent to demolitions

because they make it extremely difficult to demolish.

You need, for any demolition of a rent-controlled building, you are required to go to a planning commission hearing for conditional use authorization.

Those are often denied.

And so we have seen that that has resulted in an extremely low number of all units, and particularly rent-controlled units, being demolished.

And what you're referring to is that we have up-zoned on the east side of the city, and we have not seen thousands of units of displacement in that context.

That is correct.

We've evaluated the data going back to years before rezoning, and we have not seen any particular uptick or increase in the number of demolitions after rezoning efforts elsewhere in the city.

Thank you.

And just to reiterate this point, as a result of the legislation and the tenant protection ordinance, we're actually at this time, once that passes as well, making San Francisco the strongest city and I believe the nation on tenant protections.

I don't know that I...

East in California.

Yes.

Maybe the city attorneys or somebody who's more intimately familiar with other cities

would be able to opine further, but we are known as having very strong protections.

We know they're very hard-fought and won protections.

Many cities do not have public hearings for demolition proposals, so we think that that

has really created a disincentive to demolish units in large numbers.

As I mentioned, we do see some demolitions every year, but they're very small in terms of the percentage of units.

Thank you. That answers my questions.

Colleagues, based on that context, I want to, I think, reiterate what is the family zoning plan and what does it do?

What are its impacts and what are its benefits?

I think that's been lost amidst a lot of the conversation that we've been having.

the family zoning plan with the zoning changes that it is producing along specific corridors

the increased density allowances in neighborhoods and the new local density bonus program will make

it easier to add much needed housing units to improve affordability livability and vitality

in this great city this plan creates capacity as mandated by our housing element for 36 000 homes

to be built, largely in areas on the west side and north of the city that have seen little to no

development in the past decades. It creates a local density bonus program that encourages new,

denser housing in a way that conforms to our values in San Francisco. And to reiterate,

this local density bonus program creates incentives to generate affordable housing funding,

including for innovative modalities like 100% rent control buildings as well.

It changes the rules so that where we already have 40-foot buildings, those buildings are no longer limited by the number of units they have, just their size and shape.

It encourages bringing not just more shoppers to our commercial corridors through new housing on vacant and underutilized sites, but also incentivizes builders to make their commercial spaces move-in ready.

Perhaps most importantly, it will enable San Francisco to control its own destiny when it comes to housing, protecting us from state penalties like we just heard.

But like we just heard, it is important to reiterate what this plan does not do.

In most areas, the legislation doesn't increase heights.

Where it does, it only increases by a few stories than what is currently allowed under current zoning

and around the same heights that are currently allowed by the state's density bonus program.

As we just heard from the planning department, nothing in this legislation will make it easier to evict tenants or demolish buildings.

In fact, through this process, we have strengthened those tenant protections.

And I think it's important to note that when these statements about demolishing 20,000 homes are said, it is fear-mongering.

It's not true. It is factually not true.

And it's exploiting genuine concerns of residents across the city to score political points.

That's not leadership. It's emotional exploitation.

And our residents deserve better.

And so on this note, I want to thank the hard work of Supervisors Chen and Melgar on the Tenant Protection Ordinance, which will strengthen our network of laws and programs that support existing tenants in buildings of all types and all sizes, providing our city the strongest tenant protections in the country.

And thanks to Supervisor Melgar, if there's anyone looking to demolish a rent-controlled apartment building with three or more units to take out local landmarks, they cannot do so.

Any effort to amend the local density bonus program at this stage sends a message that we are not serious about tackling our affordability crisis because it would be sending a message that we are comfortable with losing over $100 million of affordable housing funding a year.

And to also make claims that we should be fighting the state is clearly not responsible at a time when we should be fighting the president in Washington, D.C.

We should be focusing our efforts there rather than at a state whose help we need to survive the current administration.

The best way for us to help renters isn't an obtuse tool that freezes the built environment in amber.

It's making sure renters have more places to call home and protecting existing tenants as our city creates housing to welcome new neighbors.

I love San Francisco, and I know all of you do as well.

And fundamentally, I think some of the resistance to this legislation is an affinity for the status quo, as my colleagues have said.

But that status quo is a zoning paradigm that is centered around an exclusionary zoning process that has a racist history and an unfortunate history around a nightmarish housing affordability landscape,

one that forces many of the very people who make this city work,

our teachers, firefighters, workers,

to commute from dozens or hundreds of miles away in substandard housing.

We can't keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

Our residents are counting on us to build a future for them.

And what makes this city so great is how welcoming it is.

I didn't grow up here, but this is my home.

And I know many of you, my colleagues, are transplants, are immigrants, are first generation like me.

And being welcoming is what has made this city, San Francisco, to grow, to change as all cities should.

That's the story of San Francisco that we've known for across the world.

But if we don't pass this plan, we lose that story and lose and rob the experience of this 7x7 city from others.

That is not the message I think any of us want to send here today.

We don't want to send a message that if you're not from here, sorry, but you don't make the cut.

If we don't pass this plan, we will continue the city's long descent into housing inequality,

perpetuating the unfair systems that have grinded down tenants for decades,

further exacerbating social inequities for our most vulnerable residents.

If we don't pass this plan, the forces that have pushed our younger generations and families out of the city will continue unabated.

The Planning Department has worked in the last several months to get this item to the finish line.

They have engaged with HCD, with our offices, and directly with members of the public to answer any questions and assess the viability of dozens of proposed amendments.

We've also heard hearings since October at the Land Use Committee, where we heard from our board colleagues and the public and made clear improvements to this plan.

It is clear that this version of the legislation will be the one that the state accepts as a valid and compliant implementation of our housing element.

But anything that adds constraints to development or takes away housing capacity could take us out of compliance.

That would be catastrophic, as we have heard consistently.

The non-compliance would trigger the builder's remedy, a path to nearly unfettered approvals for oversized residential projects across San Francisco without input from residents.

It would lead to fines that would draw down from our already precarious budget and would even lead to the city losing access to many forms of state funding.

let me dig into that because going out of compliance would mean the city loses hundreds

of millions of dollars for affordable housing every year as we have heard repeatedly that is

disastrous for a livable city that is not the city that we want san francisco to be one where our kids

can't stay here because we told them that we wanted to win a political argument and risk 100

million dollars a year in affordable housing funding and i certainly don't think that's what

many of our community members across the city want as well. Neither do the Council of District

Merchants Association. Neither does the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. Neither does the

San Francisco Firefighters Local 798. Neither does the Small Business Commission. Neither does

the Youth Commission. Neither do the building trays that build our housing. All who have supported

and endorsed the family zoning plan. So in support and in collaboration with all of them, I ask all

my colleagues, let's do what's right for San Francisco. Let's pass this legislation as it is

and start looking forward ahead towards building a more affordable and prosperous San Francisco.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you so much.

I want to start off by saying to one of my colleagues who I respect,

I am extremely glad that I don't have to score political points.

But in addition to the fact that the plan will not protect all rent-controlled housing from demolition,

which I have to remind everyone is critical for affordability in this city,

and the fact that this plan does not identify any specific projects

or provide a route to financing for any projects,

the plan does not lead to achieving the goals that puts San Francisco in compliance with the state.

As a supervisor who actually builds and has actually worked with city departments,

developers both nonprofit and private to come up with actual financing ideas never before

implemented in San Francisco now as a model that we all are using and supporting that actually lead

to housing without displacing families and communities like the Sunset the Richmond

in areas outside of downtown I want to commend and say thank you to the land use committee for

putting in the time and putting in the hard work. I know that times we just won't come to an

agreement on policy for many different reasons. But some of the slight amendments that have been

put in place have protected people from losing housing in San Francisco. But we should not be

displacing anyone in this city. We have a housing crisis in this city and losing just one unit,

just one unit of housing is completely arbitrary, but most certainly losing 20,000 units is a major

problem and is very arbitrary to addressing homelessness and creating the stabilization

that is needed to keep our residents housed. And I know this plan is described as making

San Franciscans making decisions for San Francisco, but this is a response to state bullying disguised

as results-oriented. This plan will most certainly have negative intended and unintended consequences.

My colleagues have certainly labored over whether or not to support this plan,

And again, I thank everyone for their work.

But there is still too many issues in this plan for me to support in good conscience.

As a supervisor who builds, now maybe if it included actual locations for housing identified.

Maybe if it included a financing package or a proposal to actually build housing.

Maybe if it guaranteed not to displace families and businesses and actually bring the desired housing that puts us in compliance with the state.

This plan is good for theory and for rhetoric, not for building and certainly for not building for our most vulnerable populations in this city.

And if you believe that the state of California is going to attack the city with the most millionaires and the top five GDP for the state of California, because they don't achieve or give the perception of achieving arbitrary goals that no county, no city in the state of California will achieve, I cannot adhere to that scare tactic.

and yes Supervisor Mahmood I 100% agree with you that we should not be fighting the state of

California right now you are absolutely right but there are times where we have to fight the

state of California the state of California didn't always believe in same-sex marriage

remember those battles the state of California didn't always fight against redlining the state

of California sometimes defunds education. So you're damn right. I don't have a problem

fighting the state of California when it's the right thing to do. What we have here is a bunch

of people who have never built anything trying to set policy for building housing in San Francisco.

So not one of these units, not one of these proposed imaginary units will be built by where the mayor lives.

Not one.

This is a theoretical framework that will achieve nothing that puts us in line with meeting state goals.

And it most certainly will not put us in line with addressing the housing crisis that we have here in San Francisco.

I cannot support this, and I know history is going to demonstrate why this was a bad idea for this city and this county.

We can do better.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Board President.

To begin with, I also want to thank my committee chair, Supervisor Malgar, and I also want to thank my colleague, Supervisor Mahmood, and the committee.

and also I want to thank all my colleagues at the board and the planning department staff

and also the city attorney's office for all the work and support.

As the vice chair of the land use committee and also as a city supervisor that really cared deeply for my city.

I do not take my vote lightly.

I have engaged very actively in this legislation since introduction.

I just want to be clear again.

I absolutely support building more housing.

and it needs to be the right kind of housing.

I and my other colleagues on the board have worked overtime

and approached this process in good faith to amend this zoning plan

with every intention to make it better.

We have sought to achieve thoughtful, affordable infill development

that strengthens our neighborhoods without pushing anyone out,

stabilizing our small business,

and also support our residents to raise their families here in San Francisco.

We have drafted common sense amendments that are pro-housing and also pro-affordability,

pro-small business, pro-tenant, and pro-working families.

I have to repeat myself.

It pains me to see that majority of these critical equity amendments have been voted down or table.

Our teachers, bus drivers, janitors, nurses, first responders, and all the working families who keep this city running deserve real options to live here with dignity.

In my very own district, I have received constituent emails with a ratio of 2 to 1 to oppose rezoning.

Simply because in District 11, we have larger households and many intergenerational families.

We need development that ensures a good balance of family-sized units,

housing price to reflect the affordability needs of working residents,

and protection for the locally rooted small business on our business corridor.

Instead, in District 11, we are seeing a development project on Ocean Avenue

that displaced four locally rooted small businesses

by providing only nine affordable housing units,

six three-bedroom out of 92 total units.

When our mayor announced the family zoning legislation at the press conference

at 1100 Ocean Avenue,

Mayor Lurie uplifted Ocean Avenue as one of San Francisco's

most successful rezoning programs.

But 1100 Ocean Avenue was possible as a 100%

affordable housing project and a new public plaza

only because the site is on public land.

The current rezoning proposal makes no such guarantee

to deliver 100% affordable projects on public lands.

The mayor's office has really tried hard to work on the math problem,

but this does not solve the affordable crisis that we have in San Francisco.

And I believe that San Francisco has always been committed

to meeting the state's housing mandate.

Our city does have the ability to meet the goal

while maintaining local control and developing housing

that people can afford without displacing residents

and small business.

But the plan that is before us does not achieve that.

It has been a frustrating role to get to this point.

Prior to the November 17 hearing in the Land Use Committee,

I was asked to water down some of my amendments.

I refuse to negotiate away a portion of priority equity geographies without impacting community at the table.

It is really important to remind myself that I am the kind of supervisor that I want to be.

It's to make sure that we continue to have a process that is transparent, that it brings everyone on the table.

Also, today, it's 2025.

2025, we shouldn't have to be reminded of the harm that redevelopment caused to vulnerable

community in San Francisco in the past. For me, I think I have been very consistent. Let's build,

and also let's do no harm to existing San Franciscans. Let's also to make sure that

we prevent displacement, and let's also use every tool that we have to deliver true affordability

to San Franciscans.

I am and I am always stand with our families,

our children, our seniors, our tenants,

and our small business that makes our neighborhoods

feel like home.

We are the last line to defend for working families,

and this is why I think the legislation,

its current form, I'm not able to support.

Thank you.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

First off, I want to recognize the tremendous amount of work that went behind shaping the

legislation before us today, specifically our land use committee chaired by Supervisor Melgar

and Supervisors Chen and Mahmoud, along with the planning department and the work by our

city's community groups, including the RepSF Coalition, Anti-Displacement Coalition,

Small Business Forward, and everyone else who provided critical input to this plan.

On the whole, I'm supportive of incentivizing equitable development on the parts of our city that are well resourced and have not contributed to our housing pool.

And I say this as a supervisor who has helped carry housing over the finish line at the board already this year,

specifically La Maravilla at 16th and Mission in the face of heated opposition from a small group of local neighbors.

and I will continue to do so in the coming months. This plan excludes the majority of District 9

for this very reason. The southeast side of the city, including the Mission District, has seen

vastly more market rate development than more well-resourced neighborhoods in San Francisco.

The eastern neighborhoods plans incentivize development here, which has only been exacerbated

by state density programs. In the Mission District, this has meant the displacement of around 12,000

Latinos, a vast increase in households making over 150 percent of the area median income

and a 55 percent increase in the Latino homelessness population between our last point in time counts.

I'm also well aware of the reality of what's at stake with the various mandates we must fulfill

under HCD and state legislation. All that said, it is critical that any local programs that are

created by the city and county are responsive to our local communities. We must do everything in

our power to avoid creating unintended consequences, such as displacing more vulnerable communities

like we've experienced in the Mission District. San Francisco currently has some of the strongest

tenant protection laws in the country because we understand how critical our rent-controlled

housing stock is for our middle and low-income communities, for our working class, students,

artists, and everyday residents. However, the fact is that we are having to update our demolition

controls because of state laws like SB 330. I'm a co-sponsor of Supervisor Chen's pending

tenant protection ordinance, which has been another laborious effort in large part because

we are not able to keep our demolition protections as strong as we would like,

or even as strong as cities like Los Angeles. And that is why we must do everything we can

to ensure that tenants in rent-controlled housing are not at risk of displacement,

and that we exclude them from this upzoning plan. The plan before us today still includes

approximately 20,000 rent-controlled units. Why are we upzoning sites where rent-controlled

tenants live and not Billionaire's Row, St. Francis Wood, Seacliff, or any of the other

partials preferred by the wealthiest in San Francisco? I ask this at Land Use Committee

and appreciative of my colleagues who have also worked towards the same goal. I believe that we

could have created an upzoning plan that met the goals in our housing element while also protecting

rent-controlled tenants, but that is not the plan before us today. For this reason, I will be

supporting Supervisor Chan's amendments, and should that fail, voting no on items 36 through 38 as they

are currently written. Supervisor Wong. We got to fix Supervisor Wong's microphone. What's going on

over there. Okay, there it is. First meeting. Welcome. For me, I've lived all my life in

in-laws in the sunset. Always, for most people, it's right behind a garage and there's a living

area I kind of built behind there for those that may not know what an in-law is or an ADU.

and all throughout my life, my family's moved around different in-laws.

And I've always wanted to have the opportunity to have access to buy my own Sunset District 4 home.

But that has been very much impossible.

There's very little units that are condos or affordable that are in District 4.

Elsewhere there are, there's plenty in other neighborhoods,

in the more dense parts of the city,

but I always wanted to stay on the west side in the sunset.

And homes cost nearly $2 million.

We need more housing options for our community,

So the next generation of sunset families and young people like myself that have grown up in intergenerational households and in-laws are able to have opportunities for homes.

I'm glad that there were earlier tenant protections that were moved forward.

And for me, I support the family zoning plan.

And if we don't offer our own compliant solution, Sacramento will dictate zoning for us and we'll lose local control, which is not acceptable.

I think that for us, San Francisco has an opportunity to give our feedback, and we know our neighborhoods best and not Sacramento.

I'm committed to working with the community, mayor, and colleagues of the board of supervisors to immediately address concerns and consider potential trailing legislation to strengthen this plan.

I'll continue to work with constituents to understand concerns and possible

adjustments that can be made to the current proposal in district 4 and tend

to work with the community and the Planning Department on potential

amendments following adoption I this today I just met with the Planning

Department and touch base with them to get further clarity on everything that's

been happening in District 4, and they committed to me that even after this moves forward,

so long as the number, the housing number stays the same and is compliant, we can offer feedback

to the plan so long as we, if we subtract anywhere, we need to add somewhere else.

and I want to be able to move this forward

so we are not breaking any deadlines

and putting us at risk of the state coming in

and us losing our local control.

We have several deadlines coming up

that really put us at risk

and so I think that if we move this through right now

for at least for my district,

I want to be able to at a later time

also be able to make adjustments as necessary

as brought up by my constituents in District 4.

I'll be supporting this plan. Thank you.

Chair Milgar.

Thank you, President.

I just wanted an opportunity to address some of the comments

by my colleagues and also address the motion on the floor

because we did consider this

at the Land Use and Transportation Committee.

So to Supervisor Walton's comments,

it is correct. It is theoretical. This plan doesn't build any housing. It only allows more heights and

more density. It does not build. But it is a fact and a reality that currently today, the zoning on

the west side and the north of the city does not permit it. It is illegal. It is not possible.

So this is why we have to do this. Most certainly, as Supervisor Fielder, despite some

statements done by a former member of this board of supervisors,

this plan does include Seacliff, and it does include Jordan Park

and also St. Francis Woods and Cow Hollow and West Portal.

It includes the marina. It includes all of those neighbors.

All those RH1D mansions now are

density-decontrolled and will allow up to seven units

in that same bulk and height, so it most certainly does.

I also want to address this number of 20,000 because it's been thrown around quite a bit.

So the planning department does not keep the data of tenure.

That is something that we can get from the census, but it is an approximation.

We do not have that data.

We know which parcels hold two units or multifamily housing,

but we don't know whether those two units are a single-family home with an ADU,

to condos or tenancies and commons or whether they're rent-controlled units built before

1970.

We just don't have that data.

So that 20,000 number is everything.

It includes co-ops.

It includes condos.

It includes tenancies and commons.

It includes single-family homes with ADUs.

We do not know whether it includes single-family homes with UDUs because they're illegal by

definition.

If you watch the Land Use and Transportation Committee, you know that the process that we went through to decide which amendments were adopted and which were not.

We went through a thorough and very disciplined process to assess the loss of capacity or the creation of new constraints for every single amendment.

We looked at it.

We quantified it.

We got on the phone with HCD, and we ran it through, whether or not we were looking at it correctly or not.

And in fact, a bunch of the amendments that were kind of iffy, they told us, oh, I don't know, this thing might be a new constraint or it might be loss of capacity.

We still adopted them because it was worth it from a public policy perspective.

Many of Supervisor Chan's amendments and some Supervisor Chan's amendments were included in this fashion.

The amendment that put back the unit mix requirements was an amendment that each city actually flagged,

and we included it because it was important to have family-sized units in this plan.

I want to clarify to the amendments that I believe in rent control, the importance of rent control, in preventing demolitions.

I couldn't agree more.

I think there has been a deliberate misleading of the public on this topic.

Many people are understandably upset about the prospect of demolishing rent-controlled housing to build higher.

But the family zoning plan does not touch the process of whether one is given permission to demolish a unit or not.

because whether we like it or not, as Supervisor Fielder stated, SB 330, authored by State Senator Skinner in 2019,

gave anyone the right to demolish as long as you add one additional unit of housing.

Removing two-unit buildings from the local program also will not prohibit demolition,

but it will knock our entire plant out of compliance with HCD because we can't support these numbers.

We do not have that data. We do not know how many parcels have two units, a single-family home with a new-to-you, and we can estimate that there's many, many more. We just cannot quantify it nor support it.

Many people have single-family homes with unpermitted units. This is a direct result of a housing crisis coupled with zoning and building restrictions and people for decades who have gone outside of the rules to deal with this housing shortage and make do.

We need to protect renters and we need to protect tenants and we need to do it responsibly in the way that will be effective.

The family zoning plan is focused on setting allowable face heights of the lots in different parts of the city and on making it more attractive than the state program.

That's how we get all these goodies.

Affordable housing, warm shelter, small businesses, rent control.

All of these things we get because we are giving something in the zoning program.

At the Land Use Committee, we are still toiling away at Supervisor Chen's Tenant Protection Ordinance to make it as strong as legally possible.

There will be some final tweaks to the language next week.

We've been working with the advocates, and we have focused a lot of our energy to protect tenants and buildings from demolition as much as we can.

For the public who may have read it, Supervisor Chen's legislation includes Section 317 of our planning code where we define what qualifies as a demolition.

Beyond that, next year I intend to work with our state representatives to reform SB 330, which has overwritten some of our local tenant laws.

us and some other municipalities around the state of California who have strong rent control laws.

For some municipalities, SB 330 was groundbreaking and in evolution and much better than what they

had before, but not quite for us. I will speak to this more during roll call. But after all,

they are there to protect San Francisco's interests. And if a law isn't working well

for us, we should put some attention to it. And I commit that we will do that.

I think that our time is better spent affecting real change at the state level that can actually accomplish what we want than being counterproductive in how we are doing our zoning codes.

Thank you.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you so much, Supervisor and Chair Melgar.

Just to clarify, my question was why are we up zoning sites where rent-controlled tenants live and not Billionaires Row, St. Francis Woods, Seacliff?

these locations might be subject to density decontrol,

but that is not upzoning,

as are the parcels with rent-controlled units.

Thank you.

Okay.

If I'm last on the motion,

I mean, I do think that those communities believe

that density decontrol is upzoning.

Although I strongly support density decontrol,

I think the communities on the West Side that are receiving this are at least in some measure expressing concern.

I do have a question, Chair Milgar, if you're willing to entertain a question.

You had said that the committee had considered this amendment, but I don't think this particular amendment was ever introduced in committee.

Am I wrong about that?

No, the committee did not consider the amendment that Supervisor Chan introduced today.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

Okay, before I say anything else.

Supervisor Chan.

It was simply because the amendment, by the way, is legal and approved to form by city attorney because our original was really broad.

original amendments was to not, no demolition

for any project, well, that no

project should be allowed should they have demolition

of dwelling units and residential flats. So it's much broader

where today we are simply to tag on

the amendments that Supervisor Chair Malgar actually had

proposed, which is no demolition

for any buildings that has three or more rent control units.

So to tack on that, we're saying, well, then, you know,

let's protect residential flats that are rent control,

and that is our amendment today based on that.

If I may, though, to say it's really a policy decision that we're making.

particularly on this amendment that I'm proposing

is a policy decision to say whether we're going to protect

all rent control units from demolition

or only the 80,000 units or just whatever it is

the three units or more buildings with rent control units.

It's a policy decision that we're making

and I'm asking us to make today.

Thank you, Supervisor Shan.

If I'm last, I am not sure that this is the forum or place

to make that particular policy decision.

In one sense, of course, we could act on this amendment today,

but for the folks at home,

And I want to start by expressing a lot of gratitude for Chair Melgar and the members of the committee, Supervisors Mahmoud and Chen, for, of course, four meetings of the Land Use Committee, but a lot more work than that.

And some of the work that was involved in this was Chair Melgar, I think, getting on the phone, getting on the Zoom with State Department of Housing and Community Development, which has been closely watching this process in San Francisco.

San Francisco is viewed by the state, rightly or wrongly, I believe wrongly, but is viewed by the state as a particularly bad actor that needs particular oversight.

and so all of this has been carefully negotiated with the state

and Chair Melgar has been doing that negotiation

and to the extent that she's been able to get amendments,

some of which came from me, approved through that process,

I also want to express my gratitude for that.

My understanding from speaking with planning

and speaking with Chair Melgar has been that HCD is indifferent,

largely indifferent to the particular constraints that we put into this legislation,

that as long as we're creating the additional capacity that we are committed to on our housing element,

we can do it just about any way we want to as long as they're persuaded that it's real.

We can add additional protections or constraints around demolition of rent-controlled housing.

We can protect every single historic resource in the city and county of San Francisco.

We can do all of these things.

But as we do those things, we have to identify the additional capacity so that the units that we're taking off the board are made up for by units coming onto the board.

In that regard, I have said that I thought this board was going to need to approve something generally in the neighborhood of what Mayor Lurie and the Planning Department proposed for some time now.

I think we made some decisions early on to cut swaths of the city out of this upzoning that I think may not have actually been correct.

I think there are parts of the city that have not undergone prior rezoning that were excluded from this plan that we really ought to look at upzoning.

I frankly, for my friends to the west of Twin Peaks, think that we may have gone a little late on you folks.

I think we made a lot of decisions and took a lot of stuff off the table that got us to a situation when this finally came to the Land Use Committee for your consideration beginning a couple of months ago.

You were in a tight little universe of where you could address my demands to preserve historic resources, everyone's demands to preserve rent-controlled housing, all the things that we want to do.

And in that environment, I think you did the best that you could.

it is possible that if this particular amendment had been proposed two months ago maybe and I think

this is probably no but you know there might have been some universe in which we could have

cribbed and crabbed and somehow put because this is a many thousands of units the implications of

this are many thousands of units that are not currently in the plan and we would have had to

find those somewhere we are not going to be able to do that between now and the end of the month

and so I don't think that I can support this amendment.

But to Supervisor Wong's point, this is not the end of the story.

We can and should pursue future upzoning next year,

create additional capacity, and fix things that maybe ought to be fixed,

which could include bringing in Supervisor Chan's amendment sometime next year.

We would have to have a policy argument at that point about whether that is actually a good idea

because the implication of this, this does not protect these units from demolition.

It takes these units out of the local program.

The local program is being proposed to provide incentives to encourage developers to avoid

using the State Density Bonus Program.

The State Density Bonus Program is responsible for some of the most bizarre proposals for

very tall buildings that look nothing like our zoning and in fact look much more like

builder's remedy than anything remotely allowed in our local program.

So we're pushing people away to the extent we go down this path of taking things out

of the local program.

We are encouraging developers, property owners to go down alternative state paths which in

my view are less desirable for San Francisco.

So I'm willing to think about this amendment.

I'm willing to think about it next year in the context of additional upzoning to look

for more capacity in the city and county of San Francisco which I think we should do but

I don't think I can vote for it today and so if there are no more comments we should

probably vote on the motion.

Madam Clerk can you please call the roll on the motion.

On the amendment to item number 38, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder aye.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Mahmoud no.

Mandelman no Mandelman no supervisor Milgar no Milgard no supervisor solder

solder no supervisor Cheryl Cheryl no supervisor Walton Walton I supervisor

Wong no Wong no supervisor Chan Chan I supervisor Chen Chen I supervisor Dorsey

Dorsey no there are four eyes and seven nose with supervisors Mahmoud

Mandelman, Melgar, Sauter, Cheryl, Wong, and Dorsey voting no.

The motion fails.

All right, colleagues, more comments or discussion on items 36 through 38, or are we tired?

We may have had enough.

All right, then I'm going to offer just a few more, just a couple more comments.

I want to, for my part on the legislation, again, thank the committee, but I really want

to thank the planning staff who have had to deal with me.

And thank you, Director Sarah Dennis Phillips and Josh Switzky and Lisa and Rachel for

and Rich Sucre is over there with the historic preservation team.

I expressed, I've had concern, and it's less about the plan itself

than the way in which state laws could interact with increased capacity

as allowed under the plan and lead to the demolition of historic resources.

And I got really concerned that given all the other constraints

that had come into this plan through decisions over the last few years,

that we were really doing is making a plan to meet our housing needs

through the ministerial demolition of our historic resources,

which would be a really bad thing in my view.

And I'm still worried about that,

but I am grateful for the collaboration around a couple of amendments that went in.

And colleagues, thank you.

Thank you to the Land Use Committee again for making those amendments.

And thank you, Chair Melgar, for making the case to HCD.

But really thanks to planning staff and Calvin Ho in my office for thinking through those

amendments and also thinking through more broadly Adam Tonksvat.

I am hoping that by the end of this month we will manage to make some announcements

with the mayor about some broader commitments around historic preservation going forward.

Because I do think density can make this city better.

density can make our planning, our transportation systems better.

Density, of course, can help address our housing crisis.

But I worry in a densely built out historic city that we could lose some of the historic

resources that are really important to our neighborhoods, to the character of our city,

and I don't think we want to do that.

And given the current context of our state laws, we need to get ahead of this sooner

rather than later.

So thank you for all of that.

Thank you to the historic preservation community, SF Heritage for their contributions, to our

historic preservation commissioners who are gems and who had a lot of good thoughts about

this plan and how to make it better.

I just want to extend a lot of thanks on that.

Is this the perfect plan?

No.

Is it the plan that I would have written if I were the zoning czar for San Francisco?

No.

Is it good enough?

Yes.

And this is a case where I don't think the perfect should be the enemy of the good enough.

And for those who worked on it, thank you very, very much for all that you've done to get us through a really hard project.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

On items 36 through 38, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, no.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Supervisor Milgar.

Aye.

Milgar, aye.

Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter aye. Supervisor Cheryl aye.

Cheryl aye. Supervisor Walton.

Walton no. Supervisor Wong.

Yes. Wong aye. Supervisor Chan.

No. Chan no. Supervisor

Chen. Chen no. Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey aye. There are seven ayes and four no's

with supervisors Fielder, Walton, Chan, and Chen

voting no. These ordinances are passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please let's go to item 39.

Yes, items 39 and 40 were considered by the Rules Committee at a regular meeting on Monday,

December 1st, 2025 and recommended to the full board today.

Item 39, it is an ordinance to amend the Administrative Code to eliminate the Folsom Street Entertainment Zone

and create the West Soma Entertainment Zone in affirming the CEQA determination.

Please call the roll.

roll on item 39 supervisor fielder field their I supervisor Mahmoud Mahmoud I

supervisor Mandelman I Mandelman I supervisor Melgar Melgar I

supervisor solder solder I supervisor Cheryl Cheryl I supervisor Walton

Walton I supervisor Wong Wong I supervisor Chan Chan I supervisor Chen

Chen, aye.

Supervisor Dorsey?

Aye.

Dorsey, aye.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call item 40.

Item number 40 was amended to strike rejecting from the motion, and it is now a motion approving

the President of the Board of Supervisors, Raphael Mandelman's nomination of Robin Abad

Acabello for appointment to the Board of Appeals for a term ending July 1, 2026.

And we'll take this item, same house, same call.

Without objection, this motion is approved.

And we'll go back to roll call, Madam Clerk, and I think we were on Supervisor Melgar.

Yes, Supervisor Melgar, you're next up.

Thank you, Madam Clerk and President.

Colleagues, as I had spoken about earlier, today I'm introducing a resolution urging the state to amend the Housing Crisis Act,

most commonly known in SB 330, so that we can go further to protect tenants and rent-controlled units from demolition.

This state law was created to allow streamlined approval to demolish existing structures in order to build more units on the same lot.

It includes provisions to temporarily relocate tenants and compensate them during the rebuild.

For some cities, this legislation helps existing tenants while spurring development of more units on underutilized lot.

However, in cities like ours, with older tenant laws, it actually has undone some long-standing

principles due to unintended consequences in the state preemption.

Most importantly, SB 330 allows you to demolish existing rent-controlled buildings as long

as you promise to replace those units and add at least one more unit.

But the look-back period for tenant occupancy is only five years, so it creates an incentive

to just leave the units vacant for five years to get around replacement units and tenant rights.

Even SB 79 has a seven-year look back, while SB 423 has a 10-year look back.

SB 330 was also amended by its author to exclude tenants who make more than low-income tenants

from the relocation assistance and right of return, which is not consistent with our fundamental

principles in rent control in San Francisco. Even for low-income tenants, there is no requirement

that their rental units are actually replaced with rental units.

They can become condos instead.

So the right to purchase instead may not be possible or desired.

If you care about existing tenants and protecting rental units

along with the small businesses within them,

I urge you to co-sponsor this resolution and work with me

with our state assembly person from AD17

who is the chair of the housing committee.

I am committed to seeing this through

and I hope that you will support this as well. Additionally, I am introducing a resolution

urging the Lurie administration to develop a platform and strategy to support the safety and

health of women and advancing gender equity in our city. I want to echo the sentiments shared by some

of my colleagues about the horrific abuse and dehumanizing acts that we learned about in our

jail. It saddened me, it saddened me greatly, it nauseated me, and it also enraged me. What allows

the types of heinous acts is a pervasive culture that devalues the rights of women. I am introducing

this resolution to request that this administration develop and clarify the vision for women's success

in the city. We make up 50% of the population of our city, and we definitely know that we hold up

more than half the sky. I want us to take a real honest look at ourselves as a city that claims to

support women and girls. In the past year, we have demoted the Department of the Status of Women with

an independent oversight commission to a branch of the Human Rights Commission, a department with a

man as its current director. In our city, women make 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. We have

made promises to women about workforce, about equity, about access to capital for women-owned

businesses, but pilot programs have expired and the disparities still persist. We promised voters

universal child care four years ago and we still have not delivered despite having almost 500

million dollars just sitting in that fund. San Francisco today has the worst health disparities,

premature birth rates and infant mortality rates for black women and babies in the state of

California. We promised civil defense for victims of domestic violence when we passed Proposition D.

We still have not delivered. Resources to prevent gender-based violence and harassment

continue to be underfunded and diminished. Two weeks ago, Tipping Point put out a report on how

poverty in San Francisco and the Bay Area is at an all-time high. We have gone backwards. But

colleagues, the face of poverty in San Francisco and in California is a woman, usually a single mom,

receiving food stamps and Medicaid. We cannot with a straight face say that we care about poverty

or public safety without addressing the specific issues of poverty and the safety of women.

A few years ago, the then Department of the Status of Women evolved from an agency that concentrated on grant-making,

supporting women experiencing domestic violence and human trafficking,

to a department that held our city accountable to uphold the human rights and the success of women in our city.

We evolved from seeing and addressing women only as victims to a vision of women as successful agencies in their success and self-determination.

This goes beyond one department.

We need a platform that is administered through our culture as a city and across our departments.

This must come from the administration's leadership.

I want to know, what is our vision now?

How will the new organizational changes support that vision?

What is our role and what is needed?

What does accountability for women's rights look like?

I look forward to hearing clarity, supporting our collective efforts, and I will be introducing a package that will lay out these questions and hopefully compel an actionable plan.

And finally, I have some very sad news.

Today we pause to honor the life of Claude, the albino alligator, a one-of-a-kind San Francisco icon who brought a smile, a sense of wonder,

and more than a few surprises to everyone that crossed this path, our alligator with a mellow

demeanor. Claude's journey to San Francisco began far from here in the bayous of Louisiana.

Claude was hatched in 1995. He eventually found a home in the California Academy of Sciences.

Claude and all of San Francisco celebrated his 30th hatch day in September, a joyful milestone

that reminded us of how remarkable his life truly was. In a city known for its characters,

human and otherwise, Claude stood out as a reminder that even the most unexpected residents

can capture our hearts. He became more than just an exhibit or curiosity. He became

our shared community story. For countless visitors, especially for young people,

especially my kids, Claude sparked curiosity about wildlife, respect for nature, and the

importance of protecting the natural world. On behalf of the city and county of San Francisco,

I want to extend our deepest thanks to the staff at the California Academy of Sciences

and the dedicated animal care professionals who lovingly cared for Claude throughout his life and

shared him with generations of visitors. Today we say goodbye to a remarkable ambassador who reminded

us that San Francisco always has room for wonder and to welcome those who are a little bit different,

sometimes in the most unexpected forms.

The Cal Academy plans to hold a public memorial in the near future,

but in the meantime encourages people to share their memories of Claude

and the messages for his dedicated animal care team by email at claude at calacademy.org.

Rest in peace, Claude.

You will be remembered.

You will be missed.

And the rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Melgar.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Supervisor Cheryl.

Colleagues, today I'm introducing a hearing request focused on expanding eligibility of

Baby Prop C, the Early Care and Education for All initiative.

Now, I think we all are very aware that San Francisco has the fewest children per capita

of any major city in the country.

And one of the reasons for that is that it is incredibly unaffordable for families here.

And it's imperative on that measure to work to make it more affordable, more inviting

for families to start here, to grow here, and then to stay here in our city.

And early child care and child education is a critical part of that journey.

This past July, the Stanford Center on Early Childhood found that three in four Californian families with young children reported difficulty making ends meet,

with child care being cited as one of the most common hardships.

I don't think anyone listening is surprised to hear that.

And if that is the case, we should do something about it.

In order to bring real affordability for families, we must address these costs.

Helping families qualify for subsidized child care is a direct and directly effective way to do so.

Currently, San Francisco families earning between 151% and 200% area median income, that's up to $311,000,

do not qualify for a family of four, do not qualify for any subsidized care or tuition credit,

despite baby Prop C originally intending to include these households.

In essence, these families are caught in the middle.

They currently earn too much to qualify for assistance, yet they do not earn nearly enough to comfortably pay $2,000, $3,000 in monthly child care costs.

By fulfilling the original promise of Baby Prop C and subsidizing child care for families under 200% AMI, we provide instant financial relief, making sure San Franciscans are not living paycheck to paycheck solely to care for their children.

Moreover, this hearing will explore how expanding eligibility can best support our civil servants

and downtown workers, helping bring people back to downtown and revitalizing our economic

engine.

This policy is a win-win.

We have the money, and we have the care infrastructure to accomplish this transformative change.

This past fiscal year, the Department of Early Childhood reported a reserve fund balance of

$572.5 million, a key source generated by Baby Prop C that can critically strengthen

the city's entire early child care system. Therefore, this hearing will be focused on how

we can utilize this existing pool of money to fulfill its intended mission, making San Francisco

more affordable, more accessible, more attractive for the families who are here and the future

generations of families who are building roots in our city. I want to thank Supervisor Melgar,

who has worked long and hard on this issue, and Supervisor Wong for their early co-sponsorship on

this hearing request. I look forward to working with you both on this change to

city policy and working with the department on this as well. The rest I

submit. Thank you Supervisor Cheryl. Supervisor Walton. Thank you Madam Clerk.

Colleagues today first in line with City Attorney David Chu's lawsuit against

food and tobacco companies that deceptively promote ultra processed

foods as healthy and disguise health effects, I'm introducing a resolution calling for certain

city departments to review their distribution in support of ultra-processed foods directly

through contractors and to ensure alignment with the goals of California Real Foods and the Healthy

Kids Act, and urging the Department of Public Health to develop a framework for identifying

and evaluating ultra-processed foods for the city to use in decisions concerning food distribution

and procurement and for reporting purposes.

Our communities have lived with the consequences of ultra-processed foods for far too long.

These products have shaped diets in ways that fuel chronic disease

and place the heaviest burdens on working families, low-income neighborhoods, and communities of color.

When an industry prioritizes profit over public health, the government has a responsibility to step in, demand transparency, and protect residents from preventable harm.

If we want a food system that puts people first, we have to start with our own house.

City departments support food distribution and programming that provides food every single day

in shelters, jails, youth programs, long-term care, and community-based services.

Thousands of San Franciscans rely on us for meals that should promote health and dignity,

not contribute to the very conditions we are trying to eliminate.

We cannot call for accountability from corporations while ignoring the impact of foods we distribute.

Addressing this harm at its source begins with city government modeling the standards we want to see across the country.

This is how we advance health equity, protect families, and ensure San Francisco is leading by example.

I want to thank City Attorney David Chu and his team for his leadership and for taking bold action to hold this industry accountable.

San Francisco will not sit by while corporations profit from products that deceptively harm our residents.

I would also like to thank my legislative aide Natalie G., Deputy City Attorney Jesse Lehner, and Ann Pearson for their work on putting this resolution together.

This effort creates the foundation for stronger public health protection statewide, and it reinforces why it is so important for the city to examine our own practices as well.

I look forward to passing the resolution and to better behavior from our city as well.

I want to thank my current co-sponsors, Supervisors Chan, Melgar, and Sherrill for their support.

And last, I have a letter of inquiry for the Comptroller's Office.

Yesterday, we heard our ordinance to establish the Reparations Fund at Rules Committee.

As you know, this Board of Supervisors commissioned a Reparations Committee

in order to explore the injustices suffered by black people in San Francisco

and for the committee to come up with concrete solutions to address the harms of the past.

The committee came up with over 100 recommendations

that will work to achieve reparations for black people in San Francisco

if they met specific requirements identified by the committee.

Through this, the city also provided a formal apology via resolution

from this Board of Supervisors to the black community here in San Francisco.

The recommendations provided by the task force are only lip service if we do not do anything

to provide resources to address the proposed recommendations.

Along with the ordinance to establish the reparations fund to receive monies appropriated

or donated to support and implement recommendations described in the San Francisco reparations plan,

Today I am formally requesting a letter of inquiry from the Comptroller's Office,

specifically the budget analyst in the Comptroller's Office,

to forecast how much money could be yielded from the reparations fund yearly

and what mechanisms do we need in place to fund that account.

The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton.

Supervisor Wong.

Submit.

Thank you.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, Supervisor. Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Madam Clark.

Colleague, today I am introducing a hearing request in light of the trustless allegations of sexual misconduct committed against at least 20 women being held in San Francisco jail.

This was not an isolated event, but the continuation of a pattern of pervasive behavior that has historically been swept under the rug.

I want to be very clear, these women and any other who have been victimized or abused while in our jails are owed to justice.

It is our responsibility to use our power to force these issues to light.

I am calling a hearing that will enable us to examine the conditions for women in custody of our jails,

including safeguards for their personal safety and services or resources that are provided to them.

I will also be asking what oversight, policies, and procedures have been implemented by the Sheriff's Department to prevent, report, or address allegations of sexual misconduct.

Examine the hiring and assignments process for jail staffing, the complaint process for women in custody, and the disciplinary process for deputies who commit misconduct.

I want to thank Supervisor Walton, Chen, Melga, and Fielder for their early co-sponsorship, and the rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you.

Mr. President, that concludes the roll call for introductions.

All right, let's go to public comment.

At this time, the board welcomes your public comment.

Please line up on the right-hand side of the chamber.

As a reminder items 36 through 38 regarding the family zoning plan have already had their public comment opportunity

So you're not able to comment on those today

You may speak on items 43 through 47 on the forward option without committee reference agenda and general matters that are

Not on the published agenda, but are within the board subject matter jurisdiction

All other agenda content will have been reported to the board by an appropriate committee where the public comment requirement occurred

First speaker.

Yes, okay, so before I forget about the lies behind the reasons you gave concerning the family zoning plans,

family zoning and planning, generally speaking, is in the hands of specifically,

not only, but child traffickers from the state's country, the whole entire government, not only in the U.S.

Okay, so I'm going to give this to you.

if you don't want it it's fine

I know I will have given it to you

so it means

if you don't pay attention enough

considering it's not important enough

maybe for you

we know what to think

for any one of you listeners

who got this

in his mailbox already

about 3000 were distributed already

in the city throughout

now it's going to go in the businesses

and step by step

just know you are not isolated your neighbors as one too you see so you can act even though the

subject is extremely sensitive and big and i agree extremely disturbing more disturbing it's hard

impossible child trafficking institutionalized child trafficking murdering torturing i mean

You name it, it's there.

So, that's it, 45 seconds.

Yes, I was good.

What else?

You don't want to take a stand?

It's going to go in all police stations to fire departments, all over.

I mean, it's already about 7,000 to be given.

If people don't act, it's fine.

My mission is on.

I will have nothing to reproach myself.

I'm protecting the kids.

It's the only way.

you can stop the mess you put yourself in.

Once you address this, this is game over for the entire system,

absolutely ugly system.

Worse, you die.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

You are one for you.

Have a good night.

I'm Peter Warfield, Executive Director, Library Users Association.

We can be reached at PO Box 170544, San Francisco, California, 94117-0544.

There's a movie called The Librarians that is going to be playing this week,

starting this week, December 4th at the Roxy.

The makers were on the radio this morning, KALW,

talking about how it's documenting the attacks

that librarians are getting

with regard to the contents of their collections

and demands for their removal,

which isn't such a demand that's so unorganized.

And I think it's very important to support our libraries

as an independent and very valuable source

for entertainment and education, especially about what's going on in our society.

Unfortunately, our library in San Francisco isn't, we're not aware of requests or demands

to remove books, but we have had the library excluding services to certain people, and

we have had the library be very, very uncritically pro-tech, almost as a recruiter for tech.

They're constantly putting more and more programs on tech,

more and more materials electronically,

where those who don't have the access

don't have any opportunity to get at the materials and so on.

One City, One Book is Promoting the World's I See by Dr. Fei-Fei Li.

Not bad for a memoir, but it's very, very thin

on downsides of AI and of tech.

There is no reading material that's seriously, visibly opposed to AI and, in general, to the downsides of tech.

This is a book, as an example, The Age of Extraction.

Tim Wu, not on the list of reading material.

The Tech Coup, not on the list.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

I have someone come past these out.

Okay, you know, San Francisco loves AI, and someone I know created this report using AI,

so I hope you enjoy it.

please let me know if there's any, you know, untrue stuff.

As we know, AI makes factual errors.

So I don't know how you feel about the sanctity of your home,

being allowed to control who enters your home.

For many people, especially BIPOC, LGBTQIA plus people,

your home is literally your only sanctuary from society.

My home is in a building complex, and the front doors to the lobby are what I control to allow access,

including access to the government in general.

They need a warrant for me to force their way past those two doors.

Many times those doors have been the only safety I get from men stalking my wife and myself down market streets repeatedly

because if you're a lesbian or trans or trans lesbians, guess what?

That's a part of everyday life, being stalked by men.

Scary stuff.

So, you know, through no fault of the board,

the board of supervisors, this one here who represents me,

will be entering my building without my personal consent,

but these are decisions made beyond my control.

I am just here to express myself as a resident of San Francisco, a homeowner of San Francisco,

who pays a lot of money for that one little piece of sanctuary, expressing my displeasure

at having my government and also an elected SFDCCC person enter my sanctuary against my will.

And that's all I really have to say about that.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Board of Supervisor and Office Mayor of San Francisco.

The title of this speech is Grab the Baton.

A week in half though, I heard one of the board members running for Congress for Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House.

I'm here to offer unwavering support for this particular board member.

Being four years in Six Flags and a public relations officer of Six Flags,

I do take care of the alligators, so I did meet Claude, and also I met Jocko the Waters, starring 51st Stake by Adam Sandler.

So this is my spiel on the Bugs Bunny stage.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

Welcome to the Looney Tunes Dance Hub.

Today, three of the finest are competing for the title Best Dance Duo.

Each one will choose a partner and come and sing to a song of choice.

Well, folks, let's break them out.

Here are contestants.

The first is a bunny we all learn to love, Bugs Bunny.

And being the lover of lyrics, I have to say this.

The other four great king of the world, the singer is Lowe Duhwa.

The song is the one who is on the day.

I will give you a song for a song.

For that,

I'm here to renounce my unraising support being the 48th president of the United States

for the well-being of the United States, the world, and interplanetary species for dark

known particle.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi.

Good afternoon, board of committee.

My name is Paris Brown.

I am an entrepreneur, and we all know that the Super Bowls come in here.

And so with the Super Bowl coming here, I have designed a product that will be a benefit for the guests that are coming here.

And we all know about QR scan codes.

And with the QR scan codes, they are, you know, basic and generic.

But I created and designed this QR scan code, and it can be beneficial for trafficking, for transportation, as far as for guest scanning for information.

And I can contribute to this new form of QR scan codes.

It will be one of a kind for built from Silicon Valley resident.

and this would be the update model of using QR scan codes.

And so I think this would be a great opportunity to showcase and advertise here in San Francisco.

When guests come, they know how to go on the Internet.

We can advertise this around the city of San Francisco and people scan this

and get direct information about location, how to get around to different hotels,

and having this at the airport as well.

And so if you wanted to know more, because this is my product,

and I am looking for an investor because I don't have an investor at this point,

because then I can use that money to build on my team that can help contribute

to pushing this out on a local, put this out to the public.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

I'd like to give gifts.

Fly like a falcon up, up to the sky, high, high, high.

So ho, ho, like a falcon to the heavens high, high, high, high.

Have the anticipation of the falcon and the pride of the leopard.

In the times of the hunt, be graceful.

In the times of war, victorious.

Don't pay too much heed to the nightingale or the peacock.

One is all talk, the other all color.

You can fly, you can fly, you can fly.

I'm tortured, I've been tortured, traumatized, without housing,

without a place to heal from being a victim of violence,

not helped from the Victims of Violence Committee, not helped by anybody.

Just struggling as a woman.

Yes, there are sexist hate crimes.

Yes, there are ageist hate crimes.

Yes, there are xenophobic, racist up the yin-yang, and they're in the courts.

They are in the security system.

They are in the housing.

When you gave the Episcopals for a dollar the housing at 1066 and 1064, they can't heat it.

heat the tub. It's a flip of the switch.

Turn it up higher. They can't give you air.

And then the park, the Yerba Buena Park,

where it's just unbelievable with the marina

security, just cannot do things right.

You are an enemy if you are an

exceptional human being who wants to heal and be there to heal.

But instead, you are abused, abused because the security makes the rules that you are supposed, that they're supposed to enforce.

That doesn't happen.

Thank you for your comments.

Seeing no other speakers, Mr. President.

All right.

Public comment is now closed.

Madam Clerk, let's go to R4 Adoption Without Committee Reference Agenda, Items 43 through 47.

Items 43 through 47 were introduced for adoption but without committee reference a unanimous vote is required for adoption of a resolution on first appearance today

Alternatively a member may require a resolution on first appearance to go to committee

Supervisor Walton, thank you President Mandelman sending item 47 to committee

Okay

Supervisor Chan sever item 44

Okay, and supervisor solder I would just like to be added as co-sponsor to 43 please okay

So with that

Madam clerk, could you?

Call the role on all the items except 44 and 47

Yes on items 43 45 and 46

supervisor Fielder Fielder I've supervisor Mahmoud

Mahmoud I supervisor Mandelman I

Aye.

Mandelman, Aye.

Supervisor Milgar, Aye.

Milgar, Aye.

Supervisor Sauter, Aye.

Sauter, Aye.

Supervisor Sherrill, Aye.

Sherrill, Aye.

Supervisor Walton, Aye.

Walton, Aye.

Supervisor Wong, Aye.

Wong, Aye.

Supervisor Chan, Aye.

Chan, Aye.

Supervisor Chen, Aye.

Supervisor Dorsey, Aye.

Dorsey, Aye.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the resolutions are adopted and the motions are approved.

And Madam Clerk, please call item 44.

Item number 44 is a resolution to support the passage of the Stop Ballroom Bribery Act

to root out pay-to-play by imposing donation restrictions to projects involving public property

and calling on local donors to return their donations.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Colleagues, as elected officials, we know how important it is for us to have a good government

that earns and builds public trust.

When we allow the culture of pay-to-play, we allow government corruption to fester.

And as a result, working people cannot depend on our government to deliver critical and honest services.

And people suffer.

Senate Bill 3191 and House Bill 6085 collectively call the Stop Ballroom Bribery Act

are in direct response to the donation being collected, in my opinion, as a bribery

to pay for President Trump's ballroom renovation and expansion.

While American people are facing cuts to health care and food nutrition programs

and elimination of many critical services for the most vulnerable in San Francisco and across the

nation. The Stop Ballroom Bribery Act is the first step to impose restrictions and limitations

to private donation, to require transparency, and to enable enforcement measures. The Stop

Ballroom Bribery Act also serves as a reminder for all of us as our city continues to seek

private donation to support our public programs.

Rooting out pay-to-play opportunities and setting regulations to prevent

improperity is important at all levels of government.

And this bill is a good first step for the federal government.

But we know more needs to be done, not just for the federal government,

but in San Francisco as well.

Thank you.

All right.

I think we can take this item same house same call without objection the resolution is adopted

Madam clerk do we have any imperative agenda items? We do not have any imperative agenda items today. Could you please read the in memoriams?

Yes on behalf of President Mandelman for the late mrs

Today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals on behalf of President Mandelman for the late

Mrs. Wathana Sapp on behalf of Supervisor Melgar for the late Claude the albino alligator.

And I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda. Madam Clerk, do we have any further business before us today?

That concludes our business for today.

Thank you, Madam Clerk and colleagues. We are adjourned.

Thank you.