Good afternoon.

Welcome to the July fourteenth, twenty twenty-six regular meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the role?

Chan present, Supervisor Chen, Chen present, Supervisor Dorsey, Dorsey present, Supervisor Fielder, Fielder present, Supervisor Mahmood.

Melgar present, Supervisor Shawter, Starter present, Supervisor Cheryl, Cheryl present, Supervisor Walton, Walton present, and Supervisor Wong.

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 Ramatusha Loney community and by affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.

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

My pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

On behalf of the board, I'd like to acknowledge the staff at SFGov TV.

Today that is especially Colina Mendoza.

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

And with that, Madam Clerk, let's go to our 2 p.m.

special order, the mayor's appearance before the Board of Supervisors.

Yes, the special order at 2 p.m.

is the appearance by the Honorable Mayor, Daniel Lurie to discuss the eligible topic submitted by the District 9 supervisor, Supervisor Fielder.

The Mayor may address the board initially for up to five minutes.

Welcome, Mr.

Mayor.

Do you have any opening remarks?

I do.

Good afternoon, Board President Manelman and members of the Board of Supervisors.

I want to start by thanking each and every one of you for your partnership over the past 18 months.

During that time, we have made our streets safer, improved how we serve residents, and created conditions where families, businesses, and communities can thrive.

The results from the first half of this year show that our approach is working and we are building on last year's momentum.

During the first six months of 2026, overall crime was down 22 percent compared to the same point and period last year, building on a nearly 30 percent citywide decline in 2025.

Car break-ins fell 42 percent.

Car thefts declined 26 percent after dropping 44 percent in 2025.

This year, 10 encampments had fallen to their lowest levels on record and are down 53 percent since we took office.

April and June recorded the fewest monthly overdose deaths since the city began tracking them in 2020.

And people are returning to San Francisco.

In May, Muni weekend ridership surpassed pre-pandemic levels for the first time.

SF SFO recorded its busiest Memorial Day weekend ever, and half a million more tourists are projected to come to our city this year than in 2025.

Our economic recovery is gaining momentum.

Through Permit SF, the city is issuing a record 86 percent of permits within 30 days or fewer.

Our new digital permitting system has processed over 1,500 permits in its first five months.

An office leasing reached its highest volume since 2018, a promising sign that businesses are choosing to invest in San Francisco.

We still have a lot of work to do.

I am confident that the upcoming budget will build on the progress we've already made.

Amid federal cuts, we are strengthening our social safety net so San Franciscans know they can count on this city.

The budget maintains health care and food assistance, invests in preventing individuals and families from falling into homelessness, and protects core services that keeps our streets safe and clean.

And we are also on track to close a $642 million deficit.

This budget reflects what is possible when we work together.

We are protecting the services that San Franciscans depend on and continue to drive a durable and broad economic recovery.

San Franciscans are also helping move our city forward.

This past Saturday, in partnership with each of your offices, we launched San Francisco's inaugural one city day.

More than 4,000 San Franciscans volunteered, cleaned parks, planted trees, painted murals, packed food, and work side by side to improve the communities they call home.

It was a reminder that San Francisco is strongest when people come together to serve one another.

That is the spirit I hope continues to guide us as we continue the work ahead.

I look forward to partnering with all of you to make sure San Francisco is safer, cleaner, and where every family, community member, and small business has the opportunity to thrive.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Lurie.

Madam Clerk, please call the topic for District 9.

Yes, the topic submitted by the District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder is strategies and metrics of success at the Mission Street BART Plazas.

Supervisor Fielder, please ask your opening question.

Thank you, President Manelman.

Thank you, Mary Larry, for being here.

Mayor, as you know, the BARC Plazas have been a top priority for me since taking office.

I'm encouraged that the Office of Economic and Workforce Development is leading a new interdepartmental effort that brings multiple city departments together to coordinate strategies and address the long-standing challenges that have impacted the mission.

However, I am still getting complaints from constituents and from small businesses and seeing for myself with my own eyes every day.

People suffering on the street with substance use disorder, who need treatment, people vending both with and without permits, caught in chaotic and unpredictable enforcement and permitting systems, and unhoused people who need housing.

What strategies and metrics or benchmarks does your office use to measure the success of the new OEWD-led 90-day effort on Mission Street.

And according to these metrics, are your administrators interventions making a meaningful difference?

Supervisor, thank you.

I appreciate it and thank you for your shared interest in ensuring our public spaces are safe and welcoming for all.

And I would agree with you, it is not controversial to say that the conditions at 16th Street and 24th Street Bar Plazas have been unacceptable for far too long.

We must do better for the residents, commuters, workers, families, and businesses who rely on these plazas every single day.

You and I agree on that.

And our team recognize that restoring these spaces will take sustained coordinated work.

We brought together city departments and outside partners for a 90-day multi-agency effort to improve conditions in this community and lay the groundwork for lasting durable progress.

Under my office, as you mentioned, and OEWD, we have launched a coordinated response that combines and combined combines enforcement, outreach, supportive services, and community activation.

Our goals are simple.

Improve safety, stop illegal fencing, eliminate open air drug activity, improve connectivity for transit riders, and provide welcoming, community-centered public spaces on these plazas.

And we're not just increasing presence.

We're giving every department a real-time visibility into who is deployed, where they are deployed, and what role they are fulfilling.

By aligning schedules and operations across agencies, we can reduce service gaps and ensure more consistent coverage throughout the day.

We are also strengthening daily collection by integrating observation across teams so we can identify what's working, make adjustments, and get more effective over time.

Over these 90 days, we will use that information to evaluate programs, make targeted improvements, and build a long-term strategy that extends beyond this initial intervention.

These plazas belong to the community, and our commitment to ensure safety, dignity, and accessibility for all the residents, commuters, and families who should be able to use these spaces comfortably.

Supervisor thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Supervisor Fielder, you may now ask a follow-up question directly related to the opening question.

Thank you for that, Mr.

Mayor.

Can you elucidate more what metrics or benchmarks your office is using to measure success?

Thank you, Supervisor.

Over the first months of our 90s, over the first month of our 90-day coordinated effort, we're seeing encouraging science that multi-agency approach is starting to make a difference.

We're doing more proactive policing, which I know you and the residents community have asked for.

Routine patrol checks are up 56% at 16th Street and 36% at 24th Street, with major increases in narcotics enforcement, moving violations, and felony arrests.

At the same time, mental health and homelessness-related calls are declining, along with property crime around 24th Street.

We've also expanded enforcement against illegal fencing.

We've improved lighting, installed new cameras, and deployed ambassadors who are helping prevent emerging issues before they escalate.

Thanks to the state legislation we got passed last year, we passed with sub with the support of the vending groups, we've issued 300 warnings and started issuing citations to prevent reselling of stolen goods, which we know can become dangerous.

Our cleanliness, stronger coordination across state departments is leading to faster responses and more consistent maintenance.

Encampment reports are down 8% at 16th Street and 30 percent at 24th Street.

Our dedicated mission street outreach team, now under the Department of Public Health, is helping to address immediate needs while a specialized team provides intensive support for residents with complex behavioral health and medical needs.

Together, enforcement and outreach are working hand in hand.

Now, these are just early results, which are promising.

We know and I agree with you, Supervisor, that the work is far from finished.

We are just getting started.

And conditions still get worse at night when resources are limited, and nearly three quarters of service office uh service offers are still declined by people struggling on our streets.

Our work will not be done until residents, workers, merchants, and families feel safe and are safe, and the plazas are once again places where community can gather.

I look forward to continuing this work with you, Supervisor, and the community with urgency, accountability, and sustained collaboration.

Mr.

Mayor, um, you may now ask a question to Supervisor Fielder or to any other supervisor in attendance pertaining to the same topic, but not necessarily related to the previous question.

No, I appreciate it.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Thank you all.

Uh, and I'll let you get down to business.

Thank you for coming to visit us, Mr.

Mayor.

All right.

Let's go.

Madam Clerk, communications.

Minutes before communications.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh as the Board of Supervisors welcomes you all to attend this meeting in person in the board's legislative chamber.

And when you are unable to be here, the proceeding is airing live on SFGOV TV's local cable channel or live streaming at SFGOVTV.org.

As some of you may know, SB 707 now requires remote public comment at the full Board of Supervisors meetings.

As a reminder, it does not apply to committee meetings.

Uh today at General Public Comment, we will welcome remote public callers.

Of course, we will prioritize those of you who have joined us in person first, and then we will take the remote callers.

Public comment must remain germane to the matters within the board's subject matter jurisdiction and any self-expression that contains personal attacks, harassment, or discriminatory remarks directed at any city employee or board member are not within the scope.

And failure to immediately redirect comments would result in the forfeiture of your remaining time and a transition to the next speaker.

Remember to address your comments to the board as a whole and not to individual members.

If you would like to submit your public comment in writing, you can send it an email to BOS at SFgov.org or use the postal service.

Address your envelope to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the number one, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlitt Place, City Hall, Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And if you'd like to request a uh reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disability Act, or to request language assistance, contact the clerk's office at least two business days in advance by calling 415-554-5184.

Thank you, members.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Now let's go to approval of our meeting minutes.

Yes, approval of the June 9th, 2026 board meeting minutes.

Colleagues, could I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented and moved by Supervisor Chen and seconded by Supervisor Dorsey?

Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

On the minutes as presented, Supervisor Soder.

Solder I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Walton I, Supervisor Wong.

Wang I, Supervisor Chen.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen, Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey, Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder, Fielder, I, Supervisor Machmud.

Machmud I, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I, and Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, I.

There are 11 ayes.

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

And with that, let's go to our consent agenda.

Please call items two through four together.

Items two through four are on consent.

These items are considered to be routine.

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

Please call the rule.

On items two through four, Supervisor Sauter, Soder I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Walton, I, Supervisor Wong, Wong I, Supervisor Chen.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder, Fielder, I, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Mahmoud I, Supervisor Mandelman, Aye.

Mandelman, I, and Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, I.

There are 11 eyes.

Without objection, these ordinances are finally passed.

Madam Clerk, let's go to unfinished business.

Please call item five.

Item five, this is an ordinance to amend the administrative environment, health, labor, and employment.

Part planning, police, public work, subdivision, transportation, and building inspection commission codes to modify numerous reporting requirements and to affirm the planning department sequid determination and to make the appropriate findings.

Supervisor Walton admonished me not to look at his notes.

Colleagues, I have circulated uh amendments that I would hope uh we will adopt today and then uh pass this ordinance on first reading.

Um by way of background to catch people up, uh this ordinance has been a long time in the making.

Um City Attorney David Chu uh had heard from many departments um over time that they were feeling burdened by the volume of reports that they were being asked to produce, that in their mind uh nobody was reviewing uh and that we had a makework exercise going on that they would like that they were hoping someone would prune.

And for many years, well, for years, uh supervisor or city attorney Chu heard this, wasn't quite sure what to do with it.

There's been a lot of talk about how AI has been used with this ordinance.

The way AI was used with this ordinance was that a Stanford uh a Stanford um uh learn language model was brought to bear to identify all of these reports.

The ordinance was not written by AI, the AI did not do the analysis of whether these reports were worthwhile or not worthwhile.

Um all they did was uh pull out all the reporting requirements that might have been put into our vast code uh over time.

Um this exercise identified 500 540 reports, and then the real work for the city attorneys and the people in the departments began, wherein they looked at each of these reports and they tried to figure out whether they were valuable, whether someone out in the world seemed to be paying attention to these reports and wanting these reports, or whether they were just a make work exercise.

Um based on that, they decided to leave I think two-thirds of the reports alone.

So about 380 of the reports that they identified are not being touched.

Um the rest, uh 140 some odd reports, uh, this ordinance would eliminate, modify.

Um the city attorney's office was asked to prepare some to many, many months ago, a uh a smaller document, a nine-page report that walked through each of the changes and uh generally summarized it so people could know at least what more to look for if they had concerns.

Um of us took advantage of that, I did, Supervisor Chen did, Supervisor Cheryl did, I believe, others may have.

Uh this ordinance was heard at Planning Commission, at the Building Inspection Commission, and also at our own uh GAO.

I do want to thank uh Chair Cheryl for uh the work that he and particularly his staff, I think Lorenzo was working on this um did in sorting through some of the concerns that uh they heard.

Um and that was the measure that was forwarded um to the full board.

Now, as we recall, there was some discussion about this two weeks ago, different concerns were expressed.

And within the week before, between this going to GAO and coming to the full board, we did hear uh from the um LBE uh bus the small business community um with concerns about this ordinance, about other uh pieces of legislation.

And so at that point, I asked and the board decided to continue this item for two weeks to address their concerns, to address other questions people might have about the ordinance.

Through conversations with the LBE folks, I think there may well be work to be done in changing the reporting that impact that they are concerned about, but I don't think we can have those conversations on the same timeline as the rest of this.

And so among the amendments that you have in front of you are amendments that basically take out any of the items that the that those letters from the LBE community identified as things they were concerned about.

We also heard from the Department on the Status of Women with lots of questions.

In the end, I think we addressed most of their questions, but there are two changes that we are proposing that would on pages 285 on page 285, lines five and six restore the Department of the Status of Women as a recipient of a quarterly report that the San Francisco Police Department and the and by the San Francisco Police Department and the DA to various departments regarding domestic violence data.

And they also asked, and we have included in these amendments a restoration of the ongoing reporting requirement for DSW to report on the city's policy promoting representation of women on city I think it's on city commissions.

And then on page um uh 18, um there's uh a restoration of the uh sexual harassment report um by uh um that that's prepared by the Department of Human Resources, um, although rather than having it be a quarterly report, as currently it would be semi-annual.

Um those are three additional changes that have come up in the last two weeks.

And then there were there are a couple of cleanup items because it's been around uh, as I said, for a year, the city attorneys have provided some cleanup, page 358, line 12 updates the text of that section to reflect the current code, which is different from when they first introduced it.

Um page 308, line 22, we're removing a section related to the equal pay reports that's already been eliminated.

Um then on page 282, uh lines 14 uh and 17.

We're proposing to change language uh to semi-annual instead of biannual for consistency and clarity.

Um addition to those changes, we've also had, I hope, fruitful conversations between our our clerk's office and our city attorney, and our city attorney um took it upon himself to do another uh review of the legislation, and based on that to provide um some clarification into the title, which um I'm grateful for.

Um, and then I believe they have uh they've updated the digest that will be uh that will accompany this in the in the official record.

So those are the changes we have um we are proposing for the board's consideration.

Um I know this is long, it's a long measure.

It's not the only long measure that this board has considered.

Um we consider a long uh a long measure in the form of our budget every single year.

Um I do think there is a question about as these uh requirements that um that grow up over time do accrue what the most expeditious and reasonable way to prune our code is.

Um I'd hope this is not the end, because I do think our code needs much more pruning.

Um, but uh I'm I'm not planning on introducing uh another major one of these uh in my last six months.

Um I do think it's worth doing.

I think there are hardworking people in every single department in the city who uh question the value of their work when they know that they are preparing a report and spending many hours on it that um no one will actually use and would like to be doing something of more immediate value to the public.

Um I think those are my comments.

I bel and I will now come go back up and take my chair and allow others who may feel differently to speak.

Thank you so much, President Mendelman.

Supervisor Filder.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President Manelman, for hearing community out on some of these reports and for allowing us more time to look into this legislation.

I had several concerns with reports being removed or pared down, including reports raised by the Department on the Status of Women, which I'm glad to see were reconsidered.

And I'm thankful to you, Maveskelly and President Mandelman's office for going over other concerns with my staff, Jennifer Frigno.

I support the vast majority of code cleanup in this ordinance, removing outdated and obsolete reporting requirements and paring down the frequency of some reporting from some departments.

However, I have one major outstanding concern with this legislation, and that is the paring down of the controller's annual surveillance technology audit from once a year to once every five years.

Section 2A.20 requires the controller to audit annually the use of surveillance technology by departments and requires the audit to include a review of whether a department has operated and is operating in compliance with an approved surveillance technology policy ordinance, has completed an annual surveillance report and such other information as the controller determines helpful to assess the surveillance technology policy.

At a time when people are increasingly concerned about data privacy and how they are being monitored, I think the frequency of this report is crucial to honoring civil liberties and the intent of our city's strong surveillance technology policy.

I'm disappointed that this reporting requirement will be pared down from one year all the way to five years.

It is a significant undertaking in the controller's office to conduct this audit, but I think this is a priority for San Franciscans, so much so that I will not be able to support this item.

Thank you, President Amandaman.

I just want to say that I think it's great that the city attorney, city departments, and board of supervisors, and everyone but the public had a chance to weigh in on this dense document.

Um which affects everyone.

These reporting requirements are in place for a reason.

So I think you know you should be proud to make so many changes without anyone knowing what's happening.

This really should have been separated and taken up after recess with a public process.

There is a lot of information in here.

There are a lot of changes in here.

This document is very dense.

And everybody you described that participated in this conversation does not include the public, which will be affected by this legislation.

I think that it is awfully peculiar that we are handling a piece of legislation in this manner with no public process, with so many changes.

To support this is saying that we don't give a damn about public voice.

And I've never seen us do policy like this in my almost eight years on this board of supervisors where we have no public conversation, no public comment, no public weigh-in.

I've just never seen this.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

I just want to start my comments by thanking you and your staff for a tremendous amount of work.

Uh, and also City Attorney Chu and his staff for the many hours they spend on the legislation and uh partners who have done this.

Um as I previously stated, I do believe that the exercise to evaluate and assess the code and clean it up is an act of good government hygiene.

I don't know if that's the that's a phrase.

Um our code has become uh convoluted over time and it requires regular cleanup uh of obsolete sections, redundancies, purging of sections that are no longer useful.

And I want to be clear that I do think that that's an appropriate use of AI.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Um there are policy implications for uh streamlining and uh getting rid of reports that I think are policy decisions, not just cleanup decisions.

Um I do appreciate the amendments that you're putting forward today.

Thank you for including uh a couple of mine.

I just want to caution us that this week of all weeks, if you know, I've been reading the paper, what's going on in San Francisco last couple of weeks, we were gonna get rid of the report on sexual harassment.

That's what we were gonna do before the amendments before you today.

And they were caught by somebody at the Department of the Status of Women, which is why they're before us today.

I very much care about this issue, but there's lots of other issues that I'm not watching out for.

And in the 350 some pages, you know, I was able to find a few things, but I don't know that I was able to do everything.

So I will be voting against this legislation.

Uh, but let me be clear on why.

It is not because I don't think that, you know, AI, what that's that's not reason.

I think it's up to me, it's about the process.

So, you know, we each have very distinct jobs in the checks and balances of powers of our government.

I'm very proud of our democracy and particularly proud of the democracy that we have in the city and county of San Francisco.

The city attorney's role at the elected city attorney that we have has a responsibility to keep the city from legal harm to make sure that our codes are efficient and they're clear to minimize the harm to San Francisco or the risk of legal uh entanglement and also you know help make things more efficient, and I think that that's great.

Our city clerk also has you know a responsibility to make sure that the records of our activities are searchable and that they're transparent and accessible to the public, and that requires a lot of organization and being able to do things a certain a certain way.

Our responsibility as a people's branch, as a legislative branch, is to make sure that the people have access to our activities and are full participants in our discussion.

And we have developed these processes over time to make sure that that happens.

Uh, to my uh colleague uh Walton's comments.

Um while we did have a couple of hearings at um committee, I don't think that they the process was sufficient to encompass the entire breadth of what's happening here.

And yes, most of it is, as uh my colleague Fielder stated, routine stuff, stuff that's unclear, redundancies, things that don't exist anymore, but some of them are actually legit policy discussions.

But it's all mixed in together in one vehicle.

And uh I don't think that we have uh had sufficient time, but more importantly, I don't think our processes are adequate to be able to handle something like this.

So I will be voting against it, but I also want to make a point in public to request uh to our city attorney, please do not ever do this again this way.

If we're ever gonna do this again, please have the courtesy to us, to our integrity as a legislative branch, as a people's branch to uh break it up by subject, by activity, if it's just cleanup versus reporting, uh uh, you know, there are many different ways to do this, but you know, I don't think that this was the right way.

And I just you know want to reiterate this is not about um well, some of it is the content, but overall the content I think is okay.

Um the reporting I think needs way more work.

Um and uh I think for me it's about the process and the integrity of us as a legislative branch and our role in providing transparent uh communication access and input from the public that I'm just not comfortable with.

Thank you.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Bo President.

Um colleagues, when I first reviewed this legislation, I was concerned that it eliminated several vital reporting requirements that are foundational to inform policy making on land use and housing.

Many of these reporting requirements were crafted with input from communities and community-based organization that rely on this information to protect tenants and expend affordable housing.

Some examples include indicators to better understand how progress towards how progress towards meeting affordable housing is impacted by the loss of rent control unit through hundreds of no-fought evictions is true.

A job housing fit analysis to better document how housing produced it matches the wage level of new workers, so that we may track our ability to house our local workforce.

Reports and indicators related to tenant impacts around short-term rentals, accessory drawing units, and fourplex.

And the affordable housing productions and preservation fund that has supported the development of deeply affordable housing and the preservation of existing rent controlled at units.

It is concerning to me that this reporting requirements were on the chopping block in the first place.

This is not simple cleanup of absolute requirements, but real policy trade-offs around reports and indicators that remain vital now than ever, given the city's best with deepening inequality and many displacement pressures.

And I want to really appreciate Supervisor Cheryl and your staff and President Mendelman and your staff for working collaboratively with my office to craft amendments to restore this requirement.

And I'll be supporting this legislation.

Thank you.

Supervisor Wong.

I want to thank President Manelman and City Attorney David Shu for working on this large piece of legislation identifying the things that need code cleanup in our city city code.

It's very it's a very large code.

And uh there's just so many requirements that city departments have.

Also want to thank and acknowledge the groups, supervisors and and folks that reached out to uh President Manelman and other folks to get this fixed so that we have more uh feedback on it and so that we can get it closer to moving forward.

As a legislative aide, I I worked on some legislation that sometimes included reports as well, and looking back at it now.

I'm looking and seeing did we really need to have some of those reports and you know sometimes we propose things because at the moment we want some additional additional feedback or accountability, or you want to make sure something gets there.

And so I think it also gives us a lesson as legislators in the future.

Then when we're working on our own ordinances, what are things that were that are important enough to justify reports and what are things that are a little bit extraneous that may not necessarily need that?

So this is something that I myself will be cognizant in the future when we're drafting potential pieces of legislation.

So just want to thank uh city attorney David Chu and also President Manuman for the work on this legislation.

Thank you, and uh thanks to my colleagues for thanking Maeve Skelly in my office.

I'd also like to thank Melanie Matheson previously previously for my office.

They both have done a ton of work on this.

I would like to move the amendments I have described and circulated is seconded by uh Supervisor Cheryl.

Can we take that without objection?

Without objection, the motion passes.

Um then uh Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the amended ordinance?

On item five as amended, Supervisor Sauter.

Sotter I, Supervisor Cheryl, Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton, Walton No, Supervisor Wong, Wong I, Supervisor Chen, Chen No, Supervisor Chen, Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey, Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder, Fielder, No, Supervisor Mahmoud, Mahmoud I, Supervisor Mandelman.

I.

Mandelman I, and Supervisor Melgar.

No.

Melgar, no.

There are seven eyes and four no's with Supervisors Walton, Chan, Fielder, and Melgar voting no.

The ordinance is passed on first reading.

Uh Madam Clerk, let's go to our 2.30 p.m.

special order.

Yes, the 230 special order is the commendation for meritorious service to the city and county of San Francisco.

All right.

And first up today, we have District 4, Supervisor Wong.

Colleagues, today I'm proud to recognize Lycee France de San Francisco in celebration of French American Heritage Month.

It is especially fitting that we present this commendation today on Bastille Day, as we celebrate the enduring French ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, as well as the long-standing friendship between France and the United States.

It was founded in 1967 by a small group of parents and teachers, beginning with just 27 elementary students in a one-room schoolhouse on Geary Boulevard.

Today, the Lycée serves approximately 850 to 900 students from preschool through high school across three Bay Area campuses.

It's remarkably diverse community, represents more than 50 nationalities and speaks over 30 languages.

When I used to live on 21st in Norega, I'd actually walk up the street and always wonder what the building was.

This historic campus has served as its middle and high school home since 2007 and has become an important educational and cultural institution in our neighborhood.

Through its French American educational model, the Lycée does much more than teach students another language.

It helps young people develop intellectual curiosity, adaptability, empathy, and the ability to understand the world from multiple perspectives.

For families who may assume that students must already speak French to attend, the Lycée's message is simple.

No French, no problem.

It's international track welcomes students without prior French language experience, making its bilingual and multicultural education accessible to an even broader community.

This year, the Lycée also achieved an important milestone by becoming a fully authorized international baccillarate world school.

On behalf of the Office of the District 4 Supervisor, it is my honor to commend Lycee France de San Francisco for nearly 60 years of educational excellence, cultural exchange, and service to generations of San Francisco families.

Congratulations to the entire Lycée family.

And if you can come up, say a few words.

So my name is Emmanuel Texas, I'm the head of school of the Lycée Franca de San Francisco, Supervisor Wong, President, members of the of the board.

Thank you.

It is a special honor to stand in this chamber today of all day, uh, July 14, Bastide Day, the National Day of France, and here in San Francisco, a day when the French and American flags fly together over this very building.

And as if the calendar wanted to make the point for me at this very hour on American soil, France has just lost.

Congratulations if there is anybody of Spanish descent here, congratulations to Spain.

Our students indeed followed every match of Les Bleus this summer, right here in the United States, cheering cheering in two languages.

I can think of no better image of the French American friendship we celebrate today, and no better city in which to celebrate National French American Heritage Month.

France is America's oldest ally, a friendship older than the Republic itself.

But friendship between nations is not sustained by history alone.

It is sustained by people, by families, by classrooms.

That is the work of the Lycée Francais de San Francisco.

Since 1967, the lycée has educated generations of San Franciscans in two languages and two cultures, from preschool to twelfth grade.

Today nearly one thousand students learn across our three campuses, including our Ortega campus in the heart of the Sunset District, which we are proud to call home, and which Supervisor Wong will visit tomorrow morning.

Our students come from dozens of countries, but what they share is this city.

They grow up bilingual and bicultural at ease crossing between languages, perspectives and traditions.

They graduate with both French and American diplomas, and this year, with our international baccalaureate track now fully accredited with no French required in middle school and high school, an asset for everyone in the sunset or San Francisco.

Our students carry San Francisco's spirit of openness into universities and careers around the world.

As we approach our 60th anniversary next year, this commendation means a lot and a great deal to all our students, our teachers, our families, and our alumni.

It affirms something we believe deeply that a school can be both proudly French and thoroughly San Franciscan.

So on behalf of the entire Lycée community, thank you, Supervisor Wong, for this recognition.

Thank you to the board for your support.

Vive l'amitié franco-américaine, vive San Francisco, and happy Bastille Day to all.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, President Manuman.

Colleagues, in honor of Disability Prime Month, I want to proudly recognize Antonio Babytone Garcia for his unwavering kindness.

From day one, Babytone has been one of my biggest supporters.

He has volunteered at countless community events.

He has helped share information with families, greeted neighbors with a smile, and always stepped up when help was needed.

Whether lifting boxes during the COVID 19 pandemic for food distributions and testing sites or lending a hand at community celebrations, Baby Tone has never hesitated to serve others.

His grandmother, Lorena Oropeza has dedicated more than 30 years to San Francisco General Hospital, where she currently works in labor and delivery.

Their family's tradition of volunteering, serving on boards, and giving back has clearly inspired Baby Tone, who is known and loved throughout the community.

Everywhere he goes, someone knows him and for good reason.

Despite facing challenges that might discourage others, Baby Tone has showed us that obstacles do not define a person.

He approaches every day with determination, optimism, and a contagious smile.

He reminds all of us that happiness, resilience, and perseverance are choices, and that with heart and determination, anything is possible.

One of the many stories that perfectly captures his generous spirit is when he learned how to place online orders using his family's phones.

Naturally, he didn't just think of himself.

And if he ever had 14,000 to spend, we are all convinced we'd each receive an electric bike and a helmet.

Because Baby Tone believes in looking out for others and making sure everyone stays safe.

Baby Tone has always dreamed of becoming a police officer or sheriff.

And anyone who has seen him in uniform knows he takes that responsibility seriously.

At community events, he proudly helps direct traffic, keeps a watchful eye on everyone, and provides his own special brand of community safety.

While no one is quite sure how he developed such a passion for law enforcement, it makes perfect sense and his greatest desire is simply to help people.

Smile.

Most recently, through the Opportunities for All program, Baby Tone achieved another milestone by beginning work at Jim's restaurant, where he proudly serves breakfast on Saturdays.

It is another example of his strong work ethic, his willingness to contribute, and his determination to continue growing and giving back.

Today we celebrate Baby Tone not only for what he does, but for who he is.

Thank you, Baby Tone, for being an inspiration, a role model, and a shining example of what it means to put your community first.

San Francisco is a better place because of you.

Thank you, Paul Preston.

May I have um person uh Mr.

David Hooper to come to the podium?

Good afternoon, everyone.

Today it's my great honor to recognize the new Mission Terrace Improvement Association for over 75 years of services to the neighborhood.

Founded in 1949, NMTIA has four-studied connections, hosting monthly meetings that connect residents with city departments, organizing neighborhood events, and creating opportunities for families, seniors, and youth to build friendships.

Under M TIA's organizations, families look forward to beloved traditions.

More than just fun memories, this event sputes community, so when something happens, neighbors show up for each other when they need it the most, even in isolations.

Mission terrorists remained connected.

During COVID, they refused to let the neighborhood lose a sense of joy and connections.

On Halloween, they organized their families, placing treats outside their homes and build long candy so children could still experience the excitement of trick or treating.

On the 4th of July, volunteer distributed sidewalk trucks so children and families could turn their driveways and their neighborhood streets into words of art.

Beyond fun events, NMTIA also makes a lasting impact through advocacy.

They supported the funding of Excelsior Youth Center, supported affordable senior housing at 5199 Mission Street, fought for the renovations of the Youth Community Art Center, and helped preserve the historic old Alamani Emergency Hospital, which today continue to serve our community as a clinic as it names the Clinic by the Bay.

Their commitment to community building, civic engagement, and public safety has made Mission Terrace stronger for generations.

David leads with an unwavering love for this community.

His leadership reminds us that one caring neighbor can inspire an entire neighborhood.

Please join me in congratulating the new Mission Terrace Improvement Association on this well-deserved recognition.

And let's give a big warm welcome to Mr.

David Hooper to say a few words.

Thank you.

President Mandelman, uh Supervisor Chen, uh and all the rest of the supervisors, thank you very much.

I appreciate the honor, and I accept it on behalf of the neighborhood association and our community.

We do other things too.

On February 14th, we have a pedestrian safety walk, and the theme is stop.

In the name of love.

You may have heard the song.

When I moved into the neighborhood from where I was raised in the mission 40 years ago, uh the president was the late great Tony Saco, and under his leadership and direction, and under I could list 40-50 people at uh at a moment.

And I think the same same idea exists in our community now.

So I would make a pitch for the full restoration of the Geneva office building at Geneva and San Jose as a youth art resource.

It's also where I took my oral exam for the Muni Railway 50 years ago.

And I think that every effort that we make is duplicated in many other communities in the city.

We aren't that special.

People are doing this throughout the city.

So thank you very much.

Oh, and one thing the neighborhood is Mission Terrace, but the organization is the new Mission Terrace.

So just to clarify it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you.

Congratulations, David.

Can I invite Allegra Madsen and Kate Beauvay and anybody else from Frameline who wants to come on up to come on up.

Just Allegra.

Just Allegra.

Words that have never been said.

Okay.

Um, colleagues, it is my honor uh today to present a special commendation to Frameline, which uh just this past June celebrated the 50th anniversary of their film festival.

The Frameline Film Festival, also known as the San Francisco International LGBTQ Plus Film Festival, is the longest-running and largest such film festival in the world, drawing more than 50,000 attendees each and every year.

In addition to organizing and producing the festival, Frameline works year-round to preserve and promote queer film and media.

Frameline began in 1976 when a group of young amateur film filmmakers came up with the idea of a festival where they could publicly screen their own work.

They organized the gay film festival of Super Eight Films, which showcased primarily experimental films projected onto a bed sheet pinned to a board.

In the years that followed, the festival grew, officially adopting the name Frameline in 1982 and moving to the Castro Theater in 1990.

In response to demands for more diverse representation, the festival began featuring more films by women and filmmakers of color.

One such demand, known as the lesbian riot of 1986, saw women storm the Roxy Projection Booth to pro protest programming.

In response, Frameline not only expanded their programming, but also created the Frameline Completion Fund, which has supported more than 190 films and videos by emerging filmmakers to date, with a special focus on works by and for underserved communities.

This year, Frameline 50, held June 17th through the 27th at venues across San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley, showcased more than 140 films from 35 countries, and brought together approximately 600 filmmakers and industry professionals from around the world.

The festival provides emerging filmmakers with a global platform to share their work, forge industry connections, and reach new audiences.

Beyond the festival's 11 days, Frameline hosts screenings and special events year-round and provides vital resources and opportunities to LGBTQ Plus filmmakers.

For the past three years, Frameline has awarded the Colin Higgins Youth Filmmaker Award to emerging queer filmmakers, with the inaugural recipients going on to premiere their films at Sundance.

For 50 years, Frameline has ensured that queer stories are told and showcased through film around the world.

And today we have the outstanding executive director of Frameline, Allegra Madsen, to accept this recognition.

Allegra, the floor is yours.

What else is there to say?

On behalf of Frameline, I'm honored to accept this.

This year we turned 50, and this is a milestone year.

We brought nearly 50,000 movie lovers, and this concludes 600 filmmakers and film industry folks from around the world.

We brought them to theaters across the city, the Roxy and the Mission, the Vogue and Presidio Heights, the Castro Theater, uh, and beyond.

And thousands of people sat in the dark and watched their lives and the lives of the people that they love reflected back to them on screen.

Uh and that doesn't happen everywhere.

It happens here in San Francisco.

It happens here because the infrastructure to support art and queer expression exists in this city.

FrameLine exists because the idea of San Francisco, a city that values its people and the creative genius that comes from true diversity, is here.

We are 50 years of that fact made real.

So this uh commendation isn't just for us, it's everyone who's worked to build the queer space in San Francisco long before Frameline screened its first film.

And everyone who's continuing to do that work now.

Uh and that's who I'm truly standing here for.

For every programmer, every staff member, every volunteer, every filmmaker who has given their work to Frameline, so that this city not only remembers its queer legacy but keeps building it.

That's the job.

It's not just preservation, but it's construction, and that's the job that we're in.

Uh so behalf on on behalf of all of them to San Francisco to the board of supervisors here, you are very, very welcome.

Okay, Madam Clerk.

Well, we made it a little way through our regular agenda.

Let's go back to item six.

Item six, this is an ordinance to amend the health planning, police, and business and tax regulations code to establish a new permit type for cannabis cafes to be administered by the Office of Cannabis that will authorize the permittee to sell cannabis and cannabis products only for consumption on the premises of the cafe, and to affirm the sequid determination and to make the appropriate findings.

This item was referred without recommendation from the land use and transportation committee.

Please call the roll on this item.

On item six, Supervisor Sauter.

Saudder I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Walton I, Supervisor Wong, Wong no, Supervisor Chan.

Chen, no, Supervisor Chen.

Chen, no, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, I, Supervisor Fielder, Fielder, I, Supervisor Mahmood.

Mahmoud I, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, I, and Supervisor Melgar.

No.

Melgar, no.

There are seven ayes and four no's with Supervisors Wong, Chan, Chen, and Melgar voting no.

The ordinance is finally passed.

Madam Clerk, please call item number seven.

Item seven, this is a charter amendment, second draft to amend the charter of the city and county to require or authorize the Board of Supervisors to amend specified initiative ordinances to transfer from the charter to the municipal code, certain commissions and advisory bodies, in some cases with modified functions and other various changes at an election to be held on November 3rd, 2026.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

Colleagues, I'm voting no on this charter amendment because of the sweeping changes it proposes to our citizen oversight bodies.

San Franciscans passed proposition E in November of 2024 to reduce duplication and increase the efficiency of our boards, commissions, and advisory boards, not to concentrate even more power in the hands of the mayor's office to take a hatchet to commissions that provide oversight and transparency for the public or to strip voters of the power to make future changes.

While there may be some changes in this charter amendment that are neutral in nature, the majority go far beyond the original voter intent.

For that reason, I'm voting no on this item.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you.

So it's it's I totally just think that it's based on principle, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless.

Thank you.

Please call the role on this item.

On item seven, Supervisor Sauter.

On item seven, Supervisor Sauter, Sauter I, Supervisor Cheryl, Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton, Walton I, Supervisor Wong, Wong I, Supervisor Chan, Chan, no, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey, Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder, Fielder, no, Supervisor Magmood.

Mahmoud I, Supervisor Mandelman.

I.

Mandelman I, and Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I.

There are nine eyes and two no's, with Supervisors Chan and Fielder voting no.

And the charter amendment is ordered submitted.

Madam Clerk, please call it a number eight.

Item eight.

This is a charter amendment second draft to amend the charter of the city and county to increase the amount of funding the city must appropriate to the housing trust fund each fiscal year that is used for the creation, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for down payment loans and housing stabilization for certain households and for housing related infrastructure to provide for a temporary freeze and temporary reduction in the annual appropriation to the housing trust fund under certain circumstances to extend the sunset date of the housing trust fund from July 1st, 2043 to July 1st, 2058, and to delete obsolete provisions at any election to be held on November 3rd, 2026.

Thank you, uh Mr.

President, colleagues.

I am so excited uh for the opportunity to send this map measure to the ballot today and ask for your support.

Um it will secure a steady fund of sort of a steady source of funding for affordable housing and preservation through the expansion and the extension of the existing housing trust fund to eventually reach 125 million dollars by dedicating a portion of future growth uh of property values in San Francisco.

This is important because um it is not just more money, which we desperately need for affordable housing, but the way the money behaves is different than the way that we had it before.

Uh this will provide the ability to bond against it because it is based on the valuation certification of the assessor, but that must be submitted to the state every year.

So we can predict the way it's gonna grow, um, and we can borrow against it, thereby tripling our ability to produce affordable housing and giving the affordable housing nonprofits who build an ability to plan, to plan for their capacity, their staffing, and what they have in the pipeline ahead, and most importantly their cash flow.

This proposed charter amendment involved a diverse coalition of partners, and it was important that the expansion of the housing trust fund was done in a way that was incremental, fiscally responsible, uh, given the uh budget challenges that we have faced in the last couple years, uh, and at the same time that we reach the funding amount that we that will allow the city to make this useful uh and to bond and maximize the number of units that can be built.

I recognize that voters will have a lot to contend with in the November ballot, uh, but I cannot stress enough how dire the need is for this funding, both in terms of the necessity that we have to create affordable housing given our commitments to the state uh and our uh residents, but also the state of our nonprofit housing organizations, our partners who um are facing a fiscal cliff in 2029 if we don't do something about the situation.

I want to thank all of my co-sponsors, and I want to thank uh Mayor Lurie for his support, along with uh the staff who worked on this, Ned Siegel, Ali Bondy, Ben White, Lee Letansky, and Jacob Bintliff, um, Director Dan Adams, controller Greg Wagner in his team, assessor uh recorder Joaquin Torres in his team, Victoria Wong, Brad Russi, and uh Keith Nagayama at the City Attorney, and of course our community partners, the Council of Community Housing Organizations, Quentin Mackie, Caroline Feng, the Community Land Trust, Saki Bailey, and Kyle Smealy, Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, and especially Bill Barnes, the Housing Accelerator Fund, Rebecca Foster and Kate Hartley, the Mission Economic Development Agency, Chinatown Community Development Center, uh, Malcolm Young, especially, uh, Eric Tao at Todco, Mercy Housing, Mission Housing, Episcopal Community Services, Self-Help for the Elderly, Pinyon Resident Improvement Association, Firefighters Local 790 798, Building and Construction Trades Council, Carpenters Union Local 22, and many more.

Thank you very much, Colleague.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you so much, President Mendelman.

I do just want to state on the record that I think it is arbitrary to extend the Housing Trust Fund and increase the Housing Trust Fund.

And at the very same meeting, vote to decrease occlusionary housing.

To me, this makes no sense.

But I am going to support this because I do believe that this is necessary.

But to do this in the very same agenda.

Support decreasing inclusionary housing.

Makes absolutely no sense.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Supervisor Wong.

Colleagues, I'm proud to co-sponsor this measure.

Thank you to Supervisor Melgar and her office for their leadership and hard work on this and bringing people together.

We all agree that San Francisco needs to build more housing, but as we work to make it easier to build, we also need to make it sure that working families, seniors, and young people can afford to remain part of our city.

The Housing Trust Fund has helped create and preserve affordable homes and supported opportunities for first-time home buyers.

This measure will strengthen that fund over time while including reasonable protections when the city faces a serious budget shortfall.

This is a balanced approach.

It supports more housing production while making a long-term commitment to affordability and neighborhood stability.

Housing costs are push pushing too many people out of San Francisco.

We need to give voters the opportunity to invest in a city where people of different incomes can still build a life.

Thank you.

All right.

Madam Clerk, uh, please call the roll on this item.

On item nine eight.

Excuse me, Mr.

President.

On item eight, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauder I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton I, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder I, Supervisor Mahmood.

Aye.

Mahmoud I, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I, and Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar I.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the Charter Amendment is ordered, submitted.

Madam Clerk, please call item number nine.

Item nine, this is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to increase the minimum grant award amount requiring board approval for acceptance and expenditure from 100,000 to the greater of 1 million, or the federal single audit threshold amount set by the United States Office of Management and Budget starting October 1st, 2026, to require board approval of a grant increase only if it raises the grant to the approval threshold for the time for the first time or increases a previously approved grant, either 110% or more of the previously approved amount of 200,000.

Colleagues, let's take this item, same house, same call without objection.

The ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call item 10.

Item 10, pursuant to Charter Section 88.422.

This matter requires a vote of three fourths or nine members of the full board of supervisors to approve this passage of the ordinance on first reading.

Item 10 is an ordinance to approve health service system plans and contribution rates for calendar year 2027.

And I think we can take this item, same house, same call, without objection.

The ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call items 11 through 13 together.

Items 11 through 13 are three resolutions that authorize the Port of San Francisco to accept and expend two grants and retroactively execute a contract amendment.

Item 11 authorizes the acceptance expenditure of 4 million from the regents of the University of California, San Francisco to fund the Mission Bay Ferry Landing Project, May 1st, 2026 through March 31st, 2028.

Item 12 retroactively authorizes the port to execute an amendment, the Sixth Amendment to a professional services contract.

COWI forward slash OLMM Joint Venture for Architectural and Engineering Services for the Mission Bay Ferry Landing Project to extend the contract term retroactively from June 16, 2026 for a total term of January 3, 2017 to June 30th, 2028, with no changes to the contract amount of 6.4 million.

And for item 13, this resolution authorizes the port to accept and expend a 4.5 million dollar grant from the San Francisco County Transportation Authority to fund the Mission Bay Ferry Landing Project July 15, 2026 through September 30th, 2028.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolutions are adopted.

And please call items 14 and 15 together.

Items 14 and 15 are two resolutions that approve airport agreements.

Item 14 approves the Harvey Milk Terminal 1 and Terminal 3 Travelers Retreat between Hotel Zoe LLC as tenant and the city for a 12-year term and a minimum annual guarantee of 350,000.

And item 15 approves the lease termination agreement for the Terminal 2, casual dining food and beverage concession, lease 6 between SSP America Inc.

as tenant and the city acting by and through its airport commission as landlord.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolutions are adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call items 16 and 17 together.

Item 16 and 17 are two resolutions that authorize the Office of the District Attorney to accept and expend two grants.

Item 16 is for an approximate $91,000 grant.

Terms July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027, and 91,000 for the term July 1st, 2027 through June 30th, 2028, and 91,000 for the term of July 1st, 2028 through June 30th, 2029 for an amount of 275,000 from the California Victim Compensation Board for a grant term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029 to continue the criminal restitution compact should the parties agree to an amendment as allowed under the provisions of the grant agreement.

And for item 17, this is from the Chris Larson Fund, $200,000 gift, facilitated by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation through five keys to support a women's initiative, project restore women's housing for victims of crime geared towards servicing families of violent crime for the purpose of public safety prevention efforts.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolutions are adopted.

Madam Clerk, please call it number 18.

Item 18, this is a resolution to authorize the recreation and park department to enter into an agreement with the San Francisco Downtown Development Corporation pertaining to potential improvements and renovations at the embarcadero Plaza and the Sioux Beerman Park.

And to accept cash grants of approximately 20 million for the project for the term starting on the execution of the date of the agreement through December 2028.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Please call item 19.

Item 19, resolution to retroactively authorize the Department of Public Health to accept and expend $87,000 in-kind gift of wastewater analysis services from Biobot Analytics in support of the Department of Health Public Health for the term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027.

Same house, same call without objection.

The resolution is adopted.

Please call item 20.

Item 20, resolution to authorize the issuance and sale from time to time of bonds of the San Francisco Unified School District, prescribing the terms of the sale of 270 million of said general obligation bonds.

Election of 2024 Series B authorizing sale of said geo bonds by negotiated sale and approving the form of the bond purchase agreement to approve the forms of one or more paying agent agreements and authorizing the execution of necessary documents and certificates relating to such bonds.

Same house, same call.

Without objection, the resolution is adopted.

Please call item 21.

Item 21 is a motion to direct the budget and legislative analyst to initiate a performance and management audit in collaboration with the controller's office of the Academy of Sciences and Fiscal Year 2026 through 2027.

Chair Chan.

Thank you, President Amendment, colleagues.

Next one.

I jumped the gun.

All right.

Then I think going back to 21, we will take 21, same house, same call without objection.

Uh the motion is approved.

And then, Madam Clerk, you will please call items 22 through 37 together.

And then we will allow our budget chair to talk to us.

Okay.

Please call items 22 through 202 through 37 together.

Items 22 through 37 comprise the city's budget pursuant to Charter Section 9.100B.

The board shall not adopt the budget earlier than July 15th nor later than August 1st.

Item 22 is the budget and appropriation ordinance to appropriate estimated receipts and all expenditures for departments of the city and county of June 1st, 2026 for fiscal years ending June 30, 2027 and June 30, 2028.

Item 23 is the annual salary ordinance, which enumerates positions in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance for fiscal years ending in June 30th, June 2027 and June 30th, 2028 that create, continue, establish positions, enumerate, and including therein all positions created by charter, state law, for which compensations are paid from city and county funds and appropriated in the annual appropriation ordinance to authorize appointments or continuation of appointments there too to specify and fix the compensations and work schedules thereof and to authorize appointments to temporary positions and fixing compensations therefore.

Item 24, this ordinance amends the administrative code to authorize the city administrator to pause, reduce, or return the annual contributions by the departments that contract for public works under Administrative Code Chapter 6 to the San Francisco Self Insurance Surety Bond Fund.

Item 25, this ordinance modifies the baseline funding requirements for early care and education programs in fiscal years 2026, 2027, and 2027 and 2028 to enable the city to use the interest earned from the early care and education commercial rents tax for those baseline programs.

Item 26, this ordinance amends the health code to set patient rates for services provided by the Department of Public Health for fiscal years 2026-27 and 2027 and 28.

Item 27, this ordinance amends the administrative code to increase certain utility meter fees and authorize the controller to annually adjust device fees for weights and measures and utility meters up to the maximum allowable under state law.

Item 28.

This ordinance temporarily suspends the cap on the use of homelessness gross receipts tax revenues to fund short-term rental subsidies, and to find that temporarily allowing for increased expenditures on short-term rental subsidies will further the purpose of our city, our home fund.

Item 29, this ordinance adopts the neighborhood beautification and graffiti cleanup fund tax designation ceiling for tax year 2026.

Item 30, this resolution approves the fiscal year 2026 through 2027.

Budget of the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure operating as the successor agency to the redevelopment agency of the city and county and approves the issuance of bonds in an aggregate principal amount of 275 million for the purpose of financing a portion of OCII's enforceable obligations.

Item 31, this resolution concurs with the controller's establishment of the consumer price index for 2026 and adjusts the access line tax by the same rate.

Item 32, this resolution authorizes the San Francisco Public Library to accept and expend a 1.5 million in grants as well as in-kind gifts, services, and cash monies from the Friends of the San Francisco Public Library for direct support to the Chinatown branch renovation capital project within the term fiscal years 2026 through 2027 through 2029-2030.

Item 33, this resolution authorizes the acceptance and expenditure of reoccurring state grant funds by the San Francisco Department of Public Health for fiscal years 2026 through 27.

Item 34, this resolution approves the fiscal years 2026-27 and 2027-28.

Expenditure plan for the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing.

Item 35, this resolution concurs with the controller certification that department services previously approved can be performed by private contractor for a lower cost than similar work performed by city and county employees for the following services.

For budget and legislative analyst services, fleet security services, real estate division, custodial services, real estate division security services, convention facilities management for general services agency, administrative services, security services for the Department of Public Works, Security Services for Homelessness and Support of Housing, and the Human Services Agency, Food Services at the County Jail for the Sheriff's Department, Assembly of Vote by Mail Services for the Department of Election, and Security Services for the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development.

Item 36.

This resolution concurs with the controller certification that department services can be performed by private contractor for a lower cost than similar work performed by city and county employees for protective services for adult probation and security services for the Department of Public Health.

And for item 37, this resolution authorizes the recreation and park department to issue an amended permit allowing another planet entertainment to hold ticketed concerts at the Golden Gate Park polo field to take place on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday following or preceding the outside lands festival in 2027, 2028, and 2029, in exchange for a minimum permit fee of 1.53 million per year for two-day events and approximately 2.2 million per year for three-day events through 2029.

And with options to extend that permit until 2035 with increased minimum permit fees during any such extension and to affirm the CEQA determination.

Chair Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

Colleagues, uh as you are well aware, this is the first appearance of the budget before you.

And now I'm going to hand to um turn this over to the mayor's budget office, Miss Eliza Pugh.

Hello.

Do you all have copies?

Okay, great.

Um my name is Eliza Pugh from the Mayor's Budget Office, and I'm submitting the attached adjustment to the mayor's proposed budget for FY27 and FY28.

Technical adjustments include correcting expenditures at the sheriff's office.

This set of technical adjustments will increase the proposed FY27 budget by 3,695,945 and will not increase the FY28 budget and results in a cost of $3,695,945 in FY27 and no cost in FY28.

So over the two years, the net impact will be a general fund cost of $3 million, $695,945.

The attached table on the second page details these changes.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

I don't see any questions.

Chair Chan, anything further?

You've made a motion.

Is there a second?

Um and colleagues, can we take that without Oh, we can do that.

We can take the amendment without objection.

All right.

So motions are made, seconded, and the motion passes without objection.

Okay.

And then Chair Chan, did you?

I do.

And then and then I know that we also have to have to make my amendment to the our city, our home spending plan.

Again, also is an item 22, but there will be details that Supervisor Chen is going to walk us through on the amendments for the spending plan.

So we'll be second motion to also amend.

Okay.

Supervisor Chen.

Okay.

I'm going to speak on item number 28.

Uh colleagues, as many of you know, I have been working with the mayor's office to negotiate a spending plan for the city, our home funds that the mayor's team, the board supervisors, and community all support Pauli.

This year's proposal was thoughtful and carefully balanced it.

But my office heard from many providers and community stakeholders.

Concerns about the lack of additional long-term subsidies in the plan.

After many conversations with providers and advocates and partnership from the mayor's office, we have negotiated a modest increase of 50 long-term subsidies for families living in SRO units citywide.

I want to thank budget chair Chen for allowing me to lead on OCO this year, and I want to recognize the work of my uh legislative A, Jackie Prager, uh, who worked diligently with all stakeholder to come to an agreement.

I would like to also thank Deputy Chief Kunal Modi, his staff, Jessica Koso, budget director, Sophia Kittler, and Adam Tom Savat for their willingness to work with my office to achieve a plan that everyone can be proud of.

I want to thank the providers and advocates who work with my staff to fight for more resources for our families, and I'm grateful for everyone's partnership and look forward to continuing to work with stabilize and support and house the individuals in our city while improving our city systems.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen.

Chair Chen?

Thank you, President Mendelman.

It's my mistake, colleagues.

I'm rescinding that motion.

There is not a need to amend the actual spending plan to reflect that because this is an agreement between Supervisor Chen directly with the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing on the spending plan.

They can make the adjustments on their own.

And so we're done with the motions to amend.

We can no longer amend.

I mean, we can do whatever we want to, but Mr.

President, we'll put a note in the file as to the agreement.

Thank you.

Okay.

Great.

So thank you.

Uh thank you, Chair Chan, for getting us through this year's budget process as you have the last four.

Four?

Four.

Um.

And so we make we cannot act on the budget until July 15th.

Um so can I have a motion to continue these matters to the July 21st, 2026 board meeting?

Moved by Chen, seconded by Dorsey.

Um, and I think we can take that without objection.

Without objection, the budget is continued to, and all of these items are continued to July 21st, 2026.

Madam Clerk, please call item 38.

Item 38.

This is an ordinance to amend the business and tax regulations code to extend the waiver of certain first-year permit license and business registration fees for specified small businesses that newly form or that open a new location under the earlier of July 1st, 2027, or the date on which all funds appropriated to reimburse departments for the waived fees have been expended.

Same house, same call without objection.

The ordinance is passed on first reading.

And now please call item 39.

Item 39.

This is an ordinance to amend the planning code to reduce inclusionary affordable housing program requirements for projects of 25 units or more, to delete inclusionary affordable housing program requirements for projects under 25 units, to allow all projects to dedicate land to the city as an alternative to payment of the inclusionary affordable housing program fee.

To adopt a process for projects to request a modification to conditions of approval related to inclusionary affordable housing program requirements.

To delete certain Article 4 affordable housing and development impact fees, and to adopt conforming amendments to various sections of the planning code to amend the building code to reduce planning code, Article 4 development impact fees, and allow deferral of payments of such fees, and to amend the administrative code to adopt conforming amendments to the requirements of the citywide affordable housing fund and to affirm the CEQI determination and to make the appropriate findings.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Colleagues, as I discussed at GAO committee, I'm concerned about the impact of this ordinance on the decades-long, careful and intentional planning that is focused on the mission district.

The mission area plan is not a generic part of San Francisco.

It is among the most studied, most contested, and most intentionally planned areas in the city's recent history.

Treating it the same as the rest of the city within the on-site inclusionary percentages ignores everything that our planning processes were built to protect.

The mission has a unique planning history.

The Eastern Neighborhood's rezoning and the mission area plan were the product of years of community-based planning, explicitly designed to respond to displacement pressure on Latino residents, small businesses, and light industrial or PDR uses in the mission.

The city already recognizes this.

This ordinance itself carves out a higher off-site and in loo rate for the mission, proof that planning and the city already treat this area as distinct when it comes to value capture.

The onsite rate should reflect that same distinction, not default to the citywide number.

The pressures that justify this special treatment haven't gone away.

The mission remains one of the highest displacement risk neighborhoods in San Francisco by the city's own equity mapping.

And here I'm referring to the priority equity geography's SUD and the mission action plans 2020 and 2030.

Lowering the onsite requirement to a citywide generic 5% breaks the original bargain without revisiting the density and height benefits that developers still receive in this district.

If anything, continued development pressure on the mission strengthens the case for holding the line on that commitment, not weakening it.

With all that said, I'm introducing amendments to require an 8% on-site inclusionary rate in the mission area plan, with 6% at low income and 2% at moderate income for rental and ownership units.

These figures are still well below the current rates of 17% on-site inclusionary rate for the mission and just a bit higher than the new proposed citywide on-site rate of 5%, recognizing the intensive planning process that shaped affordability requirements in this area, the displacement pressures this area still faces, and the same standard already applied to offsite and in loo fees here.

My staff distributed the amendments earlier today.

Unfortunately, they were not ready for committees, so I'm introducing here today.

The City Attorney's Office has confirmed that these are not substantive and will not delay the passage of this legislation.

So, colleagues, I ask for your support, and with that, I would like to make a motion to adopt the amendments on pages 53 through 55 that I just described, requiring an 8% on-site inclusionary rate in the mission area plan with 6% at low income and 2% at moderate income for rental and ownership units.

The remaining amendments at pages 55, 58, and 60 solely update the section numbers.

Thank you, President Manelman.

Supervisor Fielder has made a motion and Supervisor Melgar has seconded it.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

I was happy to support this legislation at committee, and I'm happy to support it here for final passage as well.

It was abundantly clear from the Technical Advisory Committee report that we need to do all that we can to move the needle on feasibility if we want to have any chance as a city to build the housing required to meet demand.

The increase in the threshold for inclusionary fees from 10 units to 25 units in particular will help with the exact kind of mid-sized projects encouraged by the family zoning plan.

When paired with the housing trust fund expansion that Supervisor Melgar has proposed, these policies go a long way in helping us meet our production goals around subsidized affordable housing while also stemming the tide of rising rents for residents on the open market.

As was noted, this was done as in exchange on as a recommendation by the TAC between the Housing Trust Fund and Inclusionary Requirements, and had amendments move forward to actually couple those measures.

I was supportive.

As for Supervisor Fielder's amendment, I will also be voting in support.

We as a board should respect supervisor prerogative and I trust her to know how to balance her shared priority policy goals with the feedback that she is getting from her constituents in the mission.

The new rates are still a reduction from the current baseline and will encourage more affordable housing that is being built as a result of the inclusionary requirement to be built in the mission, representing the opportunity for residents who want to leave substandard or overcrowded conditions, but don't want to leave the neighborhood.

I appreciate that this amendment reflects the conversations the Supervisor Fielder has had with mission residents about how to advance affordable housing in their neighborhood, and I'm happy to support it.

Thank you so much, uh President Mandelman.

And uh, you know, address a couple of concerns have come up from uh some of my colleagues and members of the public for non-housing nerds, um, the way we set the inclusionary rate uh in San Francisco is the same as the rest of California.

It has to be based on a NEXA study.

Uh, this is since the Palmer decision many years ago.

Um, and uh the nexa study really just is a calculation that looks like how much it costs to build a unit and how much a family of low income can afford.

And as costs go up, you know, that gets wider, that that that gap gets wider and our inclusionary fee um gets lower.

And uh when costs shrink, when it costs less to build a unit, um, you know, that means that the gap gets smaller, we don't have to subsidize as much, and then we can um you know get more for our money.

So uh the way that we do it in San Francisco is we appoint a bunch of experts.

We, the Board of Supervisors, a bunch uh appoint the technical advisory committee, and it's a science, they crunch the numbers, but it's also a little bit of art because we get nonprofit developers, for profit developers, they get in a room, they look at the numbers and they negotiate.

And we are required to do this every three years because the market changes, right?

The costs go up, then they go down, the area median income consistently has gone up, but you know, when times are booming, the median income gets skewed by people making lots of money.

So those uh that formula, that that sort of science part of the numbers changes.

And every three years, the people in the technical advisory committee get together, they crunch the numbers, and they come up with uh the recommendation that we then vote on.

But we can vote on it at any time.

We just have this backup that is not just good practice, it is legally required.

And if we don't do it, if we ignore that gap that is in the market, it risks the integrity, the legal integrity of the entire program, not just right now when the market is fluctuating, but permanently for our city.

So I just want to make sure that we understand that because we have to do it.

So now as it relates to the housing trust fund, because we set the um inclusionary rate every three years, uh we are also putting together the housing trust fund for 30 years.

It is a 30-year commitment that is permanent, 30 years, versus a three-year resetting of the fee based on the market.

So what has happened if we look back at the last three years is that zero percent of zero is zero.

In the past three years, we have gotten zero in inclusionary fees.

This past year, we actually got less than that.

We got 137,000 or some less because somebody asked for their money back.

They had put in, they had said, I'm gonna build, and then they are like changed their mind, never mind, so they can ask for their money back because that's the way we wrote the law.

So what are we really giving up, you know, uh in exchange for a 30-year permanent source of funding that allows us to bond and you know, um invest in affordable housing, given that the past three years we've been at zero and at zero BMR units.

So I just want to point out that 5% of 100 is five, and it's more than zero.

So we are hoping that in the next three years, uh, despite the tariffs costing us higher gas prices, higher prices for good, more inflation.

We now have the highest inflation of all G7 countries, by the way.

We can do nothing about it, but we can do something about this.

It's one of the cost factors uh for building housing.

So uh we are hoping that this will incentivize market rate housing being billed in the zones that we have just uh allowed uh in areas that now will have room for rental housing.

Um I think that would be a good thing.

It will create jobs, it will create needed uh housing that we have committed to the state, and the action that we just took will also provide financing for affordable housing, which is half of our obligation to the state in terms of the production of units.

So I just wanted to explain my thinking in uh putting my name on this.

I don't love lowering the inclusionary uh percentage.

I fought for it.

Uh I fought for the program, I wrote a lot of the policies and procedures of the program.

Uh, but this is the moment that we're in right now, and it is a temporary moment.

So, in three years, uh, when our economy recovers, when we uh no longer have a Republican president that is uh making everything more expensive in our country, um, and things go back up.

I have every expectation that the inclusionary rate will be reset higher by a future uh body of the Board of Supervisors, and that will sit on top of the housing trust fund that has been expanded so that we have both.

And so I uh wanted to just explain that and ask for your support for this.

I think it makes sense at this moment.

It is a trade-off, but the math supports it.

Thank you.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Um, colleagues, I will respectfully be voting no on the proposed amendment.

Um while we ultimately have the final policy decision over our inclusionary rates, uh, we generally entrust the bulk of the policymaking work on our inclusionary rates to a group of experts from the um development and affordable housing community.

Um they look at the data and provide us with recommendations as land use chair Melgart just explained.

Um this time around, the numbers showed that our rates are too high.

And in fact, the report showed that the um uh even zero is infeasible.

Uh while I frankly have reservations, even about five percent.

I respect the process that led to that recommendation, and I understand the um desire and the importance of having a number that's greater than zero.

But I do believe we need to trust the math.

Um, I don't believe we should single out neighborhoods and freeze them out for new housing market rate or affordable.

Um, it takes time to see the effects of these changes, and that's why the TAC process happens every three years.

Um, I believe we need to make let this policy play out.

So I will respectfully not support the amendment on the principle that it risks moving the legislation further from its goal of making housing production feasible.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Bob President.

Um, Kali, in the face of widening in the inequity and the historic and ongoing displacement of working class communities and communities of color, the city faces an extraordinary imperative to facilitate housing opportunity.

This includes permitting more housing, facilitating its construction, ensuring affordability, and preventing further displacement.

I want to support developers to produce new housing, and I want to maximizing our affordable housing.

And that's why I have serious concerns about this legislation.

It requires us to choose one over the other rather than advance both collectively.

It is really a said day where affordable housing requirements are reframed as obstacles to production rather than prerequisites for it.

If we believe that a more affordable San Francisco, it's our goal, then we must recognize that affordable housing is part of the cost of doing business for new development.

What I hear from proponents of this legislation is that it gets shuffles in the ground.

However, I'm not convinced it.

A BLA analysis conducted in May of this year found that previous reduction did not result in significant impact on housing production.

The technical advisory committee's own report confirms that there's no rate of inclusionary housing that is feasible under current market condition.

And both analysis confirmed that macroeconomic factors such as labor, materials, and financing costs are the real drivers of development activity.

I understand that this legislation is part of a package, but placing the affordable housing trust fund on the ballot and approving it are two very different things.

There's no guarantee that the funding will be approved.

This is an unnecessary leap of faith and that and I believe it is dishonest to advance this legislation without the guarantee that the funding will be dedicated.

I want to acknowledge that the inclusionary framework, it's also about something much bigger that it's at the heart of San Francisco.

We care so much about.

And I would not be supporting this legislation in its current form.

But I do want to speak to support uh Supervisor Fudor's amendment.

And I think uh in the mission district remains one of the highest displacement risk area.

And it this principle already exists and in the legislation with high off site and fee rate race in priority equity communities and this neighborhood specifically tearing is just relevant for their actual inclusionary rate.

Um thank you.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you.

Uh President Amendelman, I am a firm believer that in the supply of demand is that we need the supply of affordable housing because we are demanding affordable housing, or really housing that people can afford, and that's what we have to build.

Um lowering the inclusionary requirement uh once more.

We actually did this two years ago.

Uh we have some parameters for it.

Um that's including uh lowering the inclusionary percentage for for the project that's already currently in the pipeline.

It seems like it wasn't clearly with the budget and legislative analyst report that we recently commissioned have indicated to us that lowering the inclusionary percentage isn't the major factor.

It's some factor, um, is some intent provide some incentive.

Um so overall, I am not inclined to, again, to lower it.

Um, but I am again also inclined to support Supervisor Fielder's suggestions, um, identifying and recognizing that mission has uh the greatest um gentrification, a rate of gentrification and displacement, um, and would like to increase it.

I will only be voting in support the entire legislation should Supervisor Fielder's um amendments uh is adopted.

So, in another word, I will only be voting, I will not be voting in support the legislation as it currently at six percent for low income and two percent for the moderate income uh for rental and ownership.

Uh, but I will be then voting in support of it should this body adopt supervisor fielder's proposed amendments requiring 8 percent on sites in the mission area plan area.

Thank you.

Supervisor Wong.

Colleagues, San Francisco is a in a housing production crisis.

Over the past several years, construction costs have climbed, interest rates have increased, financing has become more difficult, and housing production has slowed dramatically.

The city's own technical advisory committee concluded that our existing inclusionary requirements have become a significant barrier to new residential development under today's economic conditions.

We cannot collect affordable housing fees from projects that are never built.

We cannot require below market rate units in buildings that never leave the drawing board.

This legislation recognizes today's economic reality while preserving our long-term commitment to affordable housing.

It adjusts inclusionary requirements, reduces certain impact fees, and provides greater flexibility so projects can once again pencil out and move forward.

It also maintains the city's commitment to revisit these requirements through the technical advisory committee as market conditions change.

Good housing policy requires us to be principled, but also requires us to be pragmatic and responsible.

If we want more affordable housing tomorrow, we need more housing today.

This ordinance helps put San Francisco back on that path.

Thank you.

And did you want to speak, Supervisor Melgar?

Um, if nobody else is in the queue, uh I will just um weigh in with a couple reflections.

Uh when I was in grad, when I was young, when I was in grad school, um the conversation about impact fees was very much about uh the ways in which those fees could make development pay for itself in a post-prop 13 world where local governments could not uh other would not otherwise over time be able to collect the property tax they needed to provide the amenities that would be needed for the new housing.

In the subsequent 500 years since I was in grad school, um the circumstances in California have changed.

And we have a colossal shortage of housing that is crushing uh that is crushing our residents and is bad for our economy, is bad for our people.

Um so I have been persuaded that the good of getting more housing is worth the harm of reducing our impact fees.

And I take seriously the point that Supervisor Melgar has made and that a lot of people have made, which is that a li a larger percentage of zero is still zero.

Now, I do think that since the tax analysis shows that a that the 5% does not create feasible projects.

I'm not inclined to support a rate that is higher than that, even for uh a neighborhood that is very special and uh and has a history of displacement.

Um that that is my those are my thoughts.

Um Madam Clerk, could you call the roll on the amendment?

On the amendment to item 39, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter, no, Supervisor Cheryl.

No.

Cheryl, no, Supervisor Walton.

Walton I, Supervisor Wong.

Wong no, Supervisor Chan.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, no, Supervisor Fielder, Fielder I, Supervisor Mahmoud.

I.

Mahmoud I, Supervisor Mandelman, No.

Mendelman, no, and Supervisor Melgar.

I.

Melgar, I.

There are six I'm five no's with Supervisors Sauter, Cheryl, Wong, Dorsey, and Mandelman voting no.

And the motion passes.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the amended item?

On item 39 as amended as amended, Supervisor Sauter.

Sodter I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Walton I, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

I.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder I, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Mahmoud I, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I.

And Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I.

There are 11 I's.

Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading.

But was that a did I need to do that?

Can we be on a rescind the vote?

How do we do this, Madam Clerk?

Yes, motion to rescind the vote.

Six votes, we'll rescind the vote.

Great.

There's been a motion to resume the vote.

It has been seconded by Supervisor Chan.

Can we take that without objection?

Without objection, the motion passes.

All right.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the amended item again?

On item 39 as amended, Supervisor Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter 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, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder I, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Mahmoud I, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I, and Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, I.

There are 10 ayes and one no, with Supervisor Walton voting no.

And the ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call item 40.

Item 40, this is a motion to approve the mayor's nomination for the reappointment of Azalina Usopp.

Forgive my pronunciation if I'm pronouncing it incorrectly.

To the Sanitation and Streets Commission, term ending July 1st, 2030.

Please call the roll.

On item 40, Supervisor Sauter.

Sodter I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Walton, I, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I.

Supervisor Chan.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, I, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Mahmoud I, Supervisor Mandelman.

I.

Mandelman, I, and Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, I.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the motion is approved.

And Madam Clerk, let's go to our committee reports.

Please call item number 41.

Yes, but I'll first state items 41 and 42 were considered by the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee at a regular meeting on Thursday, July 9th, and both were forwarded as committee reports.

Item 41.

This item was recommended as amended but with the same title.

It reads ordinance to amend the administrative code to state that it is city policy to expand the availability of site-based permanent supportive housing that prohibits on site illicit drug use among residents to meet the to meet the demand of people experiencing homelessness who prefer such a residential option to require that the city funding for new site-based PSH for people experiencing homelessness be used for drug-free PSH, except where operation of the housing as drug-free PSH would conflict with standards imposed by law or by a condition of other funding where the funding is for new construction, or the board has waived the funding requirement based on specific findings to require the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing to survey residents of site-based PSH to assess their interest in living in either drug tolerant PSH or drug-free PSH, and to report on the survey findings and HSH's strategies to meet PSH residence demands and to require HSH to adopt rules and regulations establishing standards and protocols for evictions from city funded drug-free housing.

Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Colleagues, as you probably know, this legislation has been a work in progress and a labor of love of mine for more than two years now.

I want to thank all my co-sponsors, especially Board President Mandelman, who has been an original thought partner from the start.

In an evolving policy landscape at the State and Federal levels, we have honored all good faith requests to find common ground with advocates wherever possible.

I'm proud of the way we worked collaboratively with various interests, colleagues, HSH, the mayor's office, and both the Breed and Lurie administrations.

While there was probably never a scenario to win unanimous support for this, I think we forged a better legislative proposal, one that will make much needed, if modest, progress on drug-free PSH options for those who choose them.

This legislation is an incremental approach.

It ensures that only new city-funded permanent supportive housing will prohibit illicit drug use on site.

It will not affect state funded PSH.

It will not apply to new construction currently in the pipeline, and it will not change a single existing drug-tolerant PSH building or model.

The drug-free lease provision we're proposing to add is legally identical to all standard residential leases here in California, the same leases that already cover more than 240,000 San Franciscans who don't live in permanent supportive housing.

This is not sober housing.

It is not recovery housing.

It does not prohibit alcohol or marijuana or medically assisted treatment.

I also want to be clear about whom this legislation is for.

It responds to real needs of PSH residents themselves, people who may or may not be in recovery, but who simply want to live in a drug free residential community.

Families, seniors, and others who do people who deserve the choice of a drug-free option for any reason that covers all other residential tenants in San Francisco.

With one exception, and that's a 42-unit site at 1174 Folsom Street in my district.

This legislation at its core is about giving PSH residents a choice.

Importantly, residents who may choose drug-free PSH are making an intentional choice, one they would be opting into a community as with an illicit drug-free rule and making a commitment to abide by it.

That intentionality is the foundation that this policy is built on.

It's about respecting the choices of PSH residents themselves, and also along with that, honoring that the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing will have a need to manage and enforce it.

Based on what we have seen at 1174 Folsom and what we've also learned from drug-free PSH providers in the State of Oregon, we should expect evictions under this ordinance to be exceedingly rare.

The self-selection of residents who voluntarily opt into drug-free residential communities largely solves in advance for scenarios that involve persistent drug relapses or her habitual returns to use.

Still, even though they may be very rare, edge case scenarios exist, and this legislation must address them, given that relocations may be necessary to protect the integrity of drug-free residential communities.

No resident of drug-free PSH will ever be evicted for a single relapse.

And critically, we've built a robust process in this legislation that requires HSH to offer alternative housing or shelter, together with services before an eviction can even take place.

Colleagues and advocates will have ample opportunity to help shape rules and policies that best serve residents as this legislation is implemented.

Now, having said that, I am aware that there is interest from colleagues in amendments, and I am on board with one that will further commit this legislation to the goal of avoiding evictions, and accordingly, I would like to move an amendment to add evictions and to page eight line twenty four so that that subscription now reads three, in collaboration with the Department of Public Health, making good a making a good faith effort to accommodate such residents' housing and service needs when identifying alternative placements with the goal of avoiding evictions and returns to homelessness.

Now, uh it's also my understanding that there is interest in an additional amendment that would remove shelters as a relocation option.

I will respectfully not be supporting that amendment, and although I'm not ph philosophically opposed to it.

Um, after consulting with the mayor's policy director, Canal Modi, who's been working closely with HSH on how this legislation would be administered and enforced if enacted, I'm told that removing shelters as a relocation option could risk sabotaging HSH's ability to maintain the integrity of a drug-free community.

That obviously would run counter to the core intent of this legislation.

In the event that a comparable unit is not available, I believe we need to have the option of shelter.

That's what HSH and uh Mr.

Modi have informed me.

Keeping all options open for these edge cases will help to serve our shared goal of avoiding returns to homelessness.

As a policymaker, I think we should be sensitive to not being overly prescriptive in how we legislate to avoid setting our departments up for failure.

I want to give HSH the flexibility it needs to make drug-free housing successful.

Um confident that the specifics on housing offers, evictions, and broader program components can be addressed in the rulemaking process.

I have spoken with the incoming HSH director, Mike Levine, and he has assured me that the rulemaking process will be participatory and inclusive as this legislative process has been.

So I do want to thank the leaders organizations, academics who supported this legislation.

Two of them are giants in the drug policy realm.

Uh Keith Humphreys, who served as President Obama's White House advisor, uh Anna Lemke, who serves as director of addiction medicine at Stanford.

Uh thanks as well to my brothers and sisters from the recovery community, uh especially recovery community advocates Theras Coates and Richard Beale, who are co-founders of Brothers Against Drugs.

Similarly, Cedric Akbar, Steve Adami, Tom Wolf, Brandon Clark, Amber Richmond, among others.

Positive directions equals change, mothers against drug addiction and deaths, the Salvation Army, Bay Area Council, and the American Addiction Recovery Association, especially Merrica Fitro, who is a member of its board of governors.

And with that, I want to thank all my colleagues.

Thank you for uh hearing me out and working with me on this.

I hope to have your support on the amendment and also on the legislation.

Supervisor Dorsey has made a motion to amend the legislation.

It has been seconded by Supervisor Sheryl.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thanks, President Manelman.

Colleagues, firstly, I just want to say I do believe in having more abstent or sober housing as an option for unhoused people who are in recovery from substance use disorder.

So I support that spirit of the legislation, and I support the provision of this legislation that I think smartly administers a survey of permanent supportive housing residents, the aim of which is to assess their interests in abstent housing.

For that, I thank Supervisor Dorsey for taking on this work.

However, I just first want to say I think the terminology in this legislation is problematic.

I'm not sure how bifurcating permanent housing into drug-tolerant versus drug-free housing passed review with the city attorney's office, as this kind of framing I would think puts a litigation target on the city's back.

And the term drug-tolerant housing suggests that the city allows people to openly use drugs and city-funded permanent supportive housing, and that's just not the case.

Less legally risky and to me less stigmatizing terminology would be abstinent or sober housing and low barrier housing.

I also appreciate Supervisor Dorsey for adding an amendment, clarifying the goal of this legislation is to avoid evictions.

However, I fear that the legislation before us, as written, lacks strong protocols for providing support to residents facing eviction from absent housing and will have the unintended consequence of actually driving up homelessness and therefore drug use on our streets.

Getting people into permanently supportive housing takes a tremendous amount of city effort in the first place.

The legislation is written allows for someone to be evicted from sober housing to a shelter.

That is not going to provide someone in recovery stability.

Research shows that relapse is a part of recovery as much as six times before they get sober, which is why, upon second relapse, people should be offered the option for treatment, and if they participate in treatment, be able to return to their unit.

Shelter is not housing.

Shelter is a rough place for someone struggling with substance use order to be.

A person is not considered housed when they're in shelter.

They're still considered homeless.

I also think it is feasible for the city to provide and relocate someone to comparable alternative housing.

As of right now, today, San Francisco has 762 vacant permanent supportive housing units out of its inventory of over 9,0163 units.

Of these empty units, 322 are currently undergoing the move-in process.

345 are offline for maintenance or repairs, and a whole 95 are fully ready for immediate tenant referrals.

I appreciate all the work that's been put into this legislation to minimize the legislation's impact on evictions, but I still think it doesn't provide enough policy direction to ensure that people will not be evicted back to shelters and therefore into housing instability.

For this reason, I'd like to make a motion to adopt the following amendments that my staff distributed earlier today.

City Attorney's Office has confirmed these are non-substantive and will not delay the passage of this legislation.

The amendments are as follows.

Page four, line 19 for relocation to another option, striking out or shelter.

On pages eight on page eight, lines 12 and 13, confirmation from HSH that the resident has been offered comparable alternative housing, striking out or shelter to ensure that they are not evicted into homelessness.

And page eight, line 19, offering such residents appropriate alternative housing, striking out shelter.

Placement or a pathway to housing prior to program discharge or eviction.

Colleagues, I would appreciate your support.

Supervisor Fielder has made a motion.

Is there a second floor seconded by Melgar?

Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you so much.

When you first spoke to me about this legislation, I was like over a year ago.

You've been at this for a really long time.

And this legislation actually has really moved.

So I wanted to first of all thank you for your engagement and for incorporating my feedback and the feedback of others in the community.

And I know that it took a lot of head and heart for you to do that.

And I just want to appreciate you for that.

And I think that I can get over my discomfort of uh words, uh, especially if our city attorney is vouching for this.

Um, and as I assume they did because it's approved as the form.

Um I want to like appreciate your passion to provide services and alternatives for this population.

However, I do want to strongly make a pitch to support uh supervisor fielder's amendments as proposed.

Um I think we are um trying to try out something new, you know, and I think that whenever you try something new, you're building a lot of things and assumptions and frameworks from scratch.

In putting this forward, we are putting forward a new policy.

And I think it's entirely appropriate, uh, even if the department uh wants maximum flexibility for us to say, but these are the parameters.

This is what we don't want to happen.

We don't want somebody who doesn't have the linear progression of how, you know, like being sober uh falls off the wagon a couple times to have to go back to square one and have to start in the coordinated entry uh system at shelter, because as uh my colleague Supervisor Fielder described it, it's not a good place to be, especially if you're in crisis.

And so uh we all know that we have hundreds of units in permanent supportive housing that are vacant.

I think that setting a parameter for the department is appropriate.

I will say I had a recent experience uh with uh the department um with the RV program, which was uh mostly successful, and there has been hiccups on the one-offs, you know, people who don't quite fit or um you know fell through the cracks uh in the outreach.

And so I do think that it is appropriate to, you know, sort of put that parameter and say this is what we would like to see.

Um I think uh Supervisor Fielder's amendments do um speak to that.

I thank you so much for preparing them, Supervisor Fielder.

Um, and then again, thank you, Supervisor Dorsey, for the work and passion that you have put into this.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you.

Thank you, President uh Mandelman.

I just I do want to address um the terminology around drug tolerant as distinct from drug-free and explain why throughout this process I've consistently identified this as a hill I would absolutely die on.

Um those of us in the policy making realm can sometimes adopt terms of art that we understand without fully appreciating that these use euphemisms and slogans hold no intrinsic or intuitive meaning for the people they're designed to serve.

There is nothing about terms like housing first or traditional PSH or low barrier or harm reduction housing that could reasonably or intuitively be expected to mean drug tolerant, even though that's exactly what the law means.

Um I want to read from California law here.

This is welfare and institutions code section 8255.

This is where the core components of housing first mandate the following lease provisions and permanent supportive housing for state-funded PSH.

Quote, the use of alcohol or drugs in and of itself without other lease violations is not a reason for eviction.

Services are informed by a harm reduction philosophy that recognizes drug use and addiction as part of tenants' lives, and it prescribes that support for residents who engage in illicit drug use to be non-judgmental communication in which tenants are offered education on how to engage in safer practices.

I have no objections to that, um, but by any definition, these provisions are drug tolerant.

Uh they're also wholly unique to PSH residents.

Um, these are not lease provisions found in any other residential lease in San Francisco or in California for that matter.

You know, there are professional standards around public health communications, including in the AMA's code of medical ethics that caution against the youth the use of euphemisms and slogan slogans when it masks information that is important and meaningful to those being served.

And I think it is the height of policy-making arrogance, frankly, to assume that individuals exiting homelessness into PSH should be expected to know that the euphemism housing first means drug tolerant, even though that information may mean everything to the health and well-being of the resident we're endeavoring to serve.

Um I had a constituent named Daniel McClennan.

Um Daniel is a talented artist, a former PSH resident on 6th Street in my district.

Some of you may have met him or recall him because he testified in favor of assemblymember Matt Haney's legislation in Sacramento to reform uh housing first at the state level.

Daniel is also a recovering opioid addict.

Uh here is somebody who's literally fighting for his life on medication-assisted treatment, and we placed him into a housing first environment with no forewarning of how drug-tolerant and chaotic the environment we were putting him to into was.

It was very near nearly catastrophic to his well-being.

Um it broke my heart to hear him say how damaging his living environment was to his mental health and his sobriety.

He told me that if he didn't have responsibility for a dog, he would rather be on the street because it would have been better for his mental health.

Uh the good news is that Daniel just celebrated one year of continuous sobriety, but he had to do it in Fresno.

I have another constituent who's also in recovery for alcohol.

Um, she is a mother of three children who told me she had no idea that the facility we moved her family into, this is the Margot in my district, would have such rampant drug use.

Um she told me that after doing everything she could to rescue her kids from the trauma of unsheltered homelessness, they were being re-traumatized by fatal overdoses happening all around them.

She worked with my office to get relocated, but for a mother of three small children in recovery herself, information about the drug-tolerant policies she would be living in would have been good information for her to have in advance.

She has since moved to another facility where there is more separation between families and habitual drug users, but it really has been a challenge for her and her family, and she strongly supports a drug-free alternative.

Both of these constituents, among many other brothers and sisters in recovery, inspired this legislation.

But they're also abiding examples of why PSH residents deserve the courtesy of clear, accurate terminate terminology and not misleading euphemisms about drug policies where they reside.

This is important to their sobriety and in many ways, by extension, important um to their very survival.

And that was why this is such an important um policy that I think we describe it accurately.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Board President.

Um first I also would like to acknowledge Supervisor Dorsey and the war that he and his team have put into this legislation.

I recognize that he has spent a lot of time working on amendments to try to alleviate concerns from different stakeholders.

I want to say that on the record that I am very supportive of sober housing solutions.

At the same time, I do have still have some concerns about this legislation.

I don't believe that our city should be implementing sober housing environments in a way that could cause harm to those who cannot live successfully in that environment.

Sober housing solutions should not come at the risk of making some people housing insecure.

Given the affordability crisis facing in the city, coupled it with the fact that we are actively trying to create more flow through the PSH system.

And I'm worried that adding new barrier with the counterintuitive to will be counterintuitive to our long-term goals.

Again, I'm very appreciative of all the good faith and good word that you and the care that you put in, Supervisor Dorsey, and also your team and also all this different stakeholders on this legislation.

And I also would um like to say that I am supportive of Supervisor Feuders amendment, and if her amendments pass this, then I will also be then uh willing and able to support um this legislation.

Thank you.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you.

Um, I am uh in agreement and share the sentiment that thank you, Supervisor Dorsey.

Uh I think that it does take a lot of effort to for the city to have alternatives.

And I think that when I when um Director Dan Sai actually was appointed to his position, one of the questions was asked specifically about how do we uh really problem solve the phantanon crisis in San Francisco.

And I really appreciate his answer at that moment.

I and I think that that is where my approach is uh to public health crisis um and when it comes to the drug crisis, is that we have to meet people where they're at um and that we need to provide all options.

And I absolutely believe that sober housing, drug-free housing is and has to be absolutely an option that we offer as a city.

I think for here that I can also understand to make sure that we uh protect the integrity of sober housing and drug-free housing, that for those who fall short uh of that um will have to reconsider or be reconsidered for a different location uh for to continue on with treatment and housing option.

I think that is where the rubber meets the road and it makes it difficult for us to figure out how then do we um still continue to support these individuals who clearly fall short and cannot maintain sobriety in these situations and and actually impact those who seek sobriety and are having success and already working hard, you know, towards to maintain that success.

Um what I'm seeing is that uh it it pains me to see the language in here that I totally understand the the challenge and the struggle with words um and how do we identify these housing and options for individuals and then make sure that the intent is clear, the policy it's clear.

Um it also pains me to see that I don't see that they are mutually exclusive, meaning to support those who um are fighting hard and maintain success in sober housing and those who have foreshred and need alternative options so that they can remain housed and still receive treatment.

Um and I think that it's the reason why I support both Supervisor Dorsey's amendments as well as Supervisor Filder's amendments today.

Um I would love to see the word relocation instead of eviction um in this policy, to be honest, and to kind of put the responsibility actually on the city, given the fact that we're now narrowing it down to city funded and new um uh sites.

I I think that the city should have an ownership in this to say that we should uh own that to provide and support the providers and operators that we look reallocate um individuals who fall short in um the drug-free housing uh setting.

I am struggling with this, and I have been since the time that Supervisor Dorsey has introduced this legislation.

I was very grateful the fact that there was agreement to send this back to committee so that there was ongoing conversation and discussion and allowing some space.

But I didn't know that eventually we'll come back, and I was hoping for a version that with using terminology that I can be on board with and be more comfortable with, because I do know it is not actually about the terminology or just about the terminology being used, but truly it's really about the policy that is being implemented and how we can actually support individuals with their diverse needs and with diverse options and that we they can all reach success and become functioning members of our society once more.

Um because I do recognize that it's a public health crisis and it's a disease that no one should be criminalized for for fighting uh and and to get better and try to get you know um but also no one should be homeless uh when they also try to again um fight this disease.

So I am struggling with this colleagues um and I'm hoping that we can approve both the amendments so that we can um support this for now and and revisit this conversation once more uh once we learn better about the data and how successful individuals can be and uh and whether or not people do end up falling into homelessness and and how do we end up supporting the individuals?

Um Thank you.

Supervisor Wong.

Colleagues, I'm proud to co-sponsor this measure because at its core it is about giving people a chance.

People working to overcome addiction deserve a chance to live somewhere that supports their recovery.

Families with children, seniors, and residents who simply want a home free from illicit drug use deserve that chance too.

San Francisco has tried many approaches with good intentions, but good intentions alone are not enough, and the results speak for themselves.

Too many people remain trapped in addiction, too many residents feel unsafe in their own buildings, and too many people trying to recover are being asked to do so while surrounded by the very substances they're trying to leave behind.

When the current approach is not producing the results we need, we have a responsibility to try new ideas.

And uh you know, I I don't really care for which whichever terminology we use.

The bottom line is that the current model may not may work for some residents, but it should not be the only option.

This legislation creates more drug-free supportive housing for people who actively want an environment that supports sobriety and recovery.

This is not about punishment and is not about expecting perfection.

Relapse can be part of recovery, and one mistake should not automatically cost someone their home.

The measure includes protections and requires that alternative housing be offered before otherwise compliant resident can be evicted for drug use.

Compassion means more than maintaining the status quo.

It means being honest about what is not working and giving people better choices.

We cannot guarantee recovery, but we can give people a real chance at it.

No one else is in the queue.

Uh Supervisor Dorsey, uh, I want to thank you for uh for this is one of those moments where I'm grateful for your presence on this board.

Um grateful for your passion around uh around um getting San Francisco on a different path.

And let's make no mistake, the path we're on is um is is a distressing and disturbing one.

The status quo is insane.

Um the status quo in which so many folks living in uh permanent supportive housing developments are uh consigned to deal with the most outrageous behavior from their neighbors uh and uh the managers of those buildings are unable to do it do anything about because of government policy.

And the status quo in those neighborhoods that are impacted by the rampant sales and use in public space of drugs is unacceptable.

And so Supervisor Dorsey, your measure here that you have labored over for a year, more than a year, is the most modest incremental step in the direction of supporting recovery in in this housing.

It does not apply to existing the 10,000 plus existing units of permanent supportive housing that are drug tolerant.

It does not apply to most of the new permanent supportive housing that will come online as you have described.

It will apply to the small fraction of PSH that comes online that is funded by city funding without another funding source.

Um I have no anxiety about your measure.

I think it is extremely important that we make this enforceable by our departments.

Um I'm happy to support your amendment, and I will not be supporting the other.

Um Madam Clerk, do you care which order we vote on these amendments?

Uh the motion made by Supervisor Dorsey seconded by Supervisor Sheryl.

Would be first.

All right.

Can you please call the role on that amendment?

On the Dorsey Sheryl amendment to item 41, Supervisor Soder.

Sodter I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl I.

Supervisor Walton.

Wilton, no, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder I, Supervisor Magmood.

Magmood I, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I and Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I.

There are 10 ayes and one no with Supervisor Walton voting no.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the second amendment?

Fielder on the Fielder Melgar.

Amendment to Item 41, Supervisor Sauter.

Saudder, no, Supervisor Sherrill.

Cheryl, no, Supervisor Walton.

Walton, I, Supervisor Wong.

Wong no, Supervisor Chen.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, no, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, I, Supervisor Magmood.

No.

Mahmood, no, Supervisor Mandelman.

No.

Mandelman, no, and Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar, I.

There are five ayes and six noes with Supervisors Sauter, Cheryl, Wong, Dorsey, Mahmoud, and Mandelman voting no.

Sorry, and so there are five eyes.

Five ayes.

Uh and the motion does not pass.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the amended item?

On item 41 as amended, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter I, Supervisor Sheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Walton, no, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

Chan, no, Supervisor Chen.

Chen, no, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, I, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, no, Supervisor Magmood.

Magmood I, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I, and Supervisor Melgar.

Aye.

Melgar I.

There are seven ayes and four no's.

With Supervisors Walton, Chan, Chen, and Fielder voting no.

The ordinance is passed on first reading.

Ah.

Supervisor Chen.

I sincerely apologize.

I would like to receive my vote on item number 30i.

So is the motion to rescind the vote on 39.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Walton.

Can we take that without objection?

Without objection, the the vote is rescinded.

Okay.

And then Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll on item You don't still need to talk, Supervisor Chen, right?

I can take out the Q.

All right.

Madam Clerk, can you uh please call the roll on item 39?

On item 39, Supervisor Sauter.

Saudder, I, Supervisor Sheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

No.

Walton, no, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

Chen, no, Supervisor Chen.

Chen, no, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder I, Supervisor Magmood.

Magmood I, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I, and Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, I.

There are eight ayes and three no's with Supervisors Walton.

Chan and Chen voting no.

And the ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call item 42.

Item 42.

This is a resolution to affirm San Francisco's support for the speed safety system pilot program and to urge the exploration of changes to strengthen the program to include increasing the number of allowable speed camera locations with priority given to corridors on the high injury network and other locations with demonstrated safety need.

And please call the roll on this item.

On item 42, Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter I, Supervisor Sheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Walton, no, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

Aye.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder I, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Magmood I, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I.

And Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar I.

There are 10 ayes and one no with Supervisor Walton voting no.

The resolution is adopted.

Please call item 43.

Item 43.

This item was considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on Monday, July 13th.

This item is a motion appointing Betty Packard and Ruth Grace Wong, terms ending November 30th, 2026, to the ballot simplification council.

Please call the roll.

On item 43.

Supervisor Sauter.

Sauter I, Supervisor Sheryl.

Sheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Walton I, Supervisor Wong.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen, Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey, Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder, Fielder I, Supervisor Mahmood, Makmood I, Supervisor Mandelman, Mandelman I, and Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar I.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the motion is approved.

Let's go to roll call.

Supervisor Sauter, you're first to introduce new business.

Submit, thank you.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Submit, thank you, Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, today I am introducing a resolution and also a BLA request.

First, I'm introducing the resolution in support of continuing the Bayview shuttle.

District 10 residents continue to face urgent transportation inequities that limit access to jobs, health care, education, grocery stores, and other essential services.

This resolution is to encourage continued and sustainable funding and long-term support for the Bayview Community Shuttle Program, a critical equity and access initiative serving Bayview Hunters Point.

Far too long, transportation inequities have limited access to jobs, health care, education, grocery stores, and other essential services for many District 10 residents.

The Bayvie Community Shuttle was created to help address those challenges by providing reliable, low-cost transportation that connects people to opportunity while strengthening community connections.

Since launching in November 2024, the program has demonstrated remarkable success.

Ridership continues to grow with hundreds of rides provided each day and consistently high satisfaction from the people who rely on the service.

More importantly, the shuttle has become a lifeline for seniors, youth, families, workers, and individuals with disabilities who depend on safe, accessible transportation.

This program is not about more than moving people.

This program is about more than moving people from one place to another.

It also creates economic opportunity by connecting residents to workforce development programs that prepare local community members for careers in the transportation industry.

It is a model that invests in both mobility and economic empowerment.

As many of you know, District 10 will soon face additional transportation challenges as the Islayus Creek Bridge Replacement Project moves forward.

That critical infrastructure project will bring years of construction related impacts, making reliable neighborhood transportation even more important for our residents, businesses, and workers.

This resolution recognizes the tremendous partnerships that have made the shuttle successful.

From SFMTA and community-based organizations to workforce development partners and neighborhood advocates, and urges continued investment to ensure this program remains available well into the future.

I want to thank all of the partners, advocates, drivers, and residents who have helped make this program such a success.

Together, we are demonstrating what equitable transportation can look like when we invest directly in our communities.

Colleagues, I respectfully asked for your support of this resolution.

I also want to thank my colleagues who have supported and thank Supervisor Chen as well as Supervisor Fielder for their early co-sponsorship.

Colleagues, I am also requesting the budget legislative analysts to independently analyze the economic impact of the charter reform measures proposed by Mayor Lurie that are currently undergoing the signature verification process at the Department of Elections.

San Francisco voters are being asked to decide on three charter reform measures this November that would fundamentally restructure how the city operates, including expanding Mayor hiring and firing authority, as well as reorganization power, extending the city administrators' term to 10 years, while giving that office sole authority over procurement, and raising the signature threshold for citizen initiatives from 2 percent to 8 percent.

These are not small technical fixes.

They shift real power away from the Board of Supervisors, independent commissions, and from the residents of San Francisco.

They also come with real fiscal implications that voters deserve to understand before they cast the ballot and not after.

The measures on language actually makes the case for scrutiny.

The contracting measure states outright that the city spends over $5 billion a year on contracts, that a single procurement can cost $25,000 and take up to a year, and that departments are running five duplicate Microsoft contracts and 20 separate training systems.

If those numbers are the justification for centralizing power in the city administrators' office, we should be able to verify them and see the actual projected savings.

At the same time, the executive branch measure opens the door to new deputy mayor positions with no cap on salary or number.

At a moment when the city is already signing budget constraints elsewhere, and as we've seen in the most recent budget process.

We saw what happens when coordination fails without this structure in place.

The patrol yard example cost us 465 units of affordable housing and led to a billion dollar muni yard rebuild instead.

But we haven't seen anything showing this measure would have prevented that, or what these new positions would actually cost taxpayers.

This is why I'm requesting the BLA complete and independent cost analysis by September 8th, 2026.

San Francisco voters, our city officials, the press, and community organizations need this information while there's still time to act on it.

My request is to make sure the fiscal case and economic impact for these measures holds up to the same scrutiny that we'd expect for any other major policy change of this scale.

The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton.

Supervisor Wong.

Submit, thank you, Supervisor Chan.

Submit.

Submit, thank you, Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Madam Car uh colleagues.

Today I'm introducing a resolution urging Congress to pass HR 1667, the Acupuncture for Our Seniors Act under the current law, licensed acupuncturists are prohibited from being Medicare providers.

Significantly limiting access to this health intervention, which has been used as treatment for multiple health concerns, including cancer, infertility, substance use disorder, and chronic paint.

The efficacy of acupuncture as a meaningful and effective treatment option for many medical conditions was validated when the ACA helped to increase access by allowing individual states to cover acupuncturist implants on state health exchanges.

California is one of those examples.

Aims to recognize licensed occupurists as Medicare providers and to expand access to affordable acupuncture treatments for seniors nationwide.

And next I have an memorium for colleagues.

Ben was born in 1948 in Tai San, China, and grew up in San Francisco.

He passed away peacefully at home last month at age of 78.

Ben was a student activist at UC Berkeley at a time when the ethics study department was just born out of the 1969 Third World Liberation Fund Strike.

During this time, Ben helped to develop one of the first Asian studies campus community projects, Asian Legal Services, Draft HELP.

This project was a grassroots effort that served the people to provide legal services and protect young men, often working class immigrants from the selective services system and to assist veterans with conscientious objector claims.

Ben, along with his partner, Pam Tao Li, who are founding members of the Chinese Progressive Association, organizing Chinese immigrants and American-born workers, students, foreign students, and Chinatown youth.

As a Chinatown workers, he led and won a unionization strike of Chinese warehouse workers, becoming a proud member of Teamsters 856.

Ben and his wife have been beloved mentors to so many Asian American community organizers and leaders in San Francisco, myself included.

His quick wake, sense of humor, genuine love for people would always bring warmth to a space.

Ben's gentle nature and big heart will be deeply missed.

His legacy will live on in the j in the organizations and people he helps shape.

May his memory be a blessing.

And the rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Submit thank you, Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, today I have one resolution and one BLA report.

I am introducing a resolution supporting California State Assembly Bill 2564, authored by Assemblymember Chris Ward and co-authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra.

Retailers are using personally identifiable consumer data to charge some consumers discriminatory prices in what is being called surveillance pricing.

Consumers' characteristics and behaviors like location, demographics, browsing patterns, mouse movements on web pages, and shopping history are now being used against them to help corporations set individualized prices for products and services.

For example, a February 2025 SF Gate investigation found that the most popular hotel booking sites show prices substantially higher, in one case, $500 more per night for a Manhattan hotel to San Franciscans using their online booking platforms compared with users browsing from less affluent cities like Phoenix and Kansas City.

No existing federal or state law prohibits companies from using the data they collect to charge consumers individually different prices.

That is why I'm introducing this resolution to encourage the timely adoption of AB 2564 to protect consumers from surveillance pricing.

I hope I can count on your support.

As well, I'm requesting the budget and legislative analyst office evaluate the costs and other impacts of establishing a microenterprise home kitchen operations program in San Francisco that would allow San Francisco residents to prepare food for sale from their private residences.

At a time when the city is becoming increasingly unaffordable, it's important for us to continue looking for ways for San Franciscans, especially those without much access to large amounts of capital, and people who migrate from other countries and are afraid of traveling to and from places of work among an increasingly hostile federal administration to be able to make a living in this city.

In the mission, we have many longtime small-scale Latino entrepreneurs, also known as food vendors, who have been caught in a complicated food permitting system.

It is my intent that a MICO program in San Francisco would complement our compact mobile food ordinance passed earlier this year and help food vendors use their homes to support their CMFO businesses, of course, abiding by all relevant local public health and permitting regulations.

Counties similar in size and urban character to San Francisco have seen successful Miko programs, including Alameda, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Los Angeles, and this BLA report will look will construct costs and operational profiles for each of these counties that can be used to estimate the normalized cost for a San Francisco Miko program.

I'm hopeful that this report can galvanize us as a city to take on this program and ensure San Francisco remains a city affordable to people of all walks of life.

I want to thank the Cook Alliance, the Mission Food Vendors Council, and Westra Calsa for pushing the city forward and advising on this next step for a Mako program in San Francisco.

The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Fielder.

Supervisor Mark Mood.

Colleagues, today I'm introducing a motion to allow the board to call file number 260693, the Affordable Groceries Act's vacancy tax from the Budget and Finance Committee to a committee of the whole on July 21st.

This measure needs to reach the full board by late July to make the November ballot.

This motion preserves the only path left for this board and the voters to have a say.

This motion, I'll remind, is not about the merits of the tax itself.

It's about whether a San Franciscans living in food deserts get a public hearing and a discussion on a policy that affects so many of our neighborhoods.

I know that all of us care about our city, and even if we occasionally disagree on the different approaches to get there, we're ultimately trying to do the best we can for the city in the best way that we know how.

Thank you again.

Second colleagues, my second item is an official street renaming of Avery Street to Boswell Way in honor of Reverend Hamilton T.

Boswell.

Reverend Boswell was a religious and civic leader and a bedrock of the Fillmore neighborhood in the Black community in San Francisco.

Born in Texas, Reverend Boswell was on the groundbreaking Wiley College debate team, which oversaw witnessing lynchings and institutional racism to defeat the national champion USC debate team in 1935.

He came to San Francisco in 1947 to lead Jones Memorial United Methodist Church.

In his time leading the church, he committed to uplifting the San Francisco Black community by leading the creation of the Jones Methodist Credit Union and Jones Memorial Homes, the first federally financed senior housing in the city.

He mentored countless church and civic leaders, including future mayor Willie Brown, who he managed the first campaign of.

Reverend Browswell also served as a chaplain for the California State Assembly and the San Francisco Police Department.

The street to be renamed, Avery Street, runs for one block alongside Jones Memorial Church and Jones Memorial Homes and has no residential addresses on it.

For longtime community members in the Western Edition, this might feel a bit like deja vu.

As a matter of fact, if you open up Google Maps, the street in question between Post and Geary, just off Fillmore is already labeled as Boswell Street.

In 2008, then District 5 Supervisor Ross Miracarimi introduced a resolution of intention to rename the street.

Resolution of intention kicks off the street renaming process and are meant to be followed by resolutions that direct public works to update official maps and SFMTA to put up signs with the new name.

However, in a odd situation of the Twilight Zone, the signs went up before the second resolution came to be, and Avery was signed as Boswell for over 17 years until earlier this year when department staff noted the discrepancy and quietly replaced the Boswell signs with the Avery signs.

This was difficult for the Jones Memorial Community, who not only relied on the Boswell name for navigation to their church and adjacent senior homes, but saw the street name as an indelible honor for their longtime leader who touched too many lives across the decades.

I am bringing forward this resolution to once and for all make sure the signs never come down and permanently enshrine Reverend Boswell's name on our city maps and documents.

Thank you, Reverend Sadie Stone and the rest of the Jones Memorial United Methodist Church community for bringing this to our attention.

Thanks as well to John Malamound Malamud from the City Attorney's Office, Jason Wong, and Ian Ian Schneider from Public Works and Chadwick Lee from MSF MTA for helping our office piece all of this very bizarre story together.

The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmood.

Supervisor Mandelman.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Uh colleagues, today I am introducing a resolution to recognize August 2nd through August 8th, 2026 as National Health Center Week in San Francisco.

Formed in 1982, the San Francisco Community Community Clinic Consortium is a brilliant example of the Community Health Center legacy.

Born from the civil rights movement of the 1960s, these centers seek to serve the underserved at a cost they can afford.

Today the clinic consortium is composed of 12 member clinics that tailor their services to meet the unique needs of the communities in which they are located.

Each is rooted in and shaped by the community it serves, offering care that reflects the languages, cultures, and lived realities of their patients.

San Francisco's community health centers have delivered culturally appropriate care and improved linguistic ass access to more than 10% of the city's population for their patients.

These centers are often the only access to primary care.

This resolution is our acknowledgement and thanks to San Francisco's community health centers for their work delivering individualized dignified medical care to other to those who would otherwise go without.

And uh for so for doing so even as the landscape grows more difficult each year.

I want to thank uh Dina Lan of the San Francisco Community Clinic Consortium for her partnership in bringing this resolution forward.

Um we've worked with them over the past two years to recognize National Health Center Week in San Francisco.

I want to thank my colleagues, Supervisors Chan and Chen, for their co-sponsorship.

And I want to thank Maeve Skelly in my office for her work on the resolution and uh the rest I will submit.

Thank you, Mr.

President and Supervisor Milgar.

Submit.

Thank you.

Mr.

Presidency Supervisor Chan.

Thank you.

Uh Madam Clark, um, thank you.

It was unclear to me that we rescended the vote for item 39.

It's not clear to me why we resend the votes when we're already past item 41.

And so I need to rescend that item 39 vote uh once more.

There's the motion.

But how do we understand exactly what happened on item 39?

We can any member can ask to rescind the vote on any item at any point.

But it was not clear to me that we were rescinding the it was not clear to me why we were rescinding the vote of item 39 uh when we while pass it.

I wish someone have explained why we were rescinding the vote.

But I would like to resend the buttons.

There's a motion to rescind.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Fielder.

Um and we can take that motion without objection.

I love voting on this item.

Madam Clerk.

Yes, I'd like to read the item on the case.

Please call read the items.

Very quickly.

Short title.

My apologies, but before we do so.

Uh how me understand too, though, who was it that I assumed that Supervisor Chen made the motion to rescend a vote and it was second by Supervisor Fielder?

Oh, Walton, why is it that we have to rescend the vote?

Um Supervisor.

Hold on, hold on.

Wait a minute.

I'm supposed to run this meeting.

I'm sorry.

I will just read the channel.

It just was not clear.

And through the President to Supervisor Chen, I could have slowed things down and read this title so that everyone knew we were on a new item, number one.

And so this is an ordinance that amends the planning, administrative building codes, inclusionary housing program updates, and reductions and the development impact fee reductions.

Thank you.

Please call the roll on item 39.

I I guess this would be the moment for the supervisor to indicate why she would have liked the uh item to be rescinded in the first place.

Yes, please.

Supervisor Chen.

Of course, I am um I love to answer.

Um again, I I think I said it.

I would love to advance both um the housing trust fund and also continue to be keeping our city affordable to support uh our incusionary rate.

Um so with that, I I also said that publicly that I am not supporting uh the legislation because we are forcing to choose one or the other, but not both.

Um but I they say that I support um uh supervisor field's amendment.

So with that, I initially I was confused, and so I voted, but I'm voting in support of Supervisor Feuders amendment, but in all the awe as a legislation, even with the amendment that was adopted, and I'm still a no to the entire legislation because I believe that we should do it both together.

Thank you.

I just would have wish that was any anyways done to the items before in a timely fashion.

But thank you.

I appreciate colleagues allowing me to resent the vote after the vote was rescinded.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll on item 39.

This is on the ordinance on first reading as amended for item 39, Supervisor Sauter.

Solder I, Supervisor Cheryl.

I Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

No.

Walton, no, Supervisor Wong.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

I.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen, no, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey I, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder I, Supervisor Magmood.

Mogmood I, Supervisor Mandelman.

I.

Mandelman, I, and Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, I.

There are nine ayes and two no's with supervisors Walton and Chen voting no.

And the ordinance is passed on first reading.

As amended.

Madam Clerk.

Uh I think that takes us to public general public comment.

That's correct.

Let's do that.

At this time, the board welcomes general public comment.

In-person speakers will be prioritized, so please line up on your right-hand side of the chamber.

Once the in-person speakers' line is exhausted, we'll move to the remote speakers.

Uh, if you anticipate providing remote public comment, the telephone number and meeting ID is published on the agenda and streaming on your screen, I believe.

It is best to call in early as a reminder.

SFGO TV is not in sync with this meeting.

It's delayed by a few seconds, so please pay attention to the phone prompt and turn down your television.

General public comment you may speak to the June 9th, 2026 board meeting minutes as presented.

And the items 46 and 47 under the adoption without committee reference calendar.

Please note that the budget items uh have already been uh publicly commented in committee and are not eligible for comment today.

Other general matters that are not on today's agenda, but must be within the board's subject matter jurisdiction.

And to that end, just note that self-expression that contains personal attacks, harassment, or discriminatory remarks directed at any city employee or board member are strictly outside of this scope, and failure to redirect your comments uh will result in a transition to the next speaker.

So welcome to our first speaker who is in the chamber.

We are setting the timer for two minutes.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Amelia, resident of District 9.

Uh, I want to thank everybody for the opportunity of serving on the behavioral health council.

But to the today I'm here speaking only as an individual.

I've been impressed by this greater administration's ability to carefully integrate the city's street teams.

Despite the growing pains, I can see the vision, as can many of my colleagues.

At this moment of our growth in our 24-hour crisis continuum of care.

However, in the next few weeks, we are facing the quiet removal of the peer counselors from the street crisis response team.

The loss of the peer counselors' institutional knowledge and field expertise during 911 behavioral crises is an oversight on our street response, and we cannot afford it.

In an analysis published by San Jose State University regarding our street crisis team, researchers identified a quote, disconnect between decision makers' understanding of the work and team members' experience of the work.

They show how this leads to burnout and moral injury in our first responders, which, quote, impedes their ability to serve clients and can create structural changes for municipalities.

In response to the now confirmed rumors, I have already presented the value assessments to both the Health Commission and the Fire Commission.

I have full faith that the actors in this room can reverse this decision as it didn't seem to be made on budgetary concerns.

But let's look forward.

If we want our peer counselors to graduate to permanent civil service positions, I have a long-term plan.

And I ask for the sport's support when it reaches when it reaches you.

In the interim, as we repair this blunder, I have a plan to standardize training accountability, and I have a plan to operationalize efficiency.

Keeping peers is the responsible decision to our first responders and to our city.

Our officers, paramedics, EMTs, peer counselors, would much rather be out there running calls and serving San Franciscans than in here proving their worth or their efficiency.

With Word getting out over the weekend, I have already gotten field reports from our police officers calling this what it is a mistake.

Tomorrow I will be warning the police commission.

Let's please repair this now when we have the chance.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome.

Good evening, President Mandelman, supervisors.

My name is Julie Sue, and I speak today on behalf of Sona, Save Our National Archives.

I'm here with Big Sister Jenny Lou, who will speak after me.

I speak in great support of Supervisor Chan's resolution, item number 47 to halt the closure of the National Archives and Records Administration at San Francisco, located in San Bruno.

Twenty years ago we had this fight, but 20 years ago there was public testimony.

This administration, this White House administration, has failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act, giving public notice, taking public testimony.

This is our collective history.

It's not only our state's history, it is our nation's history.

And if any one of you think that you haven't been touched by the National Archives, I ask you to think again.

It contains Native American artifacts and documents, as well as Chinese American Exclusion Act documents, Japanese American relocation, for the African American community, the Port Chicago documents, Jewish history documents from Russian immigrants who went through Angel Island.

It's not a surprise that there are attempts to erase history.

I know that this Board of Supervisors has taken great pains to write the wrongs of our history.

Without this documentation, we cannot have this particular attention to writing the wrongs of history.

And this is not just governmental academic history.

This is also our family history.

And the people who live here, it was our ancestors who created this history.

It is a means for us to unite families, to have some strength in our families knowing our history.

As we talk about education and making sure that our students understand our history, this is an archive and records history that is right in our backyard.

It is one of the few National Archives that also has a research center with very valued staff who can lead people to document.

So I urge you not only to support this resolution, but also to be co-sponsored, to send a very strong message that we will not let our history be erased.

Thank you.

And now to Big Sister Jenny Liu.

Thank you, Commissioner Sue, for your comments.

Welcome.

He calls me big sister because I've been working on this for 25 years.

They were going to close all the regional archives throughout the nation.

But we worked with Tom Lanthos to stop that.

And then they were going to destroy alien files.

All the nation's alien files are not just Asian files.

Those are over three-quarters of a million cubic feet of files.

And our Pacific region that covers has the largest collection of alien files from port of Hawaii all the way up the West Coast.

People from all over the world come to look at these immigration files.

And we were the only region that demanded that they stay in San Bruno.

We are the origin of these files.

The people that use them are from our region.

They are our history.

And like Julie said, it's it can be Russian Jews, it can be Eastern Europeans.

It will be largely the people that were excluded first from coming to this country.

And in our particular Chinese files, we have coaching documents, detailed village maps of which people from my generation, if they wish to go back to their ancestral villages and find the home where the ancestral shrine is.

So please give your strongest support.

We lose this, they will never come back.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, uh supervisors of San Francisco.

My name is Michelle Lau.

I am a president of the American Alliance of Acupuncture, and then I have been practice over 45 years.

Today I asked for your support to the we just uh supervised the chair mentioned.

Uh the bill HR 167.

That's for 70 million of the elderly that who can be covered by acupuncture, which this dispute is already passed about eight years ago with HR6.

Acupuncture is already including in the Medicare system.

And after 27 years of advocacy and effort.

So luckily we can serve now 70 million of the American people elderly.

But unfortunately, we still need to continue to work harder the harder, I'm sorry, harder to get uh the license acupuncture, qualified acupuncture, into the provider, which we have been done chairman to over the whole country.

And this uh July 18.

We welcome all of you come to join our community and patient and the profession.

We have a yuan in the Chinatown, and that we have uh full support from the community, and hopefully we can see this bill can pass hopefully next year.

So we go to the Congress every month to serve the American Alliance Acupuncture to serve the Congress member and their staff and make sure they understand how important that for to have the asset for all 70 million the elderly can have acupuncture pretty soon after the bill is already passed.

The acupuncture is already included.

Hopefully, we can get your great support.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome to our next speaker.

Hi, uh my name is Elizabeth Aaron.

Um today is the first time I've felt the need to attend a meeting of the San Francisco City Supervisors in person.

Last week I was shocked to find that final approval had been given to a 23-floor building at the end of my street.

I received no notice of this project, either at my home or posted on the site, which I pass almost daily.

While there are many issues with this project today, I would like to highlight one ongoing issue I have beyond the lack of public notice.

My issue is the continued perpetuation of the idea that residents of San Francisco, especially those who live in my neighborhood, should not have cars.

I am an attorney and have worked in land use planning, so I understand the theories upon which this idea originates, but I also know that in reality, no matter how transit-friendly a neighborhood is, people who buy market rate homes will have cars.

I have lived on Clinton Park for more than 20 years where I've had to deal with ever increasing pressure and stress caused by loss of parking due to ill-conceived bike paths, new intersection red zones, which are constantly used by Lyft drivers and provide no safety protections, and a complete lack of enforcement of traffic laws.

Adding a 200-plus unit building with only 62 parking spaces is delusional and dangerous.

People are already constantly frustrated by the maze that has been caused by the closure of right and left turns, and many are just breaking the law.

Add to that the fact that sometimes it takes up to 40 minutes to find a parking space, and you have a dangerous situation for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians like myself.

Thank you for listening to my comments.

Perhaps you can give them consideration in further applications.

Thank you for your comments.

Uh ma'am, we're going to obtain your address, and we'll let you know uh more information on that address and that project.

Okay.

Before the next speaker, are there any other members of the public who would like to address the board during general public comment?

Otherwise, this will be our last in-person speaker.

Welcome, sir.

Board of Supervisor and Mayor Offers of San Francisco.

The title of the speech is Agent of Change.

In the year 1999, I hooked up a friend, David Tam from San Francisco and Van C from Los Angeles for relationship and apostle marriage.

After getting hold of Ryan's email, David sat in front of a computer to compose a letter.

I don't know what to say, he exclaimed to his younger sister Amy Trine.

Don't know what to say.

What an interesting proposition.

I explore this message in context for two and a half decades.

To tear us down, I'll provide two types of message.

According to Webster's dictionary, mindset means behavior, attitude, and viewpoint.

Psychology has to do character, belief system, micro actions, and routine.

According to the Robert David, the word character means carving.

It drives deep.

In November 2018, I will always remember the date.

I call my friend Tyler Chan.

Deanna text me from Thailand.

Let's go to Thailand.

Derek, he replied exhaustingly.

You spent seven months get her phone number, another year just to text her.

You don't even know where she lives.

How are you gonna expect to marry her?

I was completely dumbfounded.

Two hours later.

Miss Chinatown of San Francisco call me.

She's the one on the left.

Derek, I'm gonna go to Hong Kong to compete for Miss Chinese International.

I need your help.

She came back with uh the title, Miss Poplar of Ms.

Chinese to National.

Board Supervisor, people do not write books because they don't feel like they'll be read.

And people don't go into politics because they don't feel like they could make a difference.

I'm here to make a difference in politics because I feel like I could do it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Welcome, Otto Duffy.

Well, Duffy.

Um I don't know what to say exactly as usual.

Uh my dad was a my dad was uh alcoholic, and as he got older, he in one of his meetings he pointed out the critical things that that you need to do if you're an alcoholic if as you get older, if you want to become an old alcoholic.

And there were only two things.

One, you have to keep from drinking, and two, you have to keep breathing.

Thank you, Otto Duffy, for your comments.

The rest the rest of what happened here at this meeting, I I have no I I uh uh I had to sign a hundred page because I so many people subsidize my housings.

There's so many people have involved in it.

I I sign a hundred-page lease.

Hundred pages.

It's got all kinds of things in it.

You know, I I went to a you know a pre-law person to ask them about it, and they said you have no choice.

If you want to live here, you have to sign a lease.

Uh and if I don't live there, I'm gonna die.

So I have to sign the lease.

But they also pointed out that like half of it, half of it is pretty much unenforceable.

So I don't know.

All right, thank you for your comments.

Seeing no other speakers in person, we'll go to the remote callers.

I believe we have two.

I'll just remind the callers that if you uh if if please listen to the system when it says you have been unmuted, that is your cue to begin speaking.

And that uh there is nothing in state law that will confer any privilege or protection for expression that constitutes discriminatory or harassing remarks.

We will move to the next speaker after a quick redirect.

All right, let's bring in our first caller, please.

Welcome.

Speaker, are you there?

Oh hello.

Hi then.

Hi, and say with the League of Women Voter Francisco.

I'm here today to urge you to agendize the open nine seats on the Sunshine Orn Passports.

The passwords haven't been able to meet since the beginning of July and will be unable to meet until these seats are filled.

The Sunshine Ornith passwords is one of the few ways people have to hold tactics' own government accountable to transparency laws.

People can ask for government records for all kinds of reasons.

A resident wants to know who a government official met with before casting a key vote.

Uh journalists is checking whether a contract was awarded Shirley.

Someone wants to know my project in their neighborhood got the green light.

But sometimes when a person asks for government records, someone in government drives their feature says no.

The person can bring in the problem getting the public records to the sunshine ornaments task force, which reviews the complaint and can tell the government official or department.

You're in the wrong hand over.

While these essential appointments are inexplicably and unnecessarily delayed, every day these seats go into filled as elite government gets to operate in the dark.

Okay.

There are no more callers in the Q, Madam Clerk.

Thank you.

All right, Mr.

President.

Public comment is now closed.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the for adoption without committee reference agenda items 46 and 47 together?

Yes, items 46 and 47.

These items were introduced for adoption without committee reference.

A unanimous vote is required for adoption of a resolution on first reading today.

Any member may require a resolution on first reading to go to committee.

Please call the roll on these items.

On items 46 and 47, Supervisor Sauter.

Solder I, Supervisor Cheryl.

Cheryl I, Supervisor Walton.

Wong I, Supervisor Chan.

Chan I, Supervisor Chen.

Chen I, Supervisor Dorsey.

Dorsey, I, Supervisor Fielder.

Fielder, I, Supervisor Makmood.

Mahmoud, I, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, I, and Supervisor Melgar.

Melgar, I.

There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the resolutions are adopted.

Madam Clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items?

They're an end to report.

Could you please read the in memoriams?

Yes, today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individual on behalf of Supervisor Chan for the late Mr.

Faye Ben Lee.

Supervisor Chen, excuse me.

For Mr.

Faye Ben Lee.

And I believe, Madam Clerk, that brings us to the end of our agenda.

Do we have any further business before us today?

That concludes our business for today.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We are adjourned.